Fred Thompson: Liberal in Disguise. Oh, Sh**. Here we go.

[Maggie_T]

I found this bubble-burster on a local website. All I know about the link is that it is supposed to be conservative ... or at least, as conservative as anything can be in Commie Maine.

I would like your thoughts, please.

Fred Thompson: Liberal in Disguise
By Basil Harrington
Apr 20, 2007 - 8:29:44 AM



It seems that conservatives are about to make the same mistake that they made in 2000. Every Cassandra warned the movement conservatives that GW Bush was a liberal, but they were all duped by his "compassionate conservatism," which we since have learned really means "liberal globalism."

Now, despite all the warnings, they are about to be conned by Fred Thompson too - another neocon (aka liberal globalist). Will they get what they deserve? Can people really be so shortsighted? In 2011 will we hear GOP cheerleaders, "If only I had known...

Let's look at Fred Thompson on the issues.

First and foremost, let's ponder immigration, the greatest threat facing the West today. As Jean Raspail foretold in Camp of the Saints, the "best conservative novel ever written," a third-world invasion of the West is taking place, and we must make a stand - before it is too late.

Although tough talking on border control, Fred Thompson has a rather weak record from his time in the Senate. Americans for Better Immigration only gave him a career grade of C. And on chain migration, visa lotteries, reducing unnecessary visas, asylum fraud, and reducing amnesties, he received rather low marks. <SUP>1</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
Thompson is almost certainly pro-abortion, regardless what he feigns. He has said, "The ultimate decision must be made by the woman." In other words, he believes it's a "choice."

Thompson is pro-affirmative action, and his two votes in the Senate guaranteed that under-qualified minorities would be given preference over Euro-Americans (i.e. white people). Thompson obviously believes that victimology should trump hard work.

Link (http://www.magic-city-news.com/Guest_Column_89/Fred_Thompson_Liberal_in_Disguise7815.shtml)

Now, I am always wary of the 'neocon' label, so I don't know how serious the colunmist is. Also, for all I know, he could just be trying to bismirch Fred in order to boost his own candidates of preference.

But I would really appreciate your comments. I hate to see my last hope go down the drain.

Thank you, my friends.

[oldcoastie]

He left the senate in 2003. He's had a first-hand view of the wacko politics of California, and I've heard him say nothing that turns me against him.

Rather than follow the "advice" of a local columnist in the Republik of Maine, I'm more interested in what he says NOW rather than his views from back then.

The world has changed since his terms in the senate, and this country has certainly changed since then. It seems to me that with Mr. Thompson, what you see is what you get.

(First time poster - be gentle with me!) :biggrin:

[Maggie_T]

LOL. Oldcoastie, welcome! :wave:

And your wisdom is duly noted.

[Riverboat]

If Fred Thompson receives the nomination, I'm voting Constitution Party. My bullshit meter may not be hitting red, but the needle is definitely hovering between red and yellow. When I hear this, I can't help hearing, "Follow me, friends, over the precipice!"

P.S. to oldcoastie: A warm greeting from me, too.

[Maggie_T]

You know, guys. That was my first reaction. I think the author has his own agenda: demonize the competition.

Sigh. I'm already weary of this election ... and it hasn't even started yet. :rolleyes:

[Riverboat]

Yes, but do you feel better about Fred Thompson now?

[noncom]

...If Fred Thompson receives the nomination, I'm voting Constitution Party.
Before I read this article I knew roughly a trillion times more about Fred Thompson's politics than I knew about Basil Harrington's (whoever the Hell that is.) But this last sentence tells me everything I will ever need to know about the fruitcake.

I realized a very long time ago that there is no practical difference between a liberal and a liberaltarian when it comes to elections: their only goal is to do everything they possibly can to keep Republicans out of office

[DoctorDoom]

Basil Harrington is apparently active on the Web. Google has 655 hits for his name in quotes. I can't find any bio on him.

[oldcoastie]

Thanks for the welcome! And I note that pRim is here, too. We know each other from - well, from another site.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Welcome, oldcoastie! Glad to have you aboard ... why not wander on over to the Member's Forum and post a thread, tell us a bit about you. I'm sure there are others here who would like to welcome you as well.
Happy Posting!
Hms

================================================== ===========


As for Fred Thompson - I don't buy a word of what this dude (article originator) is selling. I will hold myself in reserve from giving full approval of Senator Thompson, but from what I've seen so far, heard so far, read so far, and know so far, he is FAR from liberal. One thing he has managed to do, that impresses me, is admit that he may have made some wrong decisions back when he was in office. He has rethought some votes, some support he offered back then, and I believe he HAS grown and learned from the past, and in perspective.

I guess we'll really see, when he announces, but I am more willing to put my eggs in his basket than in the article-author's frying pan.

[Pennville_Bill]

He left the senate in 2003. He's had a first-hand view of the wacko politics of California, and I've heard him say nothing that turns me against him.

Rather than follow the "advice" of a local columnist in the Republik of Maine, I'm more interested in what he says NOW rather than his views from back then.

The world has changed since his terms in the senate, and this country has certainly changed since then. It seems to me that with Mr. Thompson, what you see is what you get.

(First time poster - be gentle with me!) :biggrin:

Well said and welcome aboard.............

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

I realized a very long time ago that there is no practical difference between a liberal and a liberaltarian when it comes to elections: their only goal is to do everything they possibly can to keep Republicans out of office
Yeah, I reached the same conclusion. Their ideology comes across as very appealing initially, but it wasn't long before I realized it's an unholy merger of some seemingly right-wingish economic philosophy (to provide the illusion of conservatism) with social platforms as far left as left can be.

In debates with libretardians, they supported everything socially left such as abortion, illegal immigration, the complete secularization of our nation and culture, euthanasia, homosexuality (hell some even defended bestiality), legalized narcotics (marijuana, cocaine, everything), etc.

It became obvious fairly quickly that their claims of seeking to advance "liberty" (liberty to all of the things I just listed) were just a facade. Personally, the entire ideology seems designed as a means of facilitating the gradual conversion of conservatives into social marxism to me. Through a bizarre bastardization of right-wing philosophy, such as "property rights" justifying such things as sodomy, traditional conservatism is replaced with a bunch of faux right-wing bullsh*t which wholly excises Judeo-Christian moral concepts from conservatism.

