No bashing: What is Fred Thompson's platform?

morons wrote:

Why is divorce a sign that you have no family values? Like 60 percent of American families get divorced. And the ones that stick it out because of their religion as just as miserable.

Defend marriage! Abolish divorce!

Mtn Dew wrote:

Ron Paul is the only one I've seen that's not got serious problems.

the serious problems he has are that no one has heard of him, no one is planning to vote for him and Rush has told his audience that he has no chance to win.

i would count those as serious problems.

for those in the real world, the conservative choice will fall as a choice between fred thomson and mitt.

which of the two is a better choice? i have no idea. Let them fight it out and we can find out. The only other candidate that has a chance on the republican side is rudy.

i do think it is interesting that the same guy in this thread keeps posting comments that are anti fred thompson. to me that indicates he is pretty concerned about him. if he did not see him as a threat he would not say anything, instead he keeps posting with the same phrases and poor grammar.

fred seems to be doing all the righ things so far. he is doing everything he can to invoke the reagan mantle. he is leaving to go to england to meet with thatcher this week.

if he can assume the position as the heir to reagan he will be in a good position. mitt just cant seem to do it.

the amnesty for illegals and mccain-feingold is killing john mccain.

rudy just does not appeal to social conservatives.

i do think people are so hungry for another choice they read into fred what they want to see. when he has to start spelling out some solid positions will be the real test for him.

and that day is coming soon. it will be interesting to see if he is up to the task.

legally blond wrote:

get off your white horse and stop thinking you will elect a candidate who will interfer with women's reproductive choices, because it won't happen, and I'd love to see the plan in place you have to control such as thing. moron.

Some might argue that the women made her reproductive choice when she had sex. You don't get to axe a child at 1 year old do you? Well for conservative "pro-lifers" for whom life begins at conception that scenerio is basically the same as abortion. The issue is certainly not as cut and dry as the monikers "pro-choice" and "pro-life" would lead you to believe.

And to that other poster talking about zygotes: if you are reffering to a woman's period than what is being flushed out is not a zygote but an unfertilized egg.

P.S. Well done Steven Colbert

doesn't he have cancer?

Coelacanth wrote:

Let me know when there's a scientific consensus on when a zygote becomes a living, independent organism.

Keep in mind that many zygotes are flushed out of the uterus every month. Should women be locked up for having murderous reproductive organs? Silly, of course, but last I checked, there is no scientific consensus that a fertilized egg is an independent, living organism.

First of all miscarriages don't happen every month. Secondly, the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion is analogous to the difference between death by natural cause and murder -- one is unintentional and the other is intentional. Finally, if you don't believe that human life begins at conception and not at some arbitrary point made up by NARAL to make you feel better then you are being disingenuous. It would be more honest to say "if I can't see what's being done then I can pretend it's not actually happening."

I'm no obgyn, but I hink ha poster was refering to zygotes that don't attach to the uterus' lining nd get flushed out.

morons wrote:

Why is divorce a sign that you have no family values? Like 60 percent of American families get divorced. And the ones that stick it out because of their religion as just as miserable.

well three divorces and infidelity and cashing in on 9/11 doesn't make one a moral person. just in my mentally challenged religious moral opinion.

[quote]dizzy-dub wrote:

It should be \"interfere\". Even so, it should not be a woman\'s choice as to whether her baby is torn apart limb from limb. We live in America, the land of opportunity. Everyone has a chance to live. I hate jackasses like you.

YOU are pathetic ! Are you and your reproductive Crew going to pay for all these unwanted children with your TAX money ! (didn\'t think so)

step up with a PLAN to deal with the utter mess your IDEAS would bring about !!!!

this is the issue PRO LIFERS never talk about !!! Also if you are for every life THEN YOU NEED TO START RIOTING TO GET OUR SOLDIERS OUT OF IRAQ, before they die FOR NO REASON !!!

Lets take care of the people currently living in this country with health care and homes and some decent jobs !

Why do you feel the need to control other people\'s lives and choices ?

Are you the same people who want to build a fence to keep immigrants out when your grand parents were immigrants before you ?

you have ONE IDEA with no solution !!!

one last thing I have seen What YOU people can do as I watched the Atlanta olympic bomb go off right in front of me ! Your boy, yeah PRO LIFE guy SPEWED his hate trying to send a message that ABORTION IS BAD AND ABORTION clinics are bad by killing one and wounding hundreds ! The saddest sight I have ever seen !

let\'s see I am glad we have CHOICE over narrow minded control freaks otherwise known as PRO LIFERS !

This poll puts Fred Thompson at the top of the Republican polls for the 1st time.

To answer the original question posed on this thread, Fred Thompson's platform is that he's not Hillary Clinton and he doesn't carry any of the baggage that the current crop of Republican nominees carry. Could be a winning combination.

Question(s. So because their parents can't take care of them we should never give them a chance to live? Should we go around to orphanages and kill all of the orphaned children because they weren't wanted? What about kids born into poverty? We wouldn't want them to be a drain on society now would we?

Since you asked for a plan here is mine (it is prob not a very good one, so go easy).

