Sneak preview: Fred debates!
posted at 1:08 pm on October 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
This has been floating around on YouTube for three months but not until Slate picked it up today did I hear of it. It’s from his 1994 Senate race against Jim Cooper. Obviously he’s not going to be this abrasive with the Republican field, but if we get even a glimmer of this Fred tomorrow night, it could put a lot of undecideds in play.
It’s slightly jarring seeing him invigorated, isn’t it?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Heh. Yeah. It’s gotta be tough to figure that one out. Especially for someone claiming to be so superior.
Still ignoring the question I see. A fact that’s lost to know one but Bradky.
A simple yes or no would do wonders.
Are you, or are you not currently working for the campaign of one of Fred Thompson’s opponents?
Yes or no?
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Csdeven = SPAM
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Heh, well the night is young.
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Okay, why is this kind of discourse allowed while the discussion over dealing with birth rate discrepancies was bannable?
MadisonConservative on October 8, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Let’s straighten this out:
I said:
You said:
Then I said:
Then you lied as follows:
Do not attribute something to me that I never said, especially when the confusion is based upon your actual or feigned inability to understand what I am saying. Lobbying is a technical term, a term of art with a very specific meaning. There are laws and regulations concerning what lobbyists can and cannot do — ask Fred. To say someone is a lobbyist or has lobbied means a very specific thing. That very specific thing, that lobbying thing — Fred made a career out of it, and Rudy never did it.
Being a partner at a very large firm that does a wide variety of legal work including some lobbying activities, does not make you a lobbyist and does not mean that you are a lobbyist.
I would not tar Fred with the fact that Arent Fox lobbied just because he was a member of that firm. I tar him because while he was at that firm he personnaly lobbied for special interests including an abortion group. He personnaly billed Lybian terrorist for his time to advise them how best to avoid justice in US or British courts
The reason that this lobbying activity is important when considering Fred as a candidate is that he has no record of achievement. He was an undistinguished Sentor for 1 1/2 terms. His only contributions while in office were CFR, voting to not to remove Clinton from office, and letting them get away with campaign finance violations (which they are still getting away with). Other than that, he has not really accomplished anything. He did not reduce crime in Lynchburg or save the county fair — nothing — other than lobbying for special interests. That and acting are the biggest things on his resume.
Rudy on the other hand has a very long list of achievement that dwarfs Fred’s. This is not opinion, it is fact. Rudy crushed the mob and fought wall street corruption and is considered to be one of the greatest crime fighters of the 20th century. He turned around NYC, reduced crime, taxes, welfare, he promoted business and reduced government. He improved the day to day lives of 8 million people. On 9/11 he led this nation while Fred was in some Senatorial bunker somewhere. Rudy was almost killed and lost many many friends and loved ones. He gave this nation strength and compassion when things were bleakest. We spent the rest of the fall and winter going to funerals, comforting widows, and emparting strength to carry on to the survivors.
We all saw this unfold in real time. The revisionist history of the Fireman’s union will not changed what this country saw with its own eyes. Rudy is an accomplished leader and a hero. Fred, not so much.
tommylotto on October 8, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Tommyloto,
How do you square Rudy’s 2nd amendment stances, and his obvious pro-choice stances with the conservative base?
And if you can do this better than camp Rudy, they probably have a job for you.
Tman on October 8, 2007 at 5:25 PM
I don’t remember the story about Fred bragging about his extensive lobbying efforts, do you have something to support this?
When Fred was asked about his lobbying efforts, he defended his efforts as you would expect a lobbyist to do. I don’t have the link, but have you heard him run away from his lobbying?
But far more than any of the other candidates. Who else stated that RoeVWade should be overturned?
Rudy can take it or leave it and Mitt has said it needs to be over-turned. Mitt’s conversion is recent while Rudy’s I think is pretty consistent.
But not before you slander him religiously for missing them!
I haven’t slandered him. I have asked what votes he missed. We know he missed votes. Which ones were they? Were they key votes that he should have made to prove his conservative credentials and what does it say if he did miss them? Something to look into me thinks considering his lobbying work and the funneling of PAC money to his son that should have gone to conservatives.
