http://gordonunleashed.com/blog/2007/09 ... ck-record/
...of the 33 firearm-related votes cast while Thompson was in the Senate, Thompson voted against the Second Amendment almost half (42.4 percent) of the time.
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
IMO, His record on the those big issues demanding adherance to either the spirit or the letter of the U.S. Constitution says otherwise.Ysabel Kid wrote: He is much more likely to be on the right side of issues that matter to us most - especially guns - and especially compared to ANY of the Democrats likely to win their primary.
So, you saying he'd be no better (or worse) than the likely Democrat nominees?FWiedner wrote:IMO, His record on the those big issues demanding adherance to either the spirit or the letter of the U.S. Constitution says otherwise.Ysabel Kid wrote: He is much more likely to be on the right side of issues that matter to us most - especially guns - and especially compared to ANY of the Democrats likely to win their primary.
You need to qualify that by pointing out that it is GOA's definition of what legislation is anti gun. IIRC, they were head up over standardizing driver's licenses and consider that legislation to be "anti-gun".FWiedner wrote:(...and Ron Paul too...)
http://gordonunleashed.com/blog/2007/09 ... ck-record/
...of the 33 firearm-related votes cast while Thompson was in the Senate, Thompson voted against the Second Amendment almost half (42.4 percent) of the time.
That is certainly what his campaign would love for you to believe. This guy is an empty suit. He is a faux conservative AT BEST.Ysabel Kid wrote:I like Paul, but he is not going to get elected, so why focus our energy on him? Thompson has a very solid chance of winning the primary. He certainly has the best understanding (outside of perhaps Paul) of the Constitution and the principles of Federalism. He is much more likely to be on the right side of issues that matter to us most - especially guns - and especially compared to ANY of the Democrats likely to win their primary.
Then he fakes it exceedingly well. Go back and read his articles on www.townhall.com. It wrote a bunch of them over the summer. If this is truly what he believes, he is "our" guy...El Mac wrote:That is certainly what his campaign would love for you to believe. This guy is an empty suit. He is a faux conservative AT BEST.Ysabel Kid wrote:I like Paul, but he is not going to get elected, so why focus our energy on him? Thompson has a very solid chance of winning the primary. He certainly has the best understanding (outside of perhaps Paul) of the Constitution and the principles of Federalism. He is much more likely to be on the right side of issues that matter to us most - especially guns - and especially compared to ANY of the Democrats likely to win their primary.
The field is bleak. I've personally had it with voting for the "least appearing bleak".
He could if folks stopped settleing for who someone else said is the best.Ysabel Kid wrote:I like Paul, but he is not going to get elected, so why focus our energy on him? Thompson has a very solid chance of winning the primary. He certainly has the best understanding (outside of perhaps Paul) of the Constitution and the principles of Federalism. He is much more likely to be on the right side of issues that matter to us most - especially guns - and especially compared to ANY of the Democrats likely to win their primary.
I don't care what "he" wrote (actually, I'd put my paycheck that is was a series of staffers that did the actual writing) this past summer. Rather, I discern more from how he actually voted over the past years.Ysabel Kid wrote:Then he fakes it exceedingly well. Go back and read his articles on www.townhall.com. It wrote a bunch of them over the summer. If this is truly what he believes, he is "our" guy...
I agree - actions speak louder than words, but some of those votes might not have been anti-gun. I haven't examined them all yet. Still, I am impressed with someone who puts what they believe down on paper - for all to read and remember - versus the wishy-washy crop of politicos who won't be tied to any position. Even if his staffer wrote most of this - which I don't think is the case - he signed it, and is stating his beliefs in doing so.El Mac wrote:I don't care what "he" wrote (actually, I'd put my paycheck that is was a series of staffers that did the actual writing) this past summer. Rather, I discern more from how he actually voted over the past years.Ysabel Kid wrote:Then he fakes it exceedingly well. Go back and read his articles on www.townhall.com. It wrote a bunch of them over the summer. If this is truly what he believes, he is "our" guy...
http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm
He is a reed that blows in the wind. Like many a used car, looks good on the outside, just don't check under the hood.
