Friends, are you aware that many libertarians are also pro-life?

His campaign style was cited as example of his brilliance. I am simply refuting that claim by showing how every aspect of his campaign (that I’m aware of) is or has been done by other candidates. Sorry if you think that’s too much thought. Sorry if you think that’s too much thought.

Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Fred Thompson indeed did not invent the entire concept of the political campaign. And as long as you’re careful to isolate that trite but true thought from any other, it represents the very essense of simplicity.

You quoted someone else’s post talking about “special standards”, so of course I assumed you were trying to relate to that. I.e, that your claim somehow showed that Fred Thompson was less intelligent than all of the other billions of people who share the exact same trait.

No need for apologies though; I was only trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. If, as you’ve said above, the only point you were trying to make is that Fred Thompson’s failure to single-handedly invent politics does not prove that he is “brilliant”, then you are effectively saying absolutely nothing – the very paragon of simplicity.

His campaign style was cited as example of his brilliance. I am simply refuting that claim by showing how every aspect of his campaign (that I’m aware of) is or has been done by other candidates. Sorry if you think that’s too much thought. Sorry if you think that’s too much thought.

Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Fred Thompson indeed did not invent the entire concept of the political campaign. And as long as you’re careful to isolate that trite but true thought from any other, it represents the very essense of simplicity.

You quoted someone else’s post talking about “special standards”, so of course I assumed you were trying to relate to that. I.e, that your claim somehow showed that Fred Thompson was less intelligent than all of the other billions of people who share the exact same trait.

No need for apologies though; I was only trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. If, as you’ve said above, the only point you were trying to make is that Fred Thompson’s failure to single-handedly invent politics does not prove that he is “brilliant”, then you are effectively saying absolutely nothing – the very paragon of simplicity.

logis on July 8, 2007 at 5:27 PM

His campaign style was cited as example of his brilliance. I am simply refuting that claim by showing how every aspect of his campaign (that I’m aware of) is or has been done by other candidates. Sorry if you think that’s too much thought.

I’m not clear how one could conclude [Fred Thompson] is cutting-edge, as Kos (& others) pushed the net involvement in politics. It is the videos and audio on the net? Special because his are on ABC and various RW blogs, not just on candidate’s websites? The first election on-line video I saw was Hunter, honestly, and there is the Youtube series and the Powerline candidate forum, all of which are audio/video components that are supposedly Fred’s prophetic quality.
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 1:11 PM

You are putting waayy too much thought into this. Liberals reject the entire concept of “standards;” they rely solely on their feelings. So, In the mind of the liberal, the term “special standard” just means “I especially hate you.”

To people who make decisions based on emotion, there is US, and there is THEM, and there is nothing else. Liberals pervert every fact they can to support their feelings, and they reject any fact they’re not able to use to support their self-righteous hatred. By the liberal’s definition, everything a conservative says and does will always be BAD and the more conservative you are, the more BAD you are. Period.

In other words: to liberals, the thought is determined by the feeling – not the other way around. This way of thinking rejects reason in favor of rationalization. And trying to analyze that is the most complete waste of time imaginable.

Fred!…subject of abortion…don’t give a rat’s a$$. Abortion always legal SOMEWHERE. More important fish to fry.

There. Done, now.

Just when I thought it was safe to go in the water, you get all vituperative again. (sigh)

Tennman on July 8, 2007 at 12:55 PM

For every thing discussed in this thread (and other threads) about csdeven and you haven’t figured out that was an attempt to give that person an opportunity to respond to the topic of the thread instead of continually being obsessed with me. But, alas, it seems that the mindset of those that would rather fixate on csdeven is greater than their desire to discuss their defense of the person who the topic is about.

It’s real hard to take anyone seriously that cannot control their thought process and stay on topic, rather than invest their time in poor little old me. I’m flattered, but your complaints hardly have anything to do with freddie boys complete lack of qualifications and fakeries as they relate to his unsuitability to be the POTUS.

Everything you wrote about Fred! on your 8:55am comment, I have read here from you before. Pete, meet repeat.

Clearly, and the day you address those and not talk about me, we can get back to the topic of this thread, which is fred?. I guess that hint wasn’t strong enough.

I do see Fred! as the front runner for me currently; I also am strongly interested in Mr. Romney as a possible candidate. No belles of the ball here – sorry.

Are you serious? fred? isn’t even a candidate. How can he be the serious front runner?

As far as me supposedly believing that

Anyone who disagrees with that cannot possibly be a conservative?

Hogwash. I never said any such thing.

Exactly, that is why I ASKED the question instead of accusing you.

So, you think fred? is the belle of the ball and anyone who disagrees with that cannot possible be a conservative?

