Video: Fred joins the parade against Hillary; Update: Obama slams Hillary for playing the gender card
posted at 8:40 am on November 2, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Not the first time he’s knocked her but Rudy has had this field largely to himself for awhile and it’s time that changed. Here’s a quick jab, reminiscent of his famous rejoinder to Michael Moore, courtesy of Fred File. He offered some pointed substantive criticism of Spitzer’s dopey idea yesterday when speaking to reporters. I wish he’d included that here.
But not as much as I wish he’d included this:
“The Clinton campaign goes so far in relying upon her being a strong, strong woman … and then on a dime, they can switch to say, ‘Oh my goodness, the men are ganging up on her,” Thompson said, referring to the Clinton campaign’s latest message. “You can’t have that both ways in American politics and they’re just beginning to find that out.”
An excellent point, especially given the popularity of her damsel-in-distress “politics of pile on” viral video. The GOP has to be careful about addressing gender given how well Hillary’s doing with women voters, but they also need to head off the double standard he’s talking about here at the pass, and quickly. By bringing it up with Hannity, Fred’s trying to hand it off to the media and let them do the work. Shrewd.
Update: No need for the GOP to push the gender meme, as it turns out. It’s already been launched. Thanks, Obama!
“I am assuming and I hope that Sen. Clinton wants to be treated like everybody else,” the Illinois senator said in an interview with NBC’s “Today Show.”
“When we had a debate back in Iowa awhile back, we spent I think the first 15 minutes of the debate hitting me on various foreign policy issues. And I didn’t come out and say: ‘Look, I’m being hit on because I look different from the rest of the folks on the stage’,” he said…
He was speaking a day after New York Sen. Clinton — the only woman running for president — urged women voters to rally behind her against “the boys club of presidential politics.”…
“So it doesn’t make sense for her, after having run that way for eight months, the first time that people start challenging her point of view, that suddenly she backs off and says: ‘Don’t pick on me’,” he said.
“That is not obviously how we would expect her to operate if she were president.”
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:
csdeven/tommylotto now calls Fred a sexist scumbag lobbyist in 5…4…3…
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 8:51 AM
It worked in her NY Senatorial debate against the very appealing Republican candidate, Lazio. The media supported her every step of the way as tough lady/damsel in distress at the same time.
JiangxiDad on November 2, 2007 at 8:54 AM
Way to go, Fred!
“Usually she does it more quickly.”
Slower, but she is still managing to bat 1000 on being wrong.
IrishEyes on November 2, 2007 at 8:54 AM
He needs to do more of this quick response on-line stuff. Go full bore on revolutionizing Republican campaign tactics. It’s the only way he’s gonna get ahead of the other more traditional campaigns.
Go Asymmetrical Fred!
The Apologist on November 2, 2007 at 8:54 AM
Well, when you only beat Ron Paul as a Republican contender and they literally discount you as a serious candidate on the Telegraph’s Top 100 Conservatives list, I’d say ol’ Fred will be converting that money he’s been sitting on into a family slush fund real soon.
BKennedy on November 2, 2007 at 8:55 AM
This guy is a terrible actor. That was an awful attempt at sounding presidential. He looked and sounded like he was an actor, ACTING like a camera crew just walked in and caught him in the middle of his day.
But, it does show what “What’s a dollar?” is qualified to do in an Rudy or Mitt administration.
!Fred! for press secretary!
AND, he can work for free because he’ll have $8 million in a new PAC that he might just funnel to his family, just like he did the last time he dropped out of a race.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 8:58 AM
What Russert did by pressing Clinton on a question she didn’t want to answer, was open the door for every other “journalist/moderator” to do the same. Let’s see if they have the guts to walk through that door and retrieve their nads from Hillarys lock box. I’m not holding my breath. They are already too accustomed to carrying her water etc.
roninacreage on November 2, 2007 at 9:03 AM
Seriously? Is she really? That’s very surprising to me. As a woman voter, I can honestly say I would vote for anyone — anyone — before I would vote for Shrillary. I don’t know any females who feel any connection to her whatsoever. (When BJ was prez, I had a bumper sticker on my office door that said “Impeach Hillary.” Wish I still had it.)
lan astaslem on November 2, 2007 at 9:05 AM
Spank!
