Dems Apparently Fear Thompson

[UberNeuman]

Fred would seem to be the 'pubs "great white hope" but he doesn't have the gas to finish the race - truth is if the gop could find a way to work with Ron Paul, then they may stand a chance of winning the '08 election.... Other then that, the gop is going to get stomped by Clinton.....

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Fred would seem to be the 'pubs "great white hope" but he doesn't have the gas to finish the race - truth is if the gop could find a way to work with Ron Paul, then they may stand a chance of winning the '08 election.... Other then that, the gop is going to get stomped by Clinton.....

A couple of "I'm against the Civil War" ads will solve the Ron Paul problem .

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Those of us on the right will agree with most of what is in here.

Those of you on your surreal extreme of the right have been so wrong for so long, you wouldn't know right if it bit you in the ass.

Those on the left will come up with excuses to ignore everything in here.

I'm not ignoring anything. Try ignoring the fact that Fred Thompson Was A Nixon Mole During Watergate.

During Watergate, as minority counsel to Republican Senator Howard Baker, Fred Thompson was the one who spilled Nixon's beans by asking Nixon aide, Alexander Butterfield whether there was a White House taping system. The nation was shocked when he confirmed that the system existed, and as the saying goes, the rest is history.

It turns out Thompson's objective was not to bring evidence to light about Nixon's criminality, but rather, to prove that he was innocent of the charges against him. Since he was a Republican, I can't fault him for that. What does bother me greatly is, Thompson did more than hope his man was innocent. He has since admitted that he was a mole for the Nixon Whitehouse, and he phoned Nixon's lawyer and tipped the committee's hand the day before asking that history rocking question in the publicly televised hearings.

Thompson said in an interview (see full story, linked above), "In retrospect it is apparent that I was subconsciously looking for a way to justify my faith in the leader of my country and my party, a man who was undergoing a violent attack from the news media, which I thought had never given him fair treatment in the past," Thompson wrote. "I was looking for a reason to believe that Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, was not a crook."

Dems Apparently Fear Thompson

I don't fear Thompson. I fear that, in the face of the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, Republicans like you could still be stupid enough repeat the same mistake and buy into another ethically challenged clown like Thompson, who acted unethically, surreptitiously, and probably illegally to help the worst criminal to hold the office of President in the our nation's history... UNTIL GEORGE W. BUSH.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Fred would seem to be the 'pubs "great white hope" but he doesn't have the gas to finish the race - truth is if the gop could find a way to work with Ron Paul, then they may stand a chance of winning the '08 election.... Other then that, the gop is going to get stomped by Clinton.....

A couple of "I'm against the Civil War" ads will solve the Ron Paul problem .

maybe a few "would you vote for Ron Paul if you knew he fathered a 'colored baby' " phone calls?

 

[ProfJohn]

So Harvey you are saying we should elect an ethically challenged Hillary Clinton instead?

We already had one Clinton Presidency and despite the constant onslaught against Bush it was actually worse on ethics than Bush has been.
Go look at the number of close Clinton advisors who went to jail or plead guilty to various crimes. Then compare that to the number of Bushies who had similar problems.

I?ll start with the most obvious ones:
Henry G. Cisneros a member of the cabinet plead guilty to make false statements to the FBI.
Jim Guy Tucker, the successor to Clinton as governor of Arkansas who was convicted of fraud during the White Water scandal and had to resign his position.

BTW I don?t view the war in Iraq as an ethics problem or a political scandal.
It is a policy disagreement.
You can call them lying traitors and war criminals all you want and that won?t change the fact that the many Democrats voted for the war and others such as Gore and Bill Clinton supported the idea of the war.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So Harvey you are saying we should elect an ethically challenged Hillary Clinton instead?

We already had one Clinton Presidency and despite the constant onslaught against Bush it was actually worse on ethics than Bush has been.
Go look at the number of close Clinton advisors who went to jail or plead guilty to various crimes. Then compare that to the number of Bushies who had similar problems.

