Can you say Bloomberg?

tommylotto on July 14, 2007 at 8:51 PM

Not without choking.

So, I’ll ask you the same as I asked csdeven (and never got answered) – given your hatred of Fred, if he’s the candidate going against Hitlery in the general, you gonna vote for Hitlery?

jdawg on July 14, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Can you say Bloomberg?

So, I’ll ask you the same as I asked csdeven (and never got answered) – given your hatred of Fred, if he’s the candidate going against Hitlery in the general, you gonna vote for Hitlery?

jdawg on July 14, 2007 at 6:09 PM

I can’t find it, but I do remember cs saying he’d never vote for Shrillary. So I believe he did in his way answer that question for you.

I don’t know if we will ever be able to reverse the entrenched culture of big government.

Not with the current DemCong in charge. And I’m not too convinced about the R’s either. Lots of work to do.

BTW, good to hear one of your sons is back, you can add my prayers to the list. Having served, I know it’s good to be back with family.

Yeah, just because NRLC supported him and gave him a solid pro-life voting record, and NARAL gave him at besta 5 percent rating, that don’t mean squat.

Only what you and csdeven say, right?

please.

So, I’ll ask you the same as I asked csdeven (and never got answered) – given your hatred of Fred, if he’s the candidate going against Hitlery in the general, you gonna vote for Hitlery?

tommylotto on July 14, 2007 at 1:11 PM

Pretty typical impeachment argument, Tommylotto. Unfortunately, as we all know, impeachment rarely works unless it’s a smoking gun followed up by an argument of unclean hands and bad faith.

There is no unclean hands or bad faith in the Thompson voting record, your efforts to imply restrictions/reservations on Fred’s intent notwithstanding.

So just because you say so, doesn’t mean it’s so. I will rely on what really happened as opposed to parol evidence.

P.S. that supposed pro-life voting record does not fool me. It’s not as if a law outlawing all abortions under any circumstance came up for a vote. These groups that figure out these voting records are just reading tea leaves from confirmation votes, etc. Just because Fred supported his President’s choice of attorney general (who is Pro-Life) does not make him Pro-Life. Most pro-choice Republicans believe that Roe v. Wade is bad law, there should be restrictions, partial birth abortions are bad, and parental notification is needed. What I am saying is that if another Pro-Choice Republican (like Rudy for instance) had cast those same votes, he would have probably voted the same way. So, I do not see his voting record being at odds with his 1994 statements which certainly sounds Pro-Choice (with restrictions).

csdeven on July 14, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Thank you for your prayers also. My son is back in the states now, but has too much to do before he goes out again to be able to come home this time.

You’re right on the culture of big government. And many people do not understand that this country was not set up by the Founding Fathers to be a Democracy. The intent was to form a Federal Republic. Saying this to people gets me some funny looks until I explain to them that the original intent was for the federal government to take care of things like national defense, international relations, federal laws that SHOULD be applied nationwide etc. , but to leave it to the states to take care of everything else. Then they for the most part agree with me. I do get the occasional dissent from a big government type who thinks everyone deserves a piece of the pie, but I don’t bother with them. They’re usually too convinced of their own folly to persuade otherwise.

We may disagree on Fred, but you and I seem to be not too far apart on everything else.

Kowboy on July 14, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Thanks for the prayers and I will extend the same for you and yours.

I agree also that the issue should be left to the states. The federal government jumped the shark on states rights some time ago and I don’t know if we will ever be able to reverse the entrenched culture of big government.

csdeven on July 14, 2007 at 11:20 AM

It was a good article, and the statement does lean to Fred being pro-choice, or at least accepting that the laws are now that way. As I said before, I’m anti-abortion. However, as long as abortion is legal I have to accept that. And I also believe that it isn’t a government issue. It’s a state issue.

Either way, it isn’t enough to convince me that Fred may not be the best choice. But he still hasn’t locked up my vote and I will let the events of the coming months decide who ultimately will.

I read on another thread that one of your sons is home. I hope you enjoy his visit as much as I enjoy it when my son gets a chance to come home. And I pray that both of them may return home safely to you when their tours are over.

This isn’t the original article, but I have seen it but can’t find it right now.

So, yeah, in a way it’s is personal, but it by no stretch of the imagination is obsessive or psychotic.

csdeven on July 14, 2007 at 10:31 AM

Okay, I can accept that. Now I will ask you this. Do you think it might be that since this is in a way personal that you sometimes may take things we say to you a little too personally? I’m not talking about the F-Troop stuff. I mean some of the arguments we make in favor of Fred. Is it possible that you might be overreacting a little bit and taking some things as personal attacks when they really aren’t?

