Woo hoo!!! More good news.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 5:45 pm
So which one of the 10 declared GOP candidates will Thompson steal supporters from?
Page 1 of 3
Re: Woo hoo!!! More good news.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:25 pm
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:36 pm
I have been impressed by Ron Paul.
The other GOP candidates are chickenshit halfwits.
The other GOP candidates are chickenshit halfwits.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:53 pm
Who are you calling an idiot? You spent two campaign seasons IndyFriscoing George W. Bush, and now you're googling for Chimpy pics.
You might want to sit this discussion out.
You might want to sit this discussion out.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:09 pm
The knuckledraggers keep complaining about Hollywood's influence on politics, and yet they keep wanting to elect (second rate) actors as President.
You guys aren't easily fooled by style over substance, are you?
You guys aren't easily fooled by style over substance, are you?
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:17 pm
Wow!!! Triple racks for mvscal.
Thompson will, upon declaring, immediately be at least in second place among GOP candidates. I have no doubt that he will then, should he be second, soon overtake Giuliani for the lead as soon as the major differences between the two are apparent. I'm not perfect, and therefore, might be wrong, but I wouldn't count on it.
Thompson vs. Hillary? No contest.
Thompson vs. Obama? An even fight IF they dig something up on Thompson. Mano y mano? The GOP trounces.
Thompson vs. Edwards? WAKE UP!!! WAKE UP!!!!
Also, yes, Thompson's HOBBY has been acting. He's a lawyer (and former lobbyist) who was a senator and took down a governor and helped to topple a president. This leadership thing's quite natural for him. If he declares, and no as yet unforseen scandal erupts, he'll be our next president. There's nobody really to challenge him on this.
I'll gladly bet my membership to this board on it. Any other takers? PSU? Mikey?
Thompson will, upon declaring, immediately be at least in second place among GOP candidates. I have no doubt that he will then, should he be second, soon overtake Giuliani for the lead as soon as the major differences between the two are apparent. I'm not perfect, and therefore, might be wrong, but I wouldn't count on it.
Thompson vs. Hillary? No contest.
Thompson vs. Obama? An even fight IF they dig something up on Thompson. Mano y mano? The GOP trounces.
Thompson vs. Edwards? WAKE UP!!! WAKE UP!!!!
Also, yes, Thompson's HOBBY has been acting. He's a lawyer (and former lobbyist) who was a senator and took down a governor and helped to topple a president. This leadership thing's quite natural for him. If he declares, and no as yet unforseen scandal erupts, he'll be our next president. There's nobody really to challenge him on this.
I'll gladly bet my membership to this board on it. Any other takers? PSU? Mikey?
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:11 pm
Again, from whom will Thompson draw support? Which GOP candidate suffers the most drain in support? Romney? McCain?battery chucka' one wrote:Wow!!! Triple racks for mvscal.
Thompson will, upon declaring, immediately be at least in second place among GOP candidates. I have no doubt that he will then, should he be second, soon overtake Giuliani for the lead as soon as the major differences between the two are apparent. I'm not perfect, and therefore, might be wrong, but I wouldn't count on it.
Thompson vs. Hillary? No contest.
Thompson vs. Obama? An even fight IF they dig something up on Thompson. Mano y mano? The GOP trounces.
Thompson vs. Edwards? WAKE UP!!! WAKE UP!!!!
Also, yes, Thompson's HOBBY has been acting. He's a lawyer (and former lobbyist) who was a senator and took down a governor and helped to topple a president. This leadership thing's quite natural for him. If he declares, and no as yet unforseen scandal erupts, he'll be our next president. There's nobody really to challenge him on this.
I'll gladly bet my membership to this board on it. Any other takers? PSU? Mikey?
Also, what exactly are the "major differences" between Rudy and Thompson?
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:34 pm
Thompson has better Law and Order credentials.BSmack wrote:
Again, from whom will Thompson draw support? Which GOP candidate suffers the most drain in support? Romney? McCain?
Also, what exactly are the "major differences" between Rudy and Thompson?
He puts away like one high profile criminal a week, at least between September and May, and then he gets to drink scotch with that Liberal shithead Waterston.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:20 am
that pimps TD Waterhouse like a used car salesman.....Mikey wrote:Liberal shithead Waterston.
he should turn in his "Liberal Shithead" card.....