As a senator he voted many times for issues that helped illegal immigration.
Such as?
This is the page I have seen several times, but there are others.
Which he now admiteddly regrets. I agree though, he should have ran away from McCain/Feingold. But this is hardly a subject that is in anyones top ten for judging candidates.
Wrongo. Conservatives are negatively affected by M/F. The SCOTUS has even weighed in on it. Fred went against the conservative leadership and would not have had he been the conservative he is trying to pretend he is.
Meh. That’s like saying Hillary is shrill. This doesn’t make or break the candidate for me.
It is for most people. The office isn’t for the lazy.
Yet still wants RVW reversed. I think he made his own opinion of abortion quite clear, in that he wants a federalist response to abortion, and get the government out of the doctors office.
He supported all abortion in the first trimester and claimed to have always been with the pro-life groups. You cannot nuance pro-choice into pro-life by claiming federalism. He could have said he opposed all abortion, but believed it should be left to the states. THAT is a pro-choice federalist position.
He isn’t proposing any grand government scheme to fix everything, but instead talking about ways to reduce government and remove it from our personal lives.
I haven’t seen him propose much of anything substantive. Maybe tomorrow night we will see something different.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 5:25 PM
I thought the Yahtzee bit was one of the funniest I’ve seen in a while. It’s was fun to play along without any discussion on the matter.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Speaking for the group now are we?
How utterly arrogantly asinine of you.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 5:29 PM
I’m comin to ya on a dusty road
I’ll be campainin with a red pickup truck load
And if you ever see me you’ll really see somethin
So dont you worry cause I’m Fred and I am comin
Im Fred man
Im Fred man
Im Fred man
Im Fred man
I got what I got the old fashion way
And I’ll take it to Hillary each and every day
So voters dont you fret
Cause you aint seen nothin yet
Im Fred man
Im Fred man
Play it Jeri baby!
Im Fred man
Im Fred man
Listen
I’m all wrapped up in the things America needs
I learned how to be an American almost before I could eat
I come from American heartland stock
When I become President things will really rock
Im Fred man
Im Fred man
Im Fred man
Im Fred man
I’ll grab your rope and I’ll pull you in
Give you hope and be Americas best friend
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Im Fred man
Im Fred man
Youre a Fred man!
Im Fred man
Im Fred man
- Soul Man Fred
MB4 on October 8, 2007 at 5:34 PM
What do all of these people have in common?
Chris Cox, National Rifle Association
Matt Daniels, Alliance for Marriage
Richard Lessner, American Conservative Union
Connie Mackey, Family Research Council
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Tom Schatz, Citizens Against Government Waste
Dan Danner, National Federation of Independent Business
John Engler, National Association of Manufacturers
Dick Armey, DLA Piper
Each, a scumbag lobbyist.
jaime on October 8, 2007 at 5:34 PM
There is no doubt that he is different on these two issues but no where near as different as his opponents claim.
On abortion: he is personally anti-abortion and pro-adoption and his record in NYC proves that. He does however believe in a woman’s right to choose, and he has the courage no to change that position merely because he is running for POTUS. Nevertheless, his personal stance on this issue is mostly irrelevant. He is first and foremost a conservative lawyer with conservative legal views. He is a strict constructionist and his promise to appoint those types of judges is not pandering. Look at the legal advisers he has surrounded himself with. (Hint Ted Olson supports him). With Rudy you will get strict constructionalist judges like Roberts or Alito — which is the most you can expect on the issue from POTUS anyway.
On the second amendment, he recognizes the individual right to bear arms as set forth in the Constitution. However that right is subject to reasonable restrictions. It cannot be taken away, but it can be restricted — reasonably. What is reasonable depends on the locale. In NYC with rampant crime and murder, the reasonable restrictions will be more severe than Texas. As mayor, he had a job to do and he did it. He may ruffle feathers but he gets the job done. That is the type of results oriented leader we could use.
tommylotto on October 8, 2007 at 5:41 PM
When Fred was asked about his lobbying efforts, he defended his efforts as you would expect a lobbyist to do. I don’t have the link, but have you heard him run away from his lobbying?