I?ll start with the most obvious ones:
Henry G. Cisneros a member of the cabinet plead guilty to make false statements to the FBI.
Jim Guy Tucker, the successor to Clinton as governor of Arkansas who was convicted of fraud during the White Water scandal and had to resign his position.

BTW I don?t view the war in Iraq as an ethics problem or a political scandal.
It is a policy disagreement.
You can call them lying traitors and war criminals all you want and that won?t change the fact that the many Democrats voted for the war and others such as Gore and Bill Clinton supported the idea of the war.

Lack of legal trouble is not evidence of wrongdoing. Two-bit crooks tend to go to jail more often than folks associated with organized crime, but the reason isn't because the mafia folks are just model citizens. Maybe the Bushies are just better at hiding it, or maybe it has something to do with the fact that, while Clinton faced a hostile congress, Bush had an extremely worthless congress during the first 6 years of his presidency...and even now the Dems haven't shown a HUGE level of improvement.

In any case, policy stems from ethics. Clearly there is policy disagreement on the war in Iraq and almost everything else Bush has done, that doesn't mean they aren't also ethical issues. I for one think warrantless wiretaps and torture are EXTREMELY ethics based issues, even if they are also policy disagreements. In fact, I'd say that alone makes Bush's ethical problems worse. The ones in the Clinton administration were all sideshows, extra-curricular lawbreaking that, while certainly unethical, was not an active factor in running the country. Virtually all of the Bushies' questionable decisions are closely tied to running the country and national policy...that makes them MORE important as ethical issues, not less.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So Harvey you are saying we should elect an ethically challenged Hillary Clinton instead?

We already had one Clinton Presidency and despite the constant onslaught against Bush it was actually worse on ethics than Bush has been.
Go look at the number of close Clinton advisors who went to jail or plead guilty to various crimes. Then compare that to the number of Bushies who had similar problems.

I?ll start with the most obvious ones:
Henry G. Cisneros a member of the cabinet plead guilty to make false statements to the FBI.
Jim Guy Tucker, the successor to Clinton as governor of Arkansas who was convicted of fraud during the White Water scandal and had to resign his position.

BTW I don?t view the war in Iraq as an ethics problem or a political scandal.
It is a policy disagreement.
You can call them lying traitors and war criminals all you want and that won?t change the fact that the many Democrats voted for the war and others such as Gore and Bill Clinton supported the idea of the war.

This just proves that Cheny did a heck of a job at corrupting the Justice Department. Government is supposed to be transparent. Bush has made it into a bureaucratic behemoth.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So Harvey you are saying we should elect an ethically challenged Hillary Clinton instead?

OH, NOZERS... IT'S THE OLD DISTRACT 'EM WITH THE CLINTON CARD YET AGAIN... AND AGAIN... AND AGAIN.......

Did I say anything about voting for Hillary Clinton? :shocked:

Clue ==> NO! Try answering that, instead of attempting to distract attention from the fact that Fred Thompson is ethically challenged and has admitted to his own history.

BTW I don?t view the war in Iraq as an ethics problem or a political scandal.
It is a policy disagreement.

I could accept you sucking the admin Kool-Aid when they first started their war of lies. If you still believe that in the face of all the damning evidence of their duplicity, you'll understand why I believe you're painting yourself as ethically challenged, as well.

You can call them lying traitors and war criminals all you want and that won?t change the fact that the many Democrats voted for the war and others such as Gore and Bill Clinton supported the idea of the war.

I'll continue to call the Bushwhackos traitors and war criminals because the evidence is clear that they are. You forgot that they're murderers, too. As of 07/17/07 11:39 am EDT, ther are 3618 dead American troops whose sacrifice bears witness to their heinous crimes.

You can try to divert attention from the fact by shouting Clinton and Gore's name all you want, but that won't change the fact that almost ALL Democrats now believe they were as duped as you were by the Bushwhacko lies. If Hillary can't bring herself to admit that, it won't bother me. I'm not voting for her, anyhow.

What's your excuse for not figuring it out? :roll:

 

[ProfJohn]

So Harvey, it comes down to Hillary vs. Fred
Who are you voting for?

