Video: Fred’s message to Iowa voters
posted at 8:32 pm on December 30, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
A video like this one, 17 minutes of Fred addressing voters directly via the camera, forces viewers to ask a few basic questions. One, is what he is saying true and is he saying it clearly enough so that it makes sense? Second, does what he’s saying reflect my values and does he have a record of sticking to those values? Third, does he make a plausible 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: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »
RushBaby on December 31, 2007 at 1:41 AM
No big deal. I never saw it, so, as far as I know, you never said (typed)it.
I’ve been called “the most pathetic excuse for a man” from some girl who commented on a blog I wrote talking about my stance on abortion. So I learned from that (and many other insults spewed my way online) not to take this online chatting stuff too seriously.
Michael in MI on December 31, 2007 at 1:49 AM
Within the limitations currently upon me, absolutly…Need an e-mail address?
doriangrey on December 31, 2007 at 1:49 AM
s’ok, we just need to set up a mode of communication for now.
RushBaby on December 31, 2007 at 1:49 AM
Re: the Marine with the keyed car.
Can’t he just grant someone else power of attorney and have them pursue the case in his absence?
/I’m sure someone’s thought of that…
Purple Fury on December 31, 2007 at 1:50 AM
Come to Thanksgiving next year. I’ll tell you the shame of what I did. And give you a great big neck-hug, Texas style.
RushBaby on December 31, 2007 at 1:52 AM
Michael in MI on December 31, 2007 at 1:30 AM
That was pathetic. I just forwarded the link to Bryan, with a note that you contributed here, Michael. Indeed, must be exposed.
Entelechy on December 31, 2007 at 1:52 AM
If posts on this Blog are an indication of who will win then Fred will do very well….;)
Nelsa on December 31, 2007 at 1:57 AM
Not to take this back on-topic or anything, but I was really taken with Fred’s comments relative to the ol’ Higer Power.
I suspect he’s trying to shore up some support among CC’s who’d like to drift away from Huck but are afraid of eternal condemnation if they vote heathen. It was well done, nonetheless, and struck the right note for me.
TexasDan on December 31, 2007 at 2:01 AM
Clicked over to your site to see of there was one there. My cottonpickin internet connection is so slow here at home, tick tock, tick tock, couldn’t tell. Don’t post it here though.
RushBaby on December 31, 2007 at 2:01 AM
Perfect timing. Ol’ AP’s probably waking up from general anesthesia just about now, and demanding his
computeriphone.RushBaby on December 31, 2007 at 2:05 AM
There is one there…
doriangrey on December 31, 2007 at 2:06 AM
Yup, our Jedi Fred lovefest mind tricks cant hold a sith lord like AP captive forever…
doriangrey on December 31, 2007 at 2:09 AM
I’ll be in touch. Thanks.
*snick*
RushBaby on December 31, 2007 at 2:12 AM
Read your comment and understand fully. Also, read every single comment on that and the following threads on ‘Hatgate’, the gate which collapsed before it was to be raised.
I also wish you a Happy New Year 2008, whatever you decide. I’d still love it if you’d reconsider. I have been hurt occasionally here too but it’s the nature of things electronic. People overreact in person, and on line they sometimes feel even freer to do so. No excuse for anyone, but I’m selfish and would like to enjoy your comments, especially in these critical months. We have a tough road ahead and you have a good grasp of the issues. I fully agree on your assessment of our friend MB4. Quite a few around here are having second looks. I like that you are this objective.
I don’t agree with, or better yet, don’t believe in all the things you do, and still, I so appreciate your comments. The writing is flawless, and very well thought out. You’re very fair and a genuinely good person. In any event, even if you decide otherwise, I will respect your decision. All the best,
Entelechy on December 31, 2007 at 2:12 AM
The most interesting thing about this is the out-reach to disaffected Democrats “who’s party has left you”, with that Reaganesque turn of phrase. And the format itself, which implies a needed rejection of the idiotic sound-bite “debates” which do nothing but lower the respectability of any Republican participant.
Fred is the perfect VP choice. I like him better and better, but I still would rather have Giuliani’s hand on the trigger of the gun aimed at the jihad.
Halley on December 31, 2007 at 2:18 AM
Rudy’d have his hands on all the rest of our guns, too. How serious can he be about national defense while he works at disarming citizens?
TexasDan on December 31, 2007 at 2:24 AM
Go Fred!
RushBaby on December 31, 2007 at 2:42 AM
Nothing like a bucket full of irony to cap off the night.
FloatingRock on December 31, 2007 at 3:03 AM
No doubt, and if he succeeds in suing America’s firearms manufacturers into bankruptcy we’d have to start smuggling foreign made guns into the country. Sure, Rudy’s sensors would count how many times the gun-runners cross the border but he won’t be able to differentiate them from the millions of other people streaming across our border as well.
