Fred gets ornery with the media: “I owe you nothing” Update: Clips added
posted at 3:08 pm on January 6, 2008 by Allahpundit
A little whiny for my tastes in the first clip, especially the dubious claim that last week’s dropout rumor cost him two or three points in Iowa, but it’s still top quality Fredporn for the ‘Heads to savor. Enjoy!
Fred’s supporters like to say he’s the only true conservative in the race, but it’s more than that. He’s the only candidate on our side who’s not, essentially, a bulls**t artist. Some would say Huck falls into that category too, but he doesn’t really. He’s simply a bulls**t artist who’s exceptionally good at shoveling his bulls**t. Hence the many comparisons between him and the other man from Hope.
You’ve got the ‘Busters clip up top and then a somewhat testy exchange between Fred and Bill Hemmer from FNC this morning below that. The more horserace questions they ask, the ornerier(?) he gets. Click the images to watch.
Update (bp): Here’s the “I owe you nothing” clip.
Update (bp): And here’s Fred on Fox sparring with Bill Hemmer.
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
OT/
If you appreciate Robert Spencer’s contributions to Hot Air, please go tell him right now.
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 5:33 PM
The guy I worked with who hosted Fred!’s fundraiser at his house explained to me that he liked Hunter but Hunter just had no campaign, but he thought Fred! could do it if he tried. When I told him that Fred! wanted to run an internet campaign to cut costs, the guy almost laughed at me, and told me that “the internet is neat, but that’s not going to work”.
I remember being frustrated at the time, but now I realize I’m young and have no clue about running politics and he does.
He was 100% right.
John_Locke on January 6, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Damn, I really need to spellcheck bofore posting.
P. James Moriarty on January 6, 2008 at 5:35 PM
No, and its not fair to paint them in that light. cs and buy danish are both decent people. They just get very personally invested in their politics.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 5:36 PM
To answer your question, no, I have not, because I don’t have $2300 to spend like that. I have some debt to pay off and will be living from paycheck to paycheck until the end of the year when it is paid off. But I have spent $25-$50/month on selected charities for the past year or so, where I can afford it, and some of those months I donate to Fred Thompson’s campaign.
I personally believe that it is not the lack of money that is hurting Thompson’s campaign, I believe it is the defectors of his so-called supporters who go to Mitt or McCain or Rudy or Huckabee, because they say they have a better chance to win. I would have $25 to donate to Fred Thompson right now if I had $1 for every person I have heard or read state that they supported Fred, but they left him to go to a CINO when they were not inspired by his campaign effort. I believe that attitude has suppressed support for Fred, because it inspires others to shy away from Fred Thompson too.
Word of mouth is big I think. I know that just in my office, the more I talk about my support for Fred the more people look into him and like what they hear and see. But if the word of mouth is “yeah I like Fred, but I’m not going to support him because I don’t think he has a chance” the inspiration works in the opposite way.
Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 5:36 PM
If you go talk about your principles it can serve as a fundraiser. Inspire some people and build a network. It’s no a new thing, I just think Fred misjudged a state race vs a national race. He has disappointed me.
Spirit of 1776 on January 6, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Word of mouth is important, but money is big. If you have a tool of a candidate (RP) then you get nowhere no matter how much money you have.
If you have word of mouth and no money, you hover 5-10% (Fred).
But I just think it’s unfair to say that its only because some people are pragmatic about the fact that Fred has taken his time and possibly missed chances.
The people who don’t have money to blow on elections are not going to donate out of principle, nor are the going to semi donate by volunteering, taking time that they could be doing something else (i.e. working) and using it to help a doomed candidate.
John_Locke on January 6, 2008 at 5:40 PM
I never said he was my candidate! I said from the very beginning that I like Mitt and Rudy. Fred never did squat to make him my candidate, but my problem with him all along has been about how he ran his campaign. Until today, and his debate performance I have never said a single nasty thing about him.
Here are some direct quotes. They are hardly backstabbing comments. (If anyone remembers what day it was that Rush read from Fred’s nomination speech recently, I’d have another quote for you where I praised it and said it would make a great stump speech):
We need an executive and a decision maker who can lead the nation. I’m not saying that Fred can’t do that, but it takes more than having good positions on the issues.
For the record I support Romney and Rudy equally with Fred in third place.
These are good ads, and his tax proposals sound good, but he has to work his butt off at this point to catch up with the rest of the field.
Someone suggested that Huckabee should run as Rudy’s VP. How about Fred running as Mitt’s VP and adding a little Southern flavor to the ticket.
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 January 6, 2008 at 5:42 PM
But how would you know that unless you had been reading his (great) column and/or seeing him opine on TV? America Alone just came out a few months ago. What “stamp of approval” did he have from a formal source before that? Did you take Marc’s word that he knew what he was talking about in the area of demographics history–or any other area–just because he told you that he did? Of course not. He had to prove himself. Just like MKH and all other pundits. And that’s the point.
baldilocks on January 6, 2008 at 5:43 PM
The idea isn’t to run the entire campaign, ie contact with individual voters, through the internet, but to get the work out to the Fredheads through the internet who can in turn take it out through their own personal or local campaign contacts.