I haven’t heard him running away from them, but I wouldn’t say he was bragging about them either.
Mitt’s conversion is recent while Rudy’s I think is pretty consistent.
But only Fred has been consistently stating that regardless of his personal feeling about the issue, it shouldn’t be any of the governments business.
I haven’t slandered him.
It is to laugh. You honestly believe this? How many times do you have to call someone a scumbag before it’s considered an insult?
Which ones were they? Were they key votes that he should have made to prove his conservative credentials and what does it say if he did miss them?
Maybe you shoud have the answers to those questions before you act as if he’s guilty of something.
This is the page I have seen several times, but there are others.
That page looks about 50-50, which is better than any candidate available. Rudy and Mitt are about the same in terms of immigration. I’m from Boston and if you think Mitt is going to “crack down on illegals” than you live in a dream world.
Fred went against the conservative leadership and would not have had he been the conservative he is trying to pretend he is.
Fred should be bashed from McCain/Feingold. He even admits it. It’s a horrible law. But he went with what he thought was right. I want a candidate who does what he thinks is right, not one who goes with the status quo just because. At the same time, do you really think most people will not vote for him over Hillary because of McCain/Feingold?
He could have said he opposed all abortion, but believed it should be left to the states. THAT is a pro-choice federalist position.
No, it is a Federalist position. The US is never going to elect a pro-life (NO ABORTION AT ANY TIME UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES) candidate. I’ll take the one who supports the federalist position.
I haven’t seen him propose much of anything substantive. Maybe tomorrow night we will see something different.
Then you’ve been ignoring most of what he’s written about and said for the last six months. Why not actually read and listen to what he has to say before slandering him and calling him “nothing but a scum-bag lobbyist”?
Tman on October 8, 2007 at 5:42 PM
When Rudy and Hunter speak of them it’s clear they have insight and empathy. Mitt and Fred come off like they are reading from a script. They must realize it right?
I wanted to ask you…
Why do you think Mitt hasn’t spent the time to try and connect with the families of the troops and then disseminate that to us?
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 5:42 PM
………………….HEAR, HEAR, HEAR……..
…………….This is a public service announcement..
……….Dr. James Dobson will be on Hannity & Colmes tonight
Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 5:48 PM
tommylotto,
Fair enough. I don’t disagree with your points, and if Rusy gets the nod I hope that all of that is true. My concern is that Rudy will try and treat the US like he did NYC, and that stuff just won’t fly down here in Tennessee. The conservatives down south will vote for Harry Browne before they vote for someone who thinks that the right to bear arms “is subject to reasonable restrictions”. I may agree with you, but they won’t.
And again, no Repub is winning without the south this election.
Tman on October 8, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Tman,
Ya know, I really hate it when you ask a question in context and then take my remark out of that context. It’s BULL$HIT! You said I slandered Fred for missing votes. No I haven’t. Then you say I slander him calling him a scumbag lobbyist. Not fair and not the same thing. I surly do call him a scumbag lobbyist. He is a scumbag lobbyist because he lobbied for scumbags.
OK, you can rationalize his immigration votes. By your response I assume this portion of his voting record was news to you? Hmmmm. And you want me to follow your lead on the guy?
Hillary has nothing to do with this. If Fred is the nominee, you will see in me the biggest Fred groupie ever. The issue is the primary I will do every thing I can to vet the facts about every single candidate.
It is true that I have stopped reading Fred’s article’s because up until I stopped, he wasn’t proposing anything I had not already heard from other conservatives. If he has something substantive, I wonder why he isn’t disseminating that info on the trail? All the reviews of his speeches have complained that he is vague and unspecific. So, I haven’t bothered to read up. If he had something substantive, it’d be on the trail he would be explaining it right?
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 5:54 PM
I wouldn’t say ALL lobbyists are scumbags because some of those people lobby in behalf of Americans. And not just a small group either.
NOW, having said that, I believe that the American public in general look upon any lobbyist with mistrust and disgust.