BJ* on November 2, 2007 at 9:07 AM
I wonder what kind of lobbying activities Fred will get involved in after he drops out? Will he lobby for laws allowing professional athletes to be exempt from animal cruelty laws? Perhaps he will lobby for Hugo Chavez after he is ousted from power? I’m sure there are many more wonderful causes that Fred will help advance by using his connections in congress.
Off Topic…..
AMAZING! The first comment is from a member trying to change the subject into another rant against those who see “What’s a dollar?” for the terrorist supporting, scumbag lobbyist that he is.
I think you’re slipping BK. You were left out of that latest display of csd/tommylotto derangement syndrome.
Bwahahahahaha!! You better step it up, or were gonna kick you out of the club!
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 9:08 AM
It’s about time Obama went on offense.
krabbas on November 2, 2007 at 9:09 AM
My 70 year old always- Democratic voting Mom doesn’t want Hillary either. She says she thinks she can live with Giuliani. But I don’t know how she’ll end up voting if the Rep. candidate is more conservative. So maybe Hil will get those votes afterall.
JiangxiDad on November 2, 2007 at 9:09 AM
Now lets not be premature. Tim could suddenly commit suicide and things will magically get back to normal. Meaning, the MSM will get back to carrying Hillary’s water.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 9:10 AM
All I want to know is when the Politics of Racial Reconciliation turned into the Politics of Vagina Bashing.
I think it was sometime after the Politics of Change started but before the Politics of I Have No Rhetorical Skills So Now Every Sentence I Speak Must Include the Phrase “The Politics of …” began.
Blacksheep on November 2, 2007 at 9:12 AM
Won’t they have to? It’s unlikely she’ll not be the Dem. nominee.
JiangxiDad on November 2, 2007 at 9:12 AM
Your mom is the kind of voter this country needs more of. She puts the good of the country over partisan politics. Good for her. You’ve got a great mom there.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 9:14 AM
I don’t know. My disgust for the woman is so complete, that I have bought into the national polls showing her way ahead. I NEVER do that. She is in some trouble in some state polls, including Iowa, where the “Messiah” is right on her tail. A win in Iowa might just give Obama some momentum for the next couple of states.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 9:20 AM
Not saying a word…
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 9:20 AM
Obama laid down some serious smack down on Cankles! He’d better be careful or he might just end up in a murder/suicide pact with Tim Russert.
Off Topic……
What is it with people that feel the need to express themselves to convince us they are not going to express themselves? NOT responding is the clearer message. Like “What’s a dollar?” would say:
“Less is more, and that dog don’t hunt ’round these here parts.”
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 9:31 AM
I’d never vote for him (or any dem), but it’s kinda cool to see Obama show some balls. He better start his car with a remote.
LtE126 on November 2, 2007 at 9:39 AM
On this, Obama is right. Repubs take note the Obama just gave you a big time taking point against HRC.
apostle53 on November 2, 2007 at 9:53 AM
maybe fred should not look like he just came off a week long bender before doing a campaign video :/
lorien1973 on November 2, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Hopefully for the NRA so he can fight against Rudy or Mitt and keep them from getting their hands on them.
Kowboy on November 2, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Can the comment format be changed to put the poster’s name above their comment?
I would like an easy way to spot
the trollcsdeven/tommylotto’s comments so I can skip them.I am serious.
This type of constant trolling is what had caused quite a bit of frustration at WizBang! They eventually changed their policies.
The Left have an organized process of assigning a few trolls to the conservative blogs in order to keep things stirred up and watch for posts / comments they can forward to Media Matters. csdeven/tommylotto are clearly the assignees here.
It gets old and annoying.
Thanks
_Jon on November 2, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Bingo. Every other right is worthless without the second, and Fred is so far the only hardliner on that issue.
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Agreed. The joke on them is not so much that they’re anti-Fred. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m anti-Rudy. It’s that they hate Fred the same way Air America hates Bush. With vitriolic passion to the point of absurdity, evidenced by the fact that when someone disagrees with them, they accuse them of being Fred shills, or personally attacking them.