Look at the bright side: the employees of the foreign gun manufacturers are willing to do the jobs that Rudy won’t let American’s do. Unfortunately the Supply of guns on our streets will no doubt increase as a result.
How can candidates get away with pretending to be strong on national security when in reality they’re apposed to securing our nation?
FloatingRock on December 31, 2007 at 3:27 AM
Nice echo chamber.
If it wasn’t for Spirit of 1776’s subversive questioning this thread would have been a mutual Fredhead mental masturbation session.
No one seemed to discuss the obvious problems with Fred:
No executive experience whatsoever
—never ran a city or state
—never ran a large business or organization
—never responsible for the safety of citizens
—while US Attorney in Tennessee spent most of his time and energy chasing moonshiners
Only 8 years in the Senate where only notable achievements were:
—Campaign Finance Reform
—botched investigation of Clinton’s financing
—voted to keep perjurer in oval office
Claims to be pro-life but
—opposes life amendment
—is against criminalizing women who have abortions
—is against criminalizing doctors who perform abortions
—for those keeping score, that make Fred a pro-choice federalist similar to Rudy
Career tort lawyer and lobbyist
—most despised profession to general public
—lobbied for abortion group
—lobbied for murderous dictator
—lobbied against interests of workers injured by asbestos
—provided legal advice to terrorist fighting extradition from Libya for the murder of 270 innocent people in Lockerbie Scotland
—can fairly be criticized for doing anything for anyone for money — earning the low reputation of his profession
Empty rhetoric on immigration
—was a Senator for eight years during runaway illegal immigration
—was in a position to actually do something about it — introduce legislation, hold hearings, etc.
—he did nothing
—rather, Fred as Senator consistently voted in favor of Spencer Abraham’s open boarder agenda giving millions of American jobs to foreign nationals (see below)
—Still has Abraham on his campaign staff
Nepotism and Misuse of campaign funds
—raised money from contributors in connection with his Senate re-election campaign
—decided he was too lazy for public service and decided not to run
—funneled the campaign funds to a PAC most of it was eventual paid to Fred’s son for “consulting” that never took place
—Fred’s son didn’t even do a cute impression of an elephant
Fred’s Open Boarder Votes:
2000: Voted for S.2045, a foreign worker bill with no worker protections. Sen. Thompson voted for the Abraham foreign worker bill to nearly triple the number of foreign high-tech workers. Despite a GAO report finding no evidence of a worker shortage and suggesting fraud in the H-1B program, Rep. Thompson voted for this bill that included no worker protections or anti-fraud measures.
1996: Voted in committee for the Abraham amendment to S.1664. The Abraham amendment to S.1664 stripped all legal reforms from the bill. The legal reforms would have lowered the annual cap on skilled-worker visas and eliminated the category for unskilled workers. S.1664 would have reduced overall legal immigration by about 2.1 million over a ten-year period. The amendment passed.
1998: S.1723, Voted against the American worker in committee. Rep. Thompson stood solidy against American workers by opposing a Feinstein amendment to S.1723 to reduce the H1B increase from 5 years to 3. The amendment failed by 2 votes.
1998: Voted in committee against American workers. The Kennedy-Feinstein Amendment to S.1723 would have accomplished two important goals: ensuring no American was laid off or displaced prior to hiring an H1B employee; and, requiring that employers demonstrate they had previously taken timely and effective steps to hire a qualified American. 10 Senators helped defeat this amendment.
1998: Voted against offering jobs to Americans first. Rep. Thompson voted against the Kennedy amendment(A-2417) to S.1723 that would have required U.S. firms applying for H-1B visas to check a box on a form attesting that they had first sought an American worker for the job. The amendment failed 39-59.
1998: S.1723, Voted to allow American workers to be fired and repalced with a foreign worker. Rep. Thompson voted against the Kennedy Amendment (A-2418) to S.1723 that would have protected American workers from being fired and replaced by a foreign worker (H-1B visa holder). The amendment was defeated 38-60.
1998: Voted against protecting American workers. Rep. Thompson was part of the majority in the Senate Judiciary Committee that voted to send S.1723 to the floor of the Senate without safeguards for American workers.
1998: Voted for S.1723, nearly doubling hi-tech visas. Rep. Thompson helped the Senate pass S.1723 in a 78-20 vote. Enacted into law, it increased by nearly 150,000 the number of foreign workers high-tech American companies could hire over the next three years even though U.S. firms were laying off thousands of workers at the time.
1997: Voted for an amnesty to illegal aliens from Nicaragua and Cuba. Sen. Thompson voted for a procedural move that helped allow the Mack Amendment to be included in S.1156 (the District of Columbia Appropriations bill). This amendment granted amnesty to illegal aliens from Nicaragua and Cuba and is expected to add close to one million people to U.S. population.