Freds not an “American Idol” type campaigner, and he knows it. But on the point AP makes about the Fredheads (and I am one of them) whinning about the unfairness of the press. It may be news to some, but modern “news”, particularly political news, isn’t news so much as it’s entertainment. Hence if you have a snappy presentation filled with good one-liners and pick fights with your opponents, the press loves it. On the other hand, if you are a deep thinker and answer complicated questions with complete answers, the press just doesn’t know what to do with it and either ignores you, or worse, assumes that you “don’t have what it takes to run a good campaign” and will therefore lose. Bottom line, the press wants to run political campaigning like it was an American Idol contest.
I’ve been a Fred! supporter since it was the “draft Fred!” movement. It is true that the press will not give Fred! a fair break and will even try (especialy in the left-wing media) to torpedo him. This is a fact of life. We Fred! supporters need to accept this and do the hard work to support our candidate with the donations and on-the-ground support needed to overcome this obstacle. No one is going to give the nomination to Fred!, we as a group need to reach out and take it. We have the right candidate with the right message, we have to get his message out and give him the means to do so his self through dollars to his campaign.
The internet and Freds contact with the outside world around the MSM has to be used as a tool in the campaign, not be the campaign in its entirety.
P. James Moriarty on January 6, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Thanks for getting it right about my not being part of a “cult”, but I am doubled over with laughter at that sentence, coming from you and all that.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 5:45 PM
John_Locke on January 6, 2008 at 3:28 PM
GO FRED! GO OVERTIME!
First time ever donating to a canidate for me&mine family.
We just don’t trust Mcain, Rudy or that Hucker on immigration; that is a very critical issue for us(amoung others). We do like Mitt, but are afraid of the MSM turning the morman non-issue into JoeSmithGate.
The Fred is lazy… is kind of a lazy critism. As if Fred doing grass-drills&running laps on stage is going to lift that critique. Fred saying he hasn’t made becoming POTUS his lifelong ambition kinda strikes me as a hero(lack of better term) reluctantly stepping forward when he knows(considering the canidates) he’s the only one who can get the job done.
HotAir’s resident FredBasher comes off like Fred’s wife’s exboyfriend(or a plant). Positive or negative data on Fred I appreciate, it is informative(hell, it’s vital). Calling him names though, making it personal, comes off making me suspicious about the Thompson-ripper rather than his or her point.
christophercube on January 6, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Let me guess – one candidate has spent tons more money than all the others and is still not winning and the shillthrill team is working the blogs overtime?
we are starting a blog for the Massive influx on grief counseling cases that will be reporting this weekend
BuyDevenadanish.com
EricPWJohnson on January 6, 2008 at 5:47 PM
TexasDan on January 6, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Stupid is as stupid does. Ugly pundits used “dinosaur, dead, quitter, loser” about Fred Thompson who reached his goal of 3rd place in Iowa in spite of the negativity. Fred is impressive in physical stature and mental prowess. Though cut off during his turns on the microphone last night, undetered Fred proved himself the conservative contender for POTUS. On the record, FactCheck.org 100% accurate Fred.
maverick muse on January 6, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Fred is the most imprssive candidate in either party. But he does not yet have my primary vote. He does not appear as agressive as I would like. However one of my problems with President Bush is his refusal to challange the press and the dimmie cratic party. Fred has now shown he will make that challange.
President Bush is not very freehand articulate(30%), yet he gives a great speech and rallies people into action with them. Fred is not as freehand articulate as I would like (65%), I want to know how well he does at formal speeches. Can he rallie people into action???
allrsn on January 6, 2008 at 5:49 PM
KEY ASPECTS OF ROMNEY’S MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH CARE PLAN…
(1) Guarantees Planned Parenthood A Seat At The Table. Romney’s legislation created an advisory board and guarantees, by law, that Planned Parenthood has a seat at the table. Romney’s plan established a MassHealth payment policy advisory board, and one member of the Board must be from Planned Parenthood. No pro-life organization is represented. (Chapter 58 Section 3 (q) Section 16M (a), http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060058.htm )
(2) Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions . Abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program that Romney created as Governor. Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50. (Menu of Health Care Services: http://www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf )
- Romney used his line-item veto authority to strike eight sections of the bill that he found objectionable, including the expansion of dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. Yet, he did not strike Planned Parenthood’s guaranteed Board representation and he did nothing to prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions as part of his plan. (“Romney’s Health Care Vetoes,” Associated Press, 4/12/06)
(3) Punitive Toward Small Businesses. Small Businesses are fined $295-per-employee if they do not provide health insurance coverage to employees. (Steve LeBlanc, “Mass Lawmakers Ok Mandatory Health Bill,” Associated Press, 4/5/06)
(4) Punitive Toward Individuals. Individuals not obtaining health insurance coverage lose their personal state tax exemption in 2007, which will cost them an estimated $219 in higher taxes. In 2008, uncovered individuals are assessed a fine equal to 50-percent of the cost of a standard insurance policy, which could be as much as $2,000. (Michael Tanner, “No Miracle In Massachusetts,” Cato Institute, 6/6/06; Steve LeBlanc, “Timing Of Health Care Law’s Penalties Could Pose Risk For Romney, MA,” Associated Press, 11/9/07; William C. Symonds, “In Massachusetts, Health Care for All?” Business Week, 4/4/06 )
P. James Moriarty on January 6, 2008 at 5:49 PM
My $0.02 on the clips. Fred! is working a strategy with the media that will play well with conservatives. Most conservatives do not trust the media and he is willing to talk back to them and point out when they are focused on silly stuff and not “the message.”
