Fred doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk

[SHOOTALL]

if you have nothing good to say ----- say it about the other guys candidate ! WANG !

[jh45gun]

Dee you crack me up you and others bash anyone here that is NOT Ron Paul yet all I said was being booed cannot be a good thing and you are saying I bashed him??? Not really being booed is not good no matter who you are or the circumstances of why your are booed. Considering he was that does not bode well for him but in the same respect I would say that about any of the Candidates no matter who they were if they got booed.  I take no particular enjoyment he got booed I was curious as to why as I could not watch the debate.

[nomosendero]

nomosendero, Paul is not "passing the buck" when he says the states should deal with certain issues. He is saying; RESTORE STATES RIGHTS! Hell, we should all be Libertarians. I don't need the government to take care of me. I need them to get out of my way so I can take care of myself.

I am as big on States rights as anyone & alot of my ancestors in AR, TN & the great Republic of TX. fought for those rights.

I am not ignoring him totally yet, I would like to see someone with the courage to say something is right or wrong without worrying about the polls,
take a stand. They are all weak at that BTW. I can't put my weight behind any of them yet, I like Hunter & Tancredo, but they are non factors.

[jh45gun]

Tell the good folks of WI about Libertarians thanks to one of them Tommy Thompson's Brother Ed who ran on the libertarian ticket we wound up with our Demoncrat Liberal Governor who Vetoed our Concealed Carry Bill TWICE! as he split the Republican Vote. Right now the way I feel about that party I would not walk across the street to pee on one of them if they were on fire!

[nw_hunter]

Tell the good folks of WI about Libertarians thanks to one of them Tommy Thompson's Brother Ed who ran on the libertarian ticket we wound up with our Demoncrat Liberal Governor who Vetoed our Concealed Carry Bill TWICE! as he split the Republican Vote. Right now the way I feel about that party I would not walk across the street to pee on one of them if they were on fire!

Sorry you feel that way! Would you have peed on T. Jefferson, G Washington or any of those Patriots if they were on fire?
They thought the way modern Libertarians do today! Until this election, I have voted Republican, and The ones I help put in office have been just as bad as their Democrat counterparts. If a Republican candidate loses to a Democrat, it's his fault for not getting his or her point across.Don't blame it on a Constitutional contender! If Ron Paul or someone like him runs against the likes of the Republican, or Democrap front runners, they will get my vote. I have given up on the Neo Conservative Republican party!

[Dee]

Tell the good folks of WI about Libertarians thanks to one of them Tommy Thompson's Brother Ed who ran on the libertarian ticket we wound up with our Demoncrat Liberal Governor who Vetoed our Concealed Carry Bill TWICE! as he split the Republican Vote. Right now the way I feel about that party I would not walk across the street to pee on one of them if they were on fire!

Sorry you feel that way! Would you have peed on T. Jefferson, G Washington or any of those Patriots if they were on fire?
They thought the way modern Libertarians do today! Until this election, I have voted Republican, and The ones I help put in office have been just as bad as their Democrat counterparts. If a Republican candidate loses to a Democrat, it's his fault for not getting his or her point across.Don't blame it on a Constitutional contender! If Ron Paul or someone like him runs against the likes of the Republican, or Democrap front runners, they will get my vote. I have given up on the Neo Conservative Republican party!

On this you are correct sir! I too have given up on BUSINESS AS USUAL politicians. And as I have said; I had rather LOSE WITH AS WINNER, than WIN WITH A LOSER. Some believer they are more INTELLIGENT by voting for the lesser of two evils, because they have a chance, when in actuality they have mere lowered their standards, or perhaps maintained them, depending.

[ironglow]

  It appears that we each have different views of "conservatism"...and that is undoubtedly where disagreements arise. Some folks interpret conservatism as purely a constitutional question..adhereing to the Constitution, especially where state's rights are concerned. I agree with that and readily recognize where the feds have performed"power grabs" over the years. Part of conservatism is to do our best to assure that such power grabs do not succeed..in either direction.

    Myself and many others I am sure, view conservatism as being much more comprehensive than just that narrow view.

  Webster's Collegiate says this about conservatism:
       
  1) A disposition in politics to preserve what is established.  2) A political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.
 
       Being a watchdog for the Constitution is an important part of being a conservative, but (IMO) protecting and preserving the institutions and practices that made our nation great for the first 200 years, should better assure that we may remain a great nation for the next 200 years..
   
   As we study the scene of the our history for the last 350 years, we found that certain things worked very well, and I for one (and many others), see no reason for changing such institutions. No real conservative is quick to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", as many liberals are inclined to do.

  Some typical things that have traditionally described "Americans"..and should be preserved for the good of the nation.

     1) Individualism, operation within the acceptable constraints of polite society (as demonstrated for the first couple centuries).

     2) Respect for the Constitution and the rights contained therein; any citizen should view his "civil responsibilities"..just a firmly as he clings to his "civil rights".
        Example of "civil responsibilities"..Defending and helping less fortunate or infirm, defending our nation against aggressors, maintaining traditions that have made this nation great (e.g. interwoven faith, normal family as basic building foundation of society etc.)