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 10:48 AM
The invasion of America by illegal aliens and the potential for voter fraud on a massive scale are winning themes for the GOP.
Dont blow it!!
Labamigo on November 2, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Neither Rudy nor Mitt are the danger to the 2nd amendment that some think they are. What Fred SHOULD do is start lobbying AGAINST terrorists instead of giving legal advice TO them.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 11:02 AM
Is there anyone on this site happy about anything?
KBird on November 2, 2007 at 11:02 AM
Somebody call the Waaaaaaambulance! How much tougher is it to just go to the BOTTOM of the comment to find out who the author is? That’s what I do.
Besides, it can’t mean a whole lot to you if you’re too lazy to do it yourself and would prefer Hot Air be your nanny so as to protect you from your own inability to organize your reading habits around your own preferences.
Cry us a river you sissy-mary.
And why don’t you explain to the group WHY you don’t put your complaint in the proper venue by EMAILING your problem to
tips@hotair.com
but would rather air your complaints in a public forum. Are you trying to start a feeding frenzy of attacks on those who don’t lick Fred’s boots, and thereby taking the thread off topic? AGAIN.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Nothing like a good laugh on a Friday morning. Thanks, roninacreage.
Graybark on November 2, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Really?
Rudy isn’t?
Nor Mitt?
Here’s your scumbag lobbyist, who also voted to protect gunmakers from lawsuits for gun murders, something your pal Rudy was in favor of.
Sadly, I have to make one concession. Ron Paul also made clear his pro-gun views. About one of the only things I agree with him on.
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Disagreement with you on Fred Thompson does not make one a person who “licks Fred’s boots”. Get that through your thick head.
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Yes, I am. I am happy that the vetting of our candidates is going along swimmingly. The cream is rising to the top and the freds, I mean frauds are sinking to the bottom.
People would be much happier if they would put away their support for a candidate over their own pride (that simple change in thinking would cease their personal attacks against commenter’s who feel a different candidate is best), and select the best most electable candidate we have that can beat which ever socialist candidate the dems nominate. Because they will nominate a socialist. They all are, to their core, anti-capitalist, anti-American, socialists.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 11:20 AM
It doesn’t matter how much of a threat they are. A threat is a threat. They’re both at best moderate Republicans, and I don’t consider either one of them to be really strong on that point.
Kowboy on November 2, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Back to the name calling………so mature………now go back to your cave troll. (and get back on your meds please!)
omnipotent on November 2, 2007 at 11:32 AM
I’m very happy I’m not filled with HATE like a few folks here at Hot Air.
omnipotent on November 2, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Comment zinger of the thread nomination.
It is past time the gloves came off.
Texas Nick 77 on November 2, 2007 at 11:35 AM
It’s the Fred posts. He’s actually very intelligent and well spoken in posts that aren’t about Fred.
I think Fred may have run over his dog when he was a young boy. Or some other traumatic event similar to that involving Fred occurred.
Kowboy on November 2, 2007 at 11:37 AM
1) Rudy: I don’t like Rudy’s stance on taking guns away from citizens (if that is what he was advocating, which is entirely different from reasonable restrictions, your article alluded to the complete ban). I don’t see how it helps unless he is saying that the illegal guns are being stolen from citizens. But I have never bought that argument either.
2) Mitt: The types of firearms a citizen can have must be subject to restrictions. We can’t have people running around with the legal ability to make WMD’s etc. I don’t like the ban on assault weapons, but I am for background checks etc. That is the actions of a wise and responsible citizenry. As for the betrayal of Reagan……here is the context of what he said (which is exactly what I said it was. Mitt allowed Ted to frame the context of Reagan’s presidency instead of clarifying it and then answering)
3) Fred: A pro-gun vote doesn’t balance out the support of terrorists, McCain/Feingold, lobbying for dictators, and funneling campaign cash to a family member. Well, it does in the mind of the single issue 2nd amendment voter.
I gotta take off to Lave Hot Springs for a couple of hours. I’ll check back later.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Are you suggesting that you do that, csdeven? Because if so, that’s absolutely hilarious. Self awareness is not your friend.