1996: Voted in committee for the Abraham amendment to S.1664. The Abraham amendment to S.1664 stripped all legal reforms from the bill. The legal reforms would have limited annual refugee admissions to 50,000, as recommended by the Jordan Commission. S.1664 would have reduced overall legal immigration by about 2.1 million over a ten-year period. The amendment passed.
1996: Voted in favor of the immigration lottery Sen. Thompson voted against the Feinstein Amendment to S 1664 that would have eliminated the immigration lottery and significantly reduced chain migration. The Feinstein Amendment was defeated by a vote of 74 to 26.
1996: Voted in committee for the Abraham amendment to S.1664. The Abraham amendment to S.1664 stripped all legal reforms from the bill. The legal reforms would have eliminated lottery visas. S.1664 would have reduced overall legal immigration by about 2.1 million over a ten-year period. The amendment passed.
1996: Voted against the Simpson Amendment to S.1664 to reduce the immigration lottery. The Simpson amendment to S.1664 would have reduced the annual number of visas allocated to the lottery category from 55,000 to 27,000. The amendment failed by 80-20 on the Senate floor.
1996: Voted in favor of chain migration Sen. Thompson voted against the Feinstein Amendment to S 1664 that would have significantly reduced chain migration by lowering annual admissions of spouses and minor children of citizens to 480,000 a year. The Feinstein Amendment was defeated by a vote of 74 to 26.
1996: Voted in committee for the Abraham amendment to S.1664. The Abraham amendment to S.1664 stripped all legal reforms from the bill. The legal reforms would have greatly reduced chain migration by eliminating several extended-family categories. S.1664 would have reduced overall legal immigration by about 2.1 million over a ten-year period. The Abraham amendment passed.
1996: Voted against the Simpson Amendment to S.1664 to end chain migration. The Simpson Amendment to S.1664 would have ended chain migration which the Census Bureau projects will double the U.S. population again in the next century. The Senate voted 80-20 to kill the reform.
1996: Voted in committee in favor of the Hatch Amendment to S. 1664 to reduce fines against employers who hire illegal aliens Sen. Thompson voted as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of the Hatch Amendment to S. 1664. The Hatch Amendment stripped the provision from S. 1664 that increased fines against businesses that hire illegal aliens, thus making it less attractive for businesses to hire illegal aliens. The Hatch Amendment passed by a vote of 9-8.
1996: Voted in favor of the Abraham Amendment to S. 1644, a vote against of increased interior enforcement Sen. Thompson voted in favor of the Abraham Amendment to strip the voluntary workplace verification program from S. 1644. Workplace verification programs help reduce illegal immigration by withdrawing the job magnet from illegal aliens. The Abraham Amendment failed by a vote of 54-46.
Have fun burying this fine post chock full of facts and analysis with innumerable inane posts about how cool Freddy is. BTW his real name on his birth certificate is “Freddy.” Yuck.
tommylotto on December 31, 2007 at 7:45 AM
For the record, a zeppelin (like the Hindenberg) is a dirigible, not a blimp.
otcconan on December 31, 2007 at 7:55 AM
With the exception of the last massive cut-and-paste comment - which I was wise enough to skip entirely after checking its author - this is a truly beautiful thread.
By the way, Michelle/AP/Bryan - has any thought ever been given to reversing the format of the comments so that the author’s names are at the top? I think most of us recognize that 99% of HA posters are intelligent, interesting, and trying to contribute; but there are 2 or 3 who are here only to spew a little hate and discontent, and who have no interest in contributing.
Some sites have comments set up where it starts with: “Wccawa says …” followed by the comment. That way you can choose which authors to happily ignore. Any chance of getting that here?
Not that I’d ever ignore Wccawa, of course. He knows where all the chicks are. And the blimps.
I should have stayed up last night. This thread (after having the last comment cheerfully removed) should be encased in plastic and put in the Hot Air museum for all to marvel at.
Well done, to (almost) all of you.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Anybody know where Fred! campaign headquarters are in Nashville? I want a yard sign. And a bumper sticker.
And lastly, a friendly, sincere not to the very few remaining trolls and Fred-haters:
THANK YOU.
Without you, I’d never have considered Fred. You’ve earned him votes, made him money, and if he succeeds, I think he’ll owe quite a bit of it to you. More importantly, I think you made this wonderful thread possible. I think people were finally so tired of your ugliness they decided to spend the evening just being nice to each other.
And I enjoyed that immensely. On all counts, thank you.
Well done, the rest of you knuckleheads, gutter-minds, Alba fans, and blimp lovers. Love you guys. Can I get in on the fivesome?
Fred in ‘08!
Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 7:58 AM
It has started….
Dig, dig, dig.
Oh, and Spirit of 1776, if you are looking for that plan for homeland security, you can find it here.
tommylotto on December 31, 2007 at 8:14 AM
You can call her what you will but in my mind, her intellect , consideration for others, political views, etc. make me think of a beautiful Siren.
So I would call her “Goddess Entelechy”
TheSitRep on December 31, 2007 at 9:04 AM
Go Fred!