Conversations pretty much without fail revealed them to be mindless "political Ferengi (http://www.sjtrek.com/trek/rules/)" (as I called them), as they'd always steer any debate onto money, free trade, or the economy as some means of establishing/defending their so called conservatism. One's financial disposition through unrestricted trade is the sole factor in determining man's happiness and prosperity. If it can be sold it should be sold. Such things were their only moral absolutes. The less restricted trade is the better, to the point they had absolutely no problem whatsoever undermining societal mores, or even compromising our own sovereignty. They were practically anarchists (depising and extremely rebellious to any form of moral authority), seeking only license (the "liberty" to do lines of coke and sodomize each other, which they hope to unrestrict by virtually eradicating all government period), and having no loyalty to anyone/thing but the highest bidder.

Conservatism for them was determined purely by one's stance on fiscal matters like taxes.

Which is why I ended up making as my avatar one day...
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g133/PERDITION777/cefd322b.jpg

[d'urville]

You know, guys. That was my first reaction. I think the author has his own agenda: demonize the competition.


Basil Herrington? That could be true...on another forum I was pinged (yes, that one) with this comment:


"Fred Thompson has spoken out against Mexico’s leadership and as president, would talk tough to them. President Bush doesn’t dare.
Let Basil Harrington go to the Constitution Party. The GOP doesn’t need anyone who can’t tell the difference between a conservative with an 86% lifetime ACU rating (Fred Thompson) and a liberal with a 17% lifetime ACU rating (Joe Lieberman)."

This is where Herrington blogs, this isn't his first "hit piece" on FDT:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0307/0307nottofred.htm

Both of them post there, too, the writer of this FDT hit piece doesn't:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/27/opinion/main2734718.shtml

Sounds like they're worried.

[noncom]

[Libertarian] ideology comes across as very appealing initially, but it wasn't long before I realized it's an unholy merger of some seemingly right-wingish economic philosophy (to provide the illusion of conservatism) with social platforms as far left as left can be.
I think of liberaltarians as moonbats who are cursed with a remedial understanding of economics. You might think that would make them see at least a little bit of common sense. But it doesn't; it has the exact opposite effect: it sticks in their craw and makes them act even crazier.

You could spend a lifetime reading articles like the above and trying to figure out whether the authors are disingenuous liberals or libertarian zealots. But it's a complete waste of time to even try. It just doesn't matter. The key trait that liberals and libertarians have in common is that they never compromise on anything - ever. It's impossible to please or appease them, and nothing good can ever come of trying.

As for Fred Thompson, the fact that he's drawing these "neo-conservative" witch hunters - liberal and libertarian alike - out of the woodwork is even more proof that he's the best man to advance the conservative agenda.

[The_Elucidator]

I don't want to be the first to say I told you so, but I told you so! There are gonna be those fruitcakes who would declare anyone to the left of the Pope a neocon. Anybody who starts this crap is nothing more than a Lib plant to try and convince conservatives to stay home. Piss on em!

[libertyman]

Why in the world would you believe that communists, fascists, & socialists are considered to be mainstream (by their remaining on the level w/ conservatives in your diagram), yet you think libertarians are off the deep end? Are you not aware that, in today's world, the Founding Fathers could possibly be called libertarians (& Thomas Jefferson in particular)???

I am not a libertarian anymore, 'cuz after reading George Washington's Farewell Address I left the party & became an independent....but it seems like the libertarians & constitutionists are the ONLY ones who are working to return our federal government back to its constitutional framework, one whose powers are "few & defined" (as James Madison said in paper #45 of The Federalist Papers) & support a foreign policy of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations....I can't remember the exact phrase, but Thomas Jefferson said something like "free trade with all nations, but entangling alliances w/ NONE".

:roar: How dare the Founding Fathers spew such bass-ackwards isolationist rhetoric? You mean, focusing our governmental energies on defending ourselves & our borders @ home while we make an attempt to make firiends w/ & respect the sovereignty of other nations & mind our own business abroad @ the same time? How dare they??????????

[noncom]

If I remember correctly, the "neocon" phrase is short for the phrase that was coined by the King of Neocons himself, Irving Kristol (the father of Bill Kristol of FOX News), whose new brand of conservatism is called Neoconservatism.
Quick question: who died and made Irving-freaking-Crystal King Of the Conservatives? I don't even know who the dufas is. But I keep being told that he made up what he thought was a cute name for himself decades ago -- and now this somehow constitues a Vast Conspiracy that I and 90% of the Republican Party are either part of or being duped by.

Yeah. Whatever. Could someone please show me ONE keystroke in the above quote that is somehow different from what I've heard a thousand liberal barking moonbats say? Maybe it's the lack of drugs talking here, but I sure as Hell can't see it.

[libertyman]

One dufas, years ago, makes up what he thinks is a cute name for himself, and somehow this constitues a Vast Conspiracy that I and 90% of the Republican Party are either part of or being duped by.

Yeah. Whatever. Could someone please show me ONE keystroke in the above quote that is somehow different from what I've heard a thousand liberal barking moonbats say? Maybe it's the lack of drugs talking here, but I sure as Hell can't see it.

I guess you have never heard of this book, which Irving Kristol wrote:

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41G2NHNT5RL._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

It's called Neoconservatism: The Autobiography Of An Idea (http://www.amazon.com/Neo-conservatism-Autobiography-Idea-Irving-Kristol/dp/1566632285/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6872444-1319928?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177898832&sr=8-1)



http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/%3Cimg%20src=http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41G2NHNT5RL._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA%3E

[Suzie]

Why worry? Liberals believe what the media tells them ... conservatives don't. He could gain votes from people who believe the story. And he will have the votes of those who know it isn't.

[Suzie]

Actually I was talking about the story. Responding to the topic of the thread as Maggie asked.

[DoctorDoom]

All drug-related posts have been moved to here. (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=546617#post546617) Thread hijacking is not acceptable.

Although libertarianism is notorious for its stance on that subject, this thread is not about it. And bringing up references to it in an unrelated thread in order to discredit or insult another member will not be tolerated.