The only danger of this strategy is that he not come off as a “jerk” and grumpy old coot to Republicans that are a little more tolerant of the media bull$hit.
Mallard T. Drake on January 6, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Mitt’s plan is for the states to come up with their own plan. We are free to disagree about Mitt’s plan, but my question for Fred is:
Where have you been all these years? Where was your plan when you were in the Senate?
At least Mitt takes problems on and tries to solve them, and he freely acknowledges that every state has different challenges, and that even his plan may need some tweaking eventually.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 5:51 PM
After how many unborn have been killed?
P. James Moriarty on January 6, 2008 at 5:53 PM
And nobody has accused you of it either. But, again I stress this, Fred has never been your candidate, nor have you ever been open to him. Pretending that he turned you off now by something he said, when you have always been turned off by him is dishonest.
There is a profound difference between you and me which you apparently are not capable of grasping. I am pro Fred, but anti- no Republican candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul who really isn’t a republican, just a libertarian pretending to be a republican.
I’m not personally invested in any candidate, but I do have a personal preference. I will be perfectly happy with Mitt, Rudy McCain or even the Huckleberry, but I would prefer Fred. What I really cant stand is the politics of personal destruction. this should be about the position of the candidates and their ideologies, not on who has the best hair or who comes up with the best or snarkest soundbite.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Just a cursory look and I see BS in that one-sided reporting. We went through this in great detail the other day, but the $50.00 co-pay is required by law.
As for those penalties, that is peanuts in actual dollars, and employers will save as the cost of premiums goes down.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 5:59 PM
TRENDS. He has steadily lost support since he announced. Can you admit that?
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 6:02 PM
P. James Moriarty on January 6, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Your comments are a wonder to behold, no joke.
Thanks for that research; I’m passing on the info to family.
maverick muse on January 6, 2008 at 6:03 PM
So then you don’t mind socialized medicine and you’re more concerned about the legal requirement for co-pay than the life of an unborn child. What else?
P. James Moriarty on January 6, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Ahem. I say again,
If you appreciate Robert Spencer’s contributions to Hot Air, please go tell him right now.
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Can you admit that his poll numbers have remained amazing consistent for the last 2 months?
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 6:08 PM
I don’t think Fred was just being ornery—not twice in a row. I think it was deliberate. He was pi$$ing on fence posts and marking his territory with the press for future interviews. My guess is if this happens a few more times when they interview him, their dialoge will have more substance. If you ask FDT a question that is not “fluffy” he gives a good interview and tends to joke around a little also.
The media has 3 choices—ignore him, get snarky with him or start doing their job better. They have to be careful with the first two to a certain extent just on the off chance he might be Mr. President one day and they don’t want to risk access if that were to happen.
maxine on January 6, 2008 at 6:11 PM
I have been open to him! Here’s a hint: He hasn’t done anything to make me want to vote for him in the primaries because he made no effort. While he loafed around and did next to nothing, I had candidates out there working their butts off to get my vote, appearing in debates, and so on.
Until last night my only negative opinion of him was over his campaign style and Mccain-Feingold. That’s it! What the hell do you expect me to do? Dump my candidates for him?
Last night, for the first time, I saw a side to him that I did not like at all, and that is the honest to G-d truth. You have a lot of freaking nerve telling me that I am being dishonest here.
As for the general election, I have always said I would vote for him or anyone but Paul if it came down to that.
I’m done going through this with you. After calling me “disgusting”, “dishonest”, and so on last night, and continued attempts to personally disparage me, I’m probably nuts to even bother with you at all.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 6:16 PM
That is an entirely false premise and I am not wasting my time dealing with false, ignorant, and loaded statements.
When was the last time you beat your wife?
/over.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 6:19 PM
I don’t know why going “one up” on an MSM reporter makes you “testy”. It makes me happy to hear it. Besides, Fred has obviously gotten the absolute worst coverage of any of the candidates and this includes FOX (I don’t know who doesn’t like him there but they obviously don’t). I am looking forward to the next four years with Fred as president. Press briefings should be a gas.
duff65 on January 6, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Can you briefly summarize what the problem is here? I don’t have time to go through that entire thread to try to figure it out.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 6:25 PM
When Fred is on the top of his game (which has been often, lately), there is just no hesitation when he responds to the media. He knows what he’s going to say and he basically knows how he’s going to say it.
