After months of playing coy, the veteran actor launched his candidacy Hollywood style and with a multiphase campaign roll out. He confirmed his bid to Leno in Los Angeles — "I'm running for president of the United States" — while his eight rivals gathered in New Hampshire to debate without him. Then, he released the online video. A tour of early primary states begins Thursday afternoon in Iowa.
The former Tennessee senator harkened to the GOP glory days of 1994 when he and other Republicans seized control of Congress and established an equal counterpoint to Democrat Bill Clinton in the White House. Now an official candidate for the Republican nomination, Thompson promised to return the party to better times.
On Leno's show, Thompson called Giuliani, Romney and Arizona Sen. John McCain formidable but added: "I think I will be, too" as he rejected the notion that he was jumping in too late. Poking at his rivals, who have been running since January, he added: "If you can't get your message out in a few months, you're probably not ever going to get it out."
In the online video, Thompson emphasized his longtime adherence to states' rights, limited government and individual liberties. He also countered the perception that he is unwilling to do the hard work necessary to run for office, much less serve as president. "I'm going to give this campaign all that I have to give," he promised.
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 06 Sep 2007 15:47
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Hopefully this won't get yanked from youtube. Seems like half the videos you post do if it comes from a tv show, but here is Fred announcing on the tonight show.
__________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 07 Sep 2007 15:03
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
I still don't see what the fuss is over this guy. The R's have already dropped people from the race who were harder working and probably better candidates.
When you take a good look at Fred, it is easy to see how the romanticising over Reagan into something he wasn't has gone too far. Reagan was lazy, but somehow- Thompson seems even lazier. Reagan was a B actor, but Thompson has played one role consistantly: crotchety old white guy. Reagan cut his political teeth helping out Goldwater- Thompson cut his trying to bail out Nixon.
Seriously, do we need ANOTHER candidate riding a wave of character stereotypes? Hasn't that sewn enough destruction? If being down home on TV actually contributed to a good presidency, then W would have a 90% approval rating. But it doesn't, actual decision making determines that- so we find W consistantly in the low 30's. I cannot concieve of how Fred Thompson is the guy to bail us out of what political theater has caused.
Please conservatives, don't try to elect another bonehead based on an acting career. Why not Huckabee?
Posted: 07 Sep 2007 15:08
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
It's not his acting career alone, it's electability plus conservative voting record. It's not a perfect voting record but I'll give him a low A nonetheless. He's been pretty constistent especially when compared to Romney, and like I said he's proven to be conservative by his voting record except for at least one thing I know about.
There maybe a few out there even more conservative and so on, but without any ability to get their message out via the newsmedia. They don't have as much a chance. Either you are famous or you got the dough. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 07 Sep 2007 21:55
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Fair enough. We're obviously going to want different things out of the President in 08.
But I think if the GOP beleived what it says about poverty and compassionate conservatism- Mike Huckabee would already have the attention you're talking about. And hey- I don't say that lightly- Huckabee believes the same nutty stuff you do about most social issues.
But mark my words- if we get stick with the same policies we've got now, the country is going to be in very, very bad shape.
Posted: 07 Sep 2007 22:40
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Huckabee believes the same nutty stuff you do about most social issues.
Yeah, me and those brand new fangled social ideas I have. Where do I get this stuff, Leave it to beaver? What am I thinking? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 08 Sep 2007 16:42
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Oh grow a pair. You talk trash about liberals all the time.
Regardless, I have heard Huckabee advocate your side of our creationism vs. researched science debate on programs as hostile to him as "Real Time With Bill Maher" and he actually won over THAT audience with his very reasonable answers. No kidding, I wish WE had a Governor from Arkansas who knew how to speak to everyone- not just his own team.
Oh, wait- we did. If only we could run HIM again.
Regardless, I really want to believe that the GOP is not just run by a bunch of evil CEOs with foreign investments who spend every summer dreamingup new campaigns about gay people, so rednecks will vote away the few regulations that keep them safe from Wall Street. I really want to believe they are an excellent counterbalance to the wackos in my own party.
But so far, I haven't seen that. Huckabee spoke about how his ideas are not well received on Wall Street, but people like what they hear on Main Street. He talks about a Christian duty to watch out of the poor and each other. I can get behind that- but I don' hear any enthusiasm for the guy- just that con artist mayor who keeps promising he'll kill everyone to make us safe and Fred Thompson in his latest role as a lazy old rich guy. Lastly, there's the Republican version of John Kerry. Whoooopeeee.
Posted: 08 Sep 2007 18:54
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Look I've seen Huckabee on TV, and from the little I've seen on Fox he is a good speaker, and he seemed to be ok on ideaology, but I've haven't done a whole lot of research on him. He did come across as a stand up guy. If he's as conservative as Fred or more so then it is a shame he isn't getting more attention. Sometimes the establishment picks it's favorites and we peons have no control. I think giuliani is an establishment pick and Romney is muscling his way in with a lot of money and probably a lot of hard work, but I don't trust him to stay true to his values, and giuliani's values aren't close enough to mine.