[The_Elucidator]

All drug-related posts have been moved to here. (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=546617#post546617) Thread hijacking is not acceptable.

Although libertarianism is notorious for its stance on that subject, this thread is not about it. And bringing up references to it in an unrelated thread in order to discredit or insult another member will not be tolerated.

My apologies Doc!

[Lubbock]

Yep. Mine too.

[noncom]

I guess you have never heard of this book, which Irving Kristol wrote:
It's called Neoconservatism: The Autobiography Of An Idea (http://www.amazon.com/Neo-conservatism-Autobiography-Idea-Irving-Kristol/dp/1566632285/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6872444-1319928?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177898832&sr=8-1)
No. And as far as I know, the only people who think of that book as some sort of modern-day Mein Kampf are liberals and liberaltarians.

Actually, I doubt that even many of the moonbats have actually read it. All they like is the title, because they think "Neocon" sounds like "Neo-Nazi" - so they say it and giggle like retarded little children.

I've personally never even MET anyone who actually calls himself a "Neocon." And I've never heard anyone define that word in anything like a coherent fashion.

But, somehow, it's supposed to be this giant political "movement" that has me in its thrall.

I don't want to call anybody a liar, but I'm afraid I'm just not buying Doctordoom's theory that all this paranoia is caused entirely by naturally occurring congenital brain damage.

[Dowple]

I'm not absolutely sure that Fred Thompson is perfectly reliable. He seems more reliable than most. And I don't know what his relationship is to the Neocons. I do know that the Neocons are former Left wing Trotskyists who were also Scoop Jackson type Democrats who became Republicans. They're pro-Open Borders, indifferent to affirmative action and "diversity", pro homosexual rights, pro Outsourcing, and compromisers on Communist China. Where does Fred stand in relation to all that. He seems ok. Which is more than I can say for the biggest lying huckster running for the GOP nomination, Huckabee.

[oldcoastie]

I heard a short interview with Fred Thompson on WLS-AM, Chicago, this morning. He was asked about raising funds and convincing people to vote for him if he decides to run. He responded that if a person can't convince voters about his/her positions on things in about 6 months before an election, then what would be accomplished by him entering now and wasting all that ca$h.

Seems logical.

I don't know anyone who I'd consider perfectly reliable. Geez, I'd most likely not be perfectly reliable to the people who voted for me, or maybe even to myself, if I ended up being president or some other lower position.

But with Thompson, I like what I hear and see, at least so far.

[noncom]

I heard a short interview with Fred Thompson on WLS-AM, Chicago, this morning. He was asked about raising funds and convincing people to vote for him if he decides to run. He responded that if a person can't convince voters about his/her positions on things in about 6 months before an election, then what would be accomplished by him entering now and wasting all that ca$h.
It is bizarre to me that somebody even has to explain this. Where the heck did the idea that it's "common sense" to start running a year before the FIRST primary come from anyway?

Reagan didn't do it, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't common practice before then. Sometimes an incumbent sort of does it (and Clinton was utterly shameless about it.) But otherwise I think this is purely a recent media concoction.

This is nothing but a sham. Sure, the moonbats picked their candidate 8 years ago, but that's no reason we should do it. The 2008 Democrat Primary is basically nothing but a publicity stunt designed to let the liberal media justify millions of dollars in free political advertising for Hillary. But that's no reason we should let them sucker us into giving them a new punching bag any sooner than we have to.

[dPrasse]

I heard a short interview with Fred Thompson on WLS-AM, Chicago, this morning.
But with Thompson, I like what I hear and see, at least so far.

Wasn't that nice ?

I love Don and Roma ... and Fred !! :D

Run Fred Run !

[oldcoastie]

It is bizarre to me that somebody even has to explain this. Where the heck did the idea that it's "common sense" to start running a year before the FIRST primary come from anyway?

Reagan didn't do it, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't common practice before then. Sometimes an incumbent sort of does it (and Clinton was utterly shameless about it.) But otherwise I think this is purely a recent media concoction.

This is nothing but a sham. Sure, the moonbats picked their candidate 8 years ago, but that's no reason we should do it. The 2008 Democrat Primary is basically nothing but a publicity stunt designed to let the liberal media justify millions of dollars in free political advertising for Hillary. But that's no reason we should let them sucker us into giving them a new punching bag any sooner than we have to.

I agree with your first paragraph, but I THINK Don Wade knew the answer when he posed the question. Can't prove it, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it! :evilgrin: :biggrin:

I absolutely agree with your last two paragraphs.

[UnkHiram]

All drug-related posts have been moved to here. (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=546617#post546617) Thread hijacking is not acceptable.

Although libertarianism is notorious for its stance on that subject, this thread is not about it. And bringing up references to it in an unrelated thread in order to discredit or insult another member will not be tolerated.

Sorry Doc, My bad

[Suzie]

Just remember not to bring old fights to new threads. It isn't productive, and the person posting the thread loses their topic. And if a thread is split and your post is the first one in it... take note, you are probably doing it more often than you think and it's dragging other people in.

Carry on ... on topic please.

[DoctorDoom]

On topic, there is only one perfect candidate, but Jesus isn't running for anything. Ergo, we must content ourselves with the best candidate amongst imperfect people. Fred Thompson is looking better every day.

[MrSanity]

Why in the world would you believe that communists, fascists, & socialists are considered to be mainstream (by their remaining on the level w/ conservatives in your diagram), yet you think libertarians are off the deep end? Are you not aware that, in today's world, the Founding Fathers could possibly be called libertarians (& Thomas Jefferson in particular)?In my book, the founders would probably come off as conservatives, libertarians, and anarchists. In any event, they hated big government because it lead them into tyranny.

[Dowple]

As far as I'm concerned, any support for Fred will depend ENTIRELY on just how much of a Border Hawk he is and if he is willing to enforce EXISTING LAWS and deport illegals found in the US.

[MrSanity]

Now, I am always wary of the 'neocon' label, so I don't know how serious the colunmist is.It usually means the columnist lacks a better argument when they resort to one-word smears that depart enormously from its original meaning.

A "neoconservative" is someone who went from a previous ideology and has recently accepted conservatism as an ideology. In simple terms, it means "new to conservatism."