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:37 am
Ron Paul .... ?!?PSUFAN wrote:I have been impressed by Ron Paul.
You mean you're not a weak-ass who thinks the gov. is supposed to wipe everyone's ass from birth to death ... ?
You had me fooled.
Surely you're 'impressed' by him only because he'd have us out of Iraq A.S.A.P.
I more-or-less agree.The other GOP candidates are chickenshit halfwits.
Fred Thompson would be a slight upgrade, but a Thompson presidency would still fall woefully short of yanking America up from it's grave.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:38 pm
poppy, I think we ALL want to get out of Iraq ASAP. We're certainly not there, expending our military resources in copious amounts, just because we like being there.Surely you're 'impressed' by him only because he'd have us out of Iraq A.S.A.P.
Folks disagree on the methods that we will extricate ourselves from that shithole.
I'm impressed by Paul because he's capable of speaking in public without lying his ass off. He also speaks from the heart. He has no chance of winning, but while he can afford to be a fly in the ointment, however momentarily, and attempt to drive discussion towards meaningful topic instead of the inane claptrap they'd prefer to retread, I'll be listening.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:37 pm
If anyone else remembers the old Miller Lite commercials, Thompson reminds me of Marv Throneberry on those commercials. Sorry, righties, but I just don't get what you see in him.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 4:41 pm
I see the dittotards still don't have an answer for a very simple set of questions.mvscal wrote:That's because you are a fucking moron who wants a(nother) hypocritical ambulance chasing scumbag in White House.Terry in Crapchester wrote: Sorry, righties, but I just don't get what you see in him.
From whom will Thompson draw support? Which GOP candidate suffers the most drain in support? Romney? McCain?
Also, what exactly are the "major differences" between Rudy and Thompson?
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 4:53 pm
poptart wrote:Ron Paul .... ?!?
You mean you're not a weak-ass who thinks the gov. is supposed to wipe everyone's ass from birth to death ... ?
Yeah, imagine the horror of electing someone that believes in the sanctity of the US Constitution, and believes in personal responsibility over a big government nanny-state.
The horrrrrah.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 4:57 pm
Ahh, mvsadhominem strikes again.mvscal wrote:That's because you are a fucking moron. . .
If that's another lawyer-bashing comment, what do you think your boywho wants a(nother) hypocritical ambulance chasing scumbag in White House.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 5:10 pm
mvscal, what do you have against Ron Paul?
Apart from the fact that you are an abject moron?
Apart from the fact that you are an abject moron?
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 5:12 pm
He will draw support from all of them. Anything below Giuliani should plan on soon becoming a vacuum of support. He appeals to all segments of righties and will draw great numbers from democrats as well. I wouldn't be shocked if some moderate democrats actually jumped ship and changed parties for this one.BSmack wrote:Again, from whom will Thompson draw support? Which GOP candidate suffers the most drain in support? Romney? McCain?battery chucka' one wrote:Wow!!! Triple racks for mvscal.
Thompson will, upon declaring, immediately be at least in second place among GOP candidates. I have no doubt that he will then, should he be second, soon overtake Giuliani for the lead as soon as the major differences between the two are apparent. I'm not perfect, and therefore, might be wrong, but I wouldn't count on it.
Thompson vs. Hillary? No contest.
Thompson vs. Obama? An even fight IF they dig something up on Thompson. Mano y mano? The GOP trounces.
Thompson vs. Edwards? WAKE UP!!! WAKE UP!!!!
Also, yes, Thompson's HOBBY has been acting. He's a lawyer (and former lobbyist) who was a senator and took down a governor and helped to topple a president. This leadership thing's quite natural for him. If he declares, and no as yet unforseen scandal erupts, he'll be our next president. There's nobody really to challenge him on this.
I'll gladly bet my membership to this board on it. Any other takers? PSU? Mikey?
Also, what exactly are the "major differences" between Rudy and Thompson?
Here's his unscripted response to Michael Moore's criticisms.
Fred Thompson speaking to Moore
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 5:13 pm
Terry in Crapchester wrote: If that's another lawyer-bashing comment, what do you think your boyThompsonThroneberry is?
A former lobbyist.