Like him or not, I believe that’s the mark of an honest guy who knows what he’s talking about.
wccawa on January 6, 2008 at 6:27 PM
convoluted implosion
maverick muse on January 6, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Yea, what ever but take careful note of this. I am not the only person to see what I have called you on, what I am is the one who called you on it. Furthermore, I did not call you disgusting or dishonest, I said what you did was dishonest and disingenuous, and it was.
You got caught throwing eggs at your candidates opponent, and I had the unmitigated nerve to call you on your bad behavior and instead of admitting that what you did was wrong you continue to act in a childish and immature manner.
Well so be it. I have managed to remain friends with csdeven despite his past childish and immature behavior and hope that we likewise will remain on friendly terms. But understand I will call a spade a spade and will not lend even tacit approval to anyones employment of the politics of personal destruction regarding the republican candidates for the office of President of the United States.
What is at stake is far to important to allow the discourse to devolve into petty squabbles and vicious bickering.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Some people continue to disparage Thompson for being lazy. What exactly makes him lazy? Do these people know him personally? Has he been living off the public dole all his life or something? Does he have a part time itinerary compared to his rivals? Give me a break, if thats all you guys have it is a pretty weak argument. My money is on the tortoise, not the hare.
Fred!
infidel on January 6, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Expressing my opinion that McCain and Fred behaved like boorish, snide, jackasses is dishonest and disgusting? It’s as HONEST as it gets, Dg. You may have missed it, but I am not the only person who came to that conclusion. Is saying that dishonest and disingenuous?
I threw eggs? What planet are you living on? Fred threw eggs (figuratively speaking of course!) I didn’t like it, and said why. Am I not entitled to express my HONEST opinion, or is this the Dictatorship of Doriengrey?
Maybe Allah shouldn’t bother with debate threads anymore because someone might say something negative!
You’re out of your mind, dude.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 6:38 PM
And I with you despite your childish and immature behavior. And dorian, this entire exchange with BD could have been mitigated hours ago if you’d just allow her to define her feelings for herself, forget the past and start over.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 6:43 PM
of (Doriengrey) doriangrey?
doriangrey, have a fine cigar. This planet will still be round afterwards.
Buy Danish, I admire your dedication and believe that the Romney camp is missing out by not having you in it. Otherwise, things must end often without winning, being right, or having the last word. It’s just the way life is for most people. I really mean this in a friendly way; please make an effort to trust this. With respect,
Entelechy on January 6, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Act like an adult for gods sake. Nobody is chiding you for saying you though Fred was boorish or snide, you are being reprimanded for being dishonest about how you felt about Fred and the impact of his behavior.
You haven’t seen me say a single thing to anyone else who though Fred was rude because no one else tried to imply that they were open to Fred until these comments and now they were turned off, when in fact they were never open to him.
You employed a dishonest ad hominem attack. As if suddenly you were offended and could not consider him, when in fact you had long ago dismissed him. That is dishonest. And so is your continued pretense of innocence.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Sorry, I missed something.
The politics of personal destruction?
That’s rich, commissar doriengrey.
Describing what is said in a debate and the manner in which something is said is “the politics of personal destruction” according to you?
But, it’s perfectly alright to say I am “disgusting” to do it.
Must be something in the California air.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 6:49 PM
I don’t mind her defining her feelings, they are after all hers. But as you yourself know based upon our own discussions I don’t like certain kinds of surreptitious behavior. Especially when what is at stake is the future of this country.
Yes indeed it will, perhaps I need to get my copy of “Men are from Mars Women are from Venus” out again and re-read a few chapters…
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Well, for me it is about energy. He only gets excited when he gets to be confrontational. Heck even Jeri is engaged in it now. So Fred is capable of having passion, but it seems for the presidency there is none, but for getting confrontational at the drop of a hat he doesn’t miss a beat.
And another thing that I think others are reacting to (although I do not) is the fact that you guys are way more animated than he is. When people hold you guys up against fred, your excitement makes him look like he just doesn’t have his heart in it. Also, remember this, Fred brought that reputation with him. This didn’t start with the beginning of this election, people have felt this way about him for many years.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Well, Bill Hemmer, I think you’ve just given me a reason to never watch Fox News again… “Fanny”. Who uses the word “fanny”?
RightWinged on January 6, 2008 at 6:55 PM
I never said you were disgusting, I said what you were doing was disgusting. Believe it or not there is a profound difference.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 6:56 PM
Speaking of “animated”, the way this thread has gone, the Fox debate thread (when it comes online) should be a riot.
