make money online no selling.com

Find money online for fast debt

makemoneyonlinenoselling.com is online service which helps you acquire cash money online


Flag
State Texas
Legal status âś…
Allowed (Our partner lenders provide payments in Texas)
Loan amount limit Loan Terms:
Loan terms  Not specified
Finance rates  Up to 180 days for CAB agreement
Finance charges  No cap on Credit Access Business fees.  Lender interest capped at 10%.
Maximum APR (Annual percentage rate)  No cap.  Regulator reports average cost 410%.

1835 South Main Street, Weatherford, TX 76086

Texas

Weatherford

1220 N Town East Boulevard, Mesquite, TX 75150

Texas

Mesquite

13909 Nacogdoches Road, San Antonio, TX 78217

Texas

San Antonio

104 Austin Avenue, Weatherford, TX 76086

Texas

Weatherford

621 East Nolana Avenue, McAllen, TX 78504

Texas

Allen

3200 Andrews Highway, Midland, TX 79701

Texas

Midland

1250 Northwest Highway, Mesquite, TX 75149

Texas

Mesquite

5502 N Fry Road, Katy, TX 77449

Texas

Katy

1806 E End Boulevard N No. 1300, Marshall, TX 75670

Texas

Marshall

1304 W Davis Street No. Centre, Conroe, TX 77304

Texas

Conroe


Frequently asked questions about loans in laredo texas

  • I have a 2001 jeep grand cherokee laredo v6 Already paid 2 mechnics in 2 other states to fix leak. Overflow empties out often. When i drive alot i lose most from radiator as well. Sometimes if i dont drive much i lose nothing. Theres never any leak at all when i park somewhere. Its happening as i drive somehow. Especially over long drives I spend about 40 to.50 bucks a month on coolant. If i drive more i pay more. If i drive less its less. I cant afford.another mechanic for a few months I live in texas. My main question is can i use water in overflow and radiator instead of coolant during the summer months at least? I may be able to afford a good mechanic here after the summer or go back to coolant 50 50 that ive been using, but would love a break on the expense to use water if that was ok. Someone told me it was ao i thought i would check with the answers community Thanks everyone!
  • Technically it is not ok. Forget the people who talk about boilover protection. They failed to take physics, or they'd know your radiator cap bumps waters boiling point up to ~240*, which is far more than necessary on an engine. What you need to do is some research. There are MANY products on the market (water wetter is one, Napa's super kool is another) that include the corrosion inhibitors necessary to keep the cooling system in proper running order. So if you ran those (which are cheaper and better for the environment than antifreeze) with water, you'd be fine. IMO I'd go with Napa's Super Kool as you can get it in a one gallon jug, buy some test strips for coolant at Napa as well, and for $50 you have enough to likely fill your radiator 50-100 times. Use your old antifreeze jugs to pre-mix a bunch of it. Note that I do not recommend what you are doing in the least. Realize that your engines temperature gauge/light is likely NOT telling you the real story: sending units do not work well at all if they are not immersed in fluid...when you run low on coolant, it's likely the sending unit is no longer in coolant, and thus giving you a false sense of security. There is no "best" way you can manage this, it needs repaired. If nothing else, you need to pull over every few miles or time interval and check coolant level. Additionally, when you fill the radiator, filling the overflow reservoir to the top will give you more of a margin of error. If coolant is being consumed, the reservoir will drain instead of the radiator until the reservoir is dry. That would be a visual indicator that you still have enough in there. If your radiator cap has two positions (most do, they stay locked but are loose at the "first" position) you can TRy running with the cap loose like that. It will keep the coolant from becoming pressurized, which may lessen the amount of coolant lost to wherever it is leaking. This is not a long term fix, but better than running the engine dry. With no visible leak, the only option is that the coolant is going through the engine and going out the tailpipe. That will eventually lead to engine damage, and will lead to destruction if the cylinder gets enough liquid in it. If you can, prioritize your money to fix this now. The longer you let this go, the worse the repercussions. Autozone loans out a cooling system pressure tester, you can use this with the engine COLD to force pressure into the cooling system, and by watching for leaks, checking oil for coolant contamination, and pulling the spark plugs, you will know where it is going. No mechanic needed for that diagnosis, and it's free.
  • Have you had a head gasket check? If not get one. Coolant prevents corrosion as well as protecting against frost. Not good to drive with the coolant leak as you could wreck the engine. This sounds like a failed head gasket.
  • Most probably a loose radiator cap. If you cannot see liquid stains or runs then it is blowing out as vapour. Check the expansion bottle (not an overflow) also has its top screwed down.