Pablo on November 2, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Neither do I. Hence why I would very reservedly consider voting for Mitt. You conceded that Rudy is a gun-grabber, so we’ll skip it.
As for Fred, I’ve shown his pro-gun stance. That’s a point in his favor, and it’s a direct showing. Saying he supports terrorists is an empty platitude, based on the fact that a law firm asked for advice from Fred on a case, which happened to be for a terrorist. That’s a hell of a difference, and it shows your “support of terrorist” spiel is just a sound bite of rhetoric. This is my problem. You make your accusations about Fred the same way the MSM makes accusations about what Ann Coulter says.
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 11:51 AM
That’s no excuse for childish behavior.
I’m glad Allah hasn’t banned her ass because her posts ooze such vitriol it’s actually amusing.
And the “scumbag lobbyist” thing isn’t getting old either……..yeah right.
omnipotent on November 2, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Not necessarily, csd & I do have some disagreement on our choices of candidates, but I think we can agree to disagree as gentlemen, as evidenced in other threads. I do think the level of animosity does need to be reduced here. Can we not refrain the use of “scumbag lobbyist” and other derogatory expressions?
…. Nah, that’s what makes this so much fun.
And, once again, csd, many thanks for your sons’ contibutions to our free speech. God bless them.
Texas Nick 77 on November 2, 2007 at 11:56 AM
I’m beginning to wonder if I was wrong… I thought Hillary HAD to choose Obama as her running mate, if she wanted to stand a chance… now I’m wondering if they’ll be able to reconcile. Of course, the media could whitewash all the attacks when the right time comes…
I guess they did it for the Johns, right? Edwards was the pro-war guy through the 04 Dem primaries, said he’d have acted at the UN and in Iraq exactly like Bush did, said Bush DIDN’T lie, etc. etc. etc. And that’s just an example of the John’s opposing views… not even getting in to their attacks on eachother. Anyway, as I recall, after Kerry had the nomination locked he took a poll that showed Edwards was the best running mate, so that’s who he chose. Hillary will do the same, I just hope they keep providing material for the GOP candidate to hit them with when the time comes, cuz you know the media ain’t gonna do it.
RightWinged on November 2, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Texas Nick 77 on November 2, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Anyway, goodnight, one and all. Time for me to close down and say good night.
Best wishes to you. And please remember the two scariest words in America should be, “Madam President.”
Texas Nick 77 on November 2, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Not if the next two words are “Michelle Malkin”. ;)
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 12:23 PM
I concede defeat. But we can only wish…
Texas Nick 77 on November 2, 2007 at 12:28 PM
You all know what this is, don’t you? It’s Hillery playing the “gang-bang card”.
Woody
woodcdi on November 2, 2007 at 1:04 PM
His. And he’s nowhere near as bad as some others who have been here. AP, Bryan, and others do a fine job of keeping this a civilized site.
Kowboy on November 2, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Are you a Fred boot licker? I don’t recall anyone singling you out as a Fred boot licker.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 1:43 PM
I agree that they aren’t a threat. And that they are moderates and perhaps Rudy is a bit more liberal. But he is a thousand times less socialist than any of the dems.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Apparently you missed this doozie of a thread yesterday.
Very childish name-calling abounds in that thread.
I love Hot Air, but these threads on the presidential race are tiring due to some nonsense commenters.
omnipotent on November 2, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Yeah, right. Tell the group some more lies. Why are you afraid of me? I have never started the attacks on you. I skewer Fred for the traitorous sack of crap scumbag that he is. For whatever reason, you take that as a personal insult. Well dude, thats YOUR problem, not mine. Your fixation on little old cs deven doesn’t even allow you to make a comment that is apropos to the thread topic. I’d bet that as of this comment you have yet to make a comment on Fred. Your very first comment was a personal attack on a fellow member of HA. Thats pretty goofy dude. Perhaps you should fixate on Fred and not me as I am no threat to you whatsoever?
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 1:52 PM
No. Pay attention now. I don’t start the personal attacks, but I certainly do finish them. I skewer Fred because he is scum, they attack me because I am disgusted by Fred and I say so.