P. James Moriarty on January 6, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Well never mind then. Obviously my little reminders to show Dr. Spencer some appreciation, maybe encourage him to stick around and keep teaching us about the Qur’an, was NOT aimed at YOU.
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Yo!! Allah!! The dabates are about to start, where’s the debate thread?
P. James Moriarty on January 6, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Who the F are you (sorry MadisonC) to tell me that I am being dishonest about how I feel about anything?
Who the F are you to tell me to act like an adult, when my entire criticism of Fred and McCain was because they acted like children?
Who the F are you to “reprimand” me for my honestly expressed opinions, that did not personally attack anyone?
No one else had the same observation as me. So what? What’s your point?
You have no right to tell ME what the FACTS are about MY position on Fred. I pulled a few quotes I was able to find right off the bat Apparently no amount of support is sufficiently adulatory for you.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 7:00 PM
When I study, I don’t place myself in the center of a party. When I speak with someone, I listen as well. When I meet people, I do not require their attendance at a posh celebration every time. A stroll, coffee or lunch provide better opportunities to get acquainted honestly.
Kids! I’ve been wondering about the mentality of kids growing up expecting a bribe before they study, kids who no longer learn mental computations but rely on something to give them the answer, kids who expect something for nothing.
I remember the MSM first showing Reagan with an idiotic smile plastered on his face as an evil McCarthyist with a lame brain Hollywood B credit. He had governed wacky California and their taxes were sky high. So much for what the MSM does to improve American education, and what anyone wanting a popular following is going to say about conservative politicians.
Fred’s been studying the details of current events and all of the legal implications surrounding every imaginable possiblity in order to create a coalition of conservative voters, elected and appointed officials, to pull in the reins of the liberal-fascistic wave consuming the world today.
If that isn’t what a person WANTS the presidential candidate to be doing BEFORE TAKING OFFICE, then exactly what kind of boxed gift does a smart kid expect before rendering respect?
Everyone should vote for whom they know will lead America without falling into their own blackhole of vain ignorance. That the President would honor the Constitution rather than detract from citizen’s rights would entice my vote.
maverick muse on January 6, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Well, for me it is about energy. He only gets excited when he gets to be confrontational. cs
Well cs, if the media is again you all the time wouldn’t you get a little bit upset?
duff65 on January 6, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Another hour to go yet- starts at 8pm ET.
Hollowpoint on January 6, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Oh jeez. Another attack out of nowhere! I saw two “reminders”. I gathered there was a problem and perhaps there was a chance he wouldn’t continue to comment here any longer. I have not been following those threads. I merely asked for a summary so I could help out.
Sorry for asking.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 7:04 PM
My bad…..still looking for the thread to get online though.
P. James Moriarty on January 6, 2008 at 7:07 PM
This has nothing to do with the Romney camp, the Rudy camp, or any camp. This has to do with doriengrey calling me a liar for telling the truth my impressions of last night’s debate, and how it honestly affected my assessment of Fred – for the worse.
Period.
He does not deserve a cigar, or any praise whatsoever for what he is doing.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 7:08 PM
You know exactly who I am, I am the person who called you on your dishonest tactic. I am now the person thanking you for having the moral and ethical values of Hillary and Bill Clinton.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Well, since clicking the link I provided would take up too much of your time, here’s the summary you asked for:
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Hmmm, maybe you ought to try reconsidering your attitude. Na, that couldn’t be it, everybody is just picking on poor little you for no reason…
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Speaking of “animated”
P.James Moriarty on January 6,2008 at 6:57PM
P.James Moriarty:You got that right,Hot Air rules
at comical one liners and snarky
comebacks!
canopfor on January 6, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Please leave Mitt and his supporters aloooooooooooooone!
Fred!
infidel on January 6, 2008 at 7:16 PM
No. The MSM is against all the rep candidates and I think it does them credit to deal with them effectively.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 7:16 PM
Feeds the addiction. Better than nicotine or crack!
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 7:18 PM
I find it deliciously ironic that we are talking about cigars on a presidential election thread.
Debate in 40 minutes! Who gets killed tonight? I have a dollar that it’s “Pile On McVain Night.”
Side bet: McVain gives us a cackle to rival the Hildebeast.
wccawa on January 6, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Oh have no worries I am done with BD…she can have what ever last words she wants. I seldom chose to ignore anyone, but her…gone…
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Buy Danish,RushBaby:Chill,it’s politics,
save some of that energy for the debate.
canopfor on January 6, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Just a play on the Brittany fan. We all need to stop fighting and unite behind Fred! United we stand.
Fred!
infidel on January 6, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Entelechy, Doriangrey, it’s time for me to fill you in.
Buy Danish is someone who goes ballistic because one poster calls another poster polite after using the word prick, but criticizes her for using “Eff”, which is aimply an onomatopoeia for the first letter of word we all know and don’t use here because it’s one of the most profane words in our society. She carries such semantical frustrations from thread to thread with disturbing dedication. Anyone who calls her a Mitt supporter gets labeled paranoid, despite her often double standards towards Mitt’s and Fred’s behavior or speech.
