Fred Thompson drops out of GOP race

[1EZduzit]

Wow, talk about the righties "getting their panties in a bunch" over some old actor. Thompson was never a viable canidate anymore then Ron Paul has ever been.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Wow, talk about the righties "getting their panties in a bunch" over some old actor. Thompson was never a viable canidate anymore then Ron Paul has ever been.

I think he was, he just delayed his entry for too long. After his interview with Chris Wallace everyone was clamoring for him to run and take the mantle, but he gave everyone blue balls in what should've been his announcement and lost his chance.

To his credit, he may have derailed Huckabee in SC. Thank him for that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Wow, talk about the righties "getting their panties in a bunch" over some old actor. Thompson was never a viable canidate anymore then Ron Paul has ever been.

That's true if you are talking about "viable" for you liberals. 😛 Fred was about the only old school Conservative running which makes him not viable for you lefists. RP2 is another old school Conservative but he's relegated himself to the extremist's corner with alot of what he's said. So "viable" to you libbies means very little 😉

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

It's quite simple really. Hillary did something that was statistically impossible. She turned $1,000 into $100,000 in 10 months via cattle futures. Unlike Fred who was wiling to explore the past, however, she simply lied about it.

In 1995, economists from Auburn University and University of North Florida ran a statistical computer model against a record of Rodham's trades, factoring in Wall Street Journal market data from the time, and concluded in an article published in the Journal of Economics and Statistics that there was only a 1 in 250 million chance that Rodham could have made the profits she did legitimately

That you choose to ignore it speaks volumes.

I'm not ignoring anything, and it's even simpler than that. Thompson's treachery is documented. OTOH, you're spouting nothing but unsupported speculation, but you haven't posted fact one that proves she did anything illegal or even unethical. If you could, I'd join you in signing the petition to hang her for it.

This thread is about Fred Thompson, but you don't mind tossing a pile of twelve year old sh8 about anyone else into the air in the vain hope of making it stick to someone... anyone other than the crook who happens to be one of your own. However, when it comes to proven ethical turds like Thompson, or, since you put it in your sig, your Traitor In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers and torturers, you're right up there on the front lines spewing lies, distractions and deceit.

Some "conservative" you are! WTG in standing up for the criminals and scumbags, instead of the Constitution, the laws and the people of the United States of America. :thumbsdown:

Interesting how quickly your burden of proof shifts based on the letter behind the name.

I've got a new career for you if your other accomplishments (snicker) aren't working out for you - you'd make a fantastic pit boss!

Uh Sir, the craps dealer's best friend just came in and won 47 rolls in a row.
HarveyBot: No worries, he's my friend too, and a democrat. We need more proof! What are you, a republican Shill!??


Perfectly willing to discuss Fred's behavior of the 70's but Hillary's, well that's a different topic! What a slimy sniveling partisan POS you are...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Pabster
Obama 2008!

Sorry to see Fred go, but that's the way the cards fall.

Pabster! You should know better going from a true conservative to a true liberal like that!

< Pabster voice >

My dear, you should know my motives are strictly ulterior.

< /Pabster voice >

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Wow, talk about the righties "getting their panties in a bunch" over some old actor. Thompson was never a viable canidate anymore then Ron Paul has ever been.

That's true if you are talking about "viable" for you liberals. 😛 Fred was about the only old school Conservative running which makes him not viable for you lefists. RP2 is another old school Conservative but he's relegated himself to the extremist's corner with alot of what he's said. So "viable" to you libbies means very little 😉

To me your not "viable" unless you are trying for and want the job. Fred never seemed to do either of those to me.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Interesting how quickly your burden of proof shifts based on the letter behind the name.

What you smokin' Rufus? Do you really want me to dig up one of my long posts documenting Thompson's lack of ethical toilet training? If I do, are you and your neocon tard friends going to rag on me for posting "macros?" :roll:

I can do it if you're too mouse challenged to find them so the burden of proof is on you. If you want to continue making allegations about Hillary or anyone else, either prove them, or STFU.

And if you think you can score points by ragging on me about whatever my accomplishments in life are, either post up a few of your own to show us you've done ANYTHING beyond jerking your own pud, or :lips: my (_!_).

 

[StageLeft]

The very idea of Fred Thompson as presidential material shows how bankrupt the Republicans are.
A second rate actor who failed as a Senator now wants to be President?
And he doesn't want to work very hard at it?
And this is the Republican parties great Fred hope?