But don't knock Fred. The grass is always greener on the other side. We always want what we don't have, and I hope you aren't just getting behind huckabee because you don't think he has a chance.
Now
Quote: Oh grow a pair. You talk trash about liberals all the time.
I'm fixin to talk some more. You know at least I don't get my social views from some old 60's dudes that got their way of viewing the world from several bad acid trips. At least my morals have been around a few thousand years, tested, and found to work every time they are tried. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 09 Sep 2007 20:56
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: At least my morals have been around a few thousand years, tested, and found to work every time they are tried.
Like in Iraq?
I'm never sure what morals you're talking about.
Terri Schaivo must be saved because life is precious, but you don't bat an eyelid when thousands of people die painfully over the whims of a crooked politician?
Fred Thompson, Ronald Reagan and Rudy Giuliani can marry and divorce on a whim and somehow its gay people who are destroying the sanctity of marriage?
Regarding this:
Quote: You know at least I don't get my social views from some old 60's dudes that got their way of viewing the world from several bad acid trips.
Uhhh... good for you? I don't think you've ever asked where I get my social views from, but I assure you- it isn't the whims of other people if that is what you're suggesting. Old hippies are certainly welcome to my point of view if they like, but I found my personal ethics on my own.
Generally, I like Huckabee not because he looks like he'd lose, but rather because he seems like he'd be bearable if he won. He seems to have some respect for the other side. He doesn't pick stupid fights. He concedes that he doesn't have all the answers, which is probably the most common logical answer that we actually hear the least. He isn't a jerk. I admire that.
And especially on that note- I feel bad for so bluntly telling you to "grow a pair" and for calling your views crazy, Tim. That was mean and I apologize if I hurt your feelings. It is crazy of me to go on and on about doing things right- while dragging the debate into the mud. You do a good job with this website- and the least I could do is be a little more polite.
Posted: 10 Sep 2007 14:41
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: I'm never sure what morals you're talking about.
I'm talking about social views.
Quote: you don't bat an eyelid when thousands of people die painfully over the whims of a crooked politician?
That's a stupid thing to say. For real. Nobody likes war. The difference is we just don't agree as to the factors of said war.
Quote: Fred Thompson, Ronald Reagan and Rudy Giuliani can marry and divorce on a whim and somehow its gay people who are destroying the sanctity of marriage?
I think this is a good representation of what Jesus meant when he said, "Judge not lest ye be judged". You are always wanting gay rights, but you judge people that get divorced. How hypocritical and preposterous!
Further how long was Ronald Reagan and Nancy married? How many decades did they stick together through thick and thin? How about the fact Nancy stood by Reagan even when his health was faded and alzeimers had taken over? So all those years and years of marriage prove nothing because Reagan had went through a divorce a short time after World War II.
It's like you saying I can't tell people smoking is bad and exercise is good because I used to smoke. All the hours of exercise I do means nothing because I screwed up on one thing. I should just sit around and eat cupcakes all day long and fried chicken. Maybe start smoking again. Wonder how long it will take before I weigh 500 pounds and die of a heart attack? But hey, at least I won't be a hypocrite.
Give me a break. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 10 Sep 2007 20:18
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Social views have less to do with morals and more to do with what your neighbors find acceptible, hence the social part. Morals aren't an issue voted on by any group(and before you say it), or just an entry in some particular book. They are something you learn internally.
Quote: you judge people that get divorced
Wait, I thought divorce went against the good book too and if that's the case, then the book made that judgement before he did. Remember that judge not line the next time you pick some label to lord your 'morality' over like the gays. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 10 Sep 2007 20:29
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Wait, I thought divorce went against the good book too
The good book isn't to be used to hit people on the head, it's to be used to help people avoid making mistakes that cause them harm in life plus to point out that we are all sinners that need a Saviour.
Quote: the next time you pick some label to lord your 'morality' over like the gays.
I'm getting bored with getting beat up over gays. I think it's a sin, people choose to do it. They make their decision to pursue that lifestyle, and I have a problem with it being pushed into the mainstream of society via tv, movies, books, or even much worse scenarios in the educational system.
End of story. Stop the sterotypical liberal rant. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 10 Sep 2007 21:01
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
You needing a saviour does not mean anyone else needs one. You deciding to believe you are a sinner does not mean anyone else believes it or even should.
What you think should be on TV or not is probably a world of difference from the next person-just going by what you said Iraq should be watching I give my personal guarantee on that. There is a long list of differences created by people having different faiths and if you want real equality it starts with being able to accept that others have a right to their own beliefs.