The lowest form of treasonous, anti-American scum on the face of the planet.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 5:46 pm
I am a non-Republican. I would consider voting for a Republican...but not Thompson. You're getting far too carried away.
I'd love to respond, but I don't speak gobbledygook.Anything below Giuliani should plan on soon becoming a vacuum of support.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 6:15 pm
I don't see Thompson pulling support from Ron Paul. Or Tancredo. The rest are fair game I guess. As for moderate democrats, they have plenty of standard bearers in their own party. I don't see them defecting en masse to the man who was such a thorn in the side of the Clinton Presidency.battery chucka' one wrote:He will draw support from all of them. Anything below Giuliani should plan on soon becoming a vacuum of support. He appeals to all segments of righties and will draw great numbers from democrats as well. I wouldn't be shocked if some moderate democrats actually jumped ship and changed parties for this one.
If you seriously think Thompson's response to Moore was anything but a scripted response directed towards the GOP base, you are fucking high. Whether you agree or disagree with any of the 20 or so announced candidates on either side of the aisle is immaterial. Just understand that these guys don't so much as take a shit without making sure that they are staying "on message".
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 6:39 pm
Part of the issue here is that the terms "moderate" and "liberal," when applied to Democrats, often have little basis in reality. Imho, they too often are tied to one's position on a single issue: abortion.BSmack wrote:I don't see Thompson pulling support from Ron Paul. Or Tancredo. The rest are fair game I guess. As for moderate democrats, they have plenty of standard bearers in their own party. I don't see them defecting en masse to the man who was such a thorn in the side of the Clinton Presidency.battery chucka' one wrote:He will draw support from all of them. Anything below Giuliani should plan on soon becoming a vacuum of support. He appeals to all segments of righties and will draw great numbers from democrats as well. I wouldn't be shocked if some moderate democrats actually jumped ship and changed parties for this one.
For example, Hillary Clinton is considered a "liberal" notwithstanding that she's one of the leading proponents of the DLC. John Edwards is considered a "moderate". But if you compare their positions on the issues, you'll find that Edwards' position on many of the issues, other than abortion, anyway, is actually more liberal than is Hillary's.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 6:51 pm
unscripted response
Holy. Fucking. Shit.
There truly is a sucker born every minute. About as "unscripted" as Ben Hur.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:03 pm
Although...there's some pretty funny links on that Youtube page --Dinsdale wrote:unscripted response
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RMqN0g-cAOU& ... ed&search=
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:04 pm
I would have figured that Tancredo would be your guy.mvscal wrote:Neither of those candidates has any support in the first place, so I suppose you are technically correct.BSmack wrote:I don't see Thompson pulling support from Ron Paul. Or Tancredo.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:11 pm
Again, a single issue.mvscal wrote:You are one stupid motherfucker. Jesus Christ...Terry in Crapchester wrote:For example, Hillary Clinton is considered a "liberal" notwithstanding that she's one of the leading proponents of the DLC.
Liberal enough for you, dumbfuck?"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
--Shillary Clowntoon June 28, 2004
Compare Hillary's stance on Iraq with Edwards'. Whose is more liberal?
And speaking of Edwards, there's also the "Two Americas" theme of his campaign. That's pretty much along the same line as the quote you posted above.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:20 pm
Look for the part where it says 'Mark Carallo'BSmack wrote:I don't see Thompson pulling support from Ron Paul. Or Tancredo. The rest are fair game I guess. As for moderate democrats, they have plenty of standard bearers in their own party. I don't see them defecting en masse to the man who was such a thorn in the side of the Clinton Presidency.battery chucka' one wrote:He will draw support from all of them. Anything below Giuliani should plan on soon becoming a vacuum of support. He appeals to all segments of righties and will draw great numbers from democrats as well. I wouldn't be shocked if some moderate democrats actually jumped ship and changed parties for this one.
If you seriously think Thompson's response to Moore was anything but a scripted response directed towards the GOP base, you are fucking high. Whether you agree or disagree with any of the 20 or so announced candidates on either side of the aisle is immaterial. Just understand that these guys don't so much as take a shit without making sure that they are staying "on message".
