Thompson Defends Fundraiser With Criminal Record

[senseamp]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...html?hpid=sec-politics

Republican presidential candidate Fred D. Thompson said yesterday that he wishes one of his key fundraisers had told him earlier about past drug trafficking and bookmaking arrests because, even though they occurred more than two decades ago, "nothing is ever over and done with and forgotten about in this business."

Republicans should clean their own glass houses before they start throwing rocks at Hillary.

 

[Vic]

So should I assume then that Hillary has abandoned any ideas of leniency in the War on Drugs or gambling policies? Just curious... is that the NEW face of the Democratic party: tough on crime? Tough love on drugs? Law and order? Invasive of privacy? I'm just checking here... yaknow, before NORML and the ACLU freak out and find themselves without a party.

edit: because if this is not what you're trying to say, then you should be careful of the mud you sling, because it speaks volumes you might not intend. Particularly since Thompson is a minor candidate unlikely of getting the nod.

 

[Wreckem]

I dont know how you can compare, one of Clinton's largest bundlers being a current fugitive and breaking FEC rules, to someone that was convicted and served his time over 20 years ago.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
I dont know how you can compare, one of Clinton's largest bundlers being a current fugitive and breaking FEC rules, to someone that was convicted and served his time over 20 years ago.

Except that Hillary does not employ or defend Hsu. Fred is defending and employing this guy and Rudy is employing and defending a pedophile priest.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Vic
So should I assume then that Hillary has abandoned any ideas of leniency in the War on Drugs or gambling policies? Just curious... is that the NEW face of the Democratic party: tough on crime? Tough love on drugs? Law and order? Invasive of privacy? I'm just checking here... yaknow, before NORML and the ACLU freak out and find themselves without a party.

edit: because if this is not what you're trying to say, then you should be careful of the mud you sling, because it speaks volumes you might not intend. Particularly since Thompson is a minor candidate unlikely of getting the nod.

What does Hillary have to do with Fred employing a drug trafficker? Seems like a typical diversion to me. I love how the party of Whitewater investigations is telling us how the past doesn't matter.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
I dont know how you can compare, one of Clinton's largest bundlers being a current fugitive and breaking FEC rules, to someone that was convicted and served his time over 20 years ago.

To be fair - if this were any of the Democratic front runners, would not some make hay of it?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Wreckem
I dont know how you can compare, one of Clinton's largest bundlers being a current fugitive and breaking FEC rules, to someone that was convicted and served his time over 20 years ago.

To be fair - if this were any of the Democratic front runners, would not some make hay of it?

They would bash Hillary if she unknowingly took money from a drug trafficker or a pedophile priest, and they give a complete pass to their own candidates who employ and defend that type of scum.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Wreckem
I dont know how you can compare, one of Clinton's largest bundlers being a current fugitive and breaking FEC rules, to someone that was convicted and served his time over 20 years ago.

To be fair - if this were any of the Democratic front runners, would not some make hay of it?

They would bash Hillary if she unknowingly took money from a drug trafficker or a pedophile priest, and they give a complete pass to their own candidates who employ and defend that type of scum.

And how is what you are doing any different?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Wreckem
I dont know how you can compare, one of Clinton's largest bundlers being a current fugitive and breaking FEC rules, to someone that was convicted and served his time over 20 years ago.

To be fair - if this were any of the Democratic front runners, would not some make hay of it?

They would bash Hillary if she unknowingly took money from a drug trafficker or a pedophile priest, and they give a complete pass to their own candidates who employ and defend that type of scum.

Yeah and Bill Clinton cheated on her with Monica Lewinsky!*

*Yes the responses so far have been diversionary.

 

[First]

The hackery is strong with this one.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Wreckem
I dont know how you can compare, one of Clinton's largest bundlers being a current fugitive and breaking FEC rules, to someone that was convicted and served his time over 20 years ago.

To be fair - if this were any of the Democratic front runners, would not some make hay of it?

They would bash Hillary if she unknowingly took money from a drug trafficker or a pedophile priest, and they give a complete pass to their own candidates who employ and defend that type of scum.

And how is what you are doing any different?

You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. If GOP wants to bash Hillary, they deserve what's coming to them.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I think it's becoming clear that the money in this campaign will be collected by liars, cheats, theives and other criminals... and that the electorate won't care so long as the money is going to THEIR candidate.

This is going to be one ugly fucking election.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic
So should I assume then that Hillary has abandoned any ideas of leniency in the War on Drugs or gambling policies? Just curious... is that the NEW face of the Democratic party: tough on crime? Tough love on drugs? Law and order? Invasive of privacy? I'm just checking here... yaknow, before NORML and the ACLU freak out and find themselves without a party.

edit: because if this is not what you're trying to say, then you should be careful of the mud you sling, because it speaks volumes you might not intend. Particularly since Thompson is a minor candidate unlikely of getting the nod.

What does Hillary have to do with Fred employing a drug trafficker? Seems like a typical diversion to me. I love how the party of Whitewater investigations is telling us how the past doesn't matter.

So you and Hillary are strongly pro-War on Drugs then? Is that what you're saying? This isn't the "party of Whitewater investigations" asking, this is a card-carrying-dues-paying ACLU member asking. Get a clue.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Wreckem
I dont know how you can compare, one of Clinton's largest bundlers being a current fugitive and breaking FEC rules, to someone that was convicted and served his time over 20 years ago.

To be fair - if this were any of the Democratic front runners, would not some make hay of it?

