[quote]nephorm wrote:
I am cautiously optimistic about Thompson.
I really do hope he is as lazy as they say.
I like lazy politicians. I will pay for them all day long.
It’s like protection money.[/quote]
We need a lazy congress too.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I am cautiously optimistic about Thompson.
I really do hope he is as lazy as they say.
I like lazy politicians. I will pay for them all day long.
It’s like protection money.[/quote]
You know, neph… I like the way you think. If no politician is to be trusted, those that do the least… are the best!
And that leaves the Dems completely OUT
[quote]kroby wrote:
You know, neph… I like the way you think. If no politician is to be trusted, those that do the least… are the best!
And that leaves the Dems completely OUT[/quote]
While the GOP definitely closed the gap in that vein - and conservatives are unhappy about it, to say the least - as bad as the GOP has gotten, the Dems found a way to open up the lead with some amazingly bad policy proposals and rhetoric in the past 2 years.
And to bring this back to the thread itself - one reason I like Thompson so much is his prolific and unapologetic use of the “f” word - no, the other one…federalism.
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Thompson has the look and personal gravity most want in a president. I would like to see him in a few debates and read more of his positions before I get very excited about him.
Uhmm…he’s an old ugly geezer? I’m pretty sure in general the better looking guy wins the presidency?
reagan-carter
reagan-mondale
bush-dukakis
clinton-bush
clinton-dole
bush-gore
bush-kerry.
Face it, both parties are putting up a weak field. With a proper campaign I think he stands a reasonable chance.
dem field not weak (Edwards/Clinton/Obama), nobody is saying that.
DOING DOING
Obama and Edwards are clowns. No experience and weak on all issues. Hillary has so much baggage she cannot be elected. The majority will never vote for her. I know you are paid to defend the Democrats but seriously.
Any one of those weak sisters will get slain head to head against Thompson. The Dems know that. It’s a nightmare scenario. Talk to someone who doesn’t belong to Moveon and you will see. (Actually you won’t becasue you are blinded by your pre-conceieved notions)
Santorum still surging too!
Yes Casey was great for Pennsylvania. Has he actually done anything of merit yet?
You know your record on elections is about 1 and 99. Sure you want to hang your hat on that. In fact you backing Hillary is as close to the kiss of death as you can get.
1 and 99 based on?
Backed Hillary when?
This stuff as usual coming out of thin air?
Is it really this hard for you to just say something factual?
[/quote]
Yey you babel on unable to refute anything. Your record speaks for itself. YOu back Dem candidates 100% of the time on this board and your record has been dismal as is your grasp of the issues.
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Dems are in fear of Thompson. Absolute fear. Listen to the Dems who aren’t wacked out and actually plan the strategy.
Thompson connects with people. He also connects with women, More so then Hillary. Hillary has flipped postions so many times even she doesn’t know where she stands on the issues anymore. Her positions are dictated by polls not conviction. Thompson will point that out. The nightmare for the Dems would be Hillary vs. Thompson in the election. That match up would snatch an election victory from the Dems that they are rightously expecting.
The country, with the exception of NY and Calif. and Mass. will not vote for a screechy, whiny East Coast liberal over a Tenn. conservative. That is the fear that captivates the Dems now. I’d look for Thompson/Hunter or Thompson and somebody not running vs. Obama and maybe Edwards. I think Thompson is a shoe in.
And by the way, since all the Dems can do at this point is mock Thompson’s name, Hillary’s nickname from college was “He-He”. Make of that what you wish.
Obviously, Dems not in absolute fear. The country right now would vote for her 55-42 which seems like the opposite of terrifying doesn’t it?
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/11/rel9f.pdf
Course you were never good with reading polls/predictions.
Santorum!
Perhaps it’s time you got in touch with mainstream America, no?
In touch way nore then you think. Less then 20% of American define themselves as liberals. Wack job liberals like you are an even smaller percentage. Sounds like you are out in left field idiot.
I know you can’t help yourself but you are fun to mock.
Back on the short bus 100.
Yet a vast majority support liberal ideas on (almost) every front-- And I doubt I hold a single view not supported by the mainstream. Since factually you are far out of the mainstream wouldn’t that make you the wack job?
or will you insist that 2+2=3?
Yes we all want higher taxes, bigger govenment, a weaker military, more control to the UN, more welfare, less religion, more illegal immigrants, the surrender caucus etc. etc.