1) Comprehensive sex ed. for all high schoolers (forms of birth control and their effectiveness, seriousness of sexual intercourse, etc) so that when someone decides to have sex they are acurately informed of the reproductive risks involved.

2) Improve the education system in the poorest communities. Easier said then done, I know, but if we continue to stimulate poverty with wealthfare the class gap will continue to grow. Education can save this.

3) Encourage adoption of US babies. Change the cultural paradigm for the middle class: don't go running to the fertility center when you have children, go to the adoption agency.

I don't think riots are a good idea, as you mention below, violence for non violent reasons is ludacris. The cause is noble however.

Yeah ok, provide them with jobs, a house, and health care but don't get involved in their lives. So you want an activist government without the power to prevent murder?

And BTW, I don't want to get involved in a woman's private life. They can choose to have sex all they want, it is their body after all, but as soon as another body starts growing inside them I would say that the choice has been made and it then becomes the duty of the law to protect it.

No.

Just because I few crazies suport an idea, does not make the idea crazy.

you lost me when you thought Iraq was a noble cause !

Your talking some serious mindest changes there. most pro life people hate SEX ed and abstinence only does not work.

Also sounds as if you don't have kids ! Most people want there own kids and will bend over backwards to do so.

The whole orphans thing is just wrong, but if you want to know who takes care of them the state ! not you and not me.Also why are not avocating that we take all kids away from bad parents. beacuse if abortions were illegal they mostly that is what we would get is BAD parents wh don't care about their kids !

Your last point is terrible you are a man wanting to control women for your peace of mind. This is the saddest pro life point ever. Let it go it is not your's anymore once you have sex !

good luck with your WAR ON CHOICE hope it goes as well as the war on drugs and terror !

I personally enjoy debating with liberal morons (like you), however in this case I find it difficult to follow your argument. With all your RANDOM phrases in caps, and rambling senteces, It is hard to follow you...

I was referring to the anti Iraq movement being a noble cause not the Iraq war. And I'm not some bible waving zealot (which is why I believe in sex ed). The orphans thing is supposed to be "just wrong" it is an extension of your argument that choice includes the right to terminate the life of your future child.

Personnaly I would rather be the son of a bad father than never exist at all

"Your last point is terrible you are a man wanting to control women for your peace of mind. This is the saddest pro life point ever. Let it go it is not your's anymore once you have sex!"

So a man's child is not really his? He has no right to decide how it is raised? Whether or not it lives or dies? Assuming they both chose willing to have sex, why does only the woman get to choose?

And I like choice, in fact I am pro-choice, I believe in a woman's right to choose...whether or not she has sex.

You did get one thing right, I don't have children.

"So a man's child is not really his? He has no right to decide how it is raised? Whether or not it lives or dies? Assuming they both chose willing to have sex, why does only the woman get to choose?"

One of the rights disingenuous ploys is to call a pre-viable fetus a child. That's just not so. It's a fetus. It may be alive, but prior to viability, the woman's right trumps the fetus' rights. When the fetus gets older (ie becomes viable) the rights are reversed. At that point, the woman cannot choose to have an abortion. You make it sound like a woman in her third trimester can just walk in and abort, she can't.

As for men not getting to choose, that is another misrepresentation. Men have the same rights to their children as women. Notice I said children. When you have something growing in you, you will get to make the decision--at least until the fetus is viable.

Oh yeah...nobody is forcing you to get an abortion or to even have sex.

Keith Stone wrote:

Mtn Dew wrote:

That's all well and good, but that's not really a platform. How does he plan to do those things?

I haven't seen anything specific, the link below could give some hints.

Fred and I certainly don't see eye to eye on most issues, but I certainly give him credit for walking away from the Senate in disgust.

Fred Thompson DID NOT quit the Senate in disgust. He wwas a beltway insider for many years and knew exactly how Congress worked before he was elected. He didn't pass a single piece of legislation while he was there, he just raised funds. The WORST kind of political leech, a vote for hire if ever there was one. Then he quit to become a lobbyist so he could hash in on those 4 years of voting for tobacco and big oil bills.

Fred Thompson has no platform because he doesn't stand for anything.

According the statement that I quoted, I man has no right to be involved with the child (even after it is born) after he has sex, which is just downright silly.

Anyways, your post highlights the deciding factor in this debate: what stage of fetal development constitutes life. You would say when the fetus becomes viable, I would say that it is when the fetus will become viable if left to take a natural course (basically at conception). I don't think that is a debate that will ever really be resolved or one that will result in many changed minds. I respect your rationality and your difference in opinion. I cannot however, respect anyone, left or right, who tries to portray the other side as hating life or hating choice. Such polarities simply do not describe the issue.

morons wrote:

Why is divorce a sign that you have no family values? Like 60 percent of American families get divorced.

I don't think divorce alone is the issue, but dating the future wife while still married to the current wife might become a "famliy values" problem for McCain and Giuliani, and Gringrich, if he decides to run.

Fred Thompson is Barack Obama only with more experience, get over yourselves and just accept that he is the best republican for the job