Right now Hillary is by FAR the most likely Democrat to get the nod, so while you can say you won't vote for her, you may have no choice cone Nov 2008.


BTW you forgot to change my name in that quote, you are slipping.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So Harvey, it comes down to Hillary vs. Fred
Who are you voting for?

I already wrote the Demorcatic Party that, if Hillary is their nominee, I'll re-register as an independent. If Hillary and Thompson were the only two candidates, I might just not vote for President for the first time in my life.

BTW you forgot to change my name in that quote, you are slipping.

No, I didn't. I did it for shock value to keep you on your toes. :shocked:

And that should be two sentences with a period following the word, quote, not one. :laugh:

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: loki8481
imo, Fred Thompson is laughable and symbolic only of the weakness of the other Republican candidates.

He's as much a political insider as Giuliani. IMO once people see his record and compare it to the likes of Ron Paul.... well, let me put it simply: there's no comparison. Ron Paul knows his positions on issues. That's more than can be said for 80% of candidates.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: loki8481
imo, Fred Thompson is laughable and symbolic only of the weakness of the other Republican candidates.

He's as much a political insider as Giuliani. IMO once people see his record and compare it to the likes of Ron Paul.... well, let me put it simply: there's no comparison. Ron Paul knows his positions on issues. That's more than can be said for 80% of candidates.

Ron Paul has as much chance as becoming President as I do of becoming Emperor of The Moon.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: loki8481
imo, Fred Thompson is laughable and symbolic only of the weakness of the other Republican candidates.

He's as much a political insider as Giuliani. IMO once people see his record and compare it to the likes of Ron Paul.... well, let me put it simply: there's no comparison. Ron Paul knows his positions on issues. That's more than can be said for 80% of candidates.

Ron Paul has as much chance as becoming President as I do of becoming Emperor of The Moon.

Actually you can pretty much just declare yourself emperor of the moon and there isn't anything anyone can do about it... So I'd say RP has a much tougher row to hoe than you.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: loki8481
imo, Fred Thompson is laughable and symbolic only of the weakness of the other Republican candidates.

He's as much a political insider as Giuliani. IMO once people see his record and compare it to the likes of Ron Paul.... well, let me put it simply: there's no comparison. Ron Paul knows his positions on issues. That's more than can be said for 80% of candidates.

Ron Paul has as much chance as becoming President as I do of becoming Emperor of The Moon.

All the more reason he needs my vote and the votes of others. At the very least he needs to be seen and heard so that the issues are brought to the political forefront.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: loki8481
imo, Fred Thompson is laughable and symbolic only of the weakness of the other Republican candidates.

He's as much a political insider as Giuliani. IMO once people see his record and compare it to the likes of Ron Paul.... well, let me put it simply: there's no comparison. Ron Paul knows his positions on issues. That's more than can be said for 80% of candidates.

Ron Paul has as much chance as becoming President as I do of becoming Emperor of The Moon.

Actually you can pretty much just declare yourself emperor of the moon and there isn't anything anyone can do about it... So I'd say RP has a much tougher row to hoe than you.

[Mr. Burns] Excellent! [/Mr. Burns]

 

[Zebo]

Thompson would win if Hillary's hit men in the press don't swiftboat him like on these abortion and lobbing deals... who knows that might not even hurt him since he's personable among people who vote. I think personality and looks is about 75% and issues 25% since all major candidate are mainstream status quo for the most part with either party. Ron Paul looks just like a weezel, no chance. Guliani greasy fry cook bald and short. Hillary bitchy.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Thompson would win if Hillary's hit men in the press don't swiftboat him like on these abortion and lobbing deals... who knows that might not even hurt him since he's personable among people who vote. I think personality and looks is about 75% and issues 25% since all major candidate are mainstream status quo for the most part with either party. Ron Paul looks just like a weezel, no chance. Guliani greasy fry cook bald and short. Hillary bitchy.