They would bash Hillary if she unknowingly took money from a drug trafficker or a pedophile priest, and they give a complete pass to their own candidates who employ and defend that type of scum.

And how is what you are doing any different?

You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. If GOP wants to bash Hillary, they deserve what's coming to them.

So you are doing the exact same thing that you criticize the GOP for doing.....

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Wreckem
I dont know how you can compare, one of Clinton's largest bundlers being a current fugitive and breaking FEC rules, to someone that was convicted and served his time over 20 years ago.

To be fair - if this were any of the Democratic front runners, would not some make hay of it?

They would bash Hillary if she unknowingly took money from a drug trafficker or a pedophile priest, and they give a complete pass to their own candidates who employ and defend that type of scum.

And how is what you are doing any different?

You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. If GOP wants to bash Hillary, they deserve what's coming to them.

So you are doing the exact same thing that you criticize the GOP for doing.....

It has not escaped my notice that many peoples' political affiliation is merely an accident of birth. In other words, I strongly believe that senseamp would have been a proud neocon had he been born 10 years earlier, and I would have been arguing against him then as I am against him now.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Wreckem
I dont know how you can compare, one of Clinton's largest bundlers being a current fugitive and breaking FEC rules, to someone that was convicted and served his time over 20 years ago.

To be fair - if this were any of the Democratic front runners, would not some make hay of it?

They would bash Hillary if she unknowingly took money from a drug trafficker or a pedophile priest, and they give a complete pass to their own candidates who employ and defend that type of scum.

Yeah and Bill Clinton cheated on her with Monica Lewinsky!*

*Yes the responses so far have been diversionary.

One of the saddest days in my life was the day that Bill got on the TV and admitted the whole Monica thing. I remember so clearly... thinking, don't do it Bill... don't give in to this... don't create this predictable chain of events... don't tell these bastards you're fscking sorry, tell them you're proud... tell those brokedicks that young thing bobbed your nob hard and long and you loved every moment of it... but oh no...

And to this fscking day I see the fallout from all that hate and what it would drove a good man to do... so STFU eh? 'Cause I'm sick of all this hate.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Wreckem
I dont know how you can compare, one of Clinton's largest bundlers being a current fugitive and breaking FEC rules, to someone that was convicted and served his time over 20 years ago.

To be fair - if this were any of the Democratic front runners, would not some make hay of it?

They would bash Hillary if she unknowingly took money from a drug trafficker or a pedophile priest, and they give a complete pass to their own candidates who employ and defend that type of scum.

Yeah and Bill Clinton cheated on her with Monica Lewinsky!*

*Yes the responses so far have been diversionary.

One of the saddest days in my life was the day that Bill got on the TV and admitted the whole Monica thing. I remember so clearly... thinking, don't do it Bill... don't give in to this... don't create this predictable chain of events... don't tell these bastards you're fscking sorry, tell them you're proud... tell those brokedicks that young thing bobbed your nob hard and long and you loved every moment of it... but oh no...

And to this fscking day I see the fallout from all that hate and what it would drove a good man to do... so STFU eh? 'Cause I'm sick of all this hate.

Please check your sarcasm meter or perhaps I should check mine....

 

[Vic]

Sorry... all that "scum" talk got the best of me.

 

[Sinsear]

You would think that maybe one day politicians running for office would figure out a way to do background checks on employees and large donors.

 

[Thump553]

Vic, the point is hypocrisy, which is especially amusing among self-righteous politicians (which you must admit, the national GOP is chock-full of). It's clowns like this that Will Rogers, Mark Twain and countless others have made their careers upon.

Arguing that this somehow has relevance to some Democratic candidate's position on the so-called War on Drugs (or War Against Child Molestors) completely misses the point. When your candidate behaves like a moron don't lash out at the others.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Vic

So you and Hillary are strongly pro-War on Drugs then? Is that what you're saying? This isn't the "party of Whitewater investigations" asking, this is a card-carrying-dues-paying ACLU member asking. Get a clue.

Actually I haven't heard Hilary arguing for more lenient drug laws (something I believe are long overdue). In any case, I fail to see the relevance of her position on the war on drugs to this discussion.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans should clean their own glass houses before they start throwing rocks at Hillary.

:laugh:

The Clinton machine is getting scared now. Fred's picking up too much steam. Rasmussen now has him trailing Clinton in a head-to-head match by only 2 points. They've been desperately digging for dirt on Fred for months. And this is all they can find? :laugh:

Of course, you'd argue that Fred should be responsible for the actions of someone working on his behalf 25 years ago. But Hillary should be absolved of any responsibility when it comes to aides or campaign workers on her behalf. In other words, you're a partisan hack.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
This is going to be one ugly fucking election.

It sure is.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Except that Hillary does not employ or defend Hsu. Fred is defending and employing this guy and Rudy is employing and defending a pedophile priest.

No, she just kicks her supposed "friends" to the curb at the first sign of trouble. That's a Clinton for you. :laugh:

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans should clean their own glass houses before they start throwing rocks at Hillary.

:laugh:

The Clinton machine is getting scared now. Fred's picking up too much steam. Rasmussen now has him trailing Clinton in a head-to-head match by only 2 points. They've been desperately digging for dirt on Fred for months. And this is all they can find? :laugh:

Of course, you'd argue that Fred should be responsible for the actions of someone working on his behalf 25 years ago. But Hillary should be absolved of any responsibility when it comes to aides or campaign workers on her behalf. In other words, you're a partisan hack.

So.. Can you prove that Clinton's campaign supplied the Washington Post with the information about Thompson's fundraiser?