Fred has a tough row to hoe. Not only is he a lobbyist, but he can’t even claim he lobbied for worthwhile causes on behalf of American citizens.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 5:57 PM
This is the reason why I can support Rudy (or any republican candidate) regardless of his stance on those issues. The fabric of this country is decided in the SCOTUS and Rudy’s influence as president will be felt for 20 years beyond his term/s.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 6:01 PM
I never realized that Fred! had lobbied on behalf of the condom industry. I learn something new every day.
The Monster on October 8, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Until he got married he of all people really needed them….
…why are you surprised?
Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Yeah, the man whore of the beltway. And PROUD of it. Was he having trouble squaring that with his church attendance? Hmmmmm.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 6:10 PM
csdeven,
Ya know, I really hate it when you ask a question in context and then take my remark out of that context. It’s BULL$HIT!
Cs, you call him a scumbag so often I can’t see where it’s ever out of context.
You said I slandered Fred for missing votes.
No, I said maybe you should figure out what those votes were before accusing him of something. You slandered Fred enough times in this thread and others that I don’t really think I need to give examples. Do you really want me to?
OK, you can rationalize his immigration votes.
No, I just don’t think he’s any different from the other major candidates.
By your response I assume this portion of his voting record was news to you?
No, it was not, but again-I just don’t think he’s any different from the other major candidates on immigration.
And you want me to follow your lead on the guy?
No cs, I want you to stop being feverish about Fred and start honestly treating the other candidates the way you do Fred. I know that I will never have you “follow my lead”.
If Fred is the nominee, you will see in me the biggest Fred groupie ever.
But you will become the worlds biggest hypocrite. Not someone I would want pimping my candidate. If you dialed back the vitriol a little you might sound more reasonable. As of now, no one would believe a word out of you on this board if you started supporting Fred.
The issue is the primary I will do every thing I can to vet the facts about every single candidate.
When you start doing this, let me know. So far, all you’ve done is praise Mitt, agree with Rudy, and trash Fred.
It is true that I have stopped reading Fred’s article’s because up until I stopped, he wasn’t proposing anything I had not already heard from other conservatives.
So you agree that you haven’t heard or read things from Fred that might answer some of your questions? What about the whole “I’m going to vet every candidate the same” thing?
If he had something substantive, it’d be on the trail he would be explaining it right?
I have pointed a number of things in the past and on this thread that were substantive, but you dismiss them entirely.
Tman on October 8, 2007 at 6:19 PM
…………….Warning: my last post was a comment bait…
…..cum’ere gregor, doriangrey and all those who make hollow points…
….have at it…big piece of meat here.
Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 6:19 PM
csde,
Not only is he a lobbyist, but he can’t even claim he lobbied for worthwhile causes on behalf of American citizens.
This is a lie.
Yeah, the man whore of the beltway. And PROUD of it.
And this is slander. Congratulations, you’ve destroyed your credibility in two and a half sentences.
Tman on October 8, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Please understand this is at best speculation, but here is my honest opinion: (pardon the length)
I don’t think he ‘gets’ that part of the conservative mind. I don’t think he knows what it really means to serve in that capacity nor do I think he understands the familial pride that comes with sons (& daughters) in the service. And I don’t think national security is a fire that burns in his breast – I think to him is just one of many topics for this campaign season.
Moreover, I don’t think it is one he is counting on. Mitt would seem to instantly appeal to fiscal conservatives with his tremendous success as a CEO and with the Olympics, etc and now he is also pushing hard for the social conservative vote. Two of three would win the nomination I think (same with Rudy – national defense + fiscals I think is his line). My perception is that that is his strategy and that’s where he focuses his time and attention on.
But your characterization is absolutely correct. When Hunter and McCain talk about the troops, they stir my patriotic blood. And when Rudy talks about defense same thing. Mitt totally fails me in that regard, and I didn’t know much about him before the campaign so he could write whatever he wanted on my slate.
Take the ’sons service’ commment, which after the context was much much better, but still it is not the answer someone who had given a lot of thought to that topic would have. I know it’s 20/20 hindsight, but I don’t see how you could answer that question without complementing the troops. Unfortunately for him, that event that doesn’t stand alone. Remember McCain, (what other word fits but scolding?) him at the debate when he said ‘if’ the surge was working. We had dems grudgingly concede progress and some quite honestly to their own political detriment, and here he says that to a Rep audience at the debate. The ‘if we continue to see’ is an arguable position – always in motion is the future says Yoda – but it is tone deaf. I don’t mean to smear him, but he seems to echo the thing that all of liberals don’t understand about supporting the troops. It’s more than sending money for ammo and up-armored humvees. I know you know what I mean.