  • Fred Thompson is not a real conservative. Conservatives who look to Thompson for salvation need to pause and consider his record—a record that includes these votes: Americans For Better Immigration rated his voting record with a "C" grade. http://www.betterimmigration.com/candida... Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Hunter all have much more conservative voting records on immigration. http://www.betterimmigration.com/candida... http://www.betterimmigration.com/candida... As a confirmed member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Thompson would support the North American Union. http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-13.html http://youtube.com/watch?v=kXevDajb2lo The CFR wants to allow Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the United States, including the hauling of local loads between U.S. cities. The CFR calls for creating a "North American preference" so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border; employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages. The CFR plan calls for massive U.S. foreign aid to the other countries. The burden on the U.S. taxpayers will include so-called "multilateral development" from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, "long-term loans in pesos," and a North American Investment Fund to send U.S. private capital to Mexico. As a proponent of free trade Thompson would support the the NAFTA Superhighway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBmFrYWPoG8 http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm#Free_Trade "Indeed, the image of the highway, with its Chinese goods whizzing across the border borne by Mexican truckers on a privatized, foreign-operated road, is almost mundane in its plausibility. "Construction of the NAFTA highway from Laredo, Texas to Canada is now underway," read a letter in the February 13 San Gabriel Valley Tribune. "Spain will own most of the toll roads that connect to the superhighway. Mexico will own and operate the Kansas City Smart Port. And NAFTA tribunal, not the U.S. Supreme Court, will have the final word in trade disputes." He also voted: ♦ FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public. See ACU’s vote 3, 1998. ♦ AGAINST an accelerated elimination of the “marriage penalty.” See ACU’s vote 10, 2001. ♦ AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton. See ACU’s vote 6, 1997. ♦ FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as “legal services” to Democratic constituencies. See ACU’s vote 16, 1995, and vote 17, 1999. ♦ FOR corporate welfare, specifically the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). See ACU’s vote 23. 1999. ♦ AGAINST worker and shareholder rights, specifically the Hatch (R-UT) amendment to require unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities. See ACU’s votes 4 and 5, 2001. ♦ FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups. See ACU’s vote 23, 1997. ♦ FOR President Clinton’s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion. See ACU’s vote 1, 1998. ♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns. See ACU’s vote 6, 1995. ♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically congressional perks such as postage and broadcast time funded by taxpayers. See ACU’s vote 13, 1996. ♦ AGAINST property rights and FOR unlimited presidential power, specifically by allowing President Clinton to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which he established by executive order, without congressional approval. See ACU’s vote 20, 1997. ♦ FOR affirmative action in federal contracts. See ACU’s vote 9, 1995. ♦ FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor. See ACU’s vote 16, 1996. ♦ FOR open-ended military commitments, specifically in regard to U.S. troops in Kosovo. See ACU’s vote 8, 2000. ♦ FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for all of us. (Of course! He’s been a trial lawyer himself for some three decades.) See ACU’s vote 18, 2002. ♦ FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership—a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.) See ACU’s vote 11, 2000. ♦ AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate. See ACU’s vote 1, 1999. There you have it. The actor who talks like a tough conservative has, in his real political life, voted in all these ways to increase the power of the federal government, limit the rights of taxpayers and individual citizens, and shut grassroots activists out of the political process. Ronald Reagan he is NOT! http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/gw3/articles-latestnews/articles.php?CMSArticleID=1827&CMSCategoryID=19 I will be voting for Ron Paul.
  • Frankly, I don't consider Thompson to be an honest contender. All I have to think about is how he has manipulated the equal time rule by not announcing his candidacy until after his Law & Order series was ready to start the new season and TNT announced that it would not limit the broadcast like NBC has. The re-runs alone gave him a huge face time broadcast advantage over the other GOP contenders and I felt as though that was dishonest. As far as him opting out on the debate last week, even though he is a lawyer still he is an actor in my view so again he is not relevant. Personally, I prefer John Edwards. So far I believe he is the most qualified. Hope he gets the nomination and then asks Joe Biden to run as his V.P. The best choices in 2008.