I'm pretty sure that Thompson will get swiftboated on his abortion/nixon/trophy wife liabilites. I personally could care less, but the family values vote might stay at home.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Zebo
Thompson would win if Hillary's hit men in the press don't swiftboat him like on these abortion and lobbing deals... who knows that might not even hurt him since he's personable among people who vote. I think personality and looks is about 75% and issues 25% since all major candidate are mainstream status quo for the most part with either party. Ron Paul looks just like a weezel, no chance. Guliani greasy fry cook bald and short. Hillary bitchy.

I'm pretty sure that Thompson will get swiftboated on his abortion/nixon/trophy wife liabilites. I personally could care less, but the family values vote might stay at home.

Yeah...you could care less....:roll:I mean it isn't like he has a vagina and that seems to be your only qualification for someone to be President.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Zebo
Thompson would win if Hillary's hit men in the press don't swiftboat him like on these abortion and lobbing deals... who knows that might not even hurt him since he's personable among people who vote. I think personality and looks is about 75% and issues 25% since all major candidate are mainstream status quo for the most part with either party. Ron Paul looks just like a weezel, no chance. Guliani greasy fry cook bald and short. Hillary bitchy.

I'm pretty sure that Thompson will get swiftboated on his abortion/nixon/trophy wife liabilites. I personally could care less, but the family values vote might stay at home.

They might stay home if the Democrat was a decent alternative, but with Hillary at the top forget it. Every Republican will turn out to vote just to keep her out of office.
She is the most hated politician in the country. (With the possible exception of Bush, but sitting Presidents are always hated by much of the country.)

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Zebo
Thompson would win if Hillary's hit men in the press don't swiftboat him like on these abortion and lobbing deals... who knows that might not even hurt him since he's personable among people who vote. I think personality and looks is about 75% and issues 25% since all major candidate are mainstream status quo for the most part with either party. Ron Paul looks just like a weezel, no chance. Guliani greasy fry cook bald and short. Hillary bitchy.

I'm pretty sure that Thompson will get swiftboated on his abortion/nixon/trophy wife liabilites. I personally could care less, but the family values vote might stay at home.

Yeah...you could care less....:roll:I mean it isn't like he has a vagina and that seems to be your only qualification for someone to be President.

Yes, I would care less. I would have no problem voting for a candidate that supports issues that I do, even if the candidate had a trophy wife, and was a nixonian aide. The moral right might though.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Zebo
Thompson would win if Hillary's hit men in the press don't swiftboat him like on these abortion and lobbing deals... who knows that might not even hurt him since he's personable among people who vote. I think personality and looks is about 75% and issues 25% since all major candidate are mainstream status quo for the most part with either party. Ron Paul looks just like a weezel, no chance. Guliani greasy fry cook bald and short. Hillary bitchy.

I'm pretty sure that Thompson will get swiftboated on his abortion/nixon/trophy wife liabilites. I personally could care less, but the family values vote might stay at home.

Yeah...you could care less....:roll:I mean it isn't like he has a vagina and that seems to be your only qualification for someone to be President.

Yes, I would care less. I would have no problem voting for a candidate that supports issues that I do, even if the candidate had a trophy wife, and was a nixonian aide. The moral right might though.

Hmmm....not what you are saying in the other thread.

Could maybe you just be :Q trolling :Q ????

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Zebo
Thompson would win if Hillary's hit men in the press don't swiftboat him like on these abortion and lobbing deals... who knows that might not even hurt him since he's personable among people who vote. I think personality and looks is about 75% and issues 25% since all major candidate are mainstream status quo for the most part with either party. Ron Paul looks just like a weezel, no chance. Guliani greasy fry cook bald and short. Hillary bitchy.

I'm pretty sure that Thompson will get swiftboated on his abortion/nixon/trophy wife liabilites. I personally could care less, but the family values vote might stay at home.

Yeah...you could care less....:roll:I mean it isn't like he has a vagina and that seems to be your only qualification for someone to be President.

Yes, I would care less. I would have no problem voting for a candidate that supports issues that I do, even if the candidate had a trophy wife, and was a nixonian aide. The moral right might though.

Hmmm....not what you are saying in the other thread.

Could maybe you just be :Q trolling :Q ????