(just wanted to see this lovely thread go a little farther-ya’ll had some fun last night while I was out!)
Ex-tex on December 31, 2007 at 9:17 AM
1) Yes, Yes
2) Yes, Yes
3) Yes.
amend2 on December 31, 2007 at 9:19 AM
Keep asking, after all we finally got our Preview button for comments…
Swinehound on December 31, 2007 at 9:20 AM
Gees! Make your verbs agree damnit!
Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 31, 2007 at 9:26 AM
SECOND LOOK AT DIRIGIBLES!
Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 9:27 AM
Late to the party here (again) Fantastic video. I was really on the fence between Mitt and Fred!, I am off of it now. Fred fully has my support, he is the only candidate that spells out exactly what he stands for and it matches my feeling to a tee.
Go Fred!
(and where are the haters?) message too powerful for them to overcome????
conservnut on December 31, 2007 at 9:27 AM
This video is doing quite well on You Tube but needs to be promoted more.
…
#7 - Most Discussed (Today)
#2 - Most Discussed (Today) - News & Politics
#50 - Most Viewed (Today)
#8 - Most Viewed (Today) - News & Politics
#20 - Top Favorites (Today)
#1 - Top Favorites (Today) - News & Politics
#34 - Top Rated (Today)
#9 - Top Rated (Today) - News & Politics
#52 - Top Rated (This Week) - News & Politics
…
Go to You Tube, rank the video, put in a good comment towards Fred, and make the video a favorite. Then send it to all your friends, neighbors and mailing lists. Here is the link:
…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VblJq4j0_SE
bnelson44 on December 31, 2007 at 9:30 AM
SECOND LOOK AT BNELSON!
But seriously … thank you for all you do and have done. You’re proof that positive effort makes a difference. Other candidates’ supporters would do well to follow your example.
#1 - Top Favorites (Today) - News & Politics
Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 9:36 AM
Thanks, but I jut think Fred deserves a shot. My candidate is not very popular on this site: John McCain. But he has done too much for this country and supporting my son in Iraq for me to abandon him now. So I root for both of them. :)
bnelson44 on December 31, 2007 at 9:40 AM
Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy Freddy
Go Freddy! Yup, I think I can live with that!
RushBaby on December 31, 2007 at 9:45 AM
While I don’t share your support for John McCain, I understand it, and won’t begrudge or lambast you for that support.
God Bless you and your son, we all pray for his safe return to your family.
conservnut on December 31, 2007 at 9:49 AM
TommyLotto is here but not yet CS. He, Tommy, made a big list up there some where around 7:45 am. He rightly points out that Fred, like every one else not named Buchanan was open borders in the 90s. But even our own Michelle has said recently on Laura Ingraham, in critiquing some of the pretenders and Johnny-come-lately’s on immigration, that she her self could have been sooner to the dance.
Tommy was also exhaustive on detailing the fact that Fred’s been a Lobbyist and a Lawyer, working at Law firms and such, -stuff we’ve heard before.
Thus having completed his life’s work, Tommy would like us all to be devastated. Unfortunately, mind-numbed Fred-bots are incapable of this.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 31, 2007 at 9:53 AM
I returned to YouTube and voted…thanks for the tip.
Hey, McCain made a few missteps (mainly immigration), he would make a great VP, he is a hero and a proven leader of men.
right2bright on December 31, 2007 at 9:55 AM
While Tommy and yourself point out facts that you would like for all of us to consider. I do not lump the two of you into the “haters” group. You both present sound arguments for your position without resorting to tags like “scumbag”.
And by the way, consider me now “mind-numbed”
conservnut on December 31, 2007 at 9:59 AM
Thanks for the link. As I was reading it, it reminded me a bit of his foreign affairs article. Even Huck, not example a FA guru, wrote one, so maybe Fred will illuminate us in those pages if he does well enough in Iowa.
I appreciate the sentiment, but that’s not necessary. Thoughtful of you though.
I would merely note that what he has on his website could have been written on Tanc’s or McCain’s site. One opposed the surge and the other pushed for it, so there is a tremendous amount of breathing space in generalities. I am of the opinion, as Bush has said that we will be in Iraq regardless for the duration of his presidency, that this particular issue will be the first and most significant challenge for the incoming president. And there is no reason to think that it won’t be a fight. I expect it will likely set the tone for the Pres and Congress, before his other plans, social security, etc would even get addressed (thus affecting them as well). MTP has him archived from his 11/4 show, so if I get a chance I’ll watch that today. Maybe he said something there.
Spirit of 1776 on December 31, 2007 at 10:08 AM
example s/b exactly
Spirit of 1776 on December 31, 2007 at 10:10 AM
I like McCain and always have. I think his heart was in the right place with McCain-Feingold, if not his brain; there were a lot of unintended and unforeseen consequences.