Which was a question for clarification to this statement by you….

I don’t know whether csdevin is a conservative or not. Great if he is, albeit not likely,

Your logic just jumped the shark. And in one final credit I give you for past comments clearly written, I suspect you know it.

No, you assumed without thinking to ask me. And I have noted your study of my remarks and have thanked you for it.

Keep shoveling away at that hole to China you are digging yourself into, cs. Or, simply stop. Either way, I admit I was wrong to think you might have more substance. My bad.
Beth A. on July 8, 2007 at 1:00 PM

There’s no reason to stop as it is not a hole. I am building a rock solid case against a faker and a liar who is too cowardly and disrespectful towards me to actually announce a date certain for his entrance into the fray.

So, you and your ilk can continue to hijack threads talking about me. Or, simple stop. Either way, I admit I was wrong thinking you might have more substance.
My bad.

No, of course not. However, there’s always a different standard for certain candidates…

jdawg on July 7, 2007 at 6:47 PM

That is, I think a self-created problem. Your own word here is candidate. Mitt (who you cited I believe) is declared, Fred has not, so lets say ‘likely candidates’.

One of the reasons that Fred gets ‘a different standard’, in your words, is because he is held up as a different ‘kind of candidate’. In a exercise in hyperbole, DG labeled him a prophet the other day, essentially related on his net-centric campaign.

I’m not clear how one could conclude he is cutting-edge, as Kos (& others) pushed the net involvement in politics. It is the videos and audio on the net? Special because his are on ABC and various RW blogs, not just on candidate’s websites? The first election on-line video I saw was Hunter, honestly, and there is the Youtube series and the Powerline candidate forum, all of which are audio/video components that are supposedly Fred’s prophetic quality.

Or perhaps it is meant that he is special because he engages the bloggers and blog readers? So from that standard we would have to label McCain prophetic for saying they should have a bi-weekly? conference call with bloggers. Or perhaps it’s because he blogs himself? Well in that case we would have to call E. Edwards prophetic. One also has to overlook Hunter’s letters written directly for LGF re:Israel. The casting of Fred, by some has been an exercise in hyperbole, thus he is subject to equalizing factors. [I just cite this for example]

The only way that they can be comfortably cast is in a relative light. Meaning Fred’s ‘campaign’ has a large percentage of it’s effort invested on the web. But in absolute values, is it greater than Mitt and mini-Mitt or others? Measured in absolute values, it’s highly unlikely.

Or course, I’m not charging you with that. Unseen brought valuable information to the table re: M-F, and so did you re:leaving office. There is good commentary to be found re: Fred in these threads once the emotive forces are taken out.

Everything you wrote about Fred! on your 8:55am comment, I have read here from you before. Pete, meet repeat.

I do see Fred! as the front runner for me currently; I also am strongly interested in Mr. Romney as a possible candidate. No belles of the ball here – sorry.
As far as me supposedly believing that

Anyone who disagrees with that cannot possibly be a conservative

?

Hogwash. I never said any such thing. Your logic just jumped the shark. And in one final credit I give you for pastcomments clearly written, I suspect you know it.

Keep shoveling away at that hole to China you are digging yourself into, cs. Or, simply stop. Either way, I admit I was wrong to think you might have more substance. My bad.

csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 8:55 AM

Just when I thought it was safe to go in the water, you get all vituperative again. (sigh)

Beth A. on July 8, 2007 at 4:17 AM

So, you think fred? is the belle of the ball and anyone who disagrees with that cannot possible be a conservative?

fred? isn’t a principled conservative. He’s a power hungry Washington insider who is creating the image of a principled conservative for himself. It worked in Tennessee in 1992 and he thinks it will work in 2008. His problem is that the rest of the country isn’t impressed with red pickup trucks, blue jeans, flannel shorts, and folksy colloquialisms designed to fool people into believing he is something he is not.

Reagan really did own horses and lived a down to earth life style. He didn’t have to fake people into supporting him by riding his horse in rallies when people were looking and then driving away in his limo the second they were out of sight of him. Yet, we have a certain segment of fred? supporters who believe he is the next Reagan. Riiiight. fred? is a midget with a bullhorn standing behind a cardboard cutout of Reagan. fred? actually had the nerve during his speech at the Lincoln Club, to claim Reagan asked him for advice about a speech he was getting ready to give and Reagan changed his speech because fred? told him to. I’m still waiting for the proof for that line of BS and even his most crazy supporters have yet to provide such proof.

Yeah, it’s clear, if a person chooses to see, that fred? talks the talk, but he has to have a crutch to walk the walk. He’s a fake, and he refuses to engage as a real candidate and that shows him as a coward.

