Post by: asknight on January 22, 2008, 10:04:42 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080122/ap_on_el_pr/thompson
34 minutes ago
NAPLES, Fla. - Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson quit the Republican presidential race on Tuesday, after a string of poor finishes in early primary and caucus states.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Today, I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort," Thompson said in a statement.
Thompson's fate was sealed last Saturday in the South Carolina primary, when he finished third in a state that he had said he needed to win.
In the statement, Thompson did not say whether he would endorse any of his former rivals. He was one of a handful of members of Congress who supported Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2000 in his unsuccessful race against George W. Bush for the party nomination.
Post by: Boomhauer on January 22, 2008, 10:13:51 AM
Quote
I'm now wondering if he was that serious to begin with. It seems like he dropped out so early!
Yeah, I wonder about that, too.
But he didn't do well in the early primaries, so he is probably doing the smart thing and saving his money, time, and energy...
No one left for me to vote for, now. SC primary is over. I voted for Thompson, but McCain got the nomination, so now I just have to wait to see who gets the nomination now...The rest of them are absolute scumbags...
I'll either end up not voting...
Post by: jefnvk on January 22, 2008, 11:30:13 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 22, 2008, 11:35:57 AM
Post by: onions! on January 22, 2008, 11:37:08 AM
I'll either end up not voting...
Gotta vote!If for no other reason than to cancel out a Hillary vote.
A little vindictive pleasure will warm your cockles.
Post by: Paddy on January 22, 2008, 12:11:18 PM
Post by: Bigjake on January 22, 2008, 12:15:07 PM
Post by: Lennyjoe on January 22, 2008, 01:29:17 PM
Don't really care for McCain and dispise any Democrat politicians. Won't vote for Paul either.
Post by: Racehorse on January 22, 2008, 01:41:55 PM
Probably just wanted to go home and take a nap.
I gotta agree with you. Every time he made an appearance, he looked like he had just been dragged out of bed and was still half asleep.
Post by: seeker_two on January 22, 2008, 02:23:19 PM
Post by: Scott on January 22, 2008, 05:39:54 PM
Post by: Bigjake on January 22, 2008, 05:55:27 PM
Post by: Tecumseh on January 22, 2008, 06:03:35 PM
Well, the last pretense of conservativism is now gone from the GOP......let's see if they learn anything during the next four years of Hillary's reign.....
Fred wasnt a conservative. He was just your typical fat cat big government politician.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 22, 2008, 06:04:42 PM
News flash, Paul isn't any friend of the 2nd.....
I cant stop laughing at this. Got any support for this statement?
I am so happy that Fred "Da Tennessee Fatboy" Thompson is gone.
Post by: Scott on January 22, 2008, 06:15:19 PM
News flash, Paul isn't any friend of the 2nd.....
That's weird I coulda sworn I have seen a very consistent pro 2A voting record. You wouldn't happen to be refering to his no vote on an unconstitutional bill to protect corporations would you? That would be disingenuous because that doesn't have anything to do with the 2nd amendment.
Post by: seeker_two on January 23, 2008, 01:22:05 AM
Well, the last pretense of conservativism is now gone from the GOP......let's see if they learn anything during the next four years of Hillary's reign.....
Fred wasnt a conservative. He was just your typical fat cat big government politician. That's why I said pretense....Fred's a party man who'll go for whatever the GOP supports...conservative or not.....
News flash, Paul isn't any friend of the 2nd.....
I beg to differ.....his only vote that could be interpreted as anti-2A was the lawsuit bill...and that was a good call. Why vote for an unconstitutional protection when you can reform the whole tort system?
Ron Paul is starting to look better & better to me......whether he runs as a Republican, independent, or Libertarian.....
Post by: Boomhauer on January 23, 2008, 03:48:23 AM
Quote
News flash, Paul isn't any friend of the 2nd.....
Bigjake, can you clarify? I'm pretty sure that you said that on another thread, but I just want to hear what you have to say.
Mostly about the 2nd Amend. stuff I have heard about RP is that he is pretty pro-2nd A...
Post by: Manedwolf on January 23, 2008, 05:11:02 AM
Quote
News flash, Paul isn't any friend of the 2nd.....
