A couple of weeks ago, James Dobson from Focus On The Family panned Fred Thompson because Dobson thinks Thompson isn’t outspoken enough about his Christian beliefs.
So yeah, it’s his 2nd wife, and she’s a big busty make-up wearing blonde, that’s not going to help turning out the vote with the religious fundamentalists on the Right.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
A couple of weeks ago, James Dobson from Focus On The Family panned Fred Thompson because Dobson thinks Thompson isn’t outspoken enough about his Christian beliefs.
So yeah, it’s his 2nd wife, and she’s a big busty make-up wearing blonde, that’s not going to help turning out the vote with the religious fundamentalists on the Right.[/quote]
Run Hillary Clinton against him. Trust me, they’ll turn out in droves.
By the way, you’ll be surprised at how lenient some ‘fundamentalist’ denominations are when it comes to divorce. Depending on the denomination, there could be a number of circumstances where one party has broken holy matrimony, in which case a divorce is legit. In fact, Catholics tend to view many ‘fundamentalist’ churches as being too lax in their recognition of divorces.
This could range from simply not raising your children under a certain denomination, and all the way up to adultery. Just depends on the denomination.
Now, why is it an issue that she’s blond? What does it have to do with fundamentalism? For that matter, what does her breast size have to with fundamentalism? Or, the age difference between the two? They both were very much adults when they got married. So, where’s the conflict? And, I doubt that anything more than a very small minority of fundamentalists teach that wearing makeup is a sin. Just curious why you took the effort to point these specific items out.
Last, didn’t he meet her years after the divorce? At least, it’s what I’ve read. So, there’s not even a “left his wife for her” thing in this. This is kind of silly, in the end.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Run Hillary Clinton against him. Trust me, they’ll turn out in droves.
By the way, you’ll be surprised at how lenient some ‘fundamentalist’ denominations are when it comes to divorce. Depending on the denomination, there could be a number of circumstances where one party has broken holy matrimony, in which case a divorce is legit. In fact, Catholics tend to view many ‘fundamentalist’ churches as being too lax in their recognition of divorces.
This could range from simply not raising your children under a certain denomination, and all the way up to adultery. Just depends on the denomination.
Now, why is it an issue that she’s blond? What does it have to do with fundamentalism? For that matter, what does her breast size have to with fundamentalism? Or, the age difference between the two? They both were very much adults when they got married. So, where’s the conflict? And, I doubt that anything more than a very small minority of fundamentalists teach that wearing makeup is a sin. Just curious why you took the effort to point these specific items out.
Last, didn’t he meet her years after the divorce? At least, it’s what I’ve read. So, there’s not even a “left his wife for her” thing in this. This is kind of silly, in the end.[/quote]
Very, and Brad has shown he really has zero idea of who makes up the typical Republican voter. Are there fundamentalists? Yes. Do they make up the voting majority in the way Brad portrays? No. Do they even have the attitudes Brad ascribes to them? No.
I am a conservative from a red state, with personal roots in the South. That applied, I can’t name one of my conservative friends - even the ones who go to church every Sunday - who would give a moment’s pause because Fred Thompson has a wife who looks like that. Not one.
Brad likes a world with cartoon-like caricatures - it makes it easy; he doesn’t have to do any homework or actually talk to anyone with a different viewpoint. If he ever were to learn anything about politics - well, his next insight would be his first.
[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
Good point. Women should always be judged by looks alone - thanks for pointing that out.[/quote]
Somebody call Batman! The Joker escaped.
[quote]beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Cunnivore wrote:
Good point. Women should always be judged by looks alone - thanks for pointing that out.
Cunn,
That was genius.
Have you noticed that the worst sexists and racists happen to be democrats.
JeffR
…
Equal quality on both sides of the fence, bud. But your side has more quantity.
[/quote]
beowolf,
I disagree heartily with your “quantity” comment. Worse, the sexists and the racists in your party are also slathered in hypocrisy.
That makes it much worse.
Examples? Take a look at the reaction to imus.
Look at how the dems and their establishment is so up in arms about imus.
Selective outrage. The outrage is tempered when it’s a prominent democratic leader.
Notice how they gloss over PURE racism like hillary’s Ghandi comment, biden’s “gas station” commentary, etc.
