Posted on 12/01/2007 9:45:46 AM PST by blogsforthompson.com
You would have to include Tom Tancredo as a true conservative, and on National Sovereignty, Federal Spending, and 2nd Amendment no one is more conservative than Ron Paul.
I have an actual audio of a moose pooping.
Should I start a thread?
Wow, you guys have drank the kool-aid so much, you seem to think Tom Tancredo is a RINO now.
If Hunter had gotten 2nd place in the Ames straw poll like Huckabee did (instead of a poor 9th place showing), he would have. But oh well, we were told Iowa "doesn't count" and could be ignored and dimissed until the "real" campaign. After all, "nobody" was paying attention during summer 2007.
So much for that little theory, eh?
Would it make a differents to you if I did?
I’ll give you that, I like Taranceno too. Paul would be ok if he could just stop smoking crack before talking about the war. On lots of other things I like him.
People are always afraid of bold ideas and changes, like going to fair tax, they fear that some unknown thing will get them in the end. Its the result of having such an untrustworthy group running the government.
Drag and paste is clearly your friend, Resty. Want to try that in your own words?
That's "difference".
Your Magical Mormon Underpants need a re-charge.
The thing about Ron Paul that some conservatives are forgetting is that he has had a consistant view about foreign intervention that he is against it unless we are reacting to direct attack on the United States no matter which party is in the Presidency unlike most Democrats that support it when Democrats are in power and oppose it when Republicans are in power.
He was against Bosnia and Somalia back in the 90’s but supported Afghanistan war on taliban.
I can deal with a constitant philosophy, he has always been against the United Nations, WTO, KYOTO, and other world government bodies and agreements like the Int’l Criminal Court.
THis should be a great plus for most FREEPERS because things in our country would get much better if we would either make these countries that take for granted that we are paying for our defense would see what it costs.
Sure - why don’t you go start that thread at DU.
“Your Magical Mormon Underpants need a re-charge”
They need charging? Mine must use renewable energy, as they are still going.
Drag and paste is clearly your friend, Resty. Want to try that in your own words? ~ MHGinTN
If someone helps me to edit why should it bother you since My dyslexia gets in the way many want to understand my thoughts!
If you don’t like the message MHGinTN find a flaw in the messinger not the substance.
****
Would it make a differents to you if I did?
That’s “difference”.
Your Magical Mormon Underpants need a re-charge. ~ humblegunner
I am dyslexic so sue me!
Deal with it I do!:)
Well, I follow him on the one world government crap, but I dont see where we were wrong to invade Iraq. The man was training terrorists and had called for the assassination of our president. The way he goes about disagreeing with this reasoning to go to war is to characterize the mission there as a failure, which it is not. If he would just stick to not agreeing for the reason for going in, I could handle that, but the overall job the military has done is not a failure. I do totally agree with him that we should not have to have a UN resolution to go to war, because I do not recognize them as an authority over us. I recognize the government as spelled out in the constitution, the next authority over that is the Almighty.
I agree with a lot of what you said. I am a retired person on Social Security and am all for it being phased out over time. I believe Fred’s plan is good because it would lower taxes for those still working and allow choice in their planning for retirement which would sure help them more than the exsisting program! It will in time phase out the program but at least in the meantime keep it from going backrupt and not hurt those who must rely on only their Social Security check. I worked 43 years, saved wisely, and did not count on Social Security to live on when retired. Good thing! One thing for sure, it would never have been as bad as it is if all members of Congress just had Social Security for their retirement years! Take a look at Fred’s detailed plan. Does sound good to me.
I’ll check it out. I really like the way the fair tax proposal deals with this, it would make everyone have to chip in their share, not just those of us who work and dont have a corporation or a trust fund. I mean, how much social security do you think Paris Hilton is paying in? She sure is spending though. As are 20 Million illegals who obviously have to eat and what have you while they are here. I really dont want to see a thing to cut off folks cold turkey who are on it and not give them their money. But if you did get your money back you could at least invest it. I’d like that because then, my family would get it, whereas now the govt plans on many of us never collecting our money back even though we paid in all those years and my wife is left holding the bag. While I’m on it, we also need to eliminate the death tax and probably pay those people back for it too, that is the most wrong thing I have ever heard of. Talk about socialism!
I doubt it would, but I still would like to know about the “bad points” you think Fred has so I can actually compare them to the “bad points” I think the other candidates have. Especially like to know about the “ties to the gang of 14”. Just don’t know anything about that. Thanks for letting me know. :)
Thank you very much for making the audio of this available for everyone to hear. I really enjoyed listening to it again and it was just as powerful the second time.
I hope the link will stay active so we can continue to share it with others.
Also check out Fred’s tax reform plan. And meant to say earlier, thank you for your service to our country! Have a great weekend! :)
If Fred was leading in the early states and they were worrying about Fred, they may have asked him to explain this for instance:
David Brody pointed out recently that Fred Thompson is going to be hounded on the immigration issue.
Read below from a Washington Times story:
CBN NEWS: Thompson Now Officially Seeking Presidency: Some votes are likely to draw scrutiny, particularly a series of votes in the 1990s against cracking down on illegal aliens. Those include a 1995 vote against limiting services other than emergency care and public education to illegal aliens - he was one of just six senators to oppose that proposal - and a 1996 vote against creating an employer verification system to help businesses filter out illegal aliens who apply for jobs....
But on immigration, Mr. Thompson had several votes where he bucked the pack - and seemed to favor illegal aliens.
The most stark example was his 1995 vote on the welfare overhaul, when he voted to preserve illegal aliens' ability to receive federal benefits. He was one of just six senators to vote that way, joining four other Republicans and one Democrat.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/225944.aspx
This sounds a little like Huckabee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.