She is in her own little world. You can’t come in, and she ain’t comin’ out. Best to stop trying.
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2008 at 7:26 PM
I hear you loud and clear, my efforts are over. She wins, what I care not.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Someone actually was thinking today. Football should be over before the debates begin.
infidel on January 6, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Feeds the addiction.
RushBaby on January 6,2008 at 7:18PM.
RushBaby:Addiction it is,Hey no showing off with
those character thingys eh!
canopfor on January 6, 2008 at 7:29 PM
See what happens when you click on this link that you provided at 6:04 PM.
It brings the reader to a discussion about hell with someone named Asher.
I accept apologies.
CSdeven
Thanks for being the only person here who understands that a commenter cannot possibly know another person’s feelings.
To whom it may concern:
Here is Mitt’s WSJ op ed on his health insurance plan. Note this paragraph:
My Democratic counterparts have added an annual $295 per-person fee charged to employers that do not contribute toward insurance premiums for any of their employees. The fee is unnecessary and probably counterproductive, and so I will take corrective action.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 7:31 PM
With my above post, I must give you a bit of friendly advice. Chill the hell out. It’s a damned comments section on a website. You need to push back from the computer, get some fresh air, and quit taking everything on here so personally.
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2008 at 7:37 PM
“The circus is in town.” Ha!
Fredmentum!
CP on January 6, 2008 at 7:37 PM
You are right. My first one at 5:33 was OK, not sure what happened with my 6:04, which clicks you in one post above the one I was referencing.
Since you mentioned you accept apologies, you’re entitled to one.
I’M SOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEE. *prostrates self* I was SLOPPPPPPPPPPPPPY! I was inconsiderate of YOUR TIME!!!!11eleventy!!! YOU WIN YOU WIN YOU WIN YOU WIN YOU WIN YOU WIN YOU WIN YOU WIN YOU WIN YOU WIN YOU WIN YOU WIN YOU WIN
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Wow! looks awfully horse-race-ish to me. Go Fred the field is leveling.
Mojave Mark on January 6, 2008 at 7:50 PM
…she’s expecting to be apologized to for being given the wrong link in a discussion on a comments board on a blog.
She’s severely deluded. Let her be.
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2008 at 7:50 PM
I know a winner when I see one. :)
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 7:53 PM
“Fred gets a mite cranky sometimes when he doesn’t like interviewers’ questions”…. I like that about Fred. I hope Fred will get cranky if he doesn’t like Ahmadinejad’s answers, Kim Jong Il’s answers, or Chavez’ answers. Matter of fact, I think President Bush is pretty cranky with the press when HE doesn’t like their questions, and it doesn’t make him a bad man either.
MsUnderestimated on January 6, 2008 at 7:54 PM
My favorite line of the night:
Mitt: Do you know what mandates I am for?
Fred: Yeah, we all do, the ones you propose…
Mitt the whiner, Fred the leader…you don’t have to be “on fire” or “excited” to make good sound decisions and lead. Save the “RAH RAH” antics for the Mary Kay conventions, and leave the leading to the thoughtful candidates, who are tired (as most of us are) of platitudes, clever sayings, pretty hair, I’m a hero, I’m super Christian and other nonsense. You don’t lead a country by kissing Bill O’R rear end, or flipping on every major decision…leaders know you can’t have it both ways, no matter which way you move, there will be a certain percentage that hate your decision. That’s what makes McCain different, and Fred different, from the other candidates. I am not a McCain fan, but he is a leader, and I trust him as a leader ( although this flipping on immigration shows his weakness). Fred is a leader and I trust him as a leader and as a conservative. The rest of the field are begging for votes. Mitt, Huck, and even Rudy are weak minded and easily led to change their positions…they are not leaders, maybe good men, but not leaders (unless great hair means leadership, then Edwards meets Mitt).
And any of you whiners who think Fred did not answer his health care plan…take some time and read his white papers posted long before any other candidates. You will see most of the other candidates followed his ideas and adopted them…once again, proving he is the leader of leaders.
right2bright on January 6, 2008 at 9:33 PM
“Expert Excrement Expediter”, is what I believe you’re looking for
Reaps on January 6, 2008 at 9:47 PM
*SIGH* That is totally wrong. I am not asking for an apology because RushBaby’s link didn’t work properly; I am asking for an apology because of the snotty response I got from her when I asked her a polite question.
RushBaby said:
I clicked on the link and saw a discussion about hell. That did not provide a clue as to why she wanted us to go over there, so I said this:
The response??:
Do you think that was an appropriate response to my question?
NEXT
That is absolutely false, and you know it.
I did not go ballistic that you used the word prick – not even close. On the contrary I said that I did not care that you used it! For the last time, the point was that I had just been lectured to by Entelechy for using the “word” eff, but she had just finished complimenting you for how polite you were in a comment where you called someone a prick. I have repeatedly said that I was speaking about the hypocrisy of the double standard, not the use of the word. As far as I’m concerned, you may use it to your heart’s content and so will I.