Now to your points on Fred in your last post.

1) My wife worked for lawyers for years. In every office she worked in I saw them signing things brought to their desks and sending them on with just a few questions to the people who filled out the documents. These lawyers trusted the people working for them and didn’t feel the need to go through everything that crossed their desk. Can you admit there is the possibility that this may be what happened with this questionnaire? I’m not saying it did happen, just that it could have based on my experiences. Lawyers have a boatload of paperwork cross their desks every day. No way can they possibly go through all of it. They have to trust those who work for them.

2) I can’t comment on this because I don’t know if I’ve seen the interview or not. I’ll try to find it. Or if you have a link handy and could post it, I’d appreciate it.

As I have said before, I think you’re an intelligent person, but the name calling and such detracts from that and makes you look like you really have no defense.
Kowboy on July 14, 2007 at 10:01 AM

You cannot react to my vitriol about fred?. It is a opposing voice to the fred?-a-mania that surrounds him. That isn’t to say I don’t feel personally offended by the guy. He wants my support, but he plays coy with his announcement date. Not once, but several times. He filled out a questionaire and did an interview in 1994 that clearly took the pro-choice position. OK, fine. But now he claims he has always been pro-life and that someone else filled out the questionaire. Two reasons I don’t buy that.

1) By 1994 fred? had been an attorney for 20 years or so, and he wants me to believe that he signed something without reading it first? freds? too good a lawyer for that excuse to hold water.

2) fred? gave an interview in 1994 saying the exact same thing.

He now (and his supporters are carrying his water for him in defense), he says he has ALWAYS been pro-life.

That is a lie. That insults me. fred? wants my support yet he disrespects some the basic tenets of conservatism. Truth and honor. I cannot even get to his stated positions until he can convince me he is a true conservative at his core. Meaning, honest and honorable. So, yeah, in a way it’s is personal, but it by no stretch of the imagination is obsessive or psychotic.

I cannot abide a liar.
csdeven on July 14, 2007 at 9:35 AM

Oh, the irony.

csdeven on July 14, 2007 at 9:35 AM

Sorry, no bandwagon jumper here.

I have in the past asked you to explain your stance on Fred and all I ever get is the “He lied about his abortion stance” line from you. The possibility that he represented pro-choice groups as a lobbyist and says Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the decision left to the states in my mind does not make him ever pro-choice. I myself am anti-abortion now, but wasn’t until I had children of my own.

I’ve asked you if you have ever served in the military. I have been told by Spirit of 1776 that you have 2 sons in the military. I and my wife are both veterans and have a son serving in the Navy now. I hope you are as proud of your sons as I am of mine.

I don’t mind that you disagree with me. I’d just like to be able to discuss it with you rationally. When I get the “groupie” and “you don’t belong at the adult table” comments I tend to respond in kind. Not one of my better traits, but then again I’ve never denied the fact that I can be an asshole.

As I have said before, I think you’re an intelligent person, but the name calling and such detracts from that and makes you look like you really have no defense.

right2bright on July 14, 2007 at 9:19 AM

I too have gotten the impression that he’s really not interested in what I have to say. He’s just fixated on the fact that I think Fred might be the best choice if he runs and therefore should be a target of his scorn.

I have asked him, both seriously and sarcastically I admit, why he has such animosity towards Fred, but all I ever get is “fred?’s a liar” and the snide comments and name calling.

I even went in search of his comments on non-Fred posts to see if this was a trend. It’s not. He really does seem to be a very intelligent person when the subject isn’t Fred. It almost seems like a post hypnotic suggestion is in effect and when he sees Fred’s name it sends him off the deep end.

But now it seems to be controlling him. In the post about congress’ rating, he had to make a Fred comment. It’s a shame really. If he could be the same commenter in Fred posts as he is in others that I’ve seen, it might make for some lively and interesting debate.

case in point

right2bright on July 14, 2007 at 9:19 AM

Kowboy on July 14, 2007 at 8:36 AM

I don’t answer questions from people who use the personal attack in place of a defense for the issues I point out. You jumped on the jdawg bandwagon, assuming you know me, and the definitions of the terms I use. It’s like a feeding frenzy. You see others attack so you think they have a valid argument.

Just to give you the same clue I have given jdawg…..

I have three basic terms for fred? supporters.

Groupies….the whacky ones that like him because of his TV persona and attack others because they point out how dumb that is.

fred?heads…those who ignore the negatives about fred?, yet deride those same negatives in other candidates. Basically, a not very educated person on all freds? flip-flops etc.

