Fred Thompson, President?

[Eagle5US]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

What really was interesting was that General who was a Special Forces officer course graduate, but openly homosexual? One thing I am wondering is, all of you QPs on here mention about the problems that homosexuals in the military would cause (or do cause), but this man spent 40+ years in the military, but says the military members are professional enough to deal with this.

My question (as an outsider) is, why would he say this, if so many other combat soldiers claim otherwise? I'd imagine say for things like showers, or say for checking for ticks in private areas out in the field, and other such things, that being gay would cause problems unforseeable (for example might be bad if a Private became sexually attracted to his Sergeant or something).

Also, from what I understand from reading multiple conversations between military members (including here), when women were forced on the military, that it caused a lot of problems that the military hadn't forseen. If members of the military were not professional enough to stop problems from happening resulting from women (which many of which weren't even the women's fault from what I've read, they just were unforscene results of women being in the military), what would make this General think that such problems would not happen with openly homosexual people allowed into the military?

This has NOTHING to do with "Fred Thompson for President" and screams of a personal agenda.

Eagle

[CoLawman]

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/d91f3...e-70a16edc311b

It turns out that Keith Kerr, retired Colonel., U.S. Army; retired Brigadier General, California National Reserve, who submitted a YouTube question about gays in the military, is actually a member of Hillary Clinton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans For Hillary Steering Committee. He's also part of a film production crew trying overturn the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

[Razor]

I get a kick out of this bizzare line of reasoning. He points to his service and how he was successful as a gay man, so why don't we allow openly gay people into the service? Well, first off, was he openly gay during his service? Yeah, I didn't think so. No difference from those officers that toed the line while active, but became very vocal about their disagreement with policies and decisions once their retirements were safe and they were out. Hypocritical cowards.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by CoLawman

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/d91f3...e-70a16edc311b

It turns out that Keith Kerr, retired Colonel., U.S. Army; retired Brigadier General, California National Reserve, who submitted a YouTube question about gays in the military, is actually a member of Hillary Clinton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans For Hillary Steering Committee. He's also part of a film production crew trying overturn the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Well, Colonel, during your time in the military, how many of your fellow soldiers did you sodomize in violation of the UCMJ and lawful orders of your superiors?

Were you sexually attracted to any other soldiers?

Were any of them your subordinates?

Were any of them junior in rank (fraternization)?

Did you ever act on these attractions?

Were any of your advances rejected as unwelcome?

If the answers to any of these questions is yes, then you were not a very good soldier or leader.

I do not want to have to worry about a butt pirate every time I go to the latrine or take a shower. Since by far and large, the greatest percentage of HIV infected people are gay men, and recent surveys show they still do not practice safe sex, don't count on me giving you CPR or sticking my hands in your bloody stump to stop the bleeding if you are looking a little light in the loafers.

Incidentally, you can be a gay soldier in the military as long as you keep your mouth shut and abstain during your service.

Of all the Repub candidates, I expect the only ones to support gays serving openly would be Rudy and Mitt. I don't see Fred buying into this plan. On the Dem side, they all would. Especially Hillary.

CNN should just go ahead and change their name to DNN. Nobody can be so stupid as to hire a gay activist and pay for his travel expenses to come ask a Republican debate question without doing even a cursory google search of his name. He could be a registered sex offending pedophile from NAMBLA for all they knew. There are seven or eight others who asked questions who even the most casual research reveals are confirmed Dem candidate supporters. The lame excuse that the questions were still valid does not hold water. I don't think that question is on the minds of many potential voters, especially Republican voters. A 2nd Amendment question would have been more informative. Maybe the Dems, who were opposed to appearing on a FoxNews sponsored debate for concenrs about bias, should let us write the questions for their next debate....

"Well, how can you call yourselves Presidential candidates while opposing portions of the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution...Let's start with you, Senator Klinton...Should infringing rights guaranteed under the Constitution be a disqualifier for ANY public office?

TR

[Shar]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Of all the Repub candidates, I expect the only ones to support gays serving openly would be Rudy and Mitt.

I specifically asked about Romney's plans on gays in the military before signing on to fundraise for him last December. His stance then, that has been consistent for years (and I don't see changing) is that he doesn't support any changes to the current policy of "don't ask, don't' tell." There are certainly some nuances to Romney's policy stands on gay rights but this is one he's been consistent on throughout his public life - I can find references back to 1994 where he says he supports that policy - and as 90% of his tweaking/flopping has been more toward the right, I seriously doubt he's suddenly going to pull a Hilary on us.

See also the following:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us.../09romney.html

[GratefulCitizen]

This may have some impact:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...108.guest.html

Rush does wield some influence among likely primary voters.

[CoLawman]

Originally Posted by Shar

I specifically asked about Romney's plans on gays in the military before signing on to fundraise for him last December. His stance then, that has been consistent for years (and I don't see changing) is that he doesn't support any changes to the current policy of "don't ask, don't' tell." There are certainly some nuances to Romney's policy stands on gay rights but this is one he's been consistent on throughout his public life - I can find references back to 1994 where he says he supports that policy - and as 90% of his tweaking/flopping has been more toward the right, I seriously doubt he's suddenly going to pull a Hilary on us.

See also the following:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us.../09romney.html

I would say that this ad from the "Log Cabin Republicans" will assist Romney, rather than it's intended purpose. I believe that, if the Gays in the Republican Party do not support him, it is a good indication of how they feel he is on Gay rights issues. I also believe their support of Rudy is probably not something Rudy's camp is thrilled about.:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...-Et6AD8T7L2GG0

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican gay rights advocacy group accuses Mitt Romney of "Mitt-flops" in a new radio ad that criticizes the former Massachusetts governor on his tax record...

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said it was no surprise that a gay rights group would oppose Romney because he has supported a federal amendment that would declare marriage to be between a man and a woman...

"This negative attack and gross distortion of the governor's record was launched and paid for by a group recognized as having Mayor (Rudy) Giuliani as their 'favorite' candidate," Madden said. Giuliani has had the support of some gay rights groups in the past and has backed limited legal recognition for same-sex couples.

[GratefulCitizen]

I don't watch the Clinton News Network, so I missed this:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol...n.and.wife.cnn

This type of setting works well for Fred.

...wouldn't be suprised to see him make a few more appearances like this shortly before the first primary votes.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Anyone see Fred on Hannity & Colmes tonight?

Saw it.

Fred's really hitting his stride.
I'll be interested to see how Fred will trend in the Rasmussen daily.
(his Iowa numbers will probably be better than the national ones)


Rasmussen daily:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...olling_history

[Ret10Echo]

Not much change on the big board...Rudy G slipped and McCain picked up a couple of points.

Date12/18/07
Republican Candidates
Giuliani 17%
Huckabee 23%
Thompson13%
Romney 15%
McCain 13%

Date 12/18/07
Democratic Candidates
Clinton 40%
Obama 24%
Edwards 14%

[GratefulCitizen]

Well this is different.

All of the various candidates have put out Christmas campaign messages.

Here's Fred's Christmas message:

http://www.fred08.com/
-or-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeLIm_XVOhQ

[CosaNostraUSMC]

If Fred gets elected, the border issue will get solved = I don't have to deal with blundering idiots who dream up nickel n dime schemes.

[GratefulCitizen]

Fred's going to be on Fox News Sunday.
I missed the first showing.

Anybody catch it?

<edit>

Just found the transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319053,00.html

[GratefulCitizen]

I'm suprised that this hasn't yet been linked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VblJq4j0_SE

Definitely not a 30 second soundbite.

[warrottjr]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

[Fred's Message to Iowa Voters]

Outstanding.