T1B

I want to hear them all. I don't want to debate anybody here nor argue his side. I think I'm going to support this cat and want to know if there's any reasons not to. Let's hear them. Thanks in advance.

You're convinced he won't be tapping his foot and dropping sheets of TP in the men's bathroom, I take it?

That and he's a standard lunatic reactionary phony human. Really, you think this guy is alive?

Why? Some stupid cop show?

Maybe you're not properly registered to vote?

WGARA who you vote for?

I'd be more worried if we agreed on a candidate.

RadioFan wrote:You're convinced he won't be tapping his foot and dropping sheets of TP in the men's bathroom, I take it?

Freddie looks like he has a "wide stance". If you know what I mean.

I've been cracking the "Wide Stance" joke for a good 48 hours now.

mvscal wrote:Like this?

http://nixhillary.com

More like the Mark Foley action figure.

"It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."
--Mark Foley discussing Bill Clinton, September 1998

http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/archiv ... 6_10.shtml

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

RadioFan wrote:You're convinced he won't be tapping his foot and dropping sheets of TP in the men's bathroom, I take it?

Freddie looks like he has a "wide stance". If you know what I mean.

Like this?

How long have you been saving that for just the right moment?

ummm---
isn't the BJ Clinton photo a real photo
posed for a real magazine by a real photographer with BJ Clinton's OK ??
Shows what a shithead he truly is !

If the choice is between Shitlery and Thompson then I guess you hang your chad on Fred.

But if you think things are going to be a helluva lot different in America if Fred is the POTUS you're seriously out to lunch.


The same as it ever was .........

poptart wrote:If the choice is between Shitlery and Thompson then I guess you hang your chad on Fred.

But if you think things are going to be a helluva lot different in America if Fred is the POTUS you're seriously out to lunch.


The same as it ever was .........

Oh, I know that. Greatest country in the world. I just want a leader at the top who instills confidence and motivates those at the bottom. I don't want great legislation. I want small government, low spending, and good defense. Also good decision making. Hillary will fall to whoever she faces (I hope). I don't think that Thompson is a great candidate, merely the best we have. However, I think that the other Republican candidates would help to make up a rather impressive cabinet.

battery chucka' one wrote: I just want a leader at the top who instills confidence and motivates those at the bottom.

But you're not going to get that. You're going to get Republican or Democrat. Two sides of the same shit coin.

battery chucka' one wrote:I don't think that Thompson is a great candidate, merely the best we have.

Who is "we," exactly?

RadioFan wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:I don't think that Thompson is a great candidate, merely the best we have.

Who is "we," exactly?

The COB (Coalition of the Braindead)?

RadioFan wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:I don't think that Thompson is a great candidate, merely the best we have.

Who is "we," exactly?

Ummm. The American voters.

Aside from the obvious political reasons, on which you and I obviously will disagree . . .

He's already had four key staffers resign before he's even officially announced his candidacy. The reason is his wife.

If an unelected power grabber as First Lady is your thing, then Jeri Thompson is your girl. If not, then in the unlikely event her husband ever gets elected President, she'll make both Hillary and Mommy Reagan look like rank amateurs in that regard.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Aside from the obvious political reasons, on which you and I obviously will disagree . . .

He's already had four key staffers resign before he's even officially announced his candidacy. The reason is his wife.

If an unelected power grabber as First Lady is your thing, then Jeri Thompson is your girl. If not, then in the unlikely event her husband ever gets elected President, she'll make both Hillary and Mommy Reagan look like rank amateurs in that regard.

I have heard that. No idea on what reasoning they resigned, though (other than her, that is). I know she's a rather heavyweight Washington lawyer. Don't know much else about her. What role does she play in his campaign? Any idea?

battery chucka' one wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Aside from the obvious political reasons, on which you and I obviously will disagree . . .

He's already had four key staffers resign before he's even officially announced his candidacy. The reason is his wife.

If an unelected power grabber as First Lady is your thing, then Jeri Thompson is your girl. If not, then in the unlikely event her husband ever gets elected President, she'll make both Hillary and Mommy Reagan look like rank amateurs in that regard.

I have heard that. No idea on what reasoning they resigned, though (other than her, that is). I know she's a rather heavyweight Washington lawyer. Don't know much else about her. What role does she play in his campaign? Any idea?

I can see that you're meticulous in learing about your candidates before making a decision.

mvscal wrote:She's not a lawyer. She's a spin doctor.

Interesting. You're correct. All apologies as I rather mis-stated her position. She works for a DC law firm. Thanks for the correction.

mvscal wrote:She's not a lawyer. She's a spin doctor.

Little Miss can't be wrong?

I must have missed "Mommy Reagan" and her run for the White House !
Did you hear BJ Clinton say he was going to be "first Laddie" ???
Oh--my head !!

All right, Three basic reasons why you should not consider voting for Fred Thompson

1) He vigorously supported (and continues to support) the catastrophic invasion of Iraq.

This fundamental corruption of intellect and character renders him as an obvious reactionary lunatic.

2) He vigorously insisted on Scooter Libby's pardon.

This displays an essential disdain for Law and Order in any proper sense.

3) He supports "Intelligent Design" as an appropriate "balance" to the teaching of Evolution.

This clearly reveals an absolute nut job.


Who is Fred Thompson?

Wrong Question!

Rather, What is Fred Thompson?


And, make no mistake, this creepy radical is nothing less than a slick combination of Reagan and Cheney!!



WAKEY WAKE

But YOU, the man saying these things