Oh well, I guess is just tired, old, clueless McCain for the GOP.

The only issue I take with your post is him as an actor. He's not that bad 🙂 Otherwise, it is kind of silly when summarized like that (because it's true). I know a couple of guys I worked with who are sad today. They were going to vote for him, haha

 

[compuwiz1]

Thompson dropping out comes as no surprise to me. He just never was a contender.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp
That may help Huckabee if Romney drops out too, then Huck will be the conservatives' only choice.

/wrists

Good thing that won't happen. 😉

No shit. I hear the Huckster is dead broke.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

The only issue I take with your post is him as an actor. He's not that bad 🙂

I hope they take him back on Law And Order. I liked the Jack McCoy character more as a prosecuter than as DA. 😎

Besides, if he's acting on TV, he won't be responsible to anybody to uphold the law in the real world. 😛

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Same rules apply... Post real proof, or STFU!

Didnt I just ask you to do that about this comment?

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: senseamp
That may help Huckabee if Romney drops out too, then Huck will be the conservatives' only choice.

Yeah... EXACTLY what we need... a bible thumping tard who wants to shred the Constitution and impose a christian taliban dictatorship. :roll:

 

[Lemon law]

For the GOP it was pre-Iowa straw poll, 12 bottles of Beer on the wall, 12 bottles of jeer.

When the Ball dropped on New Years 1/1/08, it was 7 bottles of Beer on the wall, seven bottles of drear.

And now its five bottles of beer on the wall, five bottles of jeer.

And we have now one genuine pie in the sky libertarian with Ron Paul.

Two semi honest candidates in McCain and Huckabee. At least they can be believed to be what they say they are.

And two total phonies in Giuliani and Romney. Who are all image and no substance.

And with any luck, Giuliani will flop in Florida, and remaining bottle of fear will drop out.

I am still guessing it will come down to either McCain or Romney as the GOP nominee in 08.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey

Yeah... EXACTLY what we need... a bible thumping tard who wants to shred the Constitution and impose a christian taliban dictatorship. :roll:

Proof?

NP. ASCII and ye shall RECEIVII.

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

In this interview on beliefnet, even the interviewer was hesitant about Huckabee's explicit support to amend the Constitution to conform to his biblical interpretations.

Mike Huckabee: 'The Lord Truly Gave Me Wisdom'

Interviewer: One of the comments you?ve made that?s getting a lot of discussion in the press is the point you made in the last day or so that we might need to amend the Constitution to have it apply more to God?s standards. Do you want to elaborate on that? In particular the question of people who might hear that and think, ?Well, that?s a conversation stopper,? people who might agree with you on policy but feel that the constitution is secular document and should be driven by secular concerns rather than aligning it with God?s word.

Huckabee: Well, I probably said it awkwardly, but the point I was trying to make? and I?ve said it better in the past ? is that people sometimes say we shouldn?t have a human life amendment or a marriage amendment because the Constitution is far too sacred to change, and my point is, the Constitution was created as a document that could be changed. That?s the genius of it. The Bible, however, was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture. If we have a definition of marriage, that we don?t change that definition, that we affirm that definition. And that the sanctity of human life is not just a religious issue. It?s an issue that goes to the very heart of our civilization of all people being equal, endowed by their creator with alienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the point. The Bible was not written to be amended. The Constitution was. Without amendments to the Constitution, women couldn?t vote, African-Americans wouldn?t be considered people. We have had to historically go back and to clarify, because there?ve been injustices made because the Constitution wasn?t as clear as it needed to be, and that?s the point.
.
.
Interviewer: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

Huckabee: Well, I don?t think that?s a radical view to say we?re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we?re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what?s been historic.

Huckabee is a dangerous religious whack job who, given the choice of supporting the Constitution or his ooga booga religious mystery oil, has clearly stated on many occasions that he prefers to chug the Kool Aid. :thumbsdown:

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey

Yeah... EXACTLY what we need... a bible thumping tard who wants to shred the Constitution and impose a christian taliban dictatorship. :roll:

Proof?

NP. ASCII and ye shall RECEIVII.

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

In this interview on belief.net, even the interviewer was hesitant about Huckabee's explicit support to amend the Constitution to conform to his biblical interpretations.