But nevermind.

From here on out, it will describe W's brand of conservatism, whereas "paleoconservatism" will describe Pat Buchanan's brand.

It's the hyphenated conservatism that Tom Tancredo has warned us about.

I find myself strayed from either brand of hyphenated conservatism.

True modern conservatism is based on staunch opposition of failed communist policies, a return to constitutional government, and respect for religious freedom.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Unfortunately, in today's political lexicon, "neocon" is being used as a pejorative for Jews. MrSanity is correct in the origin of the word, but the best current definition of "neocon" is a Reagan conservative.

[Air-Warrior]

There aren't a whole lot of Libertarians who are able to convince me that they're not anarchists. When I say "convince," just saying that you're not an anarchist isn't evidence.

[Riverboat]

Speaking of Fred Thompson and illegal immigration, I just ran across this gem:

"Mexican leaders apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens, while complaining about US immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own. The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo."

Sounds pretty reasonable. He's looking better each day.

[Air-Warrior]

In my book, the founders would probably come off as conservatives, libertarians, and anarchists. In any event, they hated big government because it lead them into tyranny.But then again, they didn't have to deal with the liberal wacko mindset that threatens to strangle America today.

How "libertarian" do you think they'd be about:
Homosexual "rights"
Pornography
Lowering the age of consent
Border security
Modern self-destructive influences
State sponsored atheism
Abortion "rights"
et. al.

[Naturalized-Texan]

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would be conservative Republicans.

[Dowple]

Speaking of Fred Thompson and illegal immigration, I just ran across this gem:

"Mexican leaders apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens, while complaining about US immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own. The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo."

Sounds pretty reasonable. He's looking better each day.

But will he ENFORCE existing laws and deport?

[Rhino]

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would be conservative Republicans.They sure wouldn't be anarchists. Otherwise they would never have founded anything.

[Rhino]

But will he ENFORCE existing laws and deport?Dunno, but there's probably a damn sight better chance of it than with any of the other choices. I'd prefer to have the border closed first. Deportations won't do much good otherwise. And they pretty much deport now, when they catch them. The problem is with the catching. They don't have the resources to expend more effort on capture, and the local and state governments aren't cooperating much in that regard. Having a President committed to it is only part of the battle. He'd still need the cooperation of Congress and state/local governments. Much as I'd like to see that happen, I'm not holding my breath.

[Maggie_T]

I think of liberaltarians as moonbats who are cursed with a remedial understanding of economics.

You are so right, noncom. I consider them as moonbats who actually work for a living and therefore, have some respect for other people's money. But they are still moonbats.

As for Fred Thompson, the fact that he's drawing these "neo-conservative" witch hunters - liberal and libertarian alike - out of the woodwork is even more proof that he's the best man to advance the conservative agenda.

You have a point there.

[Maggie_T]

Thanks for your opinions, my friends. Read Thompson's column in townhall.

He's still the only one whom I can trust with my vote. Hope he justifies my trust, as well as that of everyone else here.

[thoughtomator]

I for one will be hard pressed to vote for Thompson, and probably won't, unless Hillary wins the Dem nomination (which is looking less and less likely all the time).

There's a specific worldview which is practially sacrosanct in the halls of the GOP, one to which I object thoroughly. This worldview looks forward to political and economic integration with the third world, to shipping military important industry to potential enemies, to allowing the UN to determine the pace and direction of our foreign policy, to finding massive illegal immigration to be an acceptable substitute for all the aborted American babies that don't exist, and so on. It has no problem with spending future generations' money on profiteering and payoffs today, as long as "our side" is the one at the trough, and it is perfectly comfortable with the institutions that have practiced bribing our officials for so long that the industry is literally securitized. It is a cynical world in which human life means little and money determines right and wrong.


My problem with Thompson is that I suspect he would be perfectly comfortable in the world I described above. I've heard nothing from him or about him that looks like any deviation from or objection to that plan. And it kind of astonishes me that the ranks of potential candidates are so thin that a TV show lawyer is really the best that can be produced.

[thoughtomator]

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would be conservative Republicans.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they'd be demonized in the exact same way that is done to Ron Paul, the only person in our government who demonstrably agrees with their philosophy.

[Suzie]

There are a lot of things the Founding Fathers could have never predicted. I am sure they never imagined people would have doctors willing to suck children out of the wombs of their mothers and we would not even be given the chance to vote on anything that would stop it. Or even something as simple as the idea you could be in New York and California in the same day. Commit a crime in one place and be in the other in a matter of hours. That would have seemed impossible to them. I believe they were smart enough to know the world will change and we would have to tweak some things to fit modern day but hopefully still stick with the basic principle. In many instances we have failed to stick to that principle where we should have. But saying that NOTHING should change to fit modern day would be foolish.

[noncom]

...It is a cynical world in which human life means little and money determines right and wrong.

My problem with Thompson is that I suspect he would be perfectly comfortable in the world I described above. I've heard nothing from him or about him that looks like any deviation from or objection to that plan. And it kind of astonishes me that the ranks of potential candidates are so thin that a TV show lawyer is really the best that can be produced.
You make a good point there, except for one tiny detail I'm not really clear on:

Isn't there some OTHER forum you Ron Paul worshipping psychos can post your rambling tirades on?

[Naturalized-Texan]

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they'd be demonized in the exact same way that is done to Ron Paul, the only person in our government who demonstrably agrees with their philosophy.
But Ron Paul is a Teddy Kennedy liberal, so he has absolutely no similarity to our Founding Fathers. That's why he is being demonized.

[Suzie]

You make a good point there, except for one tiny detail I'm not really clear on:

Isn't there some OTHER forum you Ron Paul worshipping psychos can post your rambling tirades on?

Maybe they don't know about free LIBERAL, that's where they sing his praises and compare the leadership of our nation with the likeness (and importance) of American Idol. This is Free CONSERVATIVES. Free LIBERAL loves Ron Paul.
http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/002710.html

[Suzie]

That having been said, I don't think this thread is ever going to be talking about Fred Thompson. :lol: How many side tracks have we had going in this thread alone?

Of all the choices we have, in my opinion Thompson is the best out there currently, and that seems the scare the liberals.