So in short, I think he lacks the personal connection and subsequent understanding that comes with it. (That is not to say you can’t understand it without serving). I think he is a smart guy and I think he has run a smart campaign. I think he has calculated which votes he can realistically get first to create momentum. I don’t think he counts the national defense first votes in that group and I don’t think he wants to put himself (as opposed to McCain for ex) in a specific box so that he has flexibility later for whatever the situation calls for. It makes sense as a political calcuation, but sometimes an absence of something isn’t a zero, it’s a negative. This is one such area. Like you, I think he would do extremely well to gain a better understanding of the ‘human’ elements of conflict so he could express himself in the vein of ‘we are all in this together’.
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 6:30 PM
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 6:10 PM
This is low, even for you. We all know you hate Fred, but this is not necessary. All you are doing is making yourself look like a kos kid, or worse. I think you need to go grab a beer, and chill out for a while.
jdawg on October 8, 2007 at 6:41 PM
You accused me of slandering Fred on the votes issue and now you are trying to encompass every comment I have made. You lose. I’m not even gonna bother with the rest of that since you are going to sit there and bald face lie about what is written in black and white.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Tommylotto, you’re babbling.
You just called me a liar for posting your exact quote. Would you please point out which part of my comment is a lie?
The rest of your comment is gibberish.
You’re suggesting that a partner in a law firm known for its lobbying has no connection to the lobbying. The fact that Rudy is not registered as an individual lobbyist has nothing to do with him being directly involved in the lobbying activities of his law firm; unless you somehow believe a partner in a law firm has absolutely nothing to do with the decisions relating to those activities.
So, according to you … any member of that law firm is free from being accused of participating in lobbying, even though the law firm is well known for its lobbying? And your reasoning for this is that the “individual” attorneys are not registered as individual lobbyists? What a crack that opens up for dirty lobbying, huh? Simply start a business and funnel all the lobbying money through the business, and avoid having to admit you’re actually lobbying. Heh.
NO! IT WASN’T ME! IT WAS THE BUSINESS THAT DID IT! Never mind that I’m one of the PARTNERS!
Please explain which part of my comment was a lie.
You said:
Notice your name under the quote, along with the time stamp?
Then I said:
Then you said you never said that, at which point I posted your exact quote, which is here for you again …
Unless you missed the sarcasm in my comment regarding your insinuation that partners have nothing to do with the actions of their law firms, it’s baffling how you can call me a liar for posting your exact comment.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Awesome! I agree totally. You know, I suggested (in an email) that his staff take a wander over here and read this stuff about him and get some insight. Maybe he is working on it as we speak. Even if he doesn’t eventually get it, I will still support him in the general. I’ll be very, very, disappointed, but I’ll support him just the same.
Thanks for that. Great insight and analysis.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 6:52 PM
You accused me of slandering Fred on the votes issue
No cs, I accused you of slandering him period. Which you have. Repeatedly. There aren’t too many people who read these comments at Hotair that would disagree with me that you have repeatedly insulted Fred at almost every opportunity.
You lose.
This isn’t a game cs, it’s a comments section of a message board. Grow the hell up.
I’m not even gonna bother with the rest of that since you are going to sit there and bald face lie about what is written in black and white.
Translation: “NANANANANANA-I CAN’T HEAR YOU-NANANANANANA”
And to think for a moment there you sounded almost reasonable.
Tman on October 8, 2007 at 6:53 PM
You’re six months late to the party dude. That happened long, long ago. He’s mostly tolerated for the same reason you turn your head and look when passing a car wreck.
Hollowpoint on October 8, 2007 at 6:53 PM
He was proud of it. Just look at how he handled it with the republican congressmen he met with. “Women chased me and caught me.” What a clown.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Pot, meet kettle……Delightful would you like some crow pie with that…why thank you…….
doriangrey on October 8, 2007 at 6:54 PM
hollowpoint,
I’ve actually avoided Fred threads for many months because of cs and his garbage, but at some point I just can’t stand to read him trash Fred without any consequences, so I dove back in.