Mike Huckabee: 'The Lord Truly Gave Me Wisdom'

Interviewer: One of the comments you?ve made that?s getting a lot of discussion in the press is the point you made in the last day or so that we might need to amend the Constitution to have it apply more to God?s standards. Do you want to elaborate on that? In particular the question of people who might hear that and think, ?Well, that?s a conversation stopper,? people who might agree with you on policy but feel that the constitution is secular document and should be driven by secular concerns rather than aligning it with God?s word.

Huckabee: Well, I probably said it awkwardly, but the point I was trying to make? and I?ve said it better in the past ? is that people sometimes say we shouldn?t have a human life amendment or a marriage amendment because the Constitution is far too sacred to change, and my point is, the Constitution was created as a document that could be changed. That?s the genius of it. The Bible, however, was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture. If we have a definition of marriage, that we don?t change that definition, that we affirm that definition. And that the sanctity of human life is not just a religious issue. It?s an issue that goes to the very heart of our civilization of all people being equal, endowed by their creator with alienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the point. The Bible was not written to be amended. The Constitution was. Without amendments to the Constitution, women couldn?t vote, African-Americans wouldn?t be considered people. We have had to historically go back and to clarify, because there?ve been injustices made because the Constitution wasn?t as clear as it needed to be, and that?s the point.
.
.
Interviewer: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

Huckabee: Well, I don?t think that?s a radical view to say we?re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we?re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what?s been historic.

Huckabee is a dangerous religious whack job who, given the choice of supporting the Constitution or his ooga booga religious mystery oil, has clearly stated on many occasions that he prefers to chug the Kool Aid. :thumbsdown:

Im no huck fan but hes hardly trying to "impose christian taliban dictatorship"

Just because a republican has somewhat of a moral compass does not mean they are a "religious whack job"

Of course, all you see is someone talking about God and you automatically assume they want a theocracy.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Im no huck fan but hes hardly trying to "impose christian taliban dictatorship"

Just because a republican has somewhat of a moral compass does not mean they are a "religious whack job"

Of course, all you see is someone talking about God and you automatically assume they want a theocracy.

You're a bit shy on your comprehension of Huckabee's own words. He says he wants to rewrite the Constitution to conform to the dictates of HIS religion.

Huck Fuckabee! :thumbsdown:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey

Yeah... EXACTLY what we need... a bible thumping tard who wants to shred the Constitution and impose a christian taliban dictatorship. :roll:

Proof?

NP. ASCII and ye shall RECEIVII.

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

In this interview on belief.net, even the interviewer was hesitant about Huckabee's explicit support to amend the Constitution to conform to his biblical interpretations.

Mike Huckabee: 'The Lord Truly Gave Me Wisdom'

Interviewer: One of the comments you?ve made that?s getting a lot of discussion in the press is the point you made in the last day or so that we might need to amend the Constitution to have it apply more to God?s standards. Do you want to elaborate on that? In particular the question of people who might hear that and think, ?Well, that?s a conversation stopper,? people who might agree with you on policy but feel that the constitution is secular document and should be driven by secular concerns rather than aligning it with God?s word.

Huckabee: Well, I probably said it awkwardly, but the point I was trying to make? and I?ve said it better in the past ? is that people sometimes say we shouldn?t have a human life amendment or a marriage amendment because the Constitution is far too sacred to change, and my point is, the Constitution was created as a document that could be changed. That?s the genius of it. The Bible, however, was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture. If we have a definition of marriage, that we don?t change that definition, that we affirm that definition. And that the sanctity of human life is not just a religious issue. It?s an issue that goes to the very heart of our civilization of all people being equal, endowed by their creator with alienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the point. The Bible was not written to be amended. The Constitution was. Without amendments to the Constitution, women couldn?t vote, African-Americans wouldn?t be considered people. We have had to historically go back and to clarify, because there?ve been injustices made because the Constitution wasn?t as clear as it needed to be, and that?s the point.
.
.
Interviewer: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

Huckabee: Well, I don?t think that?s a radical view to say we?re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we?re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what?s been historic.

Huckabee is a dangerous religious whack job who, given the choice of supporting the Constitution or his ooga booga religious mystery oil, has clearly stated on many occasions that he prefers to chug the Kool Aid. :thumbsdown:

Im no huck fan but hes hardly trying to "impose christian taliban dictatorship"

Just because a republican has somewhat of a moral compass does not mean they are a "religious whack job"

Of course, all you see is someone talking about God and you automatically assume they want a theocracy.