NEXT
Would you take it “personally” if you were called “dishonest” and “disgusting” for expressing your opinion on how a candidate performed in a debate, and how that performance affected your opinion of them?
/rhetorical.
Because that is what doriengrey has been doing, and it began here at another thread last night. He is impugning my character, mischaracterizing my position, andcalling me a liar all because he thinks he knows how I “feel” more than I do! That is delusional.
If anyone needs to “chill the hell out” it is doriengrey and his positively unhinged assault on me for the crime of expressing a truthful and opinion.
/OUT.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Michael, I agree 100% with your points on AP. I think he has done a real dis-service when it comes to getting information out for people’s own consumption and interpretation.
AP strikes me as the guy who was raised on and never left the world of Simon and Garfunkel.
As for Fred, the more I hear him talk, the more I like him.
That sends shivers down the spines of Simon and Garfunkel devotees like Allahpundit.
It’s as if a Johnny Cash song was spliced into Mrs Robinson. Fred messes with their world a bit too much with his straight talk and self confidence.
Montana on January 6, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Buy Danish, please don’t take things so personally staying focused on whatever wrongs you may suffer. It impedes you ability for any of your other observations to be heard.
Spirit of 1776 on January 6, 2008 at 11:55 PM
It should be rhetorical, in the sense that the automatic answer should be no. This is a comments section on a blog. Seriously, you have an unhealthy sensitivity to what strangers on the internet have to say about you.
As for the whole Eff thing, give it up. You actually took the time to reiterate the entire thing step by step. Doesn’t that strike you as disturbingly obsessive? /rhetorical
MadisonConservative on January 7, 2008 at 12:56 AM
I deal in facts MadisonC. You and doriangrey deal in something else altogether.
You’re right. This is a comments section of a blog, and doriengrey conducted an outrageous personal attack on me. It was fueled by his politics but it was personal.
It is absolutely outrageous for a one commenter to call another commenter a disgusting liar because they expressed their honest opinion about another candidate and their debate performance.
What I said about Fred was not an “ad hominem” attack. I said he was rude and childish and I saw a side of him I had not seen before and that really turned me off. The idea that according to doriangray’s rules I am not allowed to say that, and that I am lying when I say that is insane.
I’ll just chalk it up to Fred Mania.
Buy Danish on January 7, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Outrageous. Outrageous. OUTRAGEOUS! Holy dogballs!
…you’re still not getting my point, are you? That’s okay. Like I mentioned before, you’re living in a world where what people say on the internet is no different than someone in your home having a diarrhea attack on your favorite rug.
MadisonConservative on January 7, 2008 at 10:00 AM
I prefer the term “stand-up philosopher”…
VekTor on January 7, 2008 at 10:14 AM
No prob. I have been run through that ringer here also.
Heck, I’m sure you and I can find some differences we have and both of us will be perfectly able to debate them without getting all assbroke when our position is proven wrong by the facts. You could call my guy every name in the book and I wont take it personally (which was my deal and you have never done that I can remember). Unfortunately we support the same guys. Maybe I’ll start to support RP so we can prove that a debate on ideas doesn’t need to end up in personal attacks?
:-)
See you on a different thread.
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Crude analogy much?
Personal integrity matters to me and I going to defend my integrity when it comes under attack. The fact that this is an anonymous blog is irrelevant.
There are a lot of very successful bloggers out there whose personal identity is unknown. If they come under attack do you think the correct course is to lash out at them for being attacked?
Does that make sense to you?
I don’t know Allah. I don’t know what he looks like or what his last name is. He’s virtually anonymous in that respect. Does his anonymity mean that it’s alright to say defamatory things about him, and if he objects, is the next step to tell him to chill and not take it “personally”?
Buy Danish on January 7, 2008 at 11:45 AM
No, it’s not. That…is why you fail.
And as for your comment about being a blogger, this is not your blog. It’s Allah’s and Bryan’s and Michelle’s blog. If you want to take stuff personally on your blog, then I guess that’s up to you. I still think it would be silly to get mad over such things, particularly since you are voluntarily putting yourself up for ridicule on the internet, but I guess that’s me and my silly “responsibility” mindset.
However, this is not your blog. It’s your comments on someone else’s. So that pretty much triples how baffling it is to me that you would take things so seriously here. Take my feud with wccawa over tickleddragon. By your logic, we actually are blood enemies. See where I’m going with this? Of course you don’t. People who take what anonymous strangers on the internet say seriously are a special breed of seriously insecure person, and it can’t be helped. Sorry.
MadisonConservative on January 7, 2008 at 12:27 PM
I like Fred’s saying ” I’ll talk about issuses you talk about the process.” I liked Rudy at first, but now I’m becoming a Fredhead.
limowilliam on January 7, 2008 at 12:42 PM
This line of reasoning is why political blogs and the internet in generally are not taken seriously in regard to polical affairs. The inability for people to act civilized to one another automatically excludes them from the de facto social contract that we have. Until the net starts acting responsible and stops hiding behind altered behaviors due to anonymity, they will remain nothing but echo chambers.