My mistake. It wasn’t worth it to begin with.
Tman on October 8, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Good Lord. Some of the arguments in this thread have been going on for five straight hours now.
Don’t you people have JOBS?
PS. props to Ochlan and BNCurtis for adding a little laughter to a mirthless thread
Harpazo on October 8, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Wasn’t it established that lobbyists need to be registered? And where is the connection that Rudy had dealings with the lobbying activities of the firm? Rudy can’t make phone calls to lobby if he isn’t registered. Rudy can’t visit folks to lobby if he isn’t registered. Just exactly how do you envision Rudy engaging in this lobbying?
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Not at all. They’re speaking for themselves and quite effectively I might add.
Maybe you haven’t noticed that you’ve got an extremely small fan base in here.
Hey, you’re the one who calls yourself one of the few “rational conservatives.”
Who’s arrogant?
And who’s a paid hack? Still waiting for you to answer that question. What’s up with that sock puppet?
You’re nothing more than SPAM.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Great, I hope he listens to you, since human elements are in large part visceral, he may not feel he’s missing it – one of those things you don’t know you don’t know as Rumsfeld would say.
And if he doesn’t ‘get’ it…well appease me with Hunter as SecDef:)
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 7:00 PM
He’s a PARTNER dipsh!t. Are you not able to comprehend that? As a PARTNER, he sits in on the meetings where they MAKE THESE DECISIONS. PARTNERS actually MAKE the decisions as to the POLICIES and ACTIONS of the law firm.
I know that’s difficult to grasp for you.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Here is the proof that you are a lying sack of $hit.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 7:03 PM
You beat me to it. Well said and necessarily so.
Calling someone who disagrees with you a “dumbass” is DailyKos stuff, csdeven. If that’s the level of discourse you’re looking for, go hang out there for six hours out of the day.
Only losers and the ignorant resort to ad hominem attacks.
Harpazo on October 8, 2007 at 7:04 PM
What decisions. Name them off.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Any yes, that applies to everyone here. I happen to believe that we can do better than that, folks. Much better.
And we’d better hope to hell that we can, otherwise we’re just as bad as the KosKidz and DU-dummies.
Harpazo on October 8, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Here is the proof that you are a lying sack of $hit.
Here is the proof you are an idiot.
Whether it is on the votes issue or the immigration issue or the abortion issue you repeatedly insult and slander Fred period.
And for someone who tosses around insults the way you do csdeven, you sure don’t take it very well.
Tman on October 8, 2007 at 7:08 PM
pot meet kettle
Bradky on October 8, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Really? And yours is?
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 7:13 PM
You are a lying sack of $hit.
No period there jerkoff. You specifically mentioned missing votes. I never slandered him for missing votes. I asked questions about his missed votes and you took that to be an accusation and a slander. Now that I’ve got your nuts in a vice you want to try and lie your way out of it.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Not today. The laundry is done, the lawn is mowed, the dishes are done, and all that’s left is dinner.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Joining late. I too am swooning.
CrimsonFisted on October 8, 2007 at 7:22 PM
csdeven,
“Several pro-life votes over 8 years is nothing.” “Something to look into me thinks considering his lobbying work and the funneling of PAC money to his son that should have gone to conservatives.”
This is slander. You’re accusing him of things of which you cannot substantiate.
I asked questions about his missed votes and you took that to be an accusation and a slander.
You accused him of things of which you have no evidence. This is slander.
Now that I’ve got your nuts in a vice you want to try and lie your way out of it.
A.) My nuts are safely in my pants, thank you.
b.) I’m using your own words to make my points.
c.) You will never support Fred, even if he does get the nod. If you do, you will be the most hypocritical person Fred has supporting him, and I frankly think he would be better off without you.
As they say cs, if you don’t have something nice to say about someone then shut the f#ck up.
And as far as you and I are concerned, I am going to shut the f#ck up.