  • i in my view cherished how Ron Paul slapped down Mike Huckabee and the moderator. are you able to suspect that moderator incredibly tried to declare that Ron Paul is taking his marching orders from Osama bin weighted down or that Huckabee incredibly had the gull to spew some fascist crap approximately "ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer?" Ron Paul tore aside their laughable arguments. i seem forward to seeing Ron Paul tear aside Hlllary "president for 8 years already" Clinton in the final election debates (this is, if Hillary would not pull out). like the video for Obama early in the marketing campaign suggested, 2008 heavily isn't comparable to 1984. we are achieving the factor the place a Ron Paul victory is turning out to be further and added in all probability (tremendously now that even the Neo-Cons newspapers point out that Fraud Thompson is uninspiring at his activities). there is not any way that Fascist Rudy, John McCain-Feingold, or turn-Flop Romney get nominated, neither is Fred the respond, so as that leaves a void that purely a Revolution can fill.
  • Actually, i thought that was a brilliant move on his part. first, nobody is really paying attention yet. and fred will study the role, reherse, learn the inside facts and test the water regarding policies that might might be acceptable to the majority. etc. etc. He is just getting prepared to win and overwhelm the others in the debate. he has the communications skills that none of the of the others have. even hillary and that crowd. i am not his fan so much as i like a man who uses good judgement. no, it helped him to wait. i would never have watched the debate. it is like preseason sports. practice games mean nothing.
  • I cannot start respecting a man I have held in disrespect since he was the luggage boy for Nixon during Watergate. There's no respect to lose on Frederick of Hollywood.
  • Which show do you think got the biggest audience.....The NH Debates or the Tonight Show?
  • Do you really care what the actor does? He is not a politician. He gets paid to act. Politicians have to learn how to act over many years. This man comes to the table with all the skills needed to lie his way into popularity. Choose someone decent for your next president please. Not an actor.
  • Less, I would like to see a change in the debate where the candidates . . . gasp actually debate a subject instead of reciting their talking points. He will be lucky to make it to the Iowa Caucus before all his staff quits.
  • Actually, I thought it was rather ridiculous that we have so many candidates more than a year from election day. But who knows, maybe this way we'll have better nominees to choose from.
  • Fred Thompson is not a real conservative. Conservatives who look to Thompson for salvation need to pause and consider his record—a record that includes these votes: Americans For Better Immigration rated his voting record with a "C" grade. http://www.betterimmigration.com/candida... Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Hunter all have much more conservative voting records on immigration. http://www.betterimmigration.com/candida... http://www.betterimmigration.com/candida... As a confirmed member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Thompson would support the North American Union. http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-13.html http://youtube.com/watch?v=kXevDajb2lo The CFR wants to allow Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the United States, including the hauling of local loads between U.S. cities. The CFR calls for creating a "North American preference" so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border; employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages. The CFR plan calls for massive U.S. foreign aid to the other countries. The burden on the U.S. taxpayers will include so-called "multilateral development" from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, "long-term loans in pesos," and a North American Investment Fund to send U.S. private capital to Mexico. As a proponent of free trade Thompson would support the the NAFTA Superhighway. http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070809/cm_thenation/20070827hayes_1 http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm#Free_Trade "Indeed, the image of the highway, with its Chinese goods whizzing across the border borne by Mexican truckers on a privatized, foreign-operated road, is almost mundane in its plausibility. "Construction of the NAFTA highway from Laredo, Texas to Canada is now underway," read a letter in the February 13 San Gabriel Valley Tribune. "Spain will own most of the toll roads that connect to the superhighway. Mexico will own and operate the Kansas City Smart Port. And NAFTA tribunal, not the U.S. Supreme Court, will have the final word in trade disputes." He also voted: ♦ FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public. See ACU’s vote 3, 1998. ♦ AGAINST an accelerated elimination of the “marriage penalty.” See ACU’s vote 10, 2001. ♦ AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton. See ACU’s vote 6, 1997. ♦ FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as “legal services” to Democratic constituencies. See ACU’s vote 16, 1995, and vote 17, 1999. ♦ FOR corporate welfare, specifically the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). See ACU’s vote 23. 