Self awareness is not a problem for me, but it certainly is for ANYONE who takes a less than flattering assessment of “What’s a dollar?” as tantamount to a less than flattering assessment of them personally.
Anyway, it’s clear that Fred’s campaign is headed for the circular file. But what isn’t clear is if he is the architect of it. He’s jumped out of campaigns before and instead of giving the money back, he funneled to his son through a PAC. THAT is something to watch for to see if it becomes a pattern.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 2:00 PM
_Jon on November 2, 2007 at 10:44 AM
If you really don’t like certain commentators comments just use the Control F function and type in their name.
You can zip right through threads that way and still let the rest of us decide for ourselves who and what we want to read as a matter of choice.
Buy Danish on November 2, 2007 at 2:04 PM
How do you figure that Fred’s work that eventually helped a terrorist is not a problem of huge significance? I know he is trying to avoid the reality of his involvement, but it’s like being pregnant, you either are or you are not. Fred has admitted he gave legal advice to the attorney who helped terrorists avoid justice for 11 years. He helped terrorists. Period.
And once you compare the records of Rudy and Fred in that area, Rudy has a stellar history in fighting against terrorism. Even to the point where he refused millions of dollars and kicked a terrorist enabler out of his city. What is Fred’s experience with terrorism? He helped terrorists and has lots of saber rattling rhetoric.
When you hold up the issues of the 2nd amendment and terrorism, terrorism trumps. Rudy is on the right side and Fred is on the wrong side.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 2:07 PM
I’ll give you 100 times less. 1000 is pushing it. :)
Go hang out with the Kos Kids for a couple of days. Or the HuffPo humps. It’ll put it in perspective for you.
Okay, I’m gonna about half call you on this one. You’re right, you never start personal attacks against anyone, but you do put stuff out there like the boot licking bit that’s meant to bait someone into attacking you. You know you do it, so don’t tell me you don’t.
Kowboy on November 2, 2007 at 2:09 PM
No he’s not; semi-coherent, but he rarely writes in an intelligent manner- see the post concerning Mitt and evangelicals for more mindless name-calling.
Besides, 90% of his posts on HA are some mindless form of “Fred is a scumbag”. I’d have banned him long ago for trolling, but it’s not my site. I just wish there was an “ignore” feature, because every thread even tangentially mentioning Fred gets completely destroyed by csdeven, tommylotto, and BKennedy trolling with the same idiotic cut-and-paste namecalling.
It would be nice if the adults could talk without getting shouted down by the kiddies screaming insults at each other.
Hollowpoint on November 2, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Thank you Nick. It’s much appreciated. He’s doing well. As a matter of fact he called me while I was on the way back from Lava. He got all the goodies we sent him and has finished “Animal Farm”. He loved it. It reminds him of the situation in Iraq. With 80% illiteracy rate, the people are basically sheeple waiting for the strongest entity to lead the way.
His E-4 was just promoted to E-5, and he gave my son his E-4 patch, telling him he’s gonna need it. Other NCO’s have dropped hints also. But because you are supposed to have 18 months in service before they are supposed to be able to wave the 24 month time frame. 18 months is May for him, so he’s not sure when it’s gonna happen. I don’t know anything about how the Army promotes. But I guess it’s good news just the same.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 2:19 PM
It’s actually Lava, not Lave as I mistyped. It is located in southeastern Idaho about 100 miles from Idaho Falls. It’s pretty cool (well hot actually :-)).
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 2:27 PM
You’re full of crap. At 8:18 you interjected yourself into a conversation that didn’t concern you, and and I properly 8itch slapped you for it. So stop yer whining and get back to defending Fred from his history of lobbying for scum and giving advice to terrorists and stop fixating on me. It’s creepy.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Well, it isn’t completely designed to bait. It’s how I feel about some of the crazy justifications I read, and sometimes we have people who respond. I don’t get why, because if a person isn’t a boot licker, then why bother to defend yourself from it? I know I don’t respond to comments that don’t have any relation to who I am and why I support certain candidates.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Do you hear yourself? Shouted down? You are the one that chooses to read others comments. And why should you need an ignore feature, does your own will power not work? Are you unable to master your behavior to the point that you cannot ignore selected comments and still have a conversation with someone else? I think you can because I have seen you do that over the last couple of weeks. It didn’t matter to you what else was being said between others. You found someone that would engage you and had your own conversation. Others of like mind would join and voila, the perfect conversation.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Singled out? No. Part of a mass insinuation? Yes.
