Fred Thompson
Beginning Score: 300
Score History:
11/07/07: Check out some selected (by me, for maximum damage) Fred Thompson history:
- "Solar system is warming, not earth." [I have a problem with the confidence behind this statement. And so do a lot of other people... This is only related to economics in a round-about way, though...]
- Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. [My tax dollars should help convince people not to have sex? Really?!? I hereby propose the unrelated "Stupidity Abatement Bill." I need $75 million.]
- Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. [Boy, That'll teach those Cubans to... um... uh..... exist...]
I'm not going to score the first statement, but as to the second: I can't imagine wanting to spend 75 million dollars to tell people not to have sex. Just like the drinking age problem, trying to convince people to abstain from sex is only going to work on those who are not going to get sex in the first place.
Sure, maybe some girls will say "No" more often, but should I really be paying for that with my tax dollars? That seems slightly counterproductive... It would make more sense to just give teenagers the $75 million directly, and pay people like me, say, a hundred bucks to settle for a BJ.
...I'm sorry I said that.
And besides, who's going to enforce compliance? Video surveillance?
Heh heh heh...
---
...In all seriousness, though, I'm thinkin' -8 points for trying to destroy teenage fun and making me pay for it. Oh, and -4 points for destroying Cuban fun. (Though most candidates agree with him about the Cuban embargo - that's why I only recommend -4 points. It's not his fault, really...)
But maybe we should place trade restrictions on horny teenagers... eh? If the Cuban embargo is any indicator, IT'LL WORK GREAT!
NEW SCORE (Unless debated... But who would possibly want to debate me on this?) = 288
OK, it's been debated - at least the part about abstinence... 11/7/07: Fred & Dave agree on -4 points instead of -8 for the $75M "abstinence charge."
NEW SCORE (Unless the other part is debated...) = 292
1/12/07: A Final hurrah for Mr. Thompson - This is from Fred Thompson, On the Issues:
Vote to add an additional $53 million (raising the total to $213 million) to international narcotics control funding, and pay for it by taking $25 million from international operations funding and $28 million from development assistance.
Is it just my quasi-Libertarian side, or is taking $25 million from international operations (whatever it may be) & $28 mil from development to pay for drug control a really stupid idea?
Another spending/voting issue for Fred Thompson that's dissin' economics in favor of politics: I'd say another -4 points.
NEW SCORE = 288
[...Waiting for more...]
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Fred Thompson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I agree with you not scoring the first issue, as the first sentences of your reference falsifies it. See this about pluto...
I also agree that voting on abstinence education is wasted money for sex sake - but in economic/parental terms it might actually be somewhat needed. Since the modern economy requires parents to work more, I dare say that they are unable to actually teach their children as much as they should...in other words (as much as I don't like it) parents struggle to be parents just to keep some sort of roof over their bed, and food in their belly. So there probably should be some sort of government enrichment. Family values can go a long way in community as well as politics.
So I think that it is worth -4 points not -8. Because it was not passed on the intent on "trying to destroy teenage fun...", but to actually inform when parents are unable to.
I like your argument, Fred, and I'll give in.
You should be asking this question, though: Why should the government be the agency that teaches our kids "moral" issues? If it isn't possible (as you say - and I disagree) for some parents to teach these values to kids, can't we have a private group do it (LIKE A CHURCH!) that is funded by the very parents who want their kids taught these lessons?
It is wholly insane to think other people's tax dollars should be used to teach moral (ahem, religious) values to kids, especially when private institutions exist to do just that.
So it's more than obvious, I think, that Fred Thompson is pushing a religious agenda at the taxpayers' expense to win that special constituency. HOWEVER - if there are benefits to "options" like teaching abstinence to our kids (in the same line of thinking as public education itself, I suppose), then, by all means, spend a piddly $75 million to support it. It's a minor offense in a world of offenses, so I'll agree with that -4 points Freddo.
I would actually argue a bigger deduction than that. Just because parents work more, that doesn't mean their responsibilities as parents should be passed off to schools and other organizations. If the big focus is on family values, let's start putting the responsibility back on the family.
That being said, I know that more often than not, parents won't take that responsibility. Since this is a moral issue, it should be up to churches and other similiar organizations to reach out with that message.
Okay - I guess my stance wasn't seen correctly. I tried to use key words such as "I dare say", and "as much as I don't like it". To show my true opinion. Which if you can't tell, I totally agree with both of you.
My prior comment was based more on a "why would anyone vote like that?" I can definetly see that the political pressure that anyone would face in regards to abstinence would have to be in a 'best to benefit all' mentality. So that means to me, that he chose to take the easy way out - not the right way. Both of you are truly correct - but put yourself in Thompson's shoes - what would you do? My guess, as much as you would like to think otherwise, you probably would have done the same. That's why I say -4 because that allows the wrongness to be penalized, but I don't think that more than that is really justified because it's obviously a peer pressure vote, more than a proper, 'right thing to do', vote.
Sometimes in life you have to choose your battles, and that's exactly what Thompson did.
I'm inclined to side with Zane on the fact that government paternalism is annoying (and don't forget expensive and counterproductive), but Fred, you've got an excellent point about moderation, in so many words:
Being in the Senate (or the House) means constantly voting with your party, and subsequently we're going to have bills that are more signaling mechanisms than actual policy - such as a mere $75 Million for "expanded [religious] education."
Here's a very important point, though: If the bill were for, say, $1.5 Billion in abstinence education funding, I'd be outraged. Since it's marginal, though, I'm more inclined to agree with Fred that it's just Fred Thompson making proper political choices (or choosing his battles, as Fred said.)
I think the underlying moral problem (with its corresponding economics problem) is worth a large point deduction (at least -8 points). However, playing politics with both relatively small and reasonably unavoidable consequences (bad government spending, for one) is not really worthy of much of a point reduction.
So, again, while I agree with your points, Zane, excessively, I think Fred's forgiveness of politics might come in pretty handy later on, when we have to deal with the fact that every single politician has suffered from "impotent voting syndrome" at some point, as Fred Thompson likely did in this case.
There's my 200 cents - I'll let you guys hammer the rest out of this one out while I drive to Phoenix this afternoon...
I like how Dave's last comment exactly proved my point. Even Dave is riding the fence - because he can see both my point as well as Zanes, and of the 3 of us, he has to be the most objective as he is a 'Voting Pledge' of the Gamepaign. Now amplify this situagion among hundreds, and those political choices come into play. As I stated before, I intensely agree with both of you - BUT, the reality of the matter is, this doesn't mean that even though Thompson casted a vote, that's what he really believes. So a voting history call (once), does NOT make it worth an 8 point deduction, but does deserve penalty. Now if Thompson notoriously voted on many, many abstinence spending issues, then yes - take 8, or even 12 for being ignorant. That's my 400 cents...
I might be much too naive to have a hope that a politician would do more than just sit on the fence on issues. I understand the idea of picking your battles, but our leaders shouldn't be able to pick and choose what they want to respond to. that's neither here nor there. -4 is fine.
Well, I too wish that it weren't that way...I say we need more politicians with Cojones...the problem is, in order to get voted in, you have to be everyone's favorite person, and a person that tells it the way it is, will alienate too many constituents...it's unfortunate, but true. Everyone likes a pretty face and a slippery tongue...
Post a Comment