[MrSanity]

They sure wouldn't be anarchists. Otherwise they would never have founded anything.On the issue of checks and balances between government and its citizens, they come pretty close to anarchy. Not so much in a negative light.

There are many positions within anarchism that I disagree with, but they designed a government where citizens would have the right to overthrow when it is oppressive. T-Jefferson said that every generation should have a revolution. Militias are a constitutional right to keep the government in check.

More Jefferson:

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

In 1833, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story had this to say.

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

To many Americans today, it sounds crazy, only because we have strayed from our liberties of origin, and have grown accustomed to trust the government's "wisdom" more than we realize.

They probably fell inline within anarchist and libertarian philosophy on this particular subject.

[MrSanity]

But then again, they didn't have to deal with the liberal wacko mindset that threatens to strangle America today.

How "libertarian" do you think they'd be about:
Homosexual "rights"
Pornography
Lowering the age of consent
Border security
Modern self-destructive influences
State sponsored atheism
Abortion "rights"
et. al.They were certainly libertarian as opposed to authoritarian, but on certain issues like illegal immigration, I can see them defending the nation that they declared independent.

On moral issues of modern times, you can't fit them into your mold entirely. Remember, many of them allowed slavery, and several owned slaves themselves.

As I see it:

Homosexual "rights": Opposed to hate-crime legislation and propaganda in public schools, but also opposed to anti-sodomy laws. On homosexualization of marriage and civil unions, it is hard to say.

Pornography: A personal issue, not a state issue.

Lowering the age of consent: Probably opposed to it, since it violates parental rights.

Border security: Supportive of both federal and state's rights to enforce national sovereignty, and define illegals as invaders.

Modern self-destructive influences: I assume you mean recreational drugs. I'm not familiar with their drinking habits, or their overall outlook on alcoholic beverages.

State sponsored atheism: They were opposed to both state-sponsored atheism and the establishment of a state religion.

Abortion "rights": The right to life is an inalienable right according to our Declaration of Independence. As much as I would like to think that its authors saw life at conception, we don't know for certain what they would believe about terminating a pregnancy out of convenience.

[MrSanity]

That having been said, I don't think this thread is ever going to be talking about Fred Thompson. :lol: How many side tracks have we had going in this thread alone?There's been a lot of Fred Thompson threads. He's probably the most talked about conservative candidate in FC.

Most every comment about him is "Run, Fred."

Little dissent holds.

Almost everyone here likes him as a candidate, and he has managed to protect his character quite well from the assassins in the media at this point.

[thoughtomator]

"Free Liberal" is a contradiction in terms, unless one is imploring a prisoner release.

That laws should have meaning is a fundamental conservative value. If our Constitution has no meaning then nothing that follows from it can possibly have meaning. In such a case, being a society of laws is a pretense (one that only hurts the well-meaning), and we are really just a bunch of thugs intimidating and threatening each other.

On this very fundamental issue, Ron Paul is more conservative than anyone else out there. The knee-jerk name-calling over libertarians does nothing
to support any rational assessment of his qualities.

For example, I have very high confidence that Paul would, if given the power, vigorously enforce laws against illegal immigration. Of the other options available, who else would do such a thing? Only two other minor candidates who are not likely either to win.

People might say Paul isn't conservative, but I think you'll find that by any reasonable evaluation of what makes a conservative conservative, he ranks higher than any other politician in the system today.

[thoughtomator]

Abortion "rights": The right to life is an inalienable right according to our Declaration of Independence. As much as I would like to think that its authors saw life at conception, we don't know for certain what they would believe about terminating a pregnancy out of convenience.


Given that they clearly recognized the right to life, and placed it first before liberty or the pursuit of happiness, I'd say they'd be horrified by convenience abortions and consider it murder.

[thoughtomator]

There's been a lot of Fred Thompson threads. He's probably the most talked about conservative candidate in FC.

Most every comment about him is "Run, Fred."

Little dissent holds.

Almost everyone here likes him as a candidate, and he has managed to protect his character quite well from the assassins in the media at this point.

Given what the PTB have pulled on us over the past several elections, a skeptical eye is called for whenever a candidate seems to have universal approbation and there's no second opinion around. I wonder what will happen when the other shoe drops?

[MrSanity]

Given what the PTB have pulled on us over the past several elections, a skeptical eye is called for whenever a candidate seems to have universal approbation and there's no second opinion around. I wonder what will happen when the other shoe drops?I don't know enough about Thompson to declare an official vote, but his mentioned shortcomings are quite limited in comparisan to Giuliani, McCain, Romney, or Gingrich.

He carries the least amount of baggage at this point. He has a "get r' done" approach that conservatives can admire. From the looks of it, he seems electable, while Romney has already flip-flopped his way into defeat.

[Naturalized-Texan]

thoughtomator: Ron Paul is anything BUT a conservative. If you want a TRUE conservative, Fred Thompson fits the bill.

I've posted this before, but it bears repeating:

Last month I heard an interview of Ron Paul conducted by a local conservative talk show host. If I hadn't heard the host introduce him as Congressman Ron Paul, I would have sworn that it was Teddy Kennedy being interviewed because of the far left positions he took and the bald-faced lies he told. About the only issues where Ron Paul differed from Teddy Kennedy were that he supported the Fair Tax and that he favored free trade. Other than that he was a straight down the line lefty.

I don't remember all the lies he told, but these 3 lies that he told are favorites of the loony left:

Lie #1) Reagan paid off Iran to release the Americans being held hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran for more than 400 days.

It's obvious that he believes in the "October Surprise" in which George H. W. Bush supposedly flew in an SR-71 to Paris in October 1980 to work out an agreement with Iran. The problem with that is that at the very instant he was supposedly in Paris, Bush was making a campaign speech before 5,000 people in Indiana.

Lie #2) Reagan supplied arms and funds to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan when the Afghanis were fighting Soviet troops.

That is false. Reagan supplied arms and funds to the mujihideen fighting in the north (later the Northern Alliance that helped us overthrow the Taliban and drive al Qaeda out of Afghanistan), not to bin Laden in the south. Osama bin laden got all his arms and funds from the Saudis.

Lie #3) We are fighting an undeclared war in Iraq.