In the other thread, I said the country needs change, the country needs Hillary, vote Hillary; vote change. That has nothing to do with anything we're posting in this thread.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Zebo
Thompson would win if Hillary's hit men in the press don't swiftboat him like on these abortion and lobbing deals... who knows that might not even hurt him since he's personable among people who vote. I think personality and looks is about 75% and issues 25% since all major candidate are mainstream status quo for the most part with either party. Ron Paul looks just like a weezel, no chance. Guliani greasy fry cook bald and short. Hillary bitchy.

I'm pretty sure that Thompson will get swiftboated on his abortion/nixon/trophy wife liabilites. I personally could care less, but the family values vote might stay at home.

Yeah...you could care less....:roll:I mean it isn't like he has a vagina and that seems to be your only qualification for someone to be President.

Yes, I would care less. I would have no problem voting for a candidate that supports issues that I do, even if the candidate had a trophy wife, and was a nixonian aide. The moral right might though.

Hmmm....not what you are saying in the other thread.

Could maybe you just be :Q trolling :Q ????

In the other thread, I said the country needs change, the country needs Hillary, vote Hillary; vote change. That has nothing to do with anything we're posting in this thread.

It has everything to do with what you just said about voting for a candidate based on their positions. In the other thread all you keep saying is because Hillary is, allegedly, a woman she is the most qualified.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Zebo
Thompson would win if Hillary's hit men in the press don't swiftboat him like on these abortion and lobbing deals... who knows that might not even hurt him since he's personable among people who vote. I think personality and looks is about 75% and issues 25% since all major candidate are mainstream status quo for the most part with either party. Ron Paul looks just like a weezel, no chance. Guliani greasy fry cook bald and short. Hillary bitchy.

I'm pretty sure that Thompson will get swiftboated on his abortion/nixon/trophy wife liabilites. I personally could care less, but the family values vote might stay at home.

Yeah...you could care less....:roll:I mean it isn't like he has a vagina and that seems to be your only qualification for someone to be President.

Yes, I would care less. I would have no problem voting for a candidate that supports issues that I do, even if the candidate had a trophy wife, and was a nixonian aide. The moral right might though.

Hmmm....not what you are saying in the other thread.

Could maybe you just be :Q trolling :Q ????

In the other thread, I said the country needs change, the country needs Hillary, vote Hillary; vote change. That has nothing to do with anything we're posting in this thread.

It has everything to do with what you just said about voting for a candidate based on their positions. In the other thread all you keep saying is because Hillary is, allegedly, a woman she is the most qualified.

I encourage you to vote for Hillary because she is a fresh new face. She will change the perspective other industrialized nations will have on America. Is that better?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Zebo
Thompson would win if Hillary's hit men in the press don't swiftboat him like on these abortion and lobbing deals... who knows that might not even hurt him since he's personable among people who vote. I think personality and looks is about 75% and issues 25% since all major candidate are mainstream status quo for the most part with either party. Ron Paul looks just like a weezel, no chance. Guliani greasy fry cook bald and short. Hillary bitchy.

I'm pretty sure that Thompson will get swiftboated on his abortion/nixon/trophy wife liabilites. I personally could care less, but the family values vote might stay at home.

Yeah...you could care less....:roll:I mean it isn't like he has a vagina and that seems to be your only qualification for someone to be President.

Yes, I would care less. I would have no problem voting for a candidate that supports issues that I do, even if the candidate had a trophy wife, and was a nixonian aide. The moral right might though.

Hmmm....not what you are saying in the other thread.

Could maybe you just be :Q trolling :Q ????

In the other thread, I said the country needs change, the country needs Hillary, vote Hillary; vote change. That has nothing to do with anything we're posting in this thread.

It has everything to do with what you just said about voting for a candidate based on their positions. In the other thread all you keep saying is because Hillary is, allegedly, a woman she is the most qualified.

I encourage you to vote for Hillary because she is a fresh new face. She will change the perspective other industrialized nations will have on America. Is that better?

Pffft....I don't give a damn what other countries think of us. I just want what is best for us. The rest of the world can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned.

And your argument is still stupid.