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:22 pm
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Again, a single issue.mvscal wrote:You are one stupid motherfucker. Jesus Christ...Terry in Crapchester wrote:For example, Hillary Clinton is considered a "liberal" notwithstanding that she's one of the leading proponents of the DLC.
Liberal enough for you, dumbfuck?"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
--Shillary Clowntoon June 28, 2004
Compare Hillary's stance on Iraq with Edwards'. Whose is more liberal?
Which of her stances are you talking about? I wish there was only one of those to attack.
And speaking of Edwards, there's also the "Two Americas" theme of his campaign. That's pretty much along the same line as the quote you posted above.
Yeah, two Americas. The royalty (that's him) and the subjects. I swear, he has a moat around that house.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:24 pm
I disagree.mvscal wrote:Again, there isn't anything more liberal than "taking things away from you for the common good."Terry in Crapchester wrote:Again, a single issue.
Ending your boy's misadventure in Iraq tops it. At least imho.
Talk to most self-professed liberals, that's at the top of their list right now.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:36 pm
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Part of the issue here is that the terms "moderate" and "liberal," when applied to Democrats, often have little basis in reality. Imho, they too often are tied to one's position on a single issue: abortion.BSmack wrote:I don't see Thompson pulling support from Ron Paul. Or Tancredo. The rest are fair game I guess. As for moderate democrats, they have plenty of standard bearers in their own party. I don't see them defecting en masse to the man who was such a thorn in the side of the Clinton Presidency.battery chucka' one wrote:He will draw support from all of them. Anything below Giuliani should plan on soon becoming a vacuum of support. He appeals to all segments of righties and will draw great numbers from democrats as well. I wouldn't be shocked if some moderate democrats actually jumped ship and changed parties for this one.
Indeed no. My application to the terms is totally unrelated to any one issue. I believe in many things in a prospective leader. Low taxes (Bush did this right). Small federal government (Bush dropped the ball on this). Secure borders (he REALLY dropped the ball on this). Secure freedom to be an individual (the Dems hate this one. Better if everybody just vote in blocks. Unions. Races. Etc.) I am against any laws that step all over my rights to worship (again, there's the Dems and their desire to silence Christians). Sad. The federal government serves one purpose. That is to guarantee that my Constitutional freedoms are intact. They are to take care of anything that should serve to harm those freedoms (e.g. terrorists). Everything else is just fluff. I have a lot more faith in the Republicans and conservatives to do this than I do the Democrats. All politicians are not to be trusted. It's just that some should be trusted a little less than others.
For example, Hillary Clinton is considered a "liberal" notwithstanding that she's one of the leading proponents of the DLC. John Edwards is considered a "moderate". But if you compare their positions on the issues, you'll find that Edwards' position on many of the issues, other than abortion, anyway, is actually more liberal than is Hillary's.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:43 pm
She DOES want to 'take the profits from Exxon and give them back to the people'. At least that's not a communist....errr...a liberal idea, right? She's whatever will get her elected office until she's in office, then it's all NASCAR to her (at least until about a year before re-election rolls around).mvscal wrote:Again, there isn't anything more liberal than "taking things away from you for the common good." If you want to make an argument that she is beyond liberal and is, in fact, a closet Stalinist, I would entertain that. If you honestly believe that she is some kind of moderate centrist, you are a goddamn idiot.Terry in Crapchester wrote:Again, a single issue.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:52 pm
I'd love to see any example of this documented.there's the Dems and their desire to silence Christians
read and weep:The federal government serves one purpose. That is to guarantee that my Constitutional freedoms are intact.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:54 pm
The royalty in this country, or at least the most obvious face of it, is the Bush family. Your party has begun to treat the Presidency as though it's a monarchy.battery chucka' one wrote:Yeah, two Americas. The royalty (that's him) and the subjects.
Don't tell me that Jeb wouldn't be lapping the field on your side right now if he was a candidate.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:58 pm
Whose administration is it that has sought to remove the workings of the executive branch utterly and completely from public scrutiny?
Like Terry says...it's funny to read a Bushie point fingers at folks for acting like Royalty.
Like Terry says...it's funny to read a Bushie point fingers at folks for acting like Royalty.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:05 pm
Fifty years ago, maybe. But your party has changed remarkably since then. Eisenhower wouldn't even recognize today's Republican Party.mvscal wrote:Dubya's Big Adventure is a liberal misadventure. The notion of introducing democracy into the middle east instead of propping up strong men is a revolutionary and, by definition, a progressive approach. The fact that he hideously bungled the execution of it is beside the point.