Then you have the regular old fred? supporter who hopes he is all he says, but just can’t go nuts about him because he just wont stand to be counted.

jdawg knows this, yet continues to claim I call all fred? supports “groupies”. I have also told him many, many, many, times that I don’t care what freds? position on abortion is. I care that he was pro-choice and now he’s pro-life, and he lies and denies that he was EVER pro-choice. I cannot abide a liar. I can abide a pro-choice candidate. That is why Rudy is still an option for me and partly why fred? is not.

As far as answering his demands, yeah, riiiight. I’m not gonna give that child the attention he wants. When he is ready to defend fred? on the issues and admit the truths instead of lashing out at me for not buying into his fantasy about fred?, then will I treat him as an adult.

Another issue…..I don’t take many threads off topic. You and others start ragging on me because you don’t like what I say about fred?. Yet, I am constantly accused by these people as being the one who takes the thread off topic. That’s absurd and hilarious all at the same time.

This will be the last time I explain this to you. I do not like being part of these thread hijacks and responding to you guy’s silliness is just propagating it.

later.

Kowboy on July 14, 2007 at 8:36 AM

You guys are wasting your time. He has finally done something that he gets attention for. He hi-jacks these threads with his hatred, then he weakly debates, with a inordinate amount of detail, his position and when his facts are attacked (like articles countering his beliefs) he resorts to name calling. But at least he gets attention, he never loses an argument, he will just mis-quote you or lie about your message. He has excluded himself from the “adult table” as he calls it by his lies and distortions. BTW, notice I have called him a liar and a mis-quoter, and he never has challenged that. Why? Because he has been caught, on record. Why engage a liar? You won’t win.
No matter what you state, he will claim that others have stated lies, therefore you are lying. Even if you don’t write it, he really thinks you have written it. Very bizarre. So, as he is responding to you, he is thinking of all of the die hard Fred supporters, and some of the posting they have made, and he is attributing them to you. It happened to me, that is why I don’t engage him, I guess he thinks it is him against everyone else. Maybe he feels everyone is out to get him (or he finally has some attention). We had a troll a few months ago that did the same thing, she would attack, just to attack. She basked in the attention, then finally she had to cross the line to get more attention and was banned. I think everyone pretty much has seen his rants, and takes them for what they are worth. Face to face, I don’t think he would be so strident and quick to call names. The obession with Fred is a little too intense for me, a little too “over the top”. And it really stops a good thread from morphing into an interesting debate, with interesting comments, but at least he gets attention. Too bad, because he used to post some pretty good comments.

I don’t cast my pearls before swine.

Besides, it would be cruel of me to shame these two fools (kowboy and jdawg). They’re doing that all on their own and I see no reason to pile on.

csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 11:27 PM

Is that your reason for not answering any of the legitimate and reasonable questions we have asked you in the past? Or the reason you’re now going to non-Fred topics and posting only about Fred?

I myself have told you that right now I support Tancredo, not Fred. But I guess you don’t like him any more than you do Fred. I like what Fred has to say on topics, and agree with him on most of them. Your borderline complete obsession with Fred is beginning to make you a non-factor in any conversation about him. Anyone who disagrees with you is a “groupie”, doesn’t belong at the “adult table”. You rarely if ever site sources, but tell us we should verify it ourselves and that we’re lazy if we don’t. Seems to me it’s lazy if you’re going to post something and not link sources for it.

Now, if you’re going to respond to this with your typical “You’re small minded and juvenile and I’m far superior to you” attitude, do us all a favor and just shut the hell up.

On the Fox movie channel they are showing “Die Hard 2″ and guess who has a role? “liar fred?”!!! I kid you not! And you know what my first impression was? The groupies aren’t rooting for fred? thompson. They’re rooting for Trudeau!! freddie boy has bought into his acting persona to the point that he is always acting like that even when he is a non-candidate!!

Now it makes sense! I had a whacked out groupie (a couple of them actually) tell me last month that fred? doesn’t have to act. He just shows up and IS himself!! I knew this was crazy talk but I never realized just how obvious it could be! Now I see exactly where he gets a portion of his poll numbers from. I know that all candidates have their kooks that support them regardless, but fred? sure has an awful lot of them.

Of course there is no one at HA anymore that fits that description.

Besides, it would be cruel of me to shame these two fools (kowboy and jdawg). They’re doing that all on their own and I see no reason to pile on.

I salute you and yours.

Spirit of 1776 on July 13, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Thank you, sir. You haven’t said whether the tradition exists in your family, but I’m willing to go out on a limb and say it does, so I return the salute.