Harvey can lead Corbett to water, but can't make him get baptized.

Corbett, you amaze me with your obtuseness, when things are put in front of your face you can't see them.

Apply your words the other direction and see how empty they are - 'Just because a Taliban has somewhat of a moral compass does not mean they are a "religious whack job".

Works just fine. You're an apologist for Huckabee IMO.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Wow, talk about the righties "getting their panties in a bunch" over some old actor. Thompson was never a viable canidate anymore then Ron Paul has ever been.

Not really. He is everything the republican party is supposed to be. It's a shame that he's out and we're left with what is left.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Just because a republican has somewhat of a moral compass does not mean they are a "religious whack job"

You're right, having a moral compass does not make soemone a religious whack job, but Huckabee is a religious whack job, it has nothing to do with his moral compass, it has to do with him wanting to change our Constitution to conform to his views of religion. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Harvey can lead Corbett to water, but can't make him get baptized.

Corbett, you amaze me with your obtuseness, when things are put in front of your face you can't see them.

Apply your words the other direction and see how empty they are - 'Just because a Taliban has somewhat of a moral compass does not mean they are a "religious whack job".

Works just fine. You're an apologist for Huckabee IMO.

This coming from the guy on atpn that is left of everyone else by miles!

And apparently you are the one who cant read. I said Im not Huckabee fan. So I'm definitely not an apologist for him.

 

[jonks]

A Russian don't take a dump with a plan, son. Wish I'd hired one as a campaign manager.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corbett

Im no huck fan but hes hardly trying to "impose christian taliban dictatorship"

Just because a republican has somewhat of a moral compass does not mean they are a "religious whack job"

Of course, all you see is someone talking about God and you automatically assume they want a theocracy.

You're a bit shy on your comprehension of Huckabee's own words. He says he wants to rewrite the Constitution to conform to the dictates of HIS religion.

Huck Fuckabee! :thumbsdown:

Even if that were what he meant, which, if you were to read it he clarifies it, how does that correlate to "imposing Christian taliban dictatorship?" It doesnt.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Even if that were what he meant, which, if you were to read it he clarifies it, how does that correlate to "imposing Christian taliban dictatorship?" It doesnt.

He said exactly what he meant. He said he wants to amend the Constitution to conform to his particular ooga booga mystery oil religion to the exclusion of anyone else whose beliefs differ from his own.

Sorry to hear about your ADD. You're hopeless.

Huck Fuckabee! Seriously... Huck Fuckabee! :|

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Interesting how quickly your burden of proof shifts based on the letter behind the name.

What you smokin' Rufus? Do you really want me to dig up one of my long posts documenting Thompson's lack of ethical toilet training? If I do, are you and your neocon tard friends going to rag on me for posting "macros?" :roll:

I can do it if you're too mouse challenged to find them so the burden of proof is on you. If you want to continue making allegations about Hillary or anyone else, either prove them, or STFU.

And if you think you can score points by ragging on me about whatever my accomplishments in life are, either post up a few of your own to show us you've done ANYTHING beyond jerking your own pud, or :lips: my (_!_).

I already posted a couple of tidbits about hillary. If you weren't such a complete partisan waste of oxygen you might actually go look at them yourself. I already posted information about a study that showed the likelihood at 1 in 250 million...of course, water off your partisan back.

As far as life accomplishments go, I'm more logical than creative, so admittedly I haven't invented anything useless, but I could probably scrap together a stupid song in a pinch. I have an MBA along with several technical and professional certifications, I serve on the board of several charities, and I'm an officer of the company I work for. I pull down just under $200K a year, and I'm well liked in the community, by my family and friends. And I'm just getting started - as I'm under 40.

I'm also not a partisan hack, nor am I one of the most universally despised members of this forum, which is really all the life cred I need for here!

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Harvey
He said he wants to amend the Constitution to conform to his particular ooga booga mystery oil religion to the exclusion of anyone else whose beliefs differ from his own.

As opposed to say a "liberal" like yourself who want to amend the constitution to conform to their believes in their particula ooga booga mystery oil to the exlucsion of anyone else whose beliefs differ from their own?