As for his views on immigration, I just see McCain as suffering from one basic problem: he’s been in the Senate for a long time. Long-term legislators learn to be political and to compromise - and sometimes that makes them tend to shy away from bold leadership. I think thats why we don’t often elect long-time Senators, and why we so frequently elect governors.
I’d feel better about McCain if we could sort of give him an executive office try-out.
But I do like the guy personally. Thompson/McCain in ‘08? A cabinet post? SecDef?
Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 10:11 AM
conservnut on December 31, 2007 at 9:59 AM
Conservnut, my mind-numbed fellow, I too, am a Fred Head, I’ve been donating, and was posting totals during the blogburst. I’ve been posting quite a bit on these Fred threads, but obviously, failed to be clear in my writing. I was simply summing TommyLotto’s case, was being facetious (or rather trying and failing) about being mind-numbed and all.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 31, 2007 at 10:11 AM
I posted this on the “malpractice” thread, but it’s probably dead and I wanted to get a responsible response to it.
I think that many people who, like many of us, were supporters of Fred at one time, have decided that he isn’t all he appears to be. Look at his support. It shrunk considerable and now seems to have stabilized. the was a poll out the other day I linked to. It was a poll of likely Iowa caucus voters. Fred was at less than 1% of the 15,000 (1,500 sounds more likely. Even still, 1%?) people polled. It sure appears that lots of folks have decided he just isn’t presidential material. The reasons why are unknown. Probably not for all the reasons I have, but certainly for many of the reasons tommy listed.
Are there any justifications to weaken tommy’s list, what are they, and how does the fact that Fred has to address them not weaken him further?
csdeven on December 31, 2007 at 10:11 AM
What he said.
Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Nyog_of_the_Bog is a Fred supporter.
csdeven on December 31, 2007 at 10:13 AM
This is all fine and dandy and I don’t disagree with anything he’s saying, but he needs to get out there and campaign like his life depends on it.
Time to get crackin’, Fred.
Of course he could be playing it safe and hanging in there just enough to be McCain’s Veep choice.
Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 10:13 AM
My apoligies for misunderstanding your comment. I admit that the thread was so long that I only perused it briefly before adding my two cents worth.
I blame it on being mind-numb!
conservnut on December 31, 2007 at 10:17 AM
It’s well worth your time to grab a cup of coffee, put your feet up, and read through the whole thing.
Some of the folks were en fuego last night. It’s pretty entertaining.
And since Fred! may well be history in a week … you might want to enjoy it while it lasts. I sure am.
Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Thompson/Bolton 08 is what the world needs now.
TheSitRep on December 31, 2007 at 10:21 AM
I’m sorry. I can’t support that. You’d kill millions of liberals when their heads exploded - and terrorists all over the world would have apoplectic fits of fear.
You’re just mean.
Besides … I thought what the world needed now was love … sweet love …
Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 10:25 AM
I understand and appreciate yours and tommy’s well articulated position. I too, have been troubled by many of these questions, and have until now held off on declaring support for any candidate. But when I look at the declared postions of all the candidates, Fred is the only one who speaks to all of my concerns with a like mind.
Is he just saying it to get elected? Possibly, but aren’t they all. At least he is on record, and has not hidden behind half hearted statments and circle talking like the rest of the field.
That is why he now has my backing, and money I might add.
conservnut on December 31, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Maybe you meant Michael Bolton. To sort of smooth out Fred’s rough edges with his silky smooth sound.
Good thinking.
Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Man! I do like that idea, SitRep but for the fact, we need Bolton for Sec. of State as well and he doesn’t seem like a pol. One supposes he knows some one else for that post,(Sec. of State) almost as good.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 31, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Just filled my cup and am settling in now. What the hell, I didn’t have anything else planned this morning!
conservnut on December 31, 2007 at 10:31 AM
I watched Fred’s interview with the Hoover Institute from last summer. I was troubled by his responses to the question of what to do in Iraq. Then and repeatedly since, he has said that he will consult regular foot soldiers on the ground to decide what to do. If they are optimistic, then he will be. If they are not, then he wont be. At first I thought this was just more of his shtick designed to attract a certain type of supporter. But because he has repeated it often, it makes me think he does not take the events in Iraq/Afghanistan seriously enough to get out on a limb and make the decision himself. He also said that we should “exhaust every reasonable hope that we have not to lose that”. Is there an unreasonable hope to not lose in Iraq? Is he saying that a loss is possible in his mind?
The video can be found here.
The relevant comment starts at 4:30.
csdeven on December 31, 2007 at 10:31 AM
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 1:10 AM
Your quote of “geeble gobble geeble gobble. One of us. One of us,” was extremely vague, to say the least. In fact, I’d never seen a reply as incomprehensible since a debate I had with a Palestinian radical in the now defunct UK Independent Chat room.