If your book is not about hitting people in the head, than just accept this already. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 11 Sep 2007 16:33
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: You needing a saviour does not mean anyone else needs one.
You need to argue that one with God. He's the one that said, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God"
Quote: What you think should be on TV or not is probably a world of difference from the next person-just going by what you said Iraq should be watching I give my personal guarantee on that.
I think if we want to promote peaceful relations we really shouldn't show them the latest on the blond bombs all day long.
Quote: if you want real equality it starts with being able to accept that others have a right to their own beliefs.
Your definition of accept is different than mine. You seem to believe for me to accept others I have to agree with everything they say. Can I not disagree and still be friends with people of different religions? You seem to think it's ok to disagree with Christians, and still call yourself tolerant. I never understood this. How can you be intolerant of intolerance and still be tolerant? How come your intolerance is still tolerance while mine according to you is intolerance by virtue of my disagreement with others? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 11 Sep 2007 18:52
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Your book said that, not God. I'll be glad to argue that with him too if he shows up.
Why would our culture be respresented by nick at nite? You wouldn't offer these people actual art or literature?
Quote: Your definition of accept is different than mine
Apparently.
Quote: You seem to believe for me to accept others I have to agree with everything they say.
Not at all.
Quote: Can I not disagree and still be friends with people of different religions?
Of course-I would hope we're still friends.
Quote: You seem to think it's ok to disagree with Christians,
I disagree with all or nothing situations, offerings made just to garner mental sway and anyone who tells me that their 'way' is the only way and better than all others, especially in matters of faith. It's not Christianity I have a problem with, just pushy Christians-there's a difference.
Quote: How can you be intolerant of intolerance and still be tolerant? How come your intolerance is still tolerance while mine according to you is intolerance by virtue of my disagreement with others?
I have no idea what kind of answer you expect here. Can you rephrase the question please? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 11 Sep 2007 19:47
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: You wouldn't offer these people actual art or literature?
Alright what would you suggest we offer mr. genius?
Quote: I disagree with all or nothing situations, offerings made just to garner mental sway and anyone who tells me that their 'way' is the only way and better than all others, especially in matters of faith. It's not Christianity I have a problem with, just pushy Christians-there's a difference.
Sorry, that's what I believe. It would be pointless if a religion was just a matter of taste vs a matter of truth.
How can you preach your brand of tolerance while being intolerant of my beliefs? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 11 Sep 2007 20:47
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
How about some Superman comics for one, mr tool?
Religion is a matter of taste over truth- when does faith become truth exactly and why is your faith more truthful than anyone else's?
What am I preaching in your opinion that is contrary to 'your tolerance'? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 12 Sep 2007 16:40
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Religion is a matter of taste over truth- when does faith become truth exactly and why is your faith more truthful than anyone else's?
Religion that is based on taste is worthless. If one doesn't believe in their religion as fact then wouldn't they be wasting their time.
The radical muslims think we should all convert or die. Now that's what I call intolerance.
Quote: What am I preaching in your opinion that is contrary to 'your tolerance'?
You are intolerant of my intolerance. If I'm intolerant and you are tolerant, then shouldn't you be tolerant of all opinions including mine? Since your definition of tolerance means everyone is right and no one is wrong, then how can you argue with me since I must be right as much as you? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 12 Sep 2007 21:39
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Tim, the only two things I've been intolerant about here are;
Lies-like Bill O'Reilly being impartial or our country being started as a theocracy
Someone trying to convert me __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 13 Sep 2007 01:22
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
To be fair;
I may have misunderstood what you were saying and you might have misuderstood me. If it was my mistake, then I am sorry.
What were we originally discussing? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 13 Sep 2007 16:07
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Well let's start from scratch then, but let's go ahead and finish the definition of tolerance and what it truly means.
To me tolerance means, I respect you regardless of your religion or lack there of, but I don't have to agree with you neither do I have to bend on any principles that I hold dear. I hold the right to attempt to change your mind, as do you. You don't have to listen, and neither do I.
Intolerance means if you don't believe what someone else believes then you are imprisoned, attacked physically, hated, abused, etc.
Today tolerance seems to mean, that we aren't allowed to have our own individual convictions, and we are not allowed to share our own individual convictions. If we do we are labeled intolerant. Teens are especially afraid but even adults to mention anything of substance for fear of being rediculed and labeled. Is that the world we want?
And as far as our country being a theocracy. I never said that. I said it was based on Christian fundamentals. Mentioning God on public property was never supposed to be a crime. We are supposed to be an enlightened society one that tolerates ideas, yet the mere mention of religion causes hate and anger.
If someone wanted to shut you up by use of force. I would have to stand up, as much as I would hate to, and fight for your right to speak. That's what this country is about. Without total freedom to express ideas and philosophies then it all dies on the vine. We all become mind numbed robots. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
At least my morals have been around a few thousand years, tested, and found to work every time they are tried.