But if you’d stop marveling (‘marveling’, is it? LOL. you’ve got to be joking) at his rare abstention from personal abuse, and take the time to actually READ the rhetoric he’s spouting (did that), I think you’d realize that the sort of person who keeps injecting that sort of class-warfare argument into every discussion can by no stretch of the imagination be referred to as a “conservative.(never said he was)”

I don’t know whether csdevin is a conservative or not. Great if he is, albeit not likely, but all I was pointing out is that his comments on subjects other than Mr. Thompson are cogent at least, but when on focused on Fred! he loses any credibility he had built up. That’s all. I agree with the commenter who wondered if Fred ran over cs’s puppy or something, it’s just that obvious that he loathes the man.

He just doesn’t/won’t see it.

Where is the connection? I read nothing in that article that said Hillary was involved. I figure you must have something you can link to.
csdeven on July 6, 2007 at 11:56 PM

I take it “connect the dot diagrams” didn’t go so well for you in kindergarten….
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 12:03 AM

How DARE you insinuate that Hillary clinton has ties to an abortion lobby?

The article very clearly said that NO politician other than Fred Tompson has EVER been associated with abortion in ANY way.

You’re obviously having a very hard time dealing with a conversation at CS’s level. Look, it’s really simple: just take an ice cream scoop and remove the parts of your brain that contain any knowledge beyond what you’ve read in the most recent issue of the Los Angeles Times. I think then you’ll finally understand that the guy’s really making some pretty good points here.

I have to ask…Is this really any different from Romney’s own admission that he was once pro-choice?

There is one very minor difference. This event didn’t actually HAPPEN.

But, yeah, other than that, they’re pretty much identical.

Tennman on July 7, 2007 at 7:29 PM

I agree that everyone deserves honest representation. But I also would not chose to to take on a cause that was immoral. There are plenty of lawyers that will take on those cases. There are lawyers that refuse certain cases on principle especially when the guilt is not in dispute.

I apply those same principles to a lobbyist. There are plenty of worth while causes that one can get involved in. That may not be others standards, but they are mine and I will not support someone that doesn’t fit those standards.

csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 5:01 PM

I will accept your three additional facts.

Now I will just do this longhand without resorting to the points. First off, plaintiffs are not necessarily victims. They’re just announcing the right through a complaint to seek damages against negligent parties. Their case still has to be proven. And in response to your argument that asbestos was/is a known carcinogen, depends on who you asked and what they knew. There’s a lot that goes into asbestos litigation. The asbestos plaintiffs bar has this down to a science as do the asbestos defense bar. This isn’t about making victims whole, it’s about giving plaintiffs money to compensate for their loss if they prevail.

Secondly, an attorney represents all kinds of people, both plaintiff and defendant. There’s nothing wrong with giving your client zealous representation, if it’s within the law. The way our system is supposed to work is that everyone gets a fair shake, both plaintiffs and defendants. And that means someone has to represent both sides. Anecdotally, I’ve know hundreds of plaintiffs and hundreds of defense attorneys. With rare exception, they get a bum rap from people who put attorneys below politicians for truth and honesty.

So I believe that just basing your argument on whom one represents is neither accurate nor correct.

G.K. Chesterton said, “Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the
mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

In other words, keep the mind open at least until there is a reason to close it. I have not found that reason by virtue of your argument.

Thank you for the honest discourse.

No, of course not. However, there’s always a different standard for certain candidates…

I think that if Fred has truly changed his belief system then it shouldn’t turn into a major stumbling block for him.

Ah, the pro-lifers. The only group in the world where 99.9% loyalty just isn’t enough.

And, the only group where one MUST be 100% pro-life from the moment of conception…

I am very pro-life, have been for over 20 years, and been involved in pro-life politics for a long time, and I know of what I speak. The only group that kills it’s own wounded to maintain some form of “purity”.

“We did not send our representitives to Washington to pass legislation that benefits big business….”
csdeven

Take a look at the rhetoric; calm, reasonable, making his arguments in a civil manner… as opposed to the self-indulgent, temper-tantrumish diatribes he responds to anything Fred! with.Beth A. on July 7, 2007 at 4:00 PM

I have absolutely no way of ascertaining whether CS was biting the computer screen as he typed that. So I’m happy to take you at your word that this doesn’t represent a “tantrum.”

But if you’d stop marveling at his rare abstention from personal abuse, and take the time to actually READ the rhetoric he’s spouting, I think you’d realize that the sort of person who keeps injecting that sort of class-warfare argument into every discussion can by no stretch of the imagination be referred to as a “conservative.”