O/T

I responded with an apology to you in that thread.

\

Gladly accepted.

BKennedy on July 17, 2007 at 2:59 PM

HA!

Tennman on July 17, 2007 at 1:14 PM

O/T

I responded with an apology to you in that thread.

On topic…..

freds? problem is that he has to get by we junkies in the primary first. And even if he gets to the general, he will be labeled a “lobbyist” etc. And, like all sheeple, the voters in the general believe EVERYTHING they read and hear in the MSM. The “lobbyist” label will destroy fred?, because they will refer to the dishonesty that surrounds lobbying by mentioning the name Abramoff. EVERYBODY knows what that means.

fred? is like a midget with a bullhorn standing behind a cardboard cutout of Ronald Reagan.

hahaha

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 2:35 PM

You forgot that he’s standing on an Herbal Essences [think weed] Soap Box because the megaphone still can’t reach over cardboard Reagan’s head.

BKennedy on July 17, 2007 at 2:19 PM

hahaha

Here’s one I made up….

fred? is like a midget with a bullhorn standing behind a cardboard cutout of Ronald Reagan.

hahaha

logis on July 17, 2007 at 9:53 AM

You are a puppet on a string dude!

Go ahead, call ma another bad name. I dare you.

I double dare you.

I TRIPLE dog dare you!

lol

I haven’t seen a single thing Fred has done for the conservative movement but talk. Fred is a load of hype with no substance. The only thing I “fear” about Fred Thompson is that I fear he’ll be nominated in a rush of hype and get his little red wagon fixed by Hillary or Edwards. Thompson brings nothing but essays to the table. Hillary will be saying she has executive experience by proxy, Edwards will be drumming up his two Americas rhetoric and lambasting Fred over the Iraq war. Bill Richardson, should he get the nomination, has actual executive experience. Obama is the only fair fight for Fred, since they are both running on Hollyweird star power and charisma.

Don’t you get it Fredheads? Aversion to your [non]candidate is not a sign of fear. It’s like saying I made a bet on a fight on the biggest, most trained fighter and I’m afraid of a 5′2 internet geek challenger beating up on my pick, a 6′2 martial artist. Fred Thompson is the internet geek (yes, I know he’s physically over 6′).

Fred is nothing like Reagan. The only thing they have in common is that they are actors with conservative opinions. Reagan had executive experience. Reagan had courage. Reagan was the great communicator with a unified message, not a Washington insider and one-note (a bad one, McCain- Feingold) Senator.

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 7:42 AM

O/T Cs, I answered your question about the Trinity in the vault, so go have a gander there if you want to talk about it.

Back on topic:

McCain-Feingold will not cluck defiance with the general electorate. Only those of us who are insane junkies.

So, yeah, attack another candidate or a person on this board and I’m sure that will help you forget those facts about freddie boy.

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 7:42 AM

“Forget”? So that’s what you’re really so terrified of after all: You think that you’re Spamming the exact same list of grievances four dozen times a day because everyone else in the world BESIDES YOU is autistic.

Pure jealousy. Spite is indeed a harsh mistress.

logis on July 17, 2007 at 6:29 AM

freds? behavior, at it’s core, is decidedly NOT conservative.

fred? could have announced a date he would announce last April without any contract problems. Just like Newt did. Newt respected conservatives enough to give them a date certain that he would announce.
fred? does not. Therefore, he does not deserve the support of real conservatives like myself and others on this forum that see fred? for the liar he is.

You are again building your straw man arguments because freds? piss poor history is indefensible. The man is not qualified. He has no executive experience. He uses a fake red pickup to fool potential supporters. He did nothing in the senate except pass the biggest POS legislation that has come down the pike in years. He flip-flopped on abortion. He is more arm twisting lobbyist that public servant. He represented a dictator and sided against American citizens in an asbestos lawsuit. He thinks his acting reputation is the same as his real life reputation. He brags about his inflated poll numbers like he actually has been challenged and is the guy still standing.

So, yeah, attack another candidate or a person on this board and I’m sure that will help you forget those facts about freddie boy.

I would go so far as to support a system where no groups, unions or pacs could contribute and individual voters can donate their 5000 dollar max amount and make it mandatory that IRS audits are performed on every body that contributes. This would accomplish several things.
1. People with something to hide would not contribute.
2. We could make sure that those moneys where legally earned.
3. Politicians would be beholding to the people not special interest

“Fred Thompson is a nobody.”

Someone is pretty afraid of Fred!

sabbott on July 17, 2007 at 2:33 AM

Wayyy more than just regular old run-of-the-mill afraid. They have to stick their heads under the covers and try to pretend he doesn’t even exist – he’s their bogie man!

logis on July 17, 2007 at 6:29 AM

It’s not that people are afraid of Fred so much as afraid of the groupie-like behavior of many of his supporters. He hasn’t announced his campaign, hasn’t outlined any real policies, and some people still go crazy over him as if he were some sort of Messiah. They treat every negative in his past as a liberal media conspiracy, and brush off every criticism of the (non)candidate as “fear of Fred” on the part of some other candidate expressed via supporters or other surrogates. The cult of personality is unbecoming, and is not a serious way to go about selecting a candidate, since it chokes off discussion while simulaneously limiting the candidate’s options. A sizeable segment of the Fredheads are just one or two small steps removed from the Ron Paul Martyrs Brigades at this point, and are really in dire need of reasonable counterarguments.

