Fred Thompson to lead USA

[williamlayton]

Well, looks like my response to Dee got lost in cyberspace--it was a pity too as I admired it so  .
Let's try again. Not that he will read most of it, if history repeats itself.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian in Republican garb. It is a relationship borne out of deal making between the two. Ron needed a legitimate party backing and the Republicans were desperate for a leg up in a then Democratic state. Ron is from Pennsylvania and carries the stigma of a carpetbagger in some circles--not mine, however.
Ron is an idealist thinker without many ideas on how to, just on what he believes and is nominally a person who, as President, would veto most everything to come across his desk. That in itself does not make him a bad person, however; we do not need idealist as president---well, except in time of absolute calm. On those issues he champions, as history has shown, he has proven a adept deal maker and compromiser, which not the John Wayne image he wishes to portray.
Paul writes too/for/responds/communicates with fringe white supremest groups and his stance on these issues is clouded at best. This brings up some other interesting controversies like his association with/in the Ludwig Van Misis Institute and Llewllyn H. Rockwell, a very clouded think tank.
What is his stance on abortion, REALLY, as he has support from Planned Parenthood, the National Right To Life, and NARAL Pro-Choice. This may be explained by his job as a doctor of OB and GYN---maybe?? I can't determine.
Ron represents, as a member of the House of Representatives (the people's house) a portion of Harris, Brazoria, Ft Bend and Galveston Counties in Texas yet 70% of his financial backing come from out of state. HUMMMM.
Ron writes such things as "The fact that you can't control yourself does not give you the right too pass laws to control everyone else." What does he mean when that is what congress does to many. He is contrary in his thinking. IMO. This was written defending his position on drug enforcement legislation---which is a hallmark position of the Libitarian. Where is he?
I would vote for Ron, as I have stated before, depending on choices offered, which is presently Fred, IMO.
But, Dee, if you are up on Ron as you seemed too have posed, you knew these things. So I am wondering what is the reason for the digging?? I think we both know this answer.
Now your choice is your choice, it is your right---and---your responsibility.
Blessings

[nomosendero]

Ron has no chance anyway.

[Dee]

No WL, I did not know ANY of the things you mentioned. I will check it out.

[williamlayton]

TM
My take is that we all have a bit of phonyism in us, or, none of us can be put on a pedestal, we all lack and contraryism is in all, none are without fault.
In a number of ways---maybe not as far to the right as Ron is in his philosophy--I agree with his rhetoric.
I am just not convinced, at this point, that he has a plan--much as I might agree with Libertarian philosophy, I see no plan.
It is much the same as the Hippie generation of my day--it sounds good, feels good, makes you happy to hear it, however; it just doesn't work. No plan on how to make it work.
Little government has appeal and I think it can be shrunk---but; each person you discuss this with has an idea of what needs to be shrunk and where but there is no consensus of appeal.
There will be a time when true idealism works---I yearn for the day, but; it will not come from the mind of man.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

I know little about Rockwell or the Misis Institute so it is hard to know what influence is exerted.
Ron, from the little I read of him and some hearsay, is pretty headstrong.Comes a cross pretty simplistic, which too me, is a little out of character for someone with some of his connections--this throws me off a bit. I gues what I am saying is I don't trust good ol boy politicians very easily. No one garnishes the power and position he has by being simplistic or idealistic--that following would be too easy, IMO.
Then again--I don't trust politicians and am always wondering about the angles they play.
I stand too be corrected.
Blessings

[Keith L]

Q: How do you know when a politician is lying?
A: His/her lips are moving.

That is simplistic also.  They could be writing.

[williamlayton]

A preacher had a teen-aged son.
He wanted to get a feeling for the boys thoughts, his leanings and possibly what his sons interests were.
He came upon a plan. He would place a Bible, dollar bill, bottle of whiskey and a Playboy in the boys room and video how the son reacted.
Later the preacher was watching the tape.
His son walked into the room and viewed all that was on his desk before him.
After a short deliberation the young man walked to the desk and picked up the bible, tucking it under his arm.
The preacher smiled--thinking the young son would be a man of God.
Then the young man stuck the dollar in his pocket.
The preacher thought his son would be a thief.
Then the young man picked up the whiskey and took a long pull.
The preacher was afraid that the son would be a boozer.
The son finally picked up the Playboy and leafed thru it and then stuck it under his arm also.
The preacher broke down in tears---it was obvious the young man would be a politician.
Blessings