By that logic, you are dividing people here into people like you and tommylotto, who you claim “don’t lick fred’s boots”. As you attack him viciously, and proclaim that people who disagree with you are Fred shills, or other such terms, you clearly see all in disagreement with you as licking Fred’s boots.
Don’t play that game. It’s childish, and you know precisely what you’re saying.
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 3:23 PM
To clarify my point:
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 3:25 PM
This is where we fundamentally disagree, I guess. In a choice between an unarmed, but terror-free nation, and an armed, threatened nation, I’ll easily take the latter. What’s the point of being free of foreign terrorism when the government (read ATF, FBI, etc) can terrorize you freely? Governments are supposed to fear their citizens, not the other way around. We have no way to keep them in check. Macrosafety is worthless without it on the micro level.
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 3:28 PM
You are one funny dude.
Pablo on November 2, 2007 at 3:30 PM
That’s the 20th time you’ve posted in this thread alone… and there’s only 67 total posts; nearly 1/3 of the posts are yours. Almost all of them are mindless trolling.
Hollowpoint on November 2, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Strange that someone who has already been complacent and willing to have the race card played for them is shouting someone else down for playing another special interest “card.”
Ryan Gandy on November 2, 2007 at 3:56 PM
You’re boring………..you bore me………..I will ignore all of your future posts, please act in kind.
omnipotent on November 2, 2007 at 4:09 PM
That’s so very interesting because for a while now I believed you to be a female.
Sissy-Mary? What the heck is that? Are prejudiced against Mary? And boot lickers? Do you have a shoe fetish?
You don’t like Rudy. You don’t like Mitt. You don’t like Fred. Who do you like? Oh, what a minute, don’t answer that. I don’t really want to know.
I feel a troubled, angry childhood behind all this ranting. You should work for Hillary Clinton. She needs women like you. But do me a favor. Please avoid matches and southern California. I’ve had enough wildfires to last a lifetime.
Sultry Beauty on November 2, 2007 at 4:36 PM
I would have to agree that all the Fred baiting is getting old. We all know he baits for a fight whether defending his darling Mitt or bashing Fred.
Just stop feeding the troll, if he doesn’t get the attention he craves he will move on. Simple as that.
Sammy316 on November 2, 2007 at 5:24 PM
back on topic
If Hillary can’t stand up to Silky and Obama how in the blue hell is she going to stand up to the likes of Putin?
Sammy316 on November 2, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Wrong. I have clarified my reasoning on this many times. You, like some others in the past, are making assumptions based on a desire to have a confrontation. That is why your first response to a general comment is one of aggression instead of a question of clarification.
I am not responsible for anyones assumptions.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 5:29 PM
So…
Bravo Sierra your way out of that one, Shirley.
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 5:36 PM
You are being overly concerned that Rudy is going to take all our guns. That is why I said Rudy and Mitt are not the threat people think they are when it comes to the 2nd. First, he cannot do it by himself. 2, the NRA is too powerful. And another consideration is that it would be unconstitutional as the SCOTUS has recently decided a landmark case in DC that confirms the rights of regular folks to own guns.
So, being that there is no chance of losing all our guns, the biggest threat is still a candidate that gives legal advice to terrorists. Regardless of Fred’s excuses, the average voter does not like terrorists, people who help terrorists, lobbyists, and lawyers. Fred is all of those things and therefore radioactive. Hillary will crucify him if he were to get the nomination because as bad as she is, she only manipulated the rules on campaign finances (and Fred did to) and Fred gave advice to terrorists. People will pick the lesser of the two evils.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 5:38 PM
The assault weapons ban was, and is, unconstitutional. It’s being revived, and it’s had the support of both Rudy and Mitt. The Constitution is getting less and less credence in this day and age.