Tman on October 8, 2007 at 7:32 PM
WTF?!
BULLSH!T!
Try reading the Constitution again. There is no section in the 2nd Amendment that reads … “That right is subject to reasonable restrictions.”
Rudy didn’t place “restrictions on gun ownership.” He BANNED THEM!
If that’s your interpretation of the Constitution, then you’ve got a serious reading comprehension problem, which would explain your inability to interpret your own comment earlier.
Gag. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t be ANTI-ABORTION and PRO-CHOICE at the same time.
Unbelievable!
Giuliani is a LIBERAL! Just get over it and move on already.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 7:39 PM
What the heck are you talking about? Frankly, cs, I think you’ve gone totally over the edge where Fred is concerned, and you honestly sound more like Kos screeching about Bush. Maybe for your own mental health you ought to stay away from Fred threads for a while.
jdawg on October 8, 2007 at 7:39 PM
LOL! Ironic attack from a man defending Rudy Giuliani. But of course, I forget that Rudy and Mitt are always deserving of csdeven’s benefit of doubt, and Fred is not. Rudy can insert his organ in whatever number of women he so chooses and remain a manGod in csdeven’s eyes. Just don’t let Fred be caught doing the same thing WHILE SINGLE! Why it would just make him a man whore.
Csdeven, you’re so amazingly hypocritical.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 7:45 PM
Well, now that csdeven has destroyed yet another Fred thread with his name-calling and incivility, allow me to go a little off-topic for a moment.
Last week MKH took me to task in the comments for suggesting that Townhall.com had an institutional pro-Romney, anti-Fred bias that caused me to be a bit skeptical of Townhall bloggers, of which she is one.
What do I see http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DougWilson/2007/10/08/romneys_tax_free_savings_plan_a_boon_for_middle_classamongst the usual Townhall anti-Fred, pro-Romney posts?
If someone runs into MKH, ask her to remind us again that there’s no institutional bias at Townhall. I’ll remember that next time there’s yet another pro-Romney article penned by one of his campaign staffers on the Townhall front page.
Hollowpoint on October 8, 2007 at 7:45 PM
No, you are not listening (or reading). I have explained. Lobbying is a specific activity. Rudy never did that activity. End. Of. Story. You. Lose.
I understand your point about him being a named partner at the firm, but you may not understand how big law firms work. Partners have some control, but each lawyer is out there hunting down business individually knowing that his share of profits depends on him being a rainmaker. One lawyer at a firm can very conceivably be one one side of an issue and another lawyer on the otherside — that is what creates conflicts of interest — what lawyers always have so much trouble avoiding. When a conflict arises, the parner may have a say in which case to accept and which one to reject, but may not even have control over that if the firm has a pre-existing relatioship with one side. Usually is comes down to who will have more billable hours, etc. But the work on a case is usually done by the lawyer bringing in the case or his worker bee associates. A named partner may very well have no involvement whatsoever in any particular case. So far, there are no reports that Rudy did any identifiable work for that Texas lawfirm other than lend his famous name. That is not lobbying like what Fred did for years.
Now if Rudy’s firm took on a client that was totally abhorrent (like a Lybian terrorist) I would hold him responsible for not making the firm reject the client, or if he could not do that I would expect him to resign. I certainly would not expect him to bill time on the case and collect a portion of the fee — like Fred did with Lybian terrorists.
tommylotto on October 8, 2007 at 7:52 PM
How about THESE DECISIONS?
Not that they matter to you.
Here’s an extremely interesting one, being that you accuse Fred of lobbying for dictators.
How’s that for IRONIC?
I supposed the PARTNERS had absolutely nothing to do with any of these decisions?
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 7:53 PM
I’m pretty confident that I have ZERO “fans” here, but I also would bet everything I own that there’s at least three times the number of readers in agreement with what I write than those in agreement with what you write.
I get attacked by the same three people every time I comment, and it doesn’t bother me because I happen to know that they are on opposite sides of the philosophical spectrum.
You however, have about three people who actually agree with you.