Remember Dems get elected by hiding what they stand for. You don’t hold a single view not supported by the Democrats. Big difference and wishing doesn’t make it so. Liberals make up 20% of voters nationswide. A minority, not the mainstream. COnservatives are at 40% that’s enough to win elections since moderates tend to agree with conservatives and not radical liberal policy.
You wouldn’t know what the mainstream is if you were drowning in it. And I was educated in a traditional manner not with the new math the liberal, anti-voucher, educators are so fond of. 2+2 still equals 4 even if that offends someone somewhere. Sorry to break that to you. Perhaps in your math class everyone voted on what they think 2+2 should equal so everyone feels included.
Yet, still IN THE REAL WORLD the majority support the exact same things I do. (You kind of threw in some strawmen deliberately for some reason (actual issuses wouldn’t make your case?)–and obviously Republicans are for bigger government)
Seriously, you are the fringe.
stem cell
minimum wage
universal health care
disapproving of Bush’s performance
wanting to get out of Iraq
etc…
I am step for step with the mainstream (you do understand mainstream=majority right?)
[/quote]
Too funny. The Democratic platform is not the mainstream. For you it is because you are blind and are unable to discuss issues. Simply repeating the same old blather isn’t a discussion. It’s 7th grade debate. Perhaps as you get older you will realize that.
[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Dems are in fear of Thompson. Absolute fear. Listen to the Dems who aren’t wacked out and actually plan the strategy.
Thompson connects with people. He also connects with women, More so then Hillary. Hillary has flipped postions so many times even she doesn’t know where she stands on the issues anymore. Her positions are dictated by polls not conviction. Thompson will point that out. The nightmare for the Dems would be Hillary vs. Thompson in the election. That match up would snatch an election victory from the Dems that they are rightously expecting.
The country, with the exception of NY and Calif. and Mass. will not vote for a screechy, whiny East Coast liberal over a Tenn. conservative. That is the fear that captivates the Dems now. I’d look for Thompson/Hunter or Thompson and somebody not running vs. Obama and maybe Edwards. I think Thompson is a shoe in.
And by the way, since all the Dems can do at this point is mock Thompson’s name, Hillary’s nickname from college was “He-He”. Make of that what you wish.
Obviously, Dems not in absolute fear. The country right now would vote for her 55-42 which seems like the opposite of terrifying doesn’t it?
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/11/rel9f.pdf
Course you were never good with reading polls/predictions.
Santorum!
Perhaps it’s time you got in touch with mainstream America, no?
In touch way nore then you think. Less then 20% of American define themselves as liberals. Wack job liberals like you are an even smaller percentage. Sounds like you are out in left field idiot.
I know you can’t help yourself but you are fun to mock.
Back on the short bus 100.
Yet a vast majority support liberal ideas on (almost) every front-- And I doubt I hold a single view not supported by the mainstream. Since factually you are far out of the mainstream wouldn’t that make you the wack job?
or will you insist that 2+2=3?
Yes we all want higher taxes, bigger govenment, a weaker military, more control to the UN, more welfare, less religion, more illegal immigrants, the surrender caucus etc. etc.
Remember Dems get elected by hiding what they stand for. You don’t hold a single view not supported by the Democrats. Big difference and wishing doesn’t make it so. Liberals make up 20% of voters nationswide. A minority, not the mainstream. COnservatives are at 40% that’s enough to win elections since moderates tend to agree with conservatives and not radical liberal policy.
You wouldn’t know what the mainstream is if you were drowning in it. And I was educated in a traditional manner not with the new math the liberal, anti-voucher, educators are so fond of. 2+2 still equals 4 even if that offends someone somewhere. Sorry to break that to you. Perhaps in your math class everyone voted on what they think 2+2 should equal so everyone feels included.
Yet, still IN THE REAL WORLD the majority support the exact same things I do. (You kind of threw in some strawmen deliberately for some reason (actual issuses wouldn’t make your case?)–and obviously Republicans are for bigger government)
Seriously, you are the fringe.
stem cell
minimum wage
universal health care
disapproving of Bush’s performance
wanting to get out of Iraq
etc…
I am step for step with the mainstream (you do understand mainstream=majority right?)
Too funny. The Democratic platform is not the mainstream. For you it is because you are blind and are unable to discuss issues. Simply repeating the same old blather isn’t a discussion. It’s 7th grade debate. Perhaps as you get older you will realize that.
[/quote]
Right, I will admit that I was assuming by mainstream we were talking about the majority of the country.
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Dems are in fear of Thompson. Absolute fear. Listen to the Dems who aren’t wacked out and actually plan the strategy.
Thompson connects with people. He also connects with women, More so then Hillary. Hillary has flipped postions so many times even she doesn’t know where she stands on the issues anymore. Her positions are dictated by polls not conviction. Thompson will point that out. The nightmare for the Dems would be Hillary vs. Thompson in the election. That match up would snatch an election victory from the Dems that they are rightously expecting.
The country, with the exception of NY and Calif. and Mass. will not vote for a screechy, whiny East Coast liberal over a Tenn. conservative. That is the fear that captivates the Dems now. I’d look for Thompson/Hunter or Thompson and somebody not running vs. Obama and maybe Edwards. I think Thompson is a shoe in.
And by the way, since all the Dems can do at this point is mock Thompson’s name, Hillary’s nickname from college was “He-He”. Make of that what you wish.
Obviously, Dems not in absolute fear. The country right now would vote for her 55-42 which seems like the opposite of terrifying doesn’t it?
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/11/rel9f.pdf
Course you were never good with reading polls/predictions.
Santorum!
Perhaps it’s time you got in touch with mainstream America, no?
In touch way nore then you think. Less then 20% of American define themselves as liberals. Wack job liberals like you are an even smaller percentage. Sounds like you are out in left field idiot.
I know you can’t help yourself but you are fun to mock.
Back on the short bus 100.
Yet a vast majority support liberal ideas on (almost) every front-- And I doubt I hold a single view not supported by the mainstream. Since factually you are far out of the mainstream wouldn’t that make you the wack job?
or will you insist that 2+2=3?
Yes we all want higher taxes, bigger govenment, a weaker military, more control to the UN, more welfare, less religion, more illegal immigrants, the surrender caucus etc. etc.
Remember Dems get elected by hiding what they stand for. You don’t hold a single view not supported by the Democrats. Big difference and wishing doesn’t make it so. Liberals make up 20% of voters nationswide. A minority, not the mainstream. COnservatives are at 40% that’s enough to win elections since moderates tend to agree with conservatives and not radical liberal policy.
You wouldn’t know what the mainstream is if you were drowning in it. And I was educated in a traditional manner not with the new math the liberal, anti-voucher, educators are so fond of. 2+2 still equals 4 even if that offends someone somewhere. Sorry to break that to you. Perhaps in your math class everyone voted on what they think 2+2 should equal so everyone feels included.
Yet, still IN THE REAL WORLD the majority support the exact same things I do. (You kind of threw in some strawmen deliberately for some reason (actual issuses wouldn’t make your case?)–and obviously Republicans are for bigger government)
Seriously, you are the fringe.
stem cell
minimum wage
universal health care
disapproving of Bush’s performance
wanting to get out of Iraq
etc…
I am step for step with the mainstream (you do understand mainstream=majority right?)
Too funny. The Democratic platform is not the mainstream. For you it is because you are blind and are unable to discuss issues. Simply repeating the same old blather isn’t a discussion. It’s 7th grade debate. Perhaps as you get older you will realize that.
Right, I will admit that I was assuming by mainstream we were talking about the majority of the country.[/quote]
Correct. The Democrats are not the majority of the country. Lieral ideals are less then 20%. Hardly mainstream.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Correct. The Democrats are not the majority of the country. Lieral ideals are less then 20%. Hardly mainstream.
[/quote]
What are liberal ideals and are we talking about classical liberalism or neo-liberalism?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
Correct. The Democrats are not the majority of the country. Lieral ideals are less then 20%. Hardly mainstream.
What are liberal ideals and are we talking about classical liberalism or neo-liberalism?
[/quote]
The ones he mentioned earlier in the thread.
Here are the latest polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
Hillary is ahead. That said, it’s way too early for polls. One thing that Hillary will need to overcome should she win the Democratic nomination is her huge negatives - in none of the polls does she get a majority.
From Rasmussen:
[i]Mayor Giuliani is now viewed favorably by 50%, unfavorably by 42%.
Senator Clinton is now viewed favorably by 49%, unfavorably by 50%.
More voters view Clinton Very Favorably (23%) than Giuliani (17%); even more view her Very Unfavorably (34% versus 17%).[/i] [I don’t know how to interpret this - there may be a typo-, but either way it’s bad for Clinton]
People generally have their minds made up about Hillary - which will make it hard for her to make up ground on the undecideds. Those negatives are high even before the real campaigning, which will highlight a lot of the historical negatives on Hillary.
She’s the clear Dem frontrunner. Unfortunately for the Dems, I suspect she is actually the worst of their top candidates in terms of how she will actually fare in the general election (assuming the Republicans pick Giuliani or Thompson).
Back on topic, here is an interesting piece on the libertarian case for Fred:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12005
Here’s a piece on Fred’s federalism (“FREDralism”):
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=091207A
Unfortunately, Fred has a tricky record w/r/t earmarks/pork:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/09/fred_thompsons_record_on_econo.php
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Back on topic, here is an interesting piece on the libertarian case for Fred:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12005
[/quote]
I take exception with this:
“If he follows through, he will have an opportunity to position himself as the only small-government conservative in the race.”
To make this statement correct it would have to distinguish him as a neocon. He ISN’T a small government conservative in the race. I wonder how well Freddy boy understands federalism.
I haven’t heard him talk about any specific policy. I’d also like to ask him about CFR and if membership in this organization implies any thing specific with regard to reducing US national sovereignty. CFR seems the antithesis of small government conservatism.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
To make this statement correct it would have to distinguish him as a neocon. He ISN’T a small government conservative in the race. I wonder how well Freddy boy understands federalism.[/quote]
Actually, HE IS - capital letters aside - Fred continually makes federalism and limited government a part of what he wants to do to improve the government.
Just because he isn’t a navel-gazing anarchist doesn’t disqualify him from being a “small government conservative”.
As for Fred “understanding federalism”, you don’t have to plumb chatboards for discussion of it - go look at his Senate voting record, where he was occasionally at the small end of a 99-1 vote on the basis that he thought the legislation didn’t have legitimate federal authority.
And I doubt you have the slightest inkling as to what “federalism” entails - so if someone wants to offer criticism that Fred isn’t a genuine federalist, I’ll listen, but not to you.
Wow - the silliness never ends around here, does it?
CFR is essentially a think tank and a place where international horse trading gets done. And I don’t think anyone will mistake Thompson as anything but robustly pro-American.
And why would an anarchist-libertarian care about “sovereignty”? Wouldn’t anarchist-libertarians want a formless, fluid place without borders and artificial designations between markets, so capital, goods, and labor can move as freely as humanly capable?
Wait - you are still an anarchist-libertarian, right? I have to check. No telling what “ism” you are a loyal soldier to this week.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
- as bad as the GOP has gotten, the Dems found a way to open up the lead with some amazingly bad policy proposals and rhetoric in the past 2 years.
[/quote]
And, that their rhetoric is lapped up by mainstream news outlets as “the way it is.” For the life of me, I don’t know why Tony Snow doesn’t start each briefing with a quick “This is the way Government works, not how Pelosi thinks it should work.” Congress passes laws, it does not set policy.
What I’d like to hear from any candidate is that government needs to be whittled down. Thompson is afforded this opportunity to make hay when it comes to core conservative values. Small Federal gov’t., States’ authority, low taxes. <----my christmas list 
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
To make this statement correct it would have to distinguish him as a neocon. [/quote]
Neo-cons : “20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan.” Neocon Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Teddy, sure. Reagan, of course. FDR? are you joking? FDR? The father of American Socialism, a neo-con idol? That is completely preposterous.
Neo-cons are old school democrats in republican clothing. As such, I reject them.
hijack over
So Fred was asked about the Terry Schiavo case… what did he think, which side was he on. And he said he couldn’t comment because it was “history” and he couldn’t remember all the details.
Wasn’t The Terry Schiavo case only just about 2 years ago?
History?
Since Terry Schiavo was a watershed moment for many conservatives, did Fred duck the question?
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
…
Since Terry Schiavo was a watershed moment for many conservatives, …[/quote]
Huh?
.
[quote]kroby wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
To make this statement correct it would have to distinguish him as a neocon.
Neo-cons : “20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan.” Neocon Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Teddy, sure. Reagan, of course. FDR? are you joking? FDR? The father of American Socialism, a neo-con idol? That is completely preposterous.
[/quote]
Not at all. More than a few neo-cons are former Trotskyites, and you may notice, unlike traditional conservatives, they’ve stayed silent while Bush built the abomination of “big government conservatism.”
[quote]gatesoftanhauser wrote:
Wow, another fake, plastic sounding liar stepping out of the depths of hell. Nobody cares. [/quote]
Fuck an A this comment had me almost fall out of my chair. I am still laughig at it …still!