1999. ♦ AGAINST worker and shareholder rights, specifically the Hatch (R-UT) amendment to require unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities. See ACU’s votes 4 and 5, 2001. ♦ FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups. See ACU’s vote 23, 1997. ♦ FOR President Clinton’s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion. See ACU’s vote 1, 1998. ♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns. See ACU’s vote 6, 1995. ♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically congressional perks such as postage and broadcast time funded by taxpayers. See ACU’s vote 13, 1996. ♦ AGAINST property rights and FOR unlimited presidential power, specifically by allowing President Clinton to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which he established by executive order, without congressional approval. See ACU’s vote 20, 1997. ♦ FOR affirmative action in federal contracts. See ACU’s vote 9, 1995. ♦ FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor. See ACU’s vote 16, 1996. ♦ FOR open-ended military commitments, specifically in regard to U.S. troops in Kosovo. See ACU’s vote 8, 2000. ♦ FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for all of us. (Of course! He’s been a trial lawyer himself for some three decades.) See ACU’s vote 18, 2002. ♦ FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership—a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.) See ACU’s vote 11, 2000. ♦ AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate. See ACU’s vote 1, 1999. There you have it. The actor who talks like a tough conservative has, in his real political life, voted in all these ways to increase the power of the federal government, limit the rights of taxpayers and individual citizens, and shut grassroots activists out of the political process. Ronald Reagan he is NOT! http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/gw3/articles-latestnews/articles.php?CMSArticleID=1827&CMSCategoryID=19 I will be voting for Ron Paul. Among all candidates, Dr. Paul is now first in total donations from military personnel and veterans. Obama and McCain were second and third in donations from military and veterans. http://phreadom.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-paul-is-most-financially-military.html http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/ 1 Paul http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00432914/A_EMPLOYER_C00432914.html 2 Obama http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00431445/A_EMPLOYER_C00431445.html 3 McCain http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00430470/A_EMPLOYER_C00430470.html 4 Clinton http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00431569/A_EMPLOYER_C00431569.html 5 Richardson http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00431577/A_EMPLOYER_C00431577.html 6 Romney http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00431171/A_EMPLOYER_C00431171.html 7 Edwards http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00431205/A_ELECTION_C00431205.html 8 Giuliani http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00430512/A_EMPLOYER_C00430512.html Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Hunter have the most conservative voting records on immigration. http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop2.html http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop3.html http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html Tancredo and Ron Paul have the best voting records for reducing government spending according to the National Taxpayers Union. They were the only candidates to score 100 percent "A" Grades from 1992 to 2005. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=97# Sportsbook.com rates both Paul and Romney at 8 to 1 odds which is approximately an 11 percent chance of becoming the next President. Mitt Romney's campaign only had 35 percent more cash than Ron Paul after subtracting debts on 06/30/2007. http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+P80000748 http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+P80003353 Paul's campaign has almost 5 times as much money to spend as Tancredo. http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+P80003429 Romney's contributions from individuals dropped by a third from the first quarter to the second quarter. Paul's contributions almost quadrupled from Q1 to Q2. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/?nid=roll_08campaign Ron Paul received more than 10 times as much in donations in the last week of June as he received in the first week of April. http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00432914/A_DATE_C00432914.html Ron Paul's $2.4 million in fundraising after the second quarter placed him: 4th in total receipts to date 3rd in total current assets (ahead of former front-runner John McCain, and just $800,000 behind Mitt Romney) Thus far, 47% of the contributions made to Ron Paul's campaign are donations of under $200 from individuals (John McCain's 17% is the second-highest percentage). http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-small-donors-love-him.html This is a telling statistic, as it highlights the fact that most other candidates rely heavily upon donations from corporate interests and political action committees (PACs) (i.e. moneyed, influence-seeking sources who can readily afford to contribute large sums). Since Congressman Paul has always voted against special favors and privileges for anyone, special interests know they have nothing to gain by stuffing Ron Paul's campaign coffers. As one member of my local Meetup group put it on a home-made sign, "Ron Paul is thin because he won't let special interests buy him lunch." http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/sutton1.html