There WAS a declaration of war in the War on Terror passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, and Ron Paul voted for it. The Iraq campaign of the War on Terror is as much a part of the War on Terror as the Normandy invasion was part of WW II and it was authorized by that declaration of war that Ron Paul voted for.

[noncom]

Ron Paul is anything BUT a conservative....

Lie #1) Reagan paid off Iran to release the Americans being held hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran for more than 400 days.

Lie #2) Reagan supplied arms and funds to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan when the Afghanis were fighting Soviet troops.

Lie #3) We are fighting an undeclared war in Iraq.
Once again, I defy anyone to try and point out the difference between any of this crap, and the stuff the looniest moonbats are constantly screaming. (BTW, remember that these happen to be the same liberaltarian jackasses who try to prop up their God by saying Ronald Reagan once shook hands with him or something. -- Oh yeah, that makes him conservatism incarnate...)

You know what? I take back the stuff I said before about how libertarians are moonbats who somehow got a sliver of brain lodged inside their skulls. As near as I can tell, they are the exact same as the ultra-leftist psychos who think Communism can somehow magically come about and make everyone happy without any oppression.

Liberaltarians just happened to have latched onto a different economic "miracle theory." The fact that theirs happens to have a basis in reality is absolutely nothing but the purest of coincidence. When it comes to how to APPLY that theory to the world they live in, liberaltarians gibber as inanely as the craziest moonbat who ever batted at the moon.

When it comes to explaining their brilliant plan on how to get FROM here TO there, the liberaltarian scheme is exactly the same as the one the Communistas suggest:

STEP ONE: Obliterate whatever the Hell system happens to be in place right now.

STEP TWO: .....

STEP THREE: A worker's Paradise!

Just insert "everybody cooperates with me" or "nobody gangs up against me" for Step Two and these two braindead plans are pretty much interchangeable.

[MrSanity]

Liberaltarians just happened to have latched onto a different economic "miracle theory." The fact that theirs happens to have a basis in reality is absolutely nothing but the purest of coincidence. When it comes to how to APPLY that theory to the world they live in, liberaltarians gibber as inanely as the craziest moonbat who ever batted at the moon.

When it comes to explaining their brilliant plan on how to get FROM here TO there, the liberaltarian scheme is exactly the same as the one the Communistas suggest:

STEP ONE: Obliterate whatever the Hell system happens to be in place right now.

STEP TWO: .....

STEP THREE: A worker's Paradise!

Just insert "everybody cooperates with me" or "nobody gangs up against me" for Step Two and these two braindead plans are pretty much interchangeable.:biglaugh: Laughable.

Libertarians are more fiscally conservative than most "conservative Republicans" by a long shot. An observation of a political debate is all you really need. Particularly on social security.

[noncom]

Once again, I defy anyone to try and point out the difference between any of this crap, and the stuff the looniest moonbats are constantly screaming. (BTW, remember that these happen to be the same liberaltarian jackasses who try to prop up their God by saying Ronald Reagan once shook hands with him or something. -- Oh yeah, that makes him conservatism incarnate...)
:biglaugh: Laughable.

Libertarians are more fiscally conservative than most "conservative Republicans" by a long shot. An observation of a political debate is all you really need. Particularly on social security.
Yet another brilliant plan:

"Let's see... Somebody just called me a lunatic and I want to prove him wrong? No problem; I'll just start giggling for no apparent reason, and then randomly bring up a different subject."

[MrSanity]

Yet another brilliant plan:

"Let's see... Somebody just called me a lunatic and I want to prove him wrong? No problem; I'll just start giggling for no apparent reason, and then randomly bring up a different subject."I couldn't hold it in - libertarians and communists are ideological arch-enemies.

I didn't "randomly" shift topic. I gave you a perfect example as to how that is so.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I couldn't hold it in - libertarians and communists are ideological arch-enemies..
That may have been true in the past, but many of today's libertarians have aligned themselves with the Teddy Kennedy wing of liberalism in support of today's version of Communism - IslamoFascist terrorism: Ron Paul, for example. That's the only possible explanation for Ron Paul's vote to surrender to the terrorists.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

DoctorDoom:
On topic, there is only one perfect candidate, but Jesus isn't running for anything.

:moo: Actually, He's running to be the LORD of each of our lives.

[thoughtomator]

That may have been true in the past, but many of today's libertarians have aligned themselves with the Teddy Kennedy wing of liberalism in support of today's version of Communism - IslamoFascist terrorism: Ron Paul, for example. That's the only possible explanation for Ron Paul's vote to surrender to the terrorists.

Odd to see that argument apply singularly to Paul. The entire leadership of the GOP aligned itself with Ted Kennedy's version of government - the whole transnational socialist line, hook and sinker - even handing over the keys to education policy. The administration itself decided to reside in the fictional fantasyland concocted by media homosexuals rather than making the least credible efforts to assert truth at any time during now what, 6 1/2 years already. And they did it for what? Spiked Chinese wheat gluten, that somehow, almost 6 years into the latest era of the security state, makes it to our food supply with no regulation on their end or ours? If they can't do something as basic as testing the food supply, what the heck are all these people there for? What are they doing with our dime?

Paul takes a more fact based approach. Let's face facts - a "War on Terror" is not a "War on Iraq". It's not even a real war. It's a catchphrase for all the activities that take place in lieu of conducting war properly by identifying enemies and smashing them until they give up unconditionally (which was done correctly in Iraq, for about three weeks from go). What Congress did with respect to Iraq was acknowledge it wasn't going to stand in the way. I was watching when this all happened, they avoided calling it an actual declaration of war so that Democrats wouldn't worm out of it.

As one of the few actual American victims of Islamic terrorism, I am NOT impressed by the Dept. of Homeland Security, granny searches, and the general butt-kissing of Islamics that goes on, obstensibly to defend me. I think a lot too many people are doing the getting payoffs part and a lot too few are doing the defending.

You want to talk about doing real things about real problems? Howabout not looking the other way on Mexican aliens? Both Democrats and Republicans are inviting them in. No wonder they hate Ron Paul, who takes a dim view of the compromise of American national integrity.

