2acba82ba0600e9e7b65…

Only if you think his comment was apropos. It wasn’t. A least Mitt’s response made sense. Fred’s pre-packaged rehearsed response was totally nonsense in relation to the situation. Fred was the one looking to put a zinger out there, the problem is that it made no sense whatsoever.

What about Mitt’s comment made him a better actor?

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 6:16 PM

I’m a l’il curious as to how you could consider Fed’s reply to Mitt “pre-packaged”. That would imply that Fred knew the question was coming.

Which would make him either psychic, or a master of pre-debate intelligence.

Not bad qualities for a potential CinC.

I think the rreference to being a better “actor”, was Fred’s way of suggesting that Mitt’s question was rehearsed/scripted.

The point is that I am not the subject and we were discussing Fred when they tried to shift the discussion to little old csdeven.

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 6:11 PM

OK…I’ll concede that point.

But ya gotta admit, with your constant dissing of Fred, it’s almost inevitable that you would become the subject.

I do like the fact that you said you would vote for Fred in opposition to The Glacier.

But please, don’t give oppo reasearch any ammo. You know the Clinton camp will do anything and everything in their power to tar the Repub nominee.

Other than that, I like your comments. Most of the time. ;)

I hope it’s like Law & Order. I show up, win, and then the show’s over. Now how far DID you want to take your little analogy Mitt?

Oh, and Fred did slap Mitt upside the head with his response to Mitt’s pre-packaged,canned, and rehearsed, Law & Order comment.

soundingboard on October 10, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Only if you think his comment was apropos. It wasn’t. A least Mitt’s response made sense. Fred’s pre-packaged rehearsed response was totally nonsense in relation to the situation. Fred was the one looking to put a zinger out there, the problem is that it made no sense whatsoever.

What about Mitt’s comment made him a better actor?

Well, no. The subject is the debate.
soundingboard on October 10, 2007 at 2:46 PM

The point is that I am not the subject and we were discussing Fred when they tried to shift the discussion to little old csdeven.

Just exactly how was Mitt’s jab a bit of acting?

It was a good joke but it came off looking very rehearsed, at least that’s what I thought. Fred’s rejoinder was neat.

Try to stick to the subject fella’s. The subject is Fred.

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 10:03 AM

Well, no. The subject is the debate.

That includes all the candidates.

Your Fred fixation is clouding your opinions.

Oh, and Fred did slap Mitt upside the head with his response to Mitt’s pre-packaged,canned, and rehearsed, Law & Order comment.

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 8:51 AM
csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 9:01 AM
csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 10:01 AM

Did Fred scare your mother while she was pregnant with you?

The LIV is not a bad thing if written and practiced correctly. I seem to recall Rudy saying just about the same thing in the vid above.

thedecider on October 9, 2007 at 11:51 PM

I’d like to see a line item veto too, but not at the expense of ignoring the Constitution when it suits us. All too often conservatives are in favor of a constructionist interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to abortion, but then are perfectly willing to ignore the Constitution to further their goals on other issues.

Both William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas sided with the majority against it. If there’s a way to implement it that passes constitutional muster, then I’m all for it. Romney refused to acknowledge the problems with the original version of the LIV and lost to Rudy on that round.

William Amos on October 9, 2007 at 7:23 PM

I apologize if I’m missing the obvious, but I’m afraid I don’t know what you are referring to.

smellthecoffee on October 10, 2007 at 8:41 AM

You are one of the few who said they have changed their position. Gratuitous cynicism is appropriate. The discourse in these threads is far from analytical.

x: “Fred sucks”
y: “Mitt sucks more”
z: “Save Ron Paul, save the world!”

Absolutely and with no reservations whatsoever.

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Well that’s good to know! :-)

lan astaslem on October 10, 2007 at 11:09 AM

Absolutely and with no reservations whatsoever.

It is complete buffoonery for Fred to substitute silly “gotcha” one liners for substantive discussion of the issues in factual context. It’s becoming clear that one liners is all that Fred has because he cannot discuss his support for terrorists and his scumbag lobbying activities.

Fred will have dropped out before too long.

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 9:01 AM

Hope you like those words. You may end up eating them.

Ya’ll remember back in the day when the majority opinion was that Fred was so much better than the rest of the candidates that he could wait until the last minute and would blow the rest of the field out of the water?

Bwahahahaha!!! Now they are satisfied that he merely survived.

Unless every person in America willingly suspends disbelief, Fred will have dropped out before too long.

Just exactly how was Mitt’s jab a bit of acting? The answer is that it was not. Fred’s response was a pre-fab answer that he was told to use if someone said anything about his acting career. Considering the lameness of it, it was probably suggested by someone around 40 years old.

More of the same from Fred. Vague platitudes and very little substance.

He did have a couple of lucid moments that I thought were OK. His response to the Chrysler bail out was good. There were others, but in the end I have to say he barely survived and only did so on the inability of the pundits to recognize the vacuous of his words and their willingness to swoon over the emotional delivery of them. Fred has the acting part of Reagan down pat, the problem is he has no core conservative values that he can espouse and that was what Reagan really had.

While the other candidates are establishing credible policy positions, Fred is trying to win the election on one line zingers. They all need to do that, but in the end, when all the emotional smoke has cleared and rational minds reflect back, it will be Rudy and Mitt that will have established the bona fides (and support) that are required to actually BE worthy of the office.

the psychics are not quite six sigma . . .You are the exception.

Bradky on October 10, 2007 at 12:44 AM

That’s what the psychics always say. I’m always right, except in your case. Whatever. You weren’t surprised by Thompson’s performance? I was; he’s been dead from the neck up in most of his interviews. It’s the first we’ve seen of him in this kind of context, so how can you say that no one’s opinion could have changed? There’s enough cynicism about this process that’s warranted; gratuitous cynicism doesn’t add anything to the conversation.