  • it may be using fact he's maximum at present an Actor, yet as you have reported, a Senator holds that identify for existence, a decide is termed decide for existence as properly, and Fred substitute right into a decide additionally, and on a similar time as he "performed one on television", i've got self assurance i've got study someplace that he substitute right into a Prosecutor too. gruesome Bias..............? Fred's a Republican, and a ethical Conservative, of direction the media is biased ! they're owned be The Communists !! yet, yer magnificent, Senator Fred Thompson is a lot extra qualified to be President than Obama, Obama cant carry Fred's footwear !!
  • I think he knows that it's a little early to start spending serious money. If you look at the pattern of past elections, the front runner in Sept. of '07 has almost no chance of being the nominee chosen in the primary. He is getting some free press right now, and concentrating on a plan of attack. It's a good strategy. As long as his name stays in the news, it doesn't matter what happens until about Feb. Look for him to pour on the publicity and appearances in early Jan., and continue to build momentum. He is a sharp guy, and he KNOWS about P.R. After all, Hollywood has proven a great place to learn the value of appearance vs. substance.
  • Who is it other "other" Internet candidate? As to the rest of your question, I would venture that the "neocons" could care less about Ron Paul as he is a loser and doesn't count. Nor would they necessarily support an unknown factor in the new comer Fred Thompson. There are other potential candidates that could be supported, including Mike Huckabee, that are better known than Fred.
  • A poll of 39000 people by "Grassfire" showed Thompson doubling his position one day after he announced his candidacy, and he's already way ahead of Mitt Romney. Sorry pal, but Ron Paul is not a serious contender and never was.
  • he'll just be a footnote in election 2008 history by March
  • Look at his stances on the issues.. No wonder he doesn't talk, no one would vote for him if they knew what he really planned to do...
  • Fred Thompson is not a real conservative. Conservatives who look to Thompson for salvation need to pause and consider his record—a record that includes these votes: Americans For Better Immigration rated his voting record with a "C" grade. http://www.betterimmigration.com/candida... Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Hunter all have much more conservative voting records on immigration. http://www.betterimmigration.com/candida... As a confirmed member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Thompson would support the North American Union. http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/ju... http://youtube.com/watch?v=kXevDajb2lo The CFR wants to allow Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the United States, including the hauling of local loads between U.S. cities. The CFR calls for creating a "North American preference" so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border; employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages. The CFR plan calls for massive U.S. foreign aid to the other countries. The burden on the U.S. taxpayers will include so-called "multilateral development" from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, "long-term loans in pesos," and a North American Investment Fund to send U.S. private capital to Mexico. As a proponent of free trade Thompson would support the the NAFTA Superhighway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBmFrYWPoG8 http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm#Free_Trade "Indeed, the image of the highway, with its Chinese goods whizzing across the border borne by Mexican truckers on a privatized, foreign-operated road, is almost mundane in its plausibility. "Construction of the NAFTA highway from Laredo, Texas to Canada is now underway," read a letter in the February 13 San Gabriel Valley Tribune. "Spain will own most of the toll roads that connect to the superhighway. Mexico will own and operate the Kansas City Smart Port. And NAFTA tribunal, not the U.S. Supreme Court, will have the final word in trade disputes." He also voted: ♦ FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public. See ACU’s vote 3, 1998. ♦ AGAINST an accelerated elimination of the “marriage penalty.” See ACU’s vote 10, 2001. ♦ AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton. See ACU’s vote 6, 1997. ♦ FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as “legal services” to Democratic constituencies. See ACU’s vote 16, 1995, and vote 17, 1999. ♦ FOR corporate welfare, specifically the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). See ACU’s vote 23. 1999. ♦ AGAINST worker and shareholder rights, specifically the Hatch (R-UT) amendment to require unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities. See ACU’s votes 4 and 5, 2001. ♦ FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups. See ACU’s vote 23, 1997. ♦ FOR President Clinton’s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion. See ACU’s vote 1, 1998. ♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns. See ACU’s vote 6, 1995. ♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically congressional perks such as postage and broadcast time funded by taxpayers. See ACU’s vote 13, 1996. ♦ AGAINST property rights and FOR unlimited presidential power, specifically by allowing President Clinton to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which he established by executive order, without congressional approval. See ACU’s vote 20, 1997. ♦ FOR affirmative action in federal contracts. See ACU’s vote 9, 1995. ♦ FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor. See ACU’s vote 16, 1996. ♦ FOR open-ended military commitments, specifically in regard to U.S. troops in Kosovo. See ACU’s vote 8, 2000. ♦ FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for all of us. (Of course! He’s been a trial lawyer himself for some three decades.) See ACU’s vote 18, 2002. ♦ FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership—a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.) See ACU’s vote 11, 2000. ♦ AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate. See ACU’s vote 1, 1999. There you have it. The actor who talks like a tough conservative has, in his real political life, voted in all these ways to increase the power of the federal government, limit the rights of taxpayers and individual citizens, and shut grassroots activists out of the political process. Ronald Reagan he is NOT! http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/gw3/articles-latestnews/articles.php?CMSArticleID=1827&CMSCategoryID=19 I will be voting for Ron Paul.
  • Fred Thompson definitely has some respectable political chops. He became into an assistant US lawyer, served as co-chief pointers to the Senate Watergate Committee in that's learn(is in charge for the properly-enjoyed "what did you be attentive to and while did you be attentive to it Q),toppled a corrupt governor for promoting pardons, is a member of The Council on distant places relatives(a non-partisan team), a traveling fellow on the american agency Institute the place he has researched nationwide risk-free practices and intelligence, and served 8 years interior the Senate(that's longer than Hillary or Obama). On paper he definitely blows an excellent kind of the applicants from the two events out of the water. exciting Bonus** He needs to decrease taxes, require an excellent majority to develop taxes(2/3 vote), and abolish the 55mph velocity cut back. Fred is a serious contender that's a lot greater desirable than 'an actor'. and that i could decide on John Thune(R-SD) as his working mate. learn him your self....
  • The only Law and Order that Thompson knows is the show that he was on. Heck I believe that still thinks that he is the District Attorney of New York.
  • "will he restore law and order"? You mean will he do something to protect our southern border from illegal aliens who are flooding into this country and breaking our laws? I hope so. You mean the inner city gangs who prey on innocent people by pushing drugs and murdering one another? I hope so. You mean the sick twisted pedophiles who prey on our nation's youth and who are constantly released from prison by liberal activist judges so they can resume their perversion? I hope so. You mean the thieving varmints who break into peoples homes in the middle of the night robbing and pillaging and then when caught and convicted are turned loose due to prison overcrowding so they can return to their thieving ways? I hope so. Yes, I certainly hope Fred Thompson can return law and order so decent citizens like you and I can walk the streets in safety and pursue the American dream. Go Fred Go!!!!!
  • there will be a further erosion of your rights, unending war, and a further destruction of the middle class apparently, Americans simply do not care
  • He will shed the Constitution.
  • before every presidential speach, we will hear that "CLANKING" that we here on law and order.
  • I hope so.
Fast percent loan in Alabama Fast percent loan in Alaska Fast percent loan in Arizona Fast percent loan in Arkansas Fast percent loan in California Fast percent loan in Colorado Fast percent loan in Connecticut Fast percent loan in Delaware Fast percent loan in Florida Fast percent loan in Georgia Fast percent loan in Hawaii Fast percent loan in Idaho Fast percent loan in Illinois Fast percent loan in Indiana Fast percent loan in Iowa Fast percent loan in Kansas Fast percent loan in Kentucky Fast percent loan in Louisiana Fast percent loan in Maine Fast percent loan in Maryland Fast percent loan in Massachusetts Fast percent loan in Michigan Fast percent loan in Minnesota Fast percent loan in Mississippi Fast percent loan in Missouri Fast percent loan in Montana Fast percent loan in Nebraska Fast percent loan in Nevada Fast percent loan in New Hampshire Fast percent loan in New Jersey Fast percent loan in New Mexico Fast percent loan in New York Fast percent loan in North Carolina Fast percent loan in North Dakota Fast percent loan in Ohio Fast percent loan in Oklahoma Fast percent loan in Oregon Fast percent loan in Pennsylvania Fast percent loan in Rhode Island Fast percent loan in South Carolina Fast percent loan in South Dakota Fast percent loan in Tennessee Fast percent loan in Texas Fast percent loan in Utah Fast percent loan in Vermont Fast percent loan in Virginia Fast percent loan in Washington Fast percent loan in West Virginia Fast percent loan in Wisconsin Fast percent loan in Wyoming