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 12:49 PM
There is an inevitability you are overlooking: As long as there is anonymity, others will take advantage of it. Sure, you can choose to take responsibility for your own words and actions, but you can hardly control the actions of others, especially unknown others. That’s the essence of the internet. You’re on your own.
MadisonConservative on January 7, 2008 at 1:46 PM
I’m not saying that I’m a blogger! I am addressing the issue of anonymity on blogs. You seem to be arguing that our anonymity shields us from the consequences of our words or actions; that you can take a side and smear other commenters because, who cares, it’s just the anonymous blogsphere, after all.
I debate people who I disagree with all the time and I do not consider them the “blood enemies”. It would never even occur to me to think of them in those terms, especially at a forum where, with few exceptions, we are conservatives. If I were dealing with a bunch of Code Pinko anarchists I might see them as the enemy because I view them as a threat to this country’s future, but I wouldn’t resort to their tactics in the process.
I certainly am not going to sit here and be trashed by other commenters and not respond lest you or others think I’m “taking things too personally” and might earn your guffaws in the process. Believe me, my integrity is far more important to me than your approval.
Finally, since you have doled out a lot of unsolicited advice to me, I have a suggestion for you:
You and others may want to leave the arm-chair psychoanalysis and mind-reading at home and stick to analyzing politics lest I conclude that you are a charlatan.
Buy Danish on January 7, 2008 at 2:09 PM
No, I’m arguing that THEIR anonymity makes taking their comments personally absurd. It’s that simple. You’re trying to prove yourself to someone with no idea who you are, and so will accomplish nothing by doing so.
Your integrity seems to overshadow your dignity. You have no integrity when you are anonymous on the internet, okay? Anyone could take the name “Buy Danish” and go to any number of blogs or boards speaking crap, and tarnishing your credibility. That means there is no credibility, no integrity on the world where we are all entities speaking from behind names that may or may not have clues as to who we are in real life. You talk to a person on the street near where you live? Different. You go to a rally and argue with protestors? Different. You get a big debate going in a bar in your town? Different.
It’s not armchair psychoanalysis to point out that you are going ballistic over what some stranger on the internet says. If you can’t handle a basic observation, then maybe you shouldn’t put forth your own.
MadisonConservative on January 7, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Oh, and I really hope that was meant as a joke, and not just a glaring bit of irony.
MadisonConservative on January 7, 2008 at 2:25 PM
I don’t care about other blogs. My identity on this particular blog, in what is sometimes referred to as the “Hot Air community”, is taken and no one else can use that name so your argument in that regard is without merit.
You are right about one thing. After being the subject of doriangray’s psychic quackery over a 24 hour period, I finally got fed up. Everyone has their limits, and I reached mine. However, considering the insults that you throw out to people (Bkennedy comes immediately to mind) in a manner which could also be described as “going ballistic” it is stunning that you are choosing to criticize me for that particular transgression. Indeed, I could easily claim that RushBaby went “ballistic”, and Doriangrey went “ballistic” with me over this comment and remained ballistic for 24 hours, yet I heard not a single objection from you:
I thought Mitt did very well, although I thought his summary was boring. Didn’t Fred interrupt that too? Fred totally turned me off with his rude, smartass comments, and constant interrupting. He did nothing to endear me to him tonight.
McCain was the big loser though, and that’s target number one through New Hampshire.
Buy Danish on January 5, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Next –
Charlatan: n.
A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge;a quack or fraud.
If you read what I said carefully you would have seen that I did not call you a charlatan yet, but you may infer that you (and others) may earn that appellation if you continue with your quackery and psychic readings.
It is one thing to suggest that someone suffers from something akin to BDS or is in the fever swamps; it is quite another to claim to read someone’s mind, or to say that someone is “insecure”, or to utilize other words which, by the way, are also favorites of jr. high school students.
/out.
Buy Danish on January 7, 2008 at 4:19 PM
In the old days, making these assertions wasn’t seen as psychoanalysis or “quackery” as you like to say. It was seen as knowing what a person is like based on personal experience and knowing other people with the same traits.
You claim calling someone a “prick” is going ballistic, but you following people from thread to thread bringing up your long-winded frustrations over someone chewing you out for using “Eff” not ballistic?
I stand by my earlier assertation: You live in a world where you are right, and people who notice your neuroses are paranoid.
MadisonConservative on January 7, 2008 at 4:48 PM
While you’re doling out arm-chair analysis, what’s the term for this disorder?:
Subject suffers from delusion that he can read minds; subject reacts angrily and accuses people of lying when informed that he is not the gifted psychic he imagines he is; subject cannot reliably differentiate between fantasy and reality.
Here’s my diagnosis!
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3