Again, rhetoric. I’m not afraid of him taking all our guns. I’m afraid of him taking ANY of our guns. Total gun confiscation in this country would take more than 4 years, obviously. Look at the backlash after the unconstitutional theft of the guns of the New Orleans residents after Katrina. Guess what, though? Those guns are still sitting in trailers, and the owners cannot get them back. The way Rudy talks, that’s just fine by him, and Mitt sure ain’t making any noise.
These types of things start with presidents willing to back them. We were fortunately able to put a choke hold on the Brady Bill and Slick Willie, but as soon as a New Yawk lawyer gets back in there, it starts all over again…
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 5:45 PM
A sissy-mary is a boy who acts like a girl. He is waaaaaay too sensitive and whines like a little 8itch.
You are making assumptions about who I do, or do not support.
What’s weird is that the only comment you have to make is one of assumptions about little old cs deven. I wonder why, if you are sooooooo offended, you don’t make at least one comment on the thread topic before being party with the people who are hijacking this thread?
Maybe it’s time for you to worry about yourself and your contributions instead of being so concerned about others? Really, you should look into that for the future.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Bwahahahahaaa!!! And if you really feel that way, WHY for goodness sake do you dance to that tune?
Me thinks thoest doest protesteth too much.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Okay, that’s the second time he’s done this in this thread. I’m a little scared.
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Hello? I don’t see any accusation that any specific person is a Fred boot licker. Apparently you think you are, but I hadn’t seen that from you. But hey, you know yourself better than I do, so I wont argue with your assessment of yourself.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Name calling is a weak way to make a point.
You are way too demanding on what people should think, say, and do ((i.e. “Are you unable to master your behavior…” “I think you can because…” “You’re full of crap.” “So stop yer whining…” “if you are sooooooo offended, you…” Maybe it’s time for you…” “Really, you should look…” “Self awareness is not a problem for me..”))I believe I happen to have self awareness and am a confident female, therefore, I’ll say what I feel like saying when I felt like saying something. I just feel like wasting your time responding to my stupid inane comment, like you waste my time reading how into yourself you are and how you think that your opinion is more wonderful than anyone elses you feel that you have to put them down. It’s so very Hillary Clinton of you.
I didn’t make assumptions. I read what you wrote:
“1) Rudy: I don’t like Rudy’s…”
“2) Mitt: I don’t like the ban on assault weapons…”
and, 3) Fred is obvious…
Sultry Beauty on November 2, 2007 at 6:10 PM
That’s it. I’m ignoring any further crap from you. You’re playing nothing but a child’s game, saying inflammatory things about the general populace you talk to, and then when they take offense, you single them out and play the innocent game. You’re deranged, and you’re deluded. Ron Paul supporters are more stable.
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Yes you did make assumptions. I don’t believe that I have to be in 100% agreement with a candidate in order to support him. If you were as mature as you think you are, you would have asked instead of assumed.
And you’ll find out real quick that you get what you give me. You have started out attacking me and that’s what you’ll get in return. But don’t start whining like a little crybaby when I slam you for your errors in judgment.
I’d rather you take at least one single post and discuss the topic at hand, but you don’t seem to be getting the hint.
Oh well, I tried.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 7:04 PM
You know, I’ve seen a myriad of excuses from people like you who have realized your mistake but don’t know how to gracefully extract yourself from it, but your’s is original. Kudos to you.
NOW are you ready to actually discuss the thread topic? That might be diffucult because it seems you have scared everyone else away with your incessant attacks on me.
csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 7:08 PM
oh brother.
LMFAO
Sammy316 on November 2, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Nope, you’ve successfully driven everyone from any thread your’re on, CS. Congrats are in ordere to you, CS, you being an apparent well paid political operative of the Democ-rats, probably Hillary or Barrako. You’ve succeeded in denigrating, denouncing and ridiculing Fred and his supporters daily, almost hourly. A tried and true political tactic by someone’s opponent. Nowhere else can I find anyone posting the vitriole you spew about Fred. In ’shill’ school did they teach you that if you say it enough people will believe it? Is that It? You’ve said it enough here, go say it somewhere else.
countywolf on November 2, 2007 at 7:34 PM
Fred! rules………end of story.
(He ain’t perfect, but Reagan wasn’t either).
omnipotent on November 2, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Comment pages: