RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate

RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/7/2007 9:51:50 PM)
I don't dislike Gore, in fact I agree with him on some points, but I sure would vote against him. His idea of saving the environment seems to be to block humans from any interaction with it. Thompson's longest single position was 18 years as a Washington lobbyist. IMO that automatically disqualifies him from the presidency.

farglebargle -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 5:10:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Level Gore gave his standard non-answer today at the Live Earth concerts regarding running; I've thought he was playing it cool, but I'm beginning to wonder. The idea of running an "Issue Awareness" campaign in parallel with a non-existent ( as yet ) presidential campaign is kinda interesting.. quote: Obama is an interesting option. Unelectable: Black. quote: Bloomberg would be, too. Jew quote: I have a lot of respect for Chuck Hagel, See Obama. Chuck Hagel is black? choke........gasp....... fb, I disagree on both Obama and Bloomberg; sure, some wouldn't vote for them because of those things, but enough would. My bad, I thought that was RANGEL...

cyberdude611 -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 5:29:24 AM)
Gore is too extreme. He sounds like that kids tale about Chicken Little running around the farm claiming the sky is falling. I think the whole global warming thing is mostly fear-mongering for political gain anyway. From the evidence I have seen, I don't see that humans are the cause and even if we were the cause, there isn't anything we can do about it.

farglebargle -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 5:48:42 AM)
quote: From the evidence I have seen, I don't see that humans are the cause and even if we were the cause, there isn't anything we can do about it. That's interesting, because I've only seen a lot of opinion, and isn't that contradictory? If humans are the cause, then by definition, there are actions we can take to change it. Even if it's natural. The questions we need to be asking are: What is the expected variation? What variation are we experiencing NOW? What variation do we WANT? And how can we control the levels of that variation, should/when it's needed? The most important expense we can make at this time, would SEEM TO BE basic research into sequestering/managing large volumes of the proposed agents in the process. That way, WHEN we need to do something, IF we need to do something, we CAN do something.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 8:11:32 AM)
What a surprise... quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Someone is scared!!! To be digging up dirt on someone's past who hasn't even announced he is running yet shows someone is already scared... I wonder who it is.... agreed

TheHeretic -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 10:35:44 AM)
I don't know much at all about Thompson's positions to know if I'd vote for him or not (I'm backing the other bald one). Why Democrat candidates would be concerned, even scared, about his possible candidacy doesn't take much research. He is a skilled communicator, with one of those easy, folksy styles Hillary feigns so badly. He articulates conservative values simply and clearly (catch his character on the Law and Order re-runs sometime). I think he would destroy Hillary or Al Gore in a televised debate and I'd order the pay-per-view to watch him against Barak Obama. If hoi polloi decide to vote for safe rather than change, he would win easily (jmo).

farglebargle -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 12:03:31 PM)
quote: Why Democrat candidates would be concerned, even scared, about his possible candidacy doesn't take much research. He is a skilled communicator, with one of those easy, folksy styles Hillary feigns so badly. Dude, HE IS AN ACTOR. Don't mistake HIS ACT for HIS BELIEFS. Just because he FEIGNS that "Easy, Folksy style", doesn't mean he is either. You're saying you respect more, the person who fakes it better. Kuscinich, Keyes, and Buchannan may be fucking nuts, but they're up-front about it.

Griswold -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 12:05:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I read about the Thompson, Nixon, Watergate link. According to Nixon, the term "not too bright" is incorrect. Nixon thought he was a dithering idiot. Which brings me back to my post in some other thread, why are the Republicans so desperate to nominate the intellectually challenged, insane, or mentally ill as candidates for President? Sinergy My guess is, it worked twice already?

TheHeretic -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 12:28:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Dude, HE IS AN ACTOR. Don't mistake HIS ACT for HIS BELIEFS. " He fell into acting when invited to play himself in the movie Marie (1985), a drama based on a real-life political scandal in Tennessee, in which Thompson defended whistleblower Marie Ragghianti. Thompson was a natural on screen " http://www.answers.com/topic/fred-dalton-thompson?cat=entertainment He has the gift....

mnottertail -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 1:19:52 PM)
wellllllllllllll----------------------- ronald 'rottencrotch' reagan

TheHeretic -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 1:34:43 PM)
And Reagan had a couple Governor terms worth of cattle to go with his hat. Thompson's lack of executive experience needs mention.

mnottertail -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 1:39:20 PM)
and he still fucked us, so schmoozing the politik isn't a brand that is worthy of note. I was a governor and balanced the budget by laying it off today and seeing that another bush was given power to foist it off on ages hence so that you don't have the full brunt..........Yeah, I am voting for that again, (lol, I didn't vote for them shitbreathers the first time, and am not likely taken in this one).

Sinergy -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 5:06:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Griswold quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I read about the Thompson, Nixon, Watergate link. According to Nixon, the term "not too bright" is incorrect. Nixon thought he was a dithering idiot. Which brings me back to my post in some other thread, why are the Republicans so desperate to nominate the intellectually challenged, insane, or mentally ill as candidates for President? Sinergy My guess is, it worked twice already? Twice? A quick review Nixon - Paranoid Reagan - Alzheimers Ford - Inarticulate Doofus Bush 1 - Twit, easily controlled by the Neo-cons but able to say "no" to their most strident demands, like "Invade Iraq" after Desert Storm. Bush 2 - Not enough bandwidth to catalog his psychological profile, general idiocy and character flaws. See the book "The Madness of King George" for a more complete listing. (For those keeping score, that makes 5 of the last 5) Sinergy p.s. There is a psychiatric diagnosis for a certain set of patients who have no social filters or understanding of social niceties and nuances of verbal communication. When shown videos of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 2, they burst out laughing. When asked why, they pointed out that all 3 of them were lying through their cake hole, despite the fact that the patients could not understand the words.

Sinergy -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 5:07:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic And Reagan had a couple Governor terms worth of cattle to go with his hat. Thompson's lack of executive experience needs mention. Dont forget his reason for not running for re-election to Congress. He stated that he is a 9-5 person who does not like working too hard or being in a rush. Sinergy

TheHeretic -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 5:23:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic And Reagan had a couple Governor terms worth of cattle to go with his hat. Thompson's lack of executive experience needs mention. Dont forget his reason for not running for re-election to Congress. He stated that he is a 9-5 person who does not like working too hard or being in a rush. Sinergy I find that a bit dubious. I don't suppose you have a link? Also, were those mental patients also shown video of Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry? Or would that have skewed the desired results? You can always tell when a politician of any stripe is lying... Their lips move.

Sinergy -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 5:59:43 PM)
quote: I find that a bit dubious. I don't suppose you have a link? First read it here http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2007/06/12/fred-thompson-frontrunner/ So I did a search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18999838/site/newsweek/ http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2619 Feel free to do a search with the words "Fred Thompson" and lazy or laziness to find more. Sinergy p.s. Regarding the dimwit comment. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070707/ap_on_el_pr/thompson_watergate Say what you want about Bill Clinton, but the words "not too bright" are far from the reality of the person.

mnottertail -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 6:15:17 PM)
Tell ya, what, if he runs on a blowjob vote, I am gonna vote for him, he cant be as stupid as Bush and think there might be an agenda, can he? We don't need presidents that think they can think, do we? It has never worked out before.

Sinergy -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 6:29:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Tell ya, what, if he runs on a blowjob vote, I dont know about you, but I am not letting some dimwitted, lazy, male actor give me a blowjob in order to try to win my vote. A person has to have standards. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

TheHeretic -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 6:44:29 PM)
"Work smarter, not harder?" I skipped the R.S. link (I don't try to send you to Rush Limbaugh's site, do I?), and Wikipedia is far from a reliable source for current politics. The Newsweek link was great though. Might want to check the capitolblue... There was a redirect on that one or maybe just a "we need your money" pop-up. As I said earlier, I haven't researched this guy, I'm just familiar with his impressive communication skills and gifts. Bil Clinton is an extremely intelligent guy. I have no idea where you got the idea I suggested otherwise. Isn't it interesting that Democrats who plan to explore internet campaigning are "innovators" and a Republican who (I think) has exactly the sort of talents to excel there is "lazy?"

mnottertail -> RE: Fred Thompson and Watergate (7/8/2007 6:47:39 PM)
link it?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875