Keep on enjoying that.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 7:59 PM
I believe this IS csdeven’s job. Although he’s yet to answer that question for some odd reason.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Oops, link above should’ve read “What do I see today amongst the usual…”
Hollowpoint on October 8, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Yes, but the work release program set me up with a job in the local library. Sweet deal all around!
Bradky on October 8, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Okay now you are showing yourself to be a true idiot. They are all subject to reasonable restrictions you dufus.
Some say the language found in the amendment itself is a restriction: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State…” Thus, it could be argued that the individual’s right to bear arms only exists in the context of a well regulated militia. Rudy however, does not buy that and agrees with you that the individual has a right separate from regulated militias. Nevertheless, just like you can’t scream fire in a crowded theater or incite violent jihad in a mosque, you cannot bear a stinger missle in a flight path or carry suitcase nukes into NYC.
tommylotto on October 8, 2007 at 8:04 PM
That’s the Fred! I wanta see. Kick tail.
Captain America on October 8, 2007 at 8:11 PM
LOL! OMG! I can’t stop laughing! Please stop! My side is killing me! ROFL!
Bracewell & Giuliani
Yep. Giuliani is one of only TWO named partners, yet … you actually believe he has nothing to do with the firm’s lobbying activities.
Priceless.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Thank you Tommy. Coming from you after that comment, I’ll take that as one Hell of a compliment.
Of course, it’s up to Rudy Giuliani to be able to tell us what all of those “reasonable restrictions” to the Constitution would look like. Unfortunately, we’ve already seen that his “restrictions” are defined as “completely remove.”
Good for you for deciding all by yourself that the Constitution was written to allow individuals to place “restrictions” as they see fit. I wonder, in your mind, what value the Constitution has at all with this interpretation.
And there you go, for all you who claim that Rudy is all for naming strict constructionist judges … Tommylotto says that Rudy has the right to place restrictions on the Constitution.
Hmmmm
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 8:28 PM
You’re and idiot. Bye bye.
tommylotto on October 8, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Thank you. Like I said before … that’s a compliment, coming from you.
Gregor on October 8, 2007 at 8:41 PM
Let’s see which Fred debates with the Republicans. I’m getting the same vibe that I did when the drive-by media accused Reagan of being too laid back.
Mojave Mark on October 8, 2007 at 8:45 PM
OK, so you’re a fan of guilt by association. Well, I’m a fan of guilt by actually doing and that gives Rudy the edge over that lying fake scumbag lobbyist Fred.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Bwahahahahaha!!!! Keep digging that hole deeper.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Jeeze you are a whining little baby.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Irony……..it’s whats for dinner, oddly enough it tastes just like crow.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 12:22 AM
And you’re a lawyer who makes a living suing people, Gregor wins by default.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Sounds like you are speaking about the Hildabeast.
Texas Nick 77 on October 9, 2007 at 3:44 AM
I’d pay money to see that. Maybe we could get Rudy on the side dressed as a cheerleader, too.
Texas Nick 77 on October 9, 2007 at 3:51 AM
Yep, this was very entertaining. But y’all need to lay off cs a little bit. He bet a bottle of good single malt that Fred wouldn’t win the nomination. I’d hate to see him really lose it before he paid up.
Texas Nick 77 on October 9, 2007 at 4:07 AM
“It takes two fools to have an argument.”
Texas Nick 77 on October 9, 2007 at 4:34 AM
Let’s see… It is ok to violate the constitution in NTC, but not in Texas? Glad I live in the latter, and not the former.
Texas Nick 77 on October 9, 2007 at 5:29 AM
Single malt Glen Morangie has that effect on some folks. :)
Texas Nick 77 on October 9, 2007 at 5:35 AM
Glen Morangie, Port Finished.
Texas Nick 77 on October 9, 2007 at 5:38 AM
I think csd admitted he was a “house husband” in another thread.
Texas Nick 77 on October 9, 2007 at 5:56 AM
Ladies and gents (I know, I may have abused the term loosely), this was an interesting read. I can’t believe it lasted that long. All involved need to chill out somewhat, and remember that not voting for a Republican (your man or not) will insure a terrible alternative will take office January ‘09.
Just think of hearing, “Madam President” and cringe.
Texas Nick 77 on October 9, 2007 at 6:03 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3