    3) A healthy respect for decent, peace promoting faiths. No denomination or group should hold any position of authority over others, but a general reverence for
    God as the Creator/Sustainer of all that is..has guided our nation for it's first two very dynamic, centuries.

   4) A common language makes for a common people with common aims (e.g. helps to create and sustain a culture). Look at any nation of the past..
   When nations were formed , they were usually framed by a couple factors ..common language, traditions and geographic barriers, such as mountain ranges, rivers,
   lakes or oceans and alliances of tribes sharing common virtues (or lack of them).
  We should maintain a common language, common aims for our nation and "common sense" in dealing with any of these issues.
   Having command of a second or third language is good..but as a nation we should do all commerce and social conduct inone language. Many of our forefathers, including signers to the Constitution were multi-lingual..but after some debater proved they had wisdom enough to settle upon ONE language..English.

    "Multiculturalism" is a divider and a curse..no person with a smattering of gray matter should fall for that Trojan horse !!

  5) Conservatism means preserving our heritage, whether it be in the sport of hunting, the churches operating honorably in the town square, the ice cream social,
    families composed of a married man & woman and children (as God provides). frowning upon immoral practices that we have learned through the centuries to be destructive for any society..

  6) A conservative should also be an avid historian..we can review history and find what was detrimental and keep those elements to a minimum.
    Historically we know that such things as pedophilia, slavery, homosexuality , drug addiction, rebellious groups, criminal gangs and a myriad of other things can and
   have, destroyed other cultures. We must work to educate, legislate and/or discourage these unhealthy things from prospering.

  7) Conservative means having a healthy respect for our environment..but not going so nutty about it, that we throw out the baby with the bath water..

  Conservative means that the Constitution is not a "living document"..meant to be read and interpreted in whatever convoluted, biased way any splinter group or wry
  individual desires .
  Interpretation should be made according to the mindset of the framers, and we have much from them in such things as The Federalist Papers, personal memoirs and
  journals...

  We must preserve the Constitution as the authors intended..that is why they made amending of the Constitution so difficult..good thinking..

      Just a few random thoughts on conservatism....the Constitution, yes..but more than the Constitution..

[Dee]

That kinda leaves out the voting for the lessor of two evils doesn't it.? That kinda also leaves out voting for a candidate "I can live with", whom has changed horses MORE THAN ONCE.
Only ONE candidate is riding the same horse he rode into town on, and it AIN'T Freddy. His (Freddy's) voting record on 2nd Amendment alone is fifty fifty.
His "STUNTS" of going to gun shows "now" that he is running for office seems strange that he has no reports of ever going to one BEFORE, he decided to run for president.
This so called public servant i.e. patriot, LEFT D.C. for HOLLYWOOD, where I think he better fits in. He can pretend there, to be something he is not, and get paid for it, without affecting us around the country, with his going to the highest bidder, mentality, and work ethic.

[muskeg13]

Conservatism?  States Rights?  Adhering to the Constitution?  If you merged all three, what would you have?  While this is going to be a waste of time, since my dog probably has a better grasp of the concept of federalism than most Paulistas, here goes anyway:

"Our Constitution innovatively guarantees our liberties by spreading power among the three branches of the federal government, and between the federal government and the states. In considering any action by the government, we must always ask two questions: is the government better equipped than the private sector to perform the task and, if so, what level of government (federal or state) ought to do it. Washington is not the seat of all wisdom.

We developed institutions that allowed these principles to take root and flourish: a government of limited powers derived from, and assigned to, first the people, then the states, and finally the national government. A government strong enough to protect us and do its job competently, but modest and humane enough to let the people govern themselves. Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and - with too much power - such centralization has a way of compounding our problems.

The federalist construct of strong states and limited federal government put in place by our Founders was intended to give states the freedom to experiment and innovate. It envisions states as laboratories in competition with each other to develop ideas and programs to benefit their people, to see what works and what does not.

The Supreme Court sometimes ignores the written Constitution to reflect its view of the times. So does Congress, which routinely forgets that our checks and balances, the separation of powers and our system of federalism are designed to diffuse power and protect the liberties of our people. Before anything else, folks in Washington ought to be asking first and foremost, "Should government be doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?" But they don't.  The result has been decades of growth in the size, scope and function of national government. Today's governance of mandates, pre-emptions, regulations, and federal programs bears little resemblance to the balanced system the Framers intended.

What's needed are some basic rules to restrain the federal rule-makers.  A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected."

Who said this?  It wasn't Ron Paul.  Federalism is one of the key principles that have guided Fred Thompson his whole political career, and Thompson's steadfast adherence to this principle led Rush Limbaugh to declare that Fred Thompson is the only true conservative in the race.

http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=Principles

[ironglow]

   The key reason I had in mind during the last Pres election was; What kind of Supreme Court justices will this person likely nominate ?

  Generally, Supreme Court justices are greatly affecting our lives long after the Pres that appointed them has left office..

