Jump to content

Fred Thompson


kayman

Recommended Posts

Oh tell me you didn't just say that. It's a horrible remark in my book and simply ignores the fact that women are increasingly finding themselves along side men in combat situations. Soldiers will tell you they don't give a rats ass about this when they are trying to say alive. Only one thing is on their minds, staying alive and making sure their fellow soldiers are safe too. Sexual attraction of any type isn't even in the same universe in these situations. If I was scared that I was about to be shot dead by enemies who wanted me dead, I can tell you I would not be wondering who I might get in bed with.

Don't Ask Don't tell = persecution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply
If the Republicans weren't trying to get into people's personal business, they wouldn't always push issues such as Gay Rights, Right to Choose, Gay Marrage, etc. They push issues that they know will hit chords with the general populace. The fact is that equality of all is only saved when you guarantee the rights of the few. The right to choose is also the right to decide that it is not appropriate for you. Hopefully choosing abortion is not right for the majority, but neither you nor I can go into the heads of those who decide that it is appropriate for them. Gays deserve to be able to expect the same things as eveyone else. Republicans act as if civil marrage was handed down from God, when in fact civil marrage is a legalized partnership that grants many rights and privleges. For a selected group of people to be told that they have to spend countless hours and countless funds to be able to gain only a few of those rights that they would be able to gain just by a marrage document is selectively choosing a group of people to be treated as second class citizens by virtue of who they sleep with is against where we should be as a country. Let's push for an amendment to the constitution to codify inequality. I cannot consider that to be Moderate. That is Fascist, er I meant Christian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the same kind of statement that was used to justify school segregation in the 1950s and 1960s. i.e. that you cant trust Black males around White women since they can't control their sexual urges. Best to keep them out of the White schools. It was an untrue and hurtful statement. Likewise, saying that Gays can't serve in the military or any profession, because they can't control their urges. is also untru and hurtful.

Thankfully our allies in the "war on terror" have gotten past these backwards and primitive ways of thinking in that they realize the postitive contribution that Gays and Lesbians make in their military and there is no trouble. Maybe the next generation of Americans might get there too. Its apparent to me, that even now in the 21st century, we have not made much progress from the 1950s. Sadly the choice we have in the Republican primary reflects this sad state of affairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was speaking about moderate Republican's and I'm pretty sure that Giuliani has said that the government should recognize the right of women to chose and that gays should have full rights......exactly which moderate Republican are you referring to? And no, McCain and Romeny are not moderates in my book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...politics is a dirty game, especially the two party system....my feeling is that Giuliani is walking the line to not distance himself from conservative Repbulicans during the primary, but also not distance himself from moderates for the general election. It's really not fair to the American peolpe to have this system, and I would prefer one like in some other countries where the primary does not restrict you by your party registration, and the top 4 or so vote getters all get to run in the general election. That way, candidates would remain more true to their beliefs, but unti then, I will have to vote on intuition, and hope that I don't get burned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An additional point should be made that while government regulation of social policy should be avoided in most cases, there should be hard and fast barriers to this. Is Polygomy ok? Incest? Beastiality? The converse being that homosexuality was probably grouped in these categories not too long ago......so who knows, the moral I guess is people are slow to accept, but slower usually has better long term results.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

my question to you fellow UPers who are republicans: what in the world keeps you voting republican in national elections?? i can fully understand on a local level (where REAL republican ideals are enacted)... but, the face of the party on the national level is truly a shame and has consistently wraps itself in issues of exclusion. it blows me away - the republican policies on the national level do not come close to meeting the desires of most republicans i know... yet some of them continue to pound the drum. are they sadists, sheep, true supporters or just plain stubborn? what gives?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always disappointed when these conversations devolve to comparisons of Gays and Lesbians to people committing sexual crimes, ie Incest and Beastiality. You have shown your true colors on this matter and I assume the GOP contenders are right up your alley. Thank you for proving what I said earlier on who supports the GOP these days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

cinco, I vote all over the place except for the Presidential race, where I've voted Republican (although I came really close to voting for Clinton in 96) since 1984. The reason is that I believe the government should stay out of my life, help business prosper (large and small), and be strong on defense. Usually, that's they the way they've been.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the biggest political mysteries to me is how the Republican party has gained a reputation of being for "small government". The Reps are the party of big spenders! Look at the numbers fer goodness sakes. Look at the budgetary figures, look at the deficit statistics---the Reps are a disaster for the national economy!!!