Likewise he doesn't fall for any of the stuff he sees in proposed legislation that is not legal but gets done as a matter of course anyway in DC. He doesn't play the game, and it's natural that many will have a distorted view of what he has to say, when so many have an interest in squelching such a point of view.


If you want to say these things are not conservative, then let's hear your definition of conservative.

[The_Elucidator]

:moo: Actually, He's running to be the LORD of each of our lives.

I actually have him running ahead in all FC polls by a pretty comfortable margin!

He is barely registering in the DU forum though; he's polling about the same as John McCain is in some recent conservative straw polls!

[Naturalized-Texan]

Odd to see that argument apply singularly to Paul. The entire leadership of the GOP aligned itself with Ted Kennedy's version of government - the whole transnational socialist line, hook and sinker - even handing over the keys to education policy. The administration itself decided to reside in the fictional fantasyland concocted by media homosexuals rather than making the least credible efforts to assert truth at any time during now what, 6 1/2 years already. And they did it for what? Spiked Chinese wheat gluten, that somehow, almost 6 years into the latest era of the security state, makes it to our food supply with no regulation on their end or ours? If they can't do something as basic as testing the food supply, what the heck are all these people there for? What are they doing with our dime?

Paul takes a more fact based approach. Let's face facts - a "War on Terror" is not a "War on Iraq". It's not even a real war. It's a catchphrase for all the activities that take place in lieu of conducting war properly by identifying enemies and smashing them until they give up unconditionally (which was done correctly in Iraq, for about three weeks from go). What Congress did with respect to Iraq was acknowledge it wasn't going to stand in the way. I was watching when this all happened, they avoided calling it an actual declaration of war so that Democrats wouldn't worm out of it.
I see that you are a victim of liberal media Big Lie Propaganda. The invasion of Iraq was as much an essential part of the War on Terror as the D-Day Normandy invasion was an essential part of World War II. To deny that fact is to deny reality. Ron Paul voted for a declaration of war against terrorism on 9/14/2001 and that declaration of war was all the justification that President Bush needed to invade Iraq. After all, Saddam harbored, trained, financed, and armed terrorists, including al Qaeda terrorists.

Clearly, Congress has an important role; Article I, section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress has power "to declare war." And on Sept. 14, 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution which states, in part, that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States."

The Constitution does not provide any guidance about the form or language to be used in a declaration of war. If Congress chooses to exercise its power through a joint resolution, there's nothing to prevent it.
Congress Already OK'd Iraq War (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002149)

Ron Paul's vote to surrender to the terrorists is treason under its definition contained in the Constitution:

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. (My emphasis)

Ron Paul's vote clearly gave Aid and Comfort to our enemies.

[pRIMrose]

Thanks for the welcome! And I note that pRim is here, too. We know each other from - well, from another site.

Howdy friend! http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/w/thumbs.gif have we met before? http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/aiw/biggrin.gif

I think I'll reserve my "doubts" about Thompson. I'll admit I was hoodwinked in 2000, but that is only because of eight disastrous years of Clinton. I've found out the hard way that "R" doesn't necessarily mean conservative. :rolleyes:
My first choice has been Tancredo, but he's a real long shot. Next is Duncan Hunter. But that was before Fred. At this point I see no reason to eliminate him. It's still a few months before the primaries and I think conservatives have enough experience from the last (almost) seven years to look for the chinks in the conservative armour.

Tonight should be very interesting. I wish Thompson was going to be there. We need to hear from his own lips where he now stands on the issues.

[pRIMrose]

This might be a good way to see what Fred is really about:


AS REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL candidates gather tonight in Simi Valley, California, for the first of several debates, one potential candidate will be missing: Fred Thompson. The former senator from Tennessee, still mulling a run, will instead appear alone tomorrow at the Lincoln Day dinner of the Orange County Republicans.
Those familiar with his speech, which Thompson wrote himself, characterize it as optimistic but tough-minded about the serious challenges facing the country. He will touch on several of the big issues that will be at the center of any Thompson for president campaign, if he decides to run. (The Wall Street Journal's John Fund reports (http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010020) that both CNN and C-SPAN will broadcast Thompson's remarks live.) Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/600wwbbi.asp)

[thoughtomator]

I see that you are a victim of liberal media Big Lie Propaganda. The invasion of Iraq was as much an essential part of the War on Terror as the D-Day Normandy invasion was an essential part of World War II. To deny that fact is to deny reality. Ron Paul voted for a declaration of war against terrorism on 9/14/2001 and that declaration of war was all the justification that President Bush needed to invade Iraq. After all, Saddam harbored, trained, financed, and armed terrorists, including al Qaeda terrorists.


Congress Already OK'd Iraq War (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002149)

Ron Paul's vote to surrender to the terrorists is treason under its definition contained in the Constitution:

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. (My emphasis)

Ron Paul's vote clearly gave Aid and Comfort to our enemies.

Calling Paul's vote "treason" is nothing more than an attempt to politicize a difference of opinion.

If you want real treason, then Code Pink giving $600k to Iraqi "insurgents" for weapons is what you're looking for.

But that aside, a "War on Terror" is a farce. How's that War on Drugs doing? And the War on Poverty? What other "wars" against ideas and things would you like to conduct? Those aren't wars, those are policies. Wars are with identifiable enemies - and if there's one thing both sides of the DC circuit refuse to do, it's identify the enemy.

If we called it the War on Islam, which it should be, which it WOULD be if it were at all a serious policy, then this would be a whole different matter. But I see no reason to seriously entertain the dog-and-pony show that passes for the "War on Terror" as an actual war, given that the most fundamental criterium - identifying the enemy to defeat - is missing.

I find it amusing that you essentially imply that I am also a "traitor" in this "War on Terror", as I agree with Paul's reasoning, when it is very likely that I am the only person here to actually have experienced Islamic terrorism firsthand. Perhaps if you shared my experience, you would take this issue more seriously and form opinions based on what really matters rather than based on the current political alignment in DC.

[noncom]

If we called it the War on Islam, which it should be, which it WOULD be if it were at all a serious policy, then this would be a whole different matter. But I see no reason to seriously entertain the dog-and-pony show that passes for the "War on Terror" as an actual war, ...
Of course. Ron Paul wants to infinitely expand the "War on Islam" by eliminating all US military presence outside our borders and even the most common-sense of basic security procedures at home.