Bigjake, can you clarify? I'm pretty sure that you said that on another thread, but I just want to hear what you have to say.
Mostly about the 2nd Amend. stuff I have heard about RP is that he is pretty pro-2nd A...
Then why did he vote against protecting gunmakers from frivolous lawsuits brought by the Bloomberg crowd?
Post by: Bigjake on January 23, 2008, 08:46:50 AM
Hell, Paul could've done what he always did, which was nothing, and that would've been better.
Post by: GigaBuist on January 23, 2008, 09:22:15 AM
Then why did he vote against protecting gunmakers from frivolous lawsuits brought by the Bloomberg crowd?
In his own words:
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, April 9, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a firm believer in the Second amendment and an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (HR 153), which repeals misguided federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. I believe the Second amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties. However, Mr. Speaker, another foundation of those liberties is the oath all of us took to respect constitutional limits on federal power. While I understand and sympathize with the goals of the proponents of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (HR 1036), this bill exceeds those constitutional limitations, and so I must oppose it.
It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country's founders understood the need to separate power between federal, state, and local governments to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to citizens. The reservation of most powers to the states strictly limited the role of the federal government in dealing with civil liability matters; it reserved jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as alleged gun-related negligence suits, to the state legislatures.
While I am against the federalization of tort reform, I must voice my complete disapproval of the very nature of these suits brought against gun manufacturers. Lawsuits for monetary damages from gun violence should be filed against the perpetrators of those crimes, not gun manufacturers! Holding manufacturers liable for harm they could neither foresee nor prevent is irresponsible and outlandish. The company that makes a properly functioning product in accordance with the law is acting lawfully, and thus should not be taken to court because of misuse by the purchaser (or in many cases, by a criminal who stole the weapon). Clearly these lawsuits are motivated not by a concern for justice, but by a search for deep pockets and a fanatical anti-gun political agenda.
However, Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing aspect of these lawsuits is the idea that guns, which are inanimate objects, are somehow responsible for crimes. HR 1036 shifts the focus away from criminals and their responsibility for their actions. It adds to the cult of irresponsibility that government unfortunately so often promotes. This further erodes the ethics of individual responsibility for one's own actions that must form the basis of a free and moral society. The root problem of violence is not the gun in the hand, but the gun in the heart: each person is accountable for the deeds that flow out of his or her own heart. One can resort to any means available to commit a crime, such as knives, fertilizer, pipes, or baseball bats. Should we start suing the manufacturers of these products as well because they are used in crimes? Of course not the implications are preposterous.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would remind my fellow supporters of gun rights that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state gun lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to restrict our gun rights. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to gun ownership remains a federal government freed of its constitutional restraints. Expanding that government in any way, no matter how just the cause may seem, is not in the interests of gun owners or lovers of liberty.
In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which inspired HR 1036, this bill continues the disturbing trend toward federalization of tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is not in the long-term interests of defenders of the Second amendment and other
Post by: Werewolf on January 23, 2008, 09:47:30 AM
Last week he was running for president.
This week he IS not.
How is this week really any different from last week?
Post by: MrRezister on January 24, 2008, 08:45:16 AM
In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which inspired HR 1036, this bill continues the disturbing trend toward federalization of tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is not in the long-term interests of defenders of the Second amendment
Oh, come on! "Context"? "Research"? "Facts"? Is that REALLY how you want to argue your point? Don't you know it's much more fun to toe the Party line and argue based upon hearsay and speculation? All MY sources say that Ron Paul is an escaped lunatic who wears an insulated Tin Foil Bowler and plays Dungeons & Dragons in his mother's basement while searching for the 9/11 TRUTH.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 24, 2008, 08:55:35 AM
News flash, Paul isn't any friend of the 2nd.....
And Thompson was? DId Thompson continually try to get gun laws repealed? I know Ron Paul did.
Post by: LAK on January 25, 2008, 03:39:19 AM
If you want to know who is going to protect our seond amendment - ask your "conservative" candidate what he/she will do about the coming North American Union - and the U.N.
After the NAU has swallowed us whole - our second amendment will cease to have any legal force at some stage. Sooner or later.
You can bank on that.
----------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: stevelyn on January 25, 2008, 04:46:06 AM