Thats a broad stripe to paint.El Mac wrote:Anyone that votes for anyone that is not solidly in the 2A camp is dumber than dirt, I don't care what initial he has next his/her name.
So you won't vote for anyone - or a third party candidate with no chance - if neither (D) or (R) is 100% pro-gun? That is the surest way to get us all saddled with Hillary, and we KNOW where she stands.El Mac wrote:Anyone that votes for anyone that is not solidly in the 2A camp is dumber than dirt, I don't care what initial he has next his/her name.
Well sir, GW may be a lot of things but anti-gun he is not. Show me ONE BILL that he has signed that was anti-gun.Leverdude wrote:Thats a broad stripe to paint.El Mac wrote:Anyone that votes for anyone that is not solidly in the 2A camp is dumber than dirt, I don't care what initial he has next his/her name.
Heck GW aint solidly anything let alone pro gun. Lotsa dumber than dirt folks around I reckon.Solid politicians dont exist anymore.
Thats exactly right.So you won't vote for anyone - or a third party candidate with no chance - if neither (D) or (R) is 100% pro-gun?
Then so be it. I'm sick of lying and whiney repdemocrats. Call a spade a spade. Unfortunately politicians have to learn the hard way from time to time.That is the surest way to get us all saddled with Hillary, and we KNOW where she stands.
El Mac -El Mac wrote:Thats exactly right.So you won't vote for anyone - or a third party candidate with no chance - if neither (D) or (R) is 100% pro-gun?
Then so be it. I'm sick of lying and whiney repdemocrats. Call a spade a spade. Unfortunately politicians have to learn the hard way from time to time.That is the surest way to get us all saddled with Hillary, and we KNOW where she stands.
Didnt say he was anti gun. Said he wasn't pro gun. Theres a big difference.El Mac wrote:Well sir, GW may be a lot of things but anti-gun he is not. Show me ONE BILL that he has signed that was anti-gun.Leverdude wrote:Thats a broad stripe to paint.El Mac wrote:Anyone that votes for anyone that is not solidly in the 2A camp is dumber than dirt, I don't care what initial he has next his/her name.
Heck GW aint solidly anything let alone pro gun. Lotsa dumber than dirt folks around I reckon.Solid politicians dont exist anymore.
Mr Bush isn't remotely solidly in the 2A camp. Matter of fact Mr Bush is on record saying he would sign the assault weapons bill if it crosses his desk. The only reason he hasn't signed any gun control into law (& he will very soon) is because we had a Republican congress. Thats gone now & I think you'll get to see him sign all kinds of things.Anyone that votes for anyone that is not solidly in the 2A camp is dumber than dirt,
Bush signed into law one of the most controversial CCW laws, that of Texas. He used it masterfully (well, his campaign did anyway) to unseat what was then the "unseatable" Gov. Ma Richards. Were it not for that, and her big mouth spouting off against it, he would not have gained the Tex. Gov.Leverdude wrote:Didnt say he was anti gun. Said he wasn't pro gun. Theres a big difference.El Mac wrote:Well sir, GW may be a lot of things but anti-gun he is not. Show me ONE BILL that he has signed that was anti-gun.Leverdude wrote:Thats a broad stripe to paint.El Mac wrote:Anyone that votes for anyone that is not solidly in the 2A camp is dumber than dirt, I don't care what initial he has next his/her name.
Heck GW aint solidly anything let alone pro gun. Lotsa dumber than dirt folks around I reckon.Solid politicians dont exist anymore.
You saidMr Bush isn't remotely solidly in the 2A camp. Matter of fact Mr Bush is on record saying he would sign the assault weapons bill if it crosses his desk. The only reason he hasn't signed any gun control into law (& he will very soon) is because we had a Republican congress. Thats gone now & I think you'll get to see him sign all kinds of things.Anyone that votes for anyone that is not solidly in the 2A camp is dumber than dirt,
I dont think he's anti gun. I think he's ambivolent about it & if the tide turns so will he. Theres alot of things he wont budge on. I dont think gun controls one.
Me & you, we just dont matter.