No one here is denying that what you're saying sounds perfectly reasonable to you. But it is utterly insane.

I suppose that huge amounts of self-induced brain damage might explain that level of insipid duplicity - but it can never excuse it. Compared to these psychos, the liberal moonbats are rational as all Hell. But as long as liberaltarian ranting includes an occasional spasmodic yelp about "free enterprise" every once in a while, we keep inviting them in to defecate on our carpet. Why? What difference does it make that their hearts are in the right place if their brains are on Neptune?

Of course I understand that it's tempting to make our "tent" bigger, but these people aren't just crazy like your favorite uncle who thinks he's a tree. A major component of liberaltarianism is a strong impulse toward self-destruction. And in terms of politics, they desperately want to take us along with them.

It's not that these people don't pull their own weight; it's that they actively (albeit in a somewhat addled way) seek the destruction of the Republican Party as a viable force. These people are poison.

[thoughtomator]

Of course. Ron Paul wants to infinitely expand the "War on Islam" by eliminating all US military presence outside our borders.

No one here is denying that what you're saying sounds perfectly reasonable to you. But it is utterly insane. I'm sorry, but all the self-induced brain damage in the world can't justify that level of infantile duplicity.

Compared to these psychos, the liberal moonbats are rational as all Hell. But as long as liberaltarian ranting includes an occasional spasmodic yelp about "free enterprise" every once in a while, we keep inviting them in to defecate on our carpet. Why?

Of course I understand that it's tempting to make our "tent" bigger, but these people aren't just crazy like your favorite uncle who thinks he's a tree. A major component of liberaltarianism is a strong impulse toward self-destruction. And in terms of politics, they desperately want to take us along with them.

It's not that these people don't pull their own weight; it's that they actively (albeit in a somewhat addled way) seek the destruction of the Republican Party as a viable force. These people are poison.

I'd argue that the open-borders/anti-sovereigntists are the ones who are actually, presently destroying the Republican Party as a viable force.

My take is that we ought to pursue this war for real or drop the expensive, liberty-destroying farce that we've adopted instead of taking the fight to our enemies. The whole dance in Iraq is because we allow the enemies' sanctuaries in Syria, Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere to go untouched. What this tells the world is that we are not serious, that is why the gaggle of bandwagon-riders in the UN feel free to stab us in the back at every opportunity. Far more effort is put forward in trying to seem "nice" than in actually being effective in putting a stop to the threat against our nation.


In the meantime you and I get to be subject to arbitrary search if we want to travel by plane - so much for the 4th Amendment - while our government, in the name of the "War on Terror", absolutely refuses to profile terrorists and apply these security measures where they would be effective - that is, apply them almost exclusively to Muslims. It ain't my grandmother who is a threat to ram a plane into a landmark, and the complete inability of our public institutions to acknowledge this core feature of the conflict leaves little reason to stay on board with the current administration policy. In conjunction with these ridiculous measures applied to American citizens, Mexican citizens are encouraged to walk across our border, where they are given jobs, free health care, food, housing, etc. on our dime. This is what is insane, not saying that if we're not going to seriously fight a war we shouldn't spend hundreds of billions pretending to.

The problem is not whether or not the tent should be expanded, but that the leadership has left the tent.

[noncom]

Of course. Ron Paul wants to infinitely expand the "War on Islam" by eliminating all US military presence outside our borders....
My take is that we ought to pursue this war for real or drop the expensive, liberty-destroying farce that we've adopted instead of taking the fight to our enemies....
Again, no one but you is arguing with what's going on inside your head.

Your "take" is not really relevant to anything. Of course Ron Paul does not want to infinitely expand the "War on Islam;" he is doing everything he possibly can to completely eliminate it. The fact that you have no idea whatsoever that those two goals are incompatible doesn't mean that you have some sort of amazing insight into the inner meaning of the Constitution; it means you're a scatterbrain.

A few years ago, noted astrophysicist Barbara Boxer tried to "protect" the Space Shuttle program by cancelling all flights until we could attach a trillion-ton shield to protect our spacecraft from the largest possible meteor strikes. But even SHE wasn't enough of a moonbat to demand that we either declare war on every Muslim in the world at the exact same time or else completely dismantle our ability to project force ten feet beyond our own borders.

The whole dance in Iraq is because we allow the enemies' sanctuaries in Syria, Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere to go untouched. What this tells the world is that we are not serious, that is why the gaggle of bandwagon-riders in the UN feel free to stab us in the back at every opportunity. Far more effort is put forward in trying to seem "nice" than in actually being effective in putting a stop to the threat against our nation.

In the meantime you and I get to be subject to arbitrary search if we want to travel by plane - so much for the 4th Amendment - while our government, in the name of the "War on Terror", absolutely refuses to profile terrorists and apply these security measures where they would be effective - that is, apply them almost exclusively to Muslims. It ain't my grandmother who is a threat to ram a plane into a landmark, and the complete inability of our public institutions to acknowledge this core feature of the conflict leaves little reason to stay on board with the current administration policy. In conjunction with these ridiculous measures applied to American citizens, Mexican citizens are encouraged to walk across our border, where they are given jobs, free health care, food, housing, etc. on our dime. This is what is insane, not saying that if we're not going to seriously fight a war we shouldn't spend hundreds of billions pretending to.

I hate to be the one to break this to you but allowing Iraq to lapse back into a terrorist dictatorship, as Ron Paul and the other moonbats keep demanding, isn't really the best way to show Syria and Iran that we mean business. And there is no rational reason to suspect that punishing Mexicans for the "crime" of cheap labor will somehow enhance the sanctity of your carry-on luggage.

Seriously people; can somebody tell me why this forum needs to keep humoring these pernicious lunatics? There are lots of perfectly good homeless shelters out there that are more suited to deal with their needs than this forum will ever be.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Ron Paul is a hate-America sicko who has voted to undermine our troops in a time of war and by doing so has given aid and comfort to the enemy. Back in the 1970s when Ron Paul was still sane, he was my Congressman and I actually voted for him. Now that he has become an insane traitor, he is not worthy of the votes of any patriotic American.