I Googled the quote, and it seemed to be related to the 1932 movie, “Freaks,” where the freaks warn the audience at the end that they are freaks, too. Your words, “Veiled reference warning:” at the time seemed to me to refer to what I said, in other words, that I was making a veiled warning, by saying that others believed the same as I, instead of what you meant, which was that meant that your quote was the veiled warning.
Damn, I hate to have to explain how wires get crossed. :)
Aardvark on December 31, 2007 at 1:40 AM
Um, you TOTALLY misunderstood that. But in your defense, as I stated, it was vague, or more to the point, very obscure.
I used it SIMPLY to welcome a newbie to the Fredfolks. We Fred supporters, on this site, are sometimes considered mind-numbed robots, or morons or, if you will, freaks.
FREAKS is a fantastic movie, especially if you love old independent film. The commentary by the freaks at the end of the movie was really not related to why I quoted it. In the film, a gold-digging wench, tricks the side show “midget” into marrying her, just to get his money. The “freaks” in the sideshow take her at her word, and throw a big dinner to welcome her to the group. The quote I used was something they chant at the table. It was meant as one “freak’s” welcome to a Fred newbie. It was NOT and I repeat NOT an insult.
Most folks on here know that I’m not one to insult someone I don’t know for no reason.
Sorry you misunderstood. Did ANYONE get that quote and reference the way I meant it??
(Note to self: NO old indie references anymore without explanation.)
Oh, and good morning everyone. And to the bashers, thanks so much for waiting SO long to join the thread. The party was wonderful!!
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Thanks for the reasonable response. I admit, the Fred speak is tempting at times.
But…..well, you know.
csdeven on December 31, 2007 at 10:35 AM
The late night crew has arrived …!
Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Aardvark on December 31, 2007 at 1:40 AM
Oh, and it WASN’T incomprehensible, even if you didn’t understand it, to those who had been in the discussion all along.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Yes, I’m back, and boy did I feel like I’d been socked in the face with THAT Aardvark comment.
Did you understand what I meant last night, Professor?
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Are you suggesting he make a decision without consulting all sources of information he deems significant? Talking to the people risking their lives may seem like a campaign move, but if it is something he really plans to do once he no longer needs to campaign, then it’s a very respectful position.
For quite a while before Patraeus shed light on the current status, I talked to a number of Army and Marine veterans who had been to, and in some cases were going back to Iraq, and they were telling the same story. How many generals were swearing up and down that we should all listen to Murtha and admit we’re the eeeeevil occupiers? Maybe the guys who are actually over there, actually talking with the populace and getting a feel for how much they’re actually wanted over there, should be the ones we’re listening to.
MadisonConservative on December 31, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Something tells me NetFlix is going to wonder why their copy of FREAKS is all of a sudden in such demand!
RushBaby on December 31, 2007 at 10:41 AM
I got it, but not the way you meant it.
MadisonConservative on December 31, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Alllllll the better!! Consider that my contribution to everyone’s Film Study.
The freaks in the movie, by the way, are the protagonists. The good guys.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Yes, I remember this. I said somewhere upstream that is not exactly inspiring for a CiC. It really leads me to question his resolve.
Having said that, I heard one of his advisers say that part of the reason for his slow start after his announcement was to come up with positions on all the issues. Therefore, I would have assumed he would be in the position to make more significant comments. The General has come back and reported, so it’s time for a better answer.
I can’t really argue it’s a bad move politically, though. He generates a lot of his support on the Federalism issue, which of course stimulates topics revolving around domestic policies and the separation of powers. Iraq policy doesn’t really fit that theme.
Spirit of 1776 on December 31, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Yup. But I love that movie. Also, I was high on Fred and peyote. So that kinda helped.
Amen.
But I learned something last night, something as wonderfully obvious as John Bolton’s mustache: you can just ignore the bashers. When they have something to contribute, especially if its something positive about their guy, I’ll pay attention. If not, they don’t exist.
Yeah. I know. The adults already figured this out a long time ago. I was a little slow, as per usual.
geeble gobble geeble gobble
Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Harumph! You indie elitists are all the same. You just figure the rest of us just don’t get it. ;-) Well, I guess we don’t.
I decided last night to let the thread go without my input. I read it for a while, but it was getting very close to the upper reaches of the Paulian atmosphere, so I went to bed.
J/K
I never knew what an echo chamber was until Tommy compared it to mutual masturbation. I know what that is and now I know what “echo chamber” means.
But, I’m glad you guys had fun.
csdeven on December 31, 2007 at 10:43 AM
geeble gobble geeble gobble and a hearty Good Morning to you!
RushBaby on December 31, 2007 at 10:46 AM
s/b
basherszippiesRushBaby on December 31, 2007 at 10:47 AM
CS, let me add one more thought to the above. Even the smart dems think we can just declare victory and withdraw. So just like amnesty, I would like a definition of victory/win from the candidates.
Spirit of 1776 on December 31, 2007 at 10:47 AM
If you’ll notice, CS, the thread was not a negative one, and was at most times NOT even about the topic on hand.