Hypocrisy of the first order.
JeffR
[quote]Sloth wrote:
bradley wrote:
A couple of weeks ago, James Dobson from Focus On The Family panned Fred Thompson because Dobson thinks Thompson isn’t outspoken enough about his Christian beliefs.
So yeah, it’s his 2nd wife, and she’s a big busty make-up wearing blonde, that’s not going to help turning out the vote with the religious fundamentalists on the Right.
Run Hillary Clinton against him. Trust me, they’ll turn out in droves.
By the way, you’ll be surprised at how lenient some ‘fundamentalist’ denominations are when it comes to divorce. Depending on the denomination, there could be a number of circumstances where one party has broken holy matrimony, in which case a divorce is legit. In fact, Catholics tend to view many ‘fundamentalist’ churches as being too lax in their recognition of divorces.
This could range from simply not raising your children under a certain denomination, and all the way up to adultery. Just depends on the denomination.
Now, why is it an issue that she’s blond? What does it have to do with fundamentalism? For that matter, what does her breast size have to with fundamentalism? Or, the age difference between the two? They both were very much adults when they got married. So, where’s the conflict? And, I doubt that anything more than a very small minority of fundamentalists teach that wearing makeup is a sin. Just curious why you took the effort to point these specific items out.
Last, didn’t he meet her years after the divorce? At least, it’s what I’ve read. So, there’s not even a “left his wife for her” thing in this. This is kind of silly, in the end.[/quote]
Sloth,
I may contribute to hillary’s campaign.
I’m serious.
I WANT her as the nominee.
The democratic Congress should be proof enough of how far the dems have to go to become a serious party.
I’m hoping 2006 woke the Repulicans and the voters to the dangers of “anyone but…”
JeffR
[quote]bradley wrote:
Hey Jeff, good to see that you’re so in touch with your feminine side. So I expect that you’ll be quite the Lady Defender, if hillary clinton is elected president.[/quote]
I have been and will continue to be a passionate defender of Women’s rights.
Period.
hillary clinton is extremely polarizing.
You are wrong if you think her gender makes the top 20 reasons for the electorate to oppose her.
You are going to have to do some serious reaching (even for you) to call everyone opposed to her a sexist.
Watch the women electorate. They’ll turn out in DROVES to oppose her.
Watch just how close Giuliani will poll with women.
If any dirtball disrespects a woman based on her gender, I will not and have not allowed it.
I promise to continue opposing euro-weenies as they lie about their real motives behind opposing various U.S. Presidents.
Ok, you’ve moved into boring territory here.
If you refuse to read my posts, then we don’t have much to discuss.
I’ve been a vocal critic of Administration strategy at various times.
[quote]But if you are recommending that ‘look beyond’ you, well I guess it could be worth a try.
[/quote]
If you open your mind, you’ll find a great big world out here.
Good luck,
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’ve been a vocal critic of Administration strategy at various times.[/quote]
I can’t seem to remember any examples. Oh, maybe you mean you’re disappointed that Bush hasn’t gone far enough off the deep end. For example you’re probably mad that Bush hasn’t bombed Iran yet.
George Bush just isn’t extreme enough for your liking.
That must be the ‘range of opinions’ you’re referring to.
[quote]bradley wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I’ve been a vocal critic of Administration strategy at various times.
I can’t seem to remember any examples. Oh, maybe you mean you’re disappointed that Bush hasn’t gone far enough off the deep end. For example you’re probably mad that Bush hasn’t bombed Iran yet.
George Bush just isn’t extreme enough for your liking.
That must be the ‘range of opinions’ you’re referring to.
[/quote]
bradley,
This is a perfect example of why no one should spend much time refuting your silliness.
You are in a self-perpetuating spin cycle: You are fed a talking point. Then you come on here and regurgitate the intellectually undigested tag-lines.
One of us notices the glaring holes in your logic and understanding. It is pointed out in clear and concise language.
Unfortunately, you don’t bother to read their response.
Therefore, you just keep saying it over and over.
No intellectual gravity associated with you.
Just hot air.
If you read what others write, you may be surprised.
Until then, I’ll just have to continue having fun at your expense.
hillary in 2008!!!
JeffR