   I voted according to that, am not disappointed, considering the "justices" we could have gotten!!

[jh45gun]

Dee I read somewhere that he did in the past go to gun shows maybe when he was running for Senator but this is not just a stunt for being President he has gone before.

[nw_hunter]

Conservatism?  States Rights?  Adhering to the Constitution?  If you merged all three, what would you have?  While this is going to be a waste of time, since my dog probably has a better grasp of the concept of federalism than most Paulistas, here goes anyway:

"Our Constitution innovatively guarantees our liberties by spreading power among the three branches of the federal government, and between the federal government and the states. In considering any action by the government, we must always ask two questions: is the government better equipped than the private sector to perform the task and, if so, what level of government (federal or state) ought to do it. Washington is not the seat of all wisdom.

We developed institutions that allowed these principles to take root and flourish: a government of limited powers derived from, and assigned to, first the people, then the states, and finally the national government. A government strong enough to protect us and do its job competently, but modest and humane enough to let the people govern themselves. Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and - with too much power - such centralization has a way of compounding our problems.

The federalist construct of strong states and limited federal government put in place by our Founders was intended to give states the freedom to experiment and innovate. It envisions states as laboratories in competition with each other to develop ideas and programs to benefit their people, to see what works and what does not.

The Supreme Court sometimes ignores the written Constitution to reflect its view of the times. So does Congress, which routinely forgets that our checks and balances, the separation of powers and our system of federalism are designed to diffuse power and protect the liberties of our people. Before anything else, folks in Washington ought to be asking first and foremost, "Should government be doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?" But they don't.  The result has been decades of growth in the size, scope and function of national government. Today's governance of mandates, pre-emptions, regulations, and federal programs bears little resemblance to the balanced system the Framers intended.

What's needed are some basic rules to restrain the federal rule-makers.  A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected."

Who said this?  It wasn't Ron Paul.  Federalism is one of the key principles that have guided Fred Thompson his whole political career, and Thompson's steadfast adherence to this principle led Rush Limbaugh to declare that Fred Thompson is the only true conservative in the race.

http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=Principles

(PAULISTAS)? LOL! I guess I would be considered a Paulista, but I do know the meaning of Federalism.
I'm sure Ron Paul knows. I think some people overlook the simplicity of electing an honest person to office. If they have been in office before, just look at their voting record. Makes NO difference what they say......It's what they actually do,that matters. Ron Paul not only knows the meaning of Federalism, but is is a Federalist. Your dog, has been tuning in Rush too often. He needs to go on line more, and check out Lew Rockwell!

[ironglow]

NW hunter;

   I took your advice and checked out Lew Rockwell at  lewrockwell.com   ...

   As a result...surprisingly, or not so surprisingly..I am farther from the Ron Paul bandwagon than I ever was..
     
        Here are some things I drew from that website:

  A) Lew Rockwell... was once an aide (some would say "gopher") to Ron Paul..

  B) Lew Rockwell... sets up a website that looks like a Ron Paul for President website.

  C) Lew Rockwell... wins Ron Paul's "First freedom" website award !..What a coincidence !

  D) Lew Rockwell..founder AND President of ..Ludwig Von Mises institute

  E) Lew Rockwell's..Ludwig Von Mises institute publishes "scholarly" articles (e.g. proving that the "Jetsons"  cartoon figures were under cover war mongers)

         <  www.mises.org/story/1920 >

  F)  Lew Rockwell's...Ludwig Von Mises institute has a fellow named Murray N. Rothbard as some kind of icon..selling T-shirts, back packs ..and possibly bras
   with Rothbard's likeness imprinted upon them..

  G)  Lew Rockwell..describes himself as " unapologetically Idiosyncratic"  ...some call that a  "one-track-mind"...?
   

     For the rest of us, just Google search either Lew Rockwell   or  Murray N. Rothbard       Yes; do a Google and get a giggle !

      ..Or do a Wickipedia on them ..

   
   One thing for sure, both of those guys provide a warm, fuzzy haven for conspiracy theorists..a feast of ideas to dream upion...

 
     I don't necessarily blame Ron Paul for the ramblings..he can't help what a former gopher does !

[Dee]

The ACTUAL VOTING RECORDS of all candidates is lost to the discussion and apparently carries no weight. Obviously everyone enjoys being lied to, and promised things that NEVER come to pass. They go for the SHINY STUFF. Campaign promises that won't, or cannot be kept, and the candidates personna. To hell with their past voting records, and performance. SO! What is the use of discussing? I give up.

[SHOOTALL]

when does FRED walk seems to be dancing alot !

[nw_hunter]

The ACTUAL VOTING RECORDS of all candidates is lost to the discussion and apparently carries no weight. Obviously everyone enjoys being lied to, and promised things that NEVER come to pass. They go for the SHINY STUFF. Campaign promises that won't, or cannot be kept, and the candidates personna. To hell with their past voting records, and performance. SO! What is the use of discussing? I give up.

ME TOO! What's the point? I need to get back to the outdoor, shooter type threads anyway..... Have fun, and save the world folks!