re: gays in the military: In the late 1940s President Harry Truman issued an executive order to the US military to become fully racially integrated. The order was given by the commander in chief, and carried out. The military didn't fall apart then, just like it's not falling apart now with the thousands of gay military folks. All it will take is for the President of the United States to say "no more discrimination in the military" and that will be that. If anyone in the military resists, the Court Marshall process is always available.

This don't ask nonsense is INSTITUTIONALIZED discrimination!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the biggest political mysteries to me is how the Republican party has gained a reputation of being for "small government". The Reps are the party of big spenders! Look at the numbers fer goodness sakes. Look at the budgetary figures, look at the deficit statistics---the Reps are a disaster for the national economy!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. For thirty years now, the Republican party has stood for increased spending, bigger government, and greater control over all aspects of people's lives. If the "moderate Republican voters" would look beyond party loyalty at the records of the parties, they'd see that the Democrats have more closely matched their own stated agenda for more than a generation now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 months later...
I think the biggest differennce between a moderate Republican and a moderate Democrat is the Republican believes the government shouldn't be in people's personal business in the first place, and the Democrat believes the government needs to actively promote equality. In reality, moderate members of both parties probably could care less how individuals chose to live thier life.

This is what makes Giuliani and Thompson true moderate Republicans....they believe the government shouldn't be dictating people's personal lifes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty brilliant, what the Republicans are doing actually. They're rallying not around those with whom they have most in common, but they're picking the moderates who stand the best chance in a national election. On the Republican side, I'd have to agree that Giuliani has the most crossover appeal. Even though Thompson is widely considered one of the farthest-right candidates, they know it would be easier to win with someone more moderate (especially on social issues like Giuliani is.)

If only the Democrats could stop this ridiculous Hillary/Obama/Edwards worship and pick someone who could swing voters from the middle and middle-right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I disagree. The Republican dominance over the past thirty years has always been critically dependent on the core group of evangelicals who vote based on abortion above all else. If the Republicans nominate Guiliani, they take the abortion issue off the table completely, leaving this huge block of voters up in the air, to be courted by the Democrats (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all moderates, despite their reputations). As closely divided as the country is, the GOP can't afford to lose even a fraction of these voters.

On the other hand, Guiliani's one strength is on terrorism and security, and few voters other than hard-line Republicans trust the GOP on that anymore. Unless Guiliani starts to broaden his message (which will likely further alienate evangelicals), I don't see him drawing many independent or Democratic voters.

Honestly, I think he is the least electable of the Republican candidates. They'd do better courting their base with a traditional (non-neocon) conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I agree. That is the atitude with most Republican voters I know as well. However, many of these voters have lost their trust in the GOP to protect them, and are seriously considering voting Democratic for the first time in years.

These voters are not the hard-line evangelicals who have allowed the Republicans to doninate national politics beginning almost immediately after Roe v. Wade, well before national security was the major issue it has become since 9/11. Sure, evangelicals are a minority of Republican voters, but there are enough of them who vote almost exclusively on one issue to give the Republicans the advantage over the Democrats. The few evangelicals I know personally are quite outspoken that they will not vote for a pro-choice candidate, regardless of party affiliation.

I also think Guiliani will likely win the SC primary, but this is largely because the pro-life evangelical crowd is currently divided between the various conservative candidates. Once those alternatives are out of the picture, I don't see them rallying behind Guiliani just because he is a Republican. Many have already said they will look for a third-party candidate if he is the nominee, and many others will likely stay home on election day. Their most important issue being off the table, a few will likely hold their noses and support a moderate Democratic candidate, particularly if the Dems make an effort to court them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

He's done. Thompson has thrown in the towel and quit the race. It's been said that he was really a spoiler for Huckabee and was encouraged to stay in the race through SC because the GOP is scared to death that Huckabee will will the nomination. It appears that tactic worked as nobody is talking about Huckabee now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.