TexasCHLforum.com

Do you think he'll run? If he does, I know who I'm voting for.

http://www.havegunwillvote.com/

WALLACE: Gun control.

THOMPSON: Well, I'm against gun control generally. You know, you check my record. You'll find I'm pretty consistent on that issue.

WALLACE: So this federal court — appeals court ruling this last week, I guess Friday, in the case of D.C. — you'd be perfectly happy to have people have handguns in their homes?

THOMPSON: Yes. Absolutely. The court basically said the Constitution means what it says, and I agree with that.

Either him or Ron Paul

Nope, not Ron Paul for me. That man stood in front of God and Country on the floor of congress and railed against President Bush for his decisions on the war. This was just before that stupid "non-binding resolution" that did absolutely NOTHING but waste my time and money. It wasn't a law, it never will be, and it was a slap in the face to the administration. Mr. Paul, NO THANK YOU!

Now Mr Thompson on the other had, there's a man I can stand with. The only thing that one could ever take issue with was a vote he made concerning gun control. At face value, the bill looked to be pro-gun, but Mr. Thompson voted no. You know why? Because it included an amendment to force background checks at gunshows. And he said NO WAY to that.

FRED THOMPSON 2008!!!

kauboy wrote:Nope, not Ron Paul for me. That man stood in front of God and Country on the floor of congress and railed against President Bush for his decisions on the war.

Ron Paul is 100% consistent on foreign intervention: "don't do it!" He's not arguing with Bush on this particular entanglement; he's argued just the same against all others.

His view is 100% consistent with the founding fathers. I consider that good company to keep.

KBCraig wrote:

kauboy wrote:Nope, not Ron Paul for me. That man stood in front of God and Country on the floor of congress and railed against President Bush for his decisions on the war.

Ron Paul is 100% consistent on foreign intervention: "don't do it!" He's not arguing with Bush on this particular entanglement; he's argued just the same against all others.

His view is 100% consistent with the founding fathers. I consider that good company to keep.

He is not known for being "Dr. No" for "no" reason...

I have to do this...Just to stir the pot...

Would anyone favor a "Duncan Hunter/Fred Thompson" ticket in '08???

That to me, is a great package if you tend to lean the way I do in this crazy thing called politics...

The tea leaves I have seen, and the sidebar conversations I've been in lead me to believe this is a distinct possibility...

KBCraig wrote:

kauboy wrote:Nope, not Ron Paul for me. That man stood in front of God and Country on the floor of congress and railed against President Bush for his decisions on the war.

Ron Paul is 100% consistent on foreign intervention: "don't do it!" He's not arguing with Bush on this particular entanglement; he's argued just the same against all others.

His view is 100% consistent with the founding fathers. I consider that good company to keep.

So he feels we should have stayed out of Nazi Germany? What a great guy.

I can't help but remember a wonderful quote:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

I could go for Fred Thompson, but Duncan Hunter has to clean up his web site before he gets a positive response from me, there's only one 'm' in "amend" (The web site proudly quotes his stand on the "2nd Ammendment."

Now before anyone jumps on me saying it's probably the fault of his web master, let me point out that HE is just as responsible for the content, if he lets his "official" web site exist without even doing a cursory check for himself, what does that say about his thoroughness otherwise?

Jim
I'm about as bad a compulsive proof-reader as there is, but even I wouldn't toss away an otherwise good condidate for president based on a single mis-spelled word!

Rex

Fred Thompson 2008

.....

casselthief wrote:^^^ Whyle I here yew, Recks, I halv to agrea weth Jym. I thenk itt seys mure abowt thu mann thatt hea letts iether tards or laizy peepul runn hizz websighte.

Stop that! My eyes! My eyes!!

[Rex B breaks out in hives]

ahthankyou

kauboy wrote:

KBCraig wrote:His view is 100% consistent with the founding fathers. I consider that good company to keep.

So he feels we should have stayed out of Nazi Germany? What a great guy.

Nazi Germany, for all its evil, did not attack the United States.

I can't help but remember a wonderful quote:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

False dichotomy. "Doing nothing" and "going to war against a nation that has not attacked us" are not the only options for dealing with threats.

If you take that mindset, you might wind up in court for shooting someone on a Houston Metro bus, in response to him threatening to kick your butt, despite any apparent means of doing so.

Kevin

Your analogy is historically wrong.

I would however risk ending up in court for shooting a man on the metro who is mercilessly slaughtering people around him.

Evil, whether against you or not, is still evil and should be dealt with accordingly. The little man can't always defend himself. Would you turn away from a woman while she is being raped? He's not attacking you. Would you even bother, or simply stand and watch while cursing him at a safe distance?

I for one, would deal with that scum as I saw fit. (And no, I'm not insinuating that he would be promptly perforated. But he will definitely be taking a ride in the band-aid box, and OOOH YES, a stretcher WILL be necessary.)