The conservative paradigm would have been to prop up Saddam, end the sanctions and let the pumps rip.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:16 pm
The Bush family is but one of the many faces of PNAC, who are actively trying to overthrow the American government, along with such illustrious names like the Bin Ladens.Terry in Crapchester wrote:The royalty in this country, or at least the most obvious face of it, is the Bush family.
Yet you tards vote for them...ponderous.
That same outfit that said "we need a new Pearl Harbor," then somehow managed to have their puppets conveniently remove USAF presence from the Northeastern US after foreign intelligence agencies warned us of impending attacks, arrainged for the Pres to be out of town, and then immediately launched into a battle plan that they drew up BEFORE Bush took office...
Just a little fishy, eh?
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:23 pm
PSUFAN wrote:I'd love to see any example of this documented.there's the Dems and their desire to silence Christians
I'll give you two. ACLU and the 9th district court of appeals.
read and weep:The federal government serves one purpose. That is to guarantee that my Constitutional freedoms are intact.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:25 pm
As opposed to, of course, the Clintons. *big roll eyes*Terry in Crapchester wrote:The royalty in this country, or at least the most obvious face of it, is the Bush family. Your party has begun to treat the Presidency as though it's a monarchy.battery chucka' one wrote:Yeah, two Americas. The royalty (that's him) and the subjects.
Don't tell me that Jeb wouldn't be lapping the field on your side right now if he was a candidate.
I hear they're preening Chelsea for a corronation....err...a presidential run in 2012.
I don't want anymore Bushes in office. I wouldn't support Jeb if he was running. I don't think many would.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:28 pm
WERE YOU TOLD THAT BY THE CHIP THEY STUCK IN YOUR HEAD, TOO!!!!!Dinsdale wrote:The Bush family is but one of the many faces of PNAC, who are actively trying to overthrow the American government, along with such illustrious names like the Bin Ladens.Terry in Crapchester wrote:The royalty in this country, or at least the most obvious face of it, is the Bush family.
Yet you tards vote for them...ponderous.
That same outfit that said "we need a new Pearl Harbor," then somehow managed to have their puppets conveniently remove USAF presence from the Northeastern US after foreign intelligence agencies warned us of impending attacks, arrainged for the Pres to be out of town, and then immediately launched into a battle plan that they drew up BEFORE Bush took office...
Just a little fishy, eh?
!!!!EM PLEH
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:33 pm
I'm assuming that your little graph is to document federal government spending, yes? The pink half is to ensure my freedoms are intact, yes? The HR is a necessary evil. The rest, who knows?PSUFAN wrote:I'd love to see any example of this documented.there's the Dems and their desire to silence Christians
read and weep:The federal government serves one purpose. That is to guarantee that my Constitutional freedoms are intact.
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:35 pm
Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee. Care to place a wager?battery chucka' one wrote:As opposed to, of course, the Clintons. *big roll eyes*Terry in Crapchester wrote:The royalty in this country, or at least the most obvious face of it, is the Bush family. Your party has begun to treat the Presidency as though it's a monarchy.battery chucka' one wrote:Yeah, two Americas. The royalty (that's him) and the subjects.
Don't tell me that Jeb wouldn't be lapping the field on your side right now if he was a candidate.
She won't even be eligible under the Constitution in 2012.I hear they're preening Chelsea for a corronation....err...a presidential run in 2012.
I'd bet that Jeb would be the Republican nominee if he chose to run this year. More likely, the Bushies are gearing toward a Democratic win in '08, so that they can come back with a "See, we told you so" and run Jeb either in '12 or '16.I don't want anymore Bushes in office. I wouldn't support Jeb if he was running. I don't think many would.
I've never voted for anyone named Bush. I probably wouldn't vote for a Bush if you put a gun against my head.Dinsdale wrote:The Bush family is but one of the many faces of PNAC, who are actively trying to overthrow the American government, along with such illustrious names like the Bin Ladens.
Yet you tards vote for them...ponderous.
I realize that puts me among a very small minority on this board.