Mutual masterbation? I don’t agree with the way you mean it. But hey, who doesn’t like an Org— nevermind.
Paulian reference notwithstanding (which if I didn’t know you would be an insult), love you, mean it.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Rushbaby… teehee!
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Ruh Roh, I tickled a dragon belonging to someone elses! Better watch my back!
RushBaby on December 31, 2007 at 10:51 AM
She’s talking about masturbation.
This thread has officially reached epic status.
MadisonConservative on December 31, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Gasp! I BELONG TO someone?? o my.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Actually, Mad, I was responding to someone else suggestion. :) Can’t take credit for the thread LOW.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Mitt’s hair has entered the room.
wccawa on December 31, 2007 at 10:54 AM
You were responding to someone else’s suggestion…for masturbation?
It just keeps getting better.
MadisonConservative on December 31, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Damn. This thread is long enough to land an F-15 on.
wccawa on December 31, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Backs. Out. Slowly.
RushBaby on December 31, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Spirit…..
You can find just about anything you want to know about Fred, his record, and his public statements here:
FDT Issues
Here is a listing (which unlike Tommylotto’s recap allows you to actualy link the the legislation Fred voted for or against), of everything Fred voted on…everything.
FDT congress
Limerick on December 31, 2007 at 10:58 AM
This…and CS’s statement that he now understands the term “echo chamber” prompted my response.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Slow down for a sec and consider what Fred is saying. He is saying that he will consult foot soldiers (troops). OK, which foot soldiers? The ones in the pacified areas or the really rough areas? Does he ask a select few or does he ask them all? Does he give more weight to complaints or to optimism? How far down does he go? To PFC’s? Sergeants? LT’s? Majors? Does he count them all and follow the majority?
And please don’t respond with what YOU THINK he meant. I want to hear Fred’s details.
In my view, Fred is abdicating his responsibility. Why, I have no idea. Is it just to reach a certain voter who thinks it’s cool for someone to FINALLY ask the troops what they think? Or is he to afraid to make a decision on his own? Fred was not able to make the decision to run for president on his own, but that could be designed to attract a certain type supporter who thinks that is cool also.
There is a excellent reason for not running a military operation by democratic vote. That reason is that the troops on the ground do not have the intel that the president is privy to. So, they’re perception of the progress being made in their specific area of operation, may just be a required step toward a future success. there is no reason to include the troops in on that info because then they will start making decisions on whether the operation is worth it. The CinC needs our troops to follow legal orders without question. Anything that hampers that is counter productive.
BTW, it for this same reason I cannot stand the demand by some (congress/MSM) that our objectives need to be given to the American people. (and by extension, the rest of the world)
csdeven on December 31, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Top 10 Reasons Not To Vote for Fred Thompson
Before your eyes bug out, read the whole thing.
Over the past couple months, I’ve been spending a lot of time on Redstate, and I tell you what, it sure seems like a lot of people like this Fred Thompson feller. Heck, it even seems like the people who aren’t supporting him for the nomination kind of like the guy.
Obviously, that just means we haven’t been looking hard enough to find out what we don’t like about him. So, after weeks of painstaking research I have come up with the Top 10 Reasons Not To Vote For Fred Dalton Thompson.
10. He’s kind of bald.
Admit it: sure, he’s got a couple tufts here and there, but otherwise the man is pretty much bald. And as the hard-hitting journalists at Time Magazine informed us about Giuliani, Bald People can’t be President. Sure, they can be good presidents if they get in. Eisenhower was swell, but he ran against a bald guy twice. It Stevenson had gotten the Joe Biden hair plug treatment, it could have been curtains for Ike.
9. He doesn’t raise his hand.
Sure, some people thought Fred not submitting to the Iowa debate hand show on global warming was leadership-like and all that. But think about it. Why else wouldn’t Fred raise his hand? Remember that kid in your Psychology 101 class who never raised his hand, either? He wasn’t a leader; he was just stupid.
8. Some of his movies sucked.
Sure, he was in plenty of good movies, like “The Hunt for Red October” and “Die Hard 2″. But look at the whole list. “Aces: Iron Eagle III”? “Baby’s Day Out”? Give me a break. Ronald Reagan was in much more dignified movies, like “Bedtime for Bonzo”.
7. Richard Nixon thought he was stupid.
Richard Nixon is on the record having said Fred Thompson was “dumb” but “friendly”. And let me tell you something, when I need a good judge of character, I go directly to Richard Nixon*. Besides, if you click the link, you’ll see Fred WITH hair, which is even worse than bald Fred.
6. The Democratic Party has too much dirt on him.
So much, in fact, that they run great attacks like this one:
Addressing the Club for Growth at the Grand Hyatt on Wednesday, Fred Thompson said:
“One of the great things about running for president is you get to see the back rooms and kitchens of a lot of hotels.”
