Fred Thompson running for president

[Autolykos]

Quote by: BobbyO But are they JUSTIFIABLE grievances?

Justifiable in which way(s)? In other words, can you qualify your statement?

After all, just because OBL objects to USA policy does not mean he therefore drives the engine of policy.

Of course it does not mean that. Then again, changes in US foreign policy that happen to coincide with bin Laden's goals also does not mean that the latter is driving the former.

It doesn't mean he is/was correct.

Correct in which way(s)? Morally? Factually? Or what?

- Rob

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Autolykos Justifiable in which way(s)? In other words, can you qualify your statement? Of course it does not mean that. Then again, changes in US foreign policy that happen to coincide with bin Laden's goals also does not mean that the latter is driving the former. Correct in which way(s)? Morally? Factually? Or what? - Rob

You were citing OBL's objections to USA foreign policy as to the reasons for his actions. That might be an interesting piece of trivia, like saying the Japanese were angry at the oil embargo of 1941, but of what relevence is OBL's views to USA foreign policy?

[Osborn F Enready]

Don't know enough about Thompson to state my opinion in finality.

As of now, from what I know, I don't like Thompson much, nor would I vote for him when Paul is running in the same party, based on what I know NOW.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Setnakt When I read the translations of some Osama bin Laden speeches, what I recall is that the bulk of them were comprised of his objections to outrageous atrocities committed by the United States. The problem is that he is factually correct in those observations and he, just like every other human being in the world, has the right to cite such grievances. As we are only concerned with motive in this case I think we can leave it at that. If, as you say, "the terrorists" only hate America for not being Islamic (never mind a growing Muslim population within America), how do you explain "the terrorists" not attacking countries that aren't causing hundreds of civilians in Iraq to be killed daily? And when was the last time such attacks threatened America itself? There are plenty of countries that aren't Islamic, right? Obviously there's just no other connection, and America is the center of the universe, and we need to kill everyone who disagrees because we are just that fragile.

Who is this new guy/gal?


I think I like you already.


Boy is it refreshing to see new people coming around that don't need to be educated about our secret governments actions in the absence of press coverage.


I suspect you would like a lot of the books mentioned in the "Books, What are You Reading" thread.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: BobbyO You were citing OBL's objections to USA foreign policy as to the reasons for his actions. That might be an interesting piece of trivia, like saying the Japanese were angry at the oil embargo of 1941, but of what relevence is OBL's views to USA foreign policy?

Thanks for answering my questions. :rolleyes:

How are OBL's views relevant to US foreign policy? They're relevant because of the terrorist attacks he inspired against US soil and alleged US "interests". Or do you prefer to believe that he's just some deranged maniac who can't think rationally?

Conversely, by your argument, of what relevance is anything to US foreign policy -- aside from the gut feelings of "The Decider"?

- Rob

[GraceAustin]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Fred Thompson running for president - Politico.com He's got a good chance of firing up the Republican Base. Like any politician, he ain't perfect. But he has several qualities that put him ahead of Rudy and or Romney, that being a more conservative record, he's a great speaker and is likable.

>>>>>

And that's all that matters. Can I have a beer with him, & can he form a sentence. Issues? Who cares about issues.

[Dr.Debate]

I wholeheartedly hope, as of now, that Fred Thompson wins the Republican nomination and the Presidency. I used to be a supporter of Rudy Giuliani, up to today, until I realized he agrees with killing people through abortion and he is Pro-Gay Marriage. Now, I see Fred Thompson is a much better candidate overall.

[PatrickHenry]

Thompson is another war-mongering Republican. Not worth squat.

[Bnet505]

My vote still goes to Ron Paul.

[O-dehlay]

I am very intrested in seeing Setnakt's post replied to.

[GraceAustin]

Quote by: Bnet505 My vote still goes to Ron Paul.

>>>

I'd have to ask 'why.' You do realize that Paul wants to stop government regulation, & let companies regulate themselves?

[Bnet505]

Quote by: GraceAustin >>> I'd have to ask 'why.' You do realize that Paul wants to stop government regulation, & let companies regulate themselves?

I'm a Libertarian FYI. He has alot of points that match my views. I kinda disagree with the complete stop of government regulations but I hope they can lower them.

[GraceAustin]

Quote by: Dr.Debate I wholeheartedly hope, as of now, that Fred Thompson wins the Republican nomination and the Presidency. I used to be a supporter of Rudy Giuliani, up to today, until I realized he agrees with killing people through abortion and he is Pro-Gay Marriage. Now, I see Fred Thompson is a much better candidate overall.

>>>>

Fred Thompson. The WA insider who worked for years as a lobbyist for international and national corporations. The lobbyist who pressured Congress to deregulate Savings & Loans....and once deregulated they failed. It cost the American taxpayer BILLIONS to bail out the people who lost their money to that industry. By all means, vote on 'wedge issues.' Never mind that he's backed by the people who brought us george bush, blackwater, Iraq, detention centers, Haliburton, private ownership of our vote, the largest deficit in American history, New Orleans, hatred throughout the world, etc etc etc. You're a neocons dream.

[GraceAustin]

Quote by: Bnet505 I'm a Libertarian FYI. He has alot of points that match my views. I kinda disagree with the complete stop of government regulations but I hope they can lower them.

>>>>

I don't care if you're a libertarian. I asked if you were aware of his views on deregulation. You 'kinda' disagree? Well, I can see you've given a lot of thought to it. What regulations would you want 'lowered', and what does that mean, exactly?

[Bnet505]

Quote by: GraceAustin >>>> I don't care if you're a libertarian. I asked if you were aware of his views on deregulation. You 'kinda' disagree? Well, I can see you've given a lot of thought to it. What regulations would you want 'lowered', and what does that mean, exactly?

I disagree that all regulations should cease. Some regulations are good. But it seems to me that to many will give to much power to the Government, just look at the endangered species act written up by Nixon. They have more control than you would think.

[Osborn F Enready]

Grace, you should do some reading on Pauls views regarding "corporations".

[O-dehlay]

Paul has said repetively that there would be no way he could completely stop regulation with out consequences. He said he would view his administration as a transitional one.

[Dr.Debate]

I don't know why Ron Paul is labeled Republican. He seems more liberal to me.

[Clarence]

labeled?

calling neo-cons republicans would be like suggesting you're a doctor of debate, sir.

[Bnet505]

Quote by: Dr.Debate I don't know why Ron Paul is labeled Republican. He seems more liberal to me.

He's more Libertarian which by definition is "Classic Conservative". An apropos title seeing as today the Republicans have been hijacked by the Religious Rights for extra votes, something Lincoln would never do.