“But converting Reagan Democrats into Thompson Republicans – and winning by a 20-point margin? Let’s just say it’s pretty easy to see why a lot of people are so rabidly desperate to “save” the Republican Party from a candidate like that.”

Again, by your logic Reagan is a LIBERAL because he was Governor of LIBERAL California.

BKennedy on July 17, 2007 at 2:24 AM

It’s a little hard to calibrate the rage-o-meter when it’s nearly always pegged, but does anybody else notice that these guys go from “irate” to “totally batshit crazy” whenever somebody compares Thompson to Reagan?

I’m sure I’d get just as sick of all the similarities between Giuliani and The Gipper – if his supporters could manage to come up with one.

“Fred Thompson is a nobody.”

Someone is pretty afraid of Fred!

sabbott on July 17, 2007 at 2:33 AM

Wayyy more than just regular old run-of-the-mill afraid. They have to stick their heads under the covers and try to pretend he doesn’t even exist – he’s their bogie man!

Seriously though, this is the Internet, and there’s absolutely no way to know whether someone’s a Republican, a moonbat, or even a Paultian, just based on what he occasionally remembers to claim to be. But here is a reasonable theory to explain the rabid hatred, no matter which candidate the anti-Frederalists “secretly” like:

…the complaints sound like sour grapes. No one said that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or anyone else had to declare 22 months before the general election and 12 months before the first primary. They could have all decided to wait until the summer or fall to officially declare their candidacies — but they would then have had to risk other candidates grabbing momentum away from them.

Obviously, Thompson hasn’t worried about that problem, and apparently for good reason. That may make the Democrats and other Republicans irritated by Fred’s plan to keep his options open, but they only have themselves to blame.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010534.php

Pure jealousy. Spite is indeed a harsh mistress.

No. Being “conservative” in MASS or NYC is the equivalent of being LIBERAL.

I take it then the opposite is true, and that you think liberal senators from the south are actually conservatives. Like say, John McCain or Mel Martinez.

For a guy who’s chosen name is logis, you leave out a lot of logical thought. Again, by your logic Reagan is a LIBERAL because he was Governor of LIBERAL California. Your logic dictates that the supposed majority of any electoral area determines the nature of the candidate who gets elected.

That is why I so dislike Fredheads, they love to make exceptions for their favorite noncandidate. Fredheads tend to be as myopic as Fred. They talk a lot, they operate by stating the geographic area a candidate was elected in dictates their political philosophy, and in general they aren’t able to point out a single achievement of Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson is a nobody. As far as new political ideas and perspective go he’s indistinguishable from a hole in the wall. If his face weren’t plastered all over the boob tube, no one would give him a second look. The man has accomplished nothing, just given a lot of talk.

Talk is cheap Fredheads. Call me when Fred grows some Malkins and decides to take action.

Its easy being conservative with a voting block of NASCAR dads, being conservative in MASS or NYC is the equivalent of bull riding.

No. Being “conservative” in MASS or NYC is the equivalent of being LIBERAL.

And I’m afraid the idea that Fred Thompson had an “easy” ride in Tennessee doesn’t quite reach the level of non-idiocy either. You see, he was only the sixth Republican Senator in the history of that state.

Being an east-coast RINO isn’t really all that unique an achievement.

But converting Reagan Democrats into Thompson Republicans – and winning by a 20-point margin? Let’s just say it’s pretty easy to see why a lot of people are so rabidly desperate to “save” the Republican Party from a candidate like that.

Massachusetts’ Clean Elections Law

This Massachusetts law was passed by ballot initiative in 1998, but repealed by the legislature as part of a budget package in 2003. Governor Mitt Romney and legislators argued that expenditures for public finance of campaigns could not be justified in a time of state budget shortfalls.

In addition to providing public financing to candidates who raised a qualifying number of in-state contributions, the law closed the soft money loophole by eliminating unlimited transfers of cash from national parties to state parties and requiring electronic disclosure of all campaign contributions to candidates and political committees.

Anyone care to tell me about Mass CFR and how executive and Presidential Mitt was in handling it? Seriously! Maybe you’ll win me to your side. I give you an open-mind and forum. Instead of telling me what Fred! is incapable of, why don’t you tell me what Mitt’s CFR accomplishments. Anyone who wasn’t apart of Congress (i.e. Rudy & Mitt) can sit on the sidelines, put their finger in the wind, or read the tea leaves. But they still have a record as a Mayor and a record as a Governor.

I’ll vote for whoever seems strongest on defending the nation against Islamofascism. And crushing the Jihad.

The rest is interesting, but not immediately vital.

Fred can have six toes -and be mistaken about how to get the corrupt bucks out of politics- but there won’t be any politics, or toes, if the militant maniacs of the Koran aren’t stopped.

but my choice would still be Duncan Hunter.

ditto