Not really what I would have ranked as a top attraction, but who knows.
HA! You got him, Democrats! Boy, that one was worth dedicating a whole page to, wasn’t it?
5. He got in the race too late.
By coming into the race in September, Fred Thompson avoided doing all the great things other Presidential candidates did by campaigning for months and months like…
….um….
….Okay, next point.
4. He helped put liberal justices like John Roberts on the Supreme Court.
Fred Thompson, with Ed Gillespie, helped guide the John Roberts nomination through the Senate. And how has John Roberts paid back the conservative movement? (Outside of this and this, I mean.)
Why, he decided that a state should give notice to an owner before they sold his property to cover the taxes he hadn’t paid!!! I’m not sure why that’s bad, but Scalia thinks it is, so there!
3. He wouldn’t put on the Fireman’s Hat.
I mean, come on. A fireman offers you their hat, YOU PUT THE HAT ON. What’s next Fred? You’re going to complain that someone carved your likeness out of butter? It’s called running for President.
2. He has a trophy wife.
Let’s be honest, folks, he didn’t marry her for her brains. I mean, how smart does someone have to be to be a lobbyist or a media consultant for the Republican National Committee? Probably not very! Also, it’s unfair that the old man gets all the cute girls.
1. He’s not Ronald Reagan.
And really, shouldn’t that disqualify him right there?
sonnyspats1 on December 31, 2007 at 10:59 AM
You are the bomb baby. I mean it.
csdeven on December 31, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Hehe..guilty. Good one, Sonny.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Thanks, CS.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 11:02 AM
7:45 a.m. diminutive alley cat with a gambling addiction:
Your Senate references are all from 2007 and misrepresented.
S.2045 Consumer Product Safety Commission
S.1664 Mint Commemorative Coins/La Follette, Sr.
S.1723 Improve Govt. Accountability, Inspectors General (ACT)
S.2418 (EAT SAFE) End Agricultural Threats, Safeguard Food Source (ACT)
The general context of your comments placed you alongside Kennedy & Feinstein and against Republicans. You lack credence, as generic criticisms with fabricated data are based upon your expectation for BIG GOVERNMENT to solve everything in your daily life.
Regarding criticisms of Fred Thompson’s votes that by headline would appear a bad decision, read the fine print in the proposed legislation and realize that as submitted, placing FURTHER burden upon the federal government THAN IS CONSTITUTIONALLY DESIGNATED has repercussions that Fred Thompson knows better than to facilitate. Just because the icing is beautifully enticing does not mean that there isn’t a ticking bomb in the cake.
RE: your link, Guillianni’s plan for homeland security from Winter 2008, Vol.18 No.1 would be Monday morning QB. Hands Down; Fred already got that rolling.
VOTE FRED ‘08
maverick muse on December 31, 2007 at 11:04 AM
I can not play very long this morning, but Fred’s interview with Wolf Blitzer is up.
wccawa on December 31, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Great post Sonny! I always reference Nixon for my character test too! Thats after referencing the Clinton’s first of course.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 31, 2007 at 11:05 AM
To the HotAir Staff:
I would like to respectfully, officially request the following:
1) Identifying Name of poster at TOP of post, as suggested by others.
2) Lounge area for discussion and silliness. As I realize that a couple of threads lately have turned into off-topic parties. (My apologies for contributing to that. ;)
Love you guys!!
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Dude! I never knew that stuff. Well, good thing there’s a lively Ron Paul thread shaping up. I’d better get over there and see about switching my support!
RushBaby on December 31, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Personally, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Off-topic? How? lol
wccawa on December 31, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Again…
The actual votes matched to the actual bills….it seems the facts are a bit more friendly then tommylotto’s recap…
FDT congress
At bottom of that page you can continue on to previous years.
Limerick on December 31, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Haha.
tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 11:08 AM
I didn’t say which ones I thought he meant. I gave a perspective on why that could potentially be a good idea. And, as you’ve said, we don’t know which branch, which level, or from what zone they’ll be polled. However, your tone suggests you already expect he would take poor samples.
On that, I absolutely agree with you, in terms of relying solely on the attitudes and opinions of the soldiers. However, don’t you think it would be a good additional factor to take in? Not that I’m comparing Bush or any of the current leaders in Iraq to Douglas Haig, but I should think it would be a valuable insight, combined with the intelligence that, as you said, only the president would be privy to.
MadisonConservative on December 31, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Thanks, the 2nd link is particularly well done.
Spirit of 1776 on December 31, 2007 at 11:10 AM
You guys are all getting banned.
Meet up later in the blimp.
Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 11:10 AM
BTW, I also completely agree with you on this. It doesn’t help that the MSM fosters the image of the “dumb idiot” president, because that only bolsters their claim that they’re more able to handle that sort of information. Strange…if they can handle sensitive information, why does it always end up on the front page of the paper?
MadisonConservative on December 31, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Awesome.
Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »