Hehe. Yeah, I’m sure that’s it. Nothing you’re saying is stupid, you’re just not cutting and re-pasting it nearly enough times for the rest of us to figure out your brilliance!

BTW, I haven’t really been keeping track: is there anybody here who is doing absolutely nothing but chasing down every article they can find about MITT:( and GIULIANI:O and rabidly attacking them?
So you agree that fred? is completely unqualified. Good. That’s three converts in this thread alone.

Um, I’m afraid that’s not the exact meaning most people would glean from that particular combination of words…

But don’t worry. I think everyone here understands why you’d be confused about that.

logis on June 26, 2007 at 12:34 PM

So you agree that fred? is completely unqualified. Good. That’s three converts in this thread alone.

yes, but unfortunately there was a 1976 before there was a 1980.

Joey1974 on June 26, 2007 at 1:32 PM

It was unavoidable that there be a 1976. The Executive Branch was manned, for the first time in history, by two men who were unelected to the positions. That status was reached because of the resignations of Agnew and Nixon. It was inevitable that the American people lost trust in the Republican party.

The “malaise” and “stagflation” which rose up under the Carter presidency gave people a glimpse of the alternative, and led them to embrace the message of self-reliance they began to hear in 1980. From an actor.

That is piss running down their legs folks!

conservnut on June 25, 2007 at 5:57 PM

yes, but unfortunately there was a 1976 before there was a 1980.

BTW, I haven’t really been keeping track: is there anybody here who is doing absolutely nothing but chasing down every article they can find about MITT:( and GIULIANI:O and rabidly attacking them?

logis on June 26, 2007 at 12:34 PM

No, and in there lies my point.

Pay attention….THE bottom line is that Rudy and Mitt! are both capable of speaking extemporaneously in hostile environments while sticking to their guns and staying on point.

Hehe. Yeah, I’m sure that’s it. Nothing you’re saying is stupid, you’re just not cutting and re-pasting it nearly enough times for the rest of us to figure out your brilliance!

Of course we all understand that “extemporaneous” sound bites are the way your TV works. But no matter how many times you repeat yourself, that won’t magically make that the way the world works.

BTW, I haven’t really been keeping track: is there anybody here who is doing absolutely nothing but chasing down every article they can find about MITT:( and GIULIANI:O and rabidly attacking them?

You’re a darling. Still looking forward to San Diego.

Peace and cheers.

csdeven on June 26, 2007 at 12:05 AM

Thanks, CS… Looking forward to it too! ;)

logis on June 26, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Rudy and Mitt! both have a long history of competent defenses of their positions. To point to Rudy’s zinger as some sort of apples to apples comparison of how he’ll deal with loonyabinajob is ignoring the fundamental differences between the two persons in question and the situation where the discussion takes place.

Pay attention….THE bottom line is that Rudy and Mitt! are both capable of speaking extemporaneously in hostile environments while sticking to their guns and staying on point.

fred? has shown he is completely incapable of that even in the most softball of interviews. IE, Leno, Robinson, and the London fiasco’s.

Watch Rudy and Mitt! respond in hostile enviroments. They have it going on and will be a force to reckon with by other world leaders.

Of course. That is exactly how the world works.

I have no idea why everyone keeps making fun of you. You’ve got it all figured out: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is sitting around right now thinking, “Wow, those ten guys on stage all let Chris Matthews ask them incredibly retarded questions and didn’t break down in tears. And Rudy Giuliani even got in a “zinger”. How forceful! If he gets elected, I’ll have to start toeing the line for a change.”

logis on June 25, 2007 at 11:26 PM

There are two issues here. One, federalism is great, and 2nd, holding onto old outdated policies held by the founding fathers is not good. We NEED experienced leadership in the White House BECAUSE the world leaders he has to interact with are experienced. freds? rhetorical rants sound good on a podcast, but world leaders are not fooled. Our leaders have to be able to think on their feet and fred? has shown that he is incapable of that. World leaders are not going to wait a day for fred? to memorize his lines and make his case. He has to come off as competent, quick, and forceful. fred? is completely vacuous on that point. Watch Rudy and Mitt! respond in hostile enviroments. They have it going on and will be a force to reckon with by other world leaders. The globalization of the world community eliminates no experience non-candidates like fred? from consideration. He knows this and that is why he is globe trotting the world in a lame attempt to give himself some foreign policy credibility to make up for his complete lack of qualifications to run the most powerful nation on the face of the earth.

fred?, so far, is all rhetoric and no action. His record confirms this and I see nothing that changes that.

the honors committee who have put the “Sir” before Rushdie’s name had to have known that it would provoke anger among those who believe Islam should be protected from criticism

Hmm. Call me cynical, but I suspect it to be far more likley that the thinking was more along the lines of… “Can anyone suggest some prominent Muslims we can knight to prove to them that we aren’t Islamophobes? Ah-ha – Salman Rushdie!”

If it were some kind of anti-jihadi political statement you would definitely NOT in the same breath knight an apologist for terrorists like Shami Chakrabarti.

Do I really beleive my government is really that ignorant with regards radical Islam? Yes; I’m afraid I do.

I was amazed that he just flat out said he’d pardon Libby. FRED! was federal prosecutor, and he’s clearly reviewed the case more than enough to know what a travesty it was. George Bush is the only person on Earth who can actually DO something about this screw job, but he’s sitting on his hands. But FRED! doesn’t hesitate a second to take all the flak anyone’s ready to hand out – just so he can say what he knows is right.

The Libby case is exactly the kind of political witch hunt that the executive pardon was INVENTED for. Compare that to Clinton’s last-month-in-office pardons for the highest bidders.

On second thought, don’t. That would be an insult. FRED! is operating on a completely different plane of existence from that pond scum. And he’s playing on a higher level than any other politician out there right now.

I don’t really care if Fred! played the field before getting married. That just shows me he is a red blooded American. Not a politician groomed from birth like some.

I’ve had the misfortune to actually KNOW people like that. And trust me, people who are stamped out of plastic are even more annoying in real life than they are on TV.

They honest-to-God pick their wives based on demographics. They take part-time jobs and contribute to charities because that looks good to the people – “Oh, but of course you have to be sincere about it, because that’s important too!” (Believe it or not, I actually heard one of the younger podlings SAY that last part out loud – it takes decades to get all the soundbites properly worked out for the camera.)

Politicians do not get elected by doing what’s RIGHT; they get elected by doing what WORKS. I don’t know what it used to be like in the old days, but there’s an entire generation of politicians today – on both sides of the isle – who see Bill and Hillary Clinton as templates of the consummate politicians.

Sorry. I went away for a little while, but I’m back now.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other – this is a non-issue.

The issue with Thompson having been a lobbyist is not one of substance, but one of appearance. Sure, he didn’t make much money

Big S on June 26, 2007 at 12:40 AM

According to Newsday:
“Even after Thompson left the Senate in 2003 with a plum job playing District Attorney Arthur Branch on the NBC drama series “Law & Order” he continued to lobby, this time for Equitas, a British reinsurance company that handles billions of dollars of asbestos claims for Lloyd’s of London. That earned him more than $750,000 over the past three years, including $300,000 in 2005, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.”

750K ain’t chump change.

Also, there are conservative lobbyists so not all of them are bad.
Rose on June 26, 2007 at 1:10 AM

You have got to be kidding. If a lobbyist is conservative it is okay regardless of what kind of extra regulations or special benefits they win for their client at the expense of you the taxpayer? But if they are liberal they are evil money grubbing hacks?

Fred all the way.

If you say he/she/it is not a troll, then fine, he/she/it is not a troll.

I’ll leave you to play he/she/it inane semantics game.

As for waiting for Fred! to debate, to get tossed a curve ball. Just how many decisions do you want a President to make in a knee-jerk fashion?

And if you think those ten talking heads on stage aren’t scripted then naivety wins the day. You act like no one else has advisers.

I don’t really care if Fred! did some lobbying.

I don’t really care if Fred! played the field before getting married. That just shows me he is a red blooded American. Not a politician groomed from birth like some.

If a politician has a snappy answer to all questions all that proves is he/she is well rehearsed.

I want a President when faced with all the facts and advisement he makes the best decision for America. Not someone that can raise his/her hand to a stupid question in a insignificant debate.

Right now, in my opinion, that person is Fred!

Make up your own mind, I won’t fault you for it.

If you ask someone on the street who Abramoff or Cunningham are and what they have to do with Republicans most likely they won’t even know…. Also, there are conservative lobbyists so not all of them are bad.

Well, d’uh!

I know it’s asking a whole lot of some people, but try to use a tiny bit of logic here: OF COURSE politicians talk to lobbyists exactly as much as lobbyists talk to politicians. So it makes exactly as much sense to claim someone is evil because he was a lobbyist as it makes to say that he is evil because he is a politician.

In other words: the moonbats who are demanding more experience are simultaneously demanding naivete. As the old saying goes: you can’t argue with that kind of logic. And no one has ever raised his standing by treating fools as his equals.

Of course no serious person can possibly throw this stone without shattering his own candidate’s house. As for the moonbats, we can make fun of them all we want, but if Thompson is anything like Reagan he’ll just smile, shake his head, and ignore the gibbering twits. In other words, he’ll do something almost unheard of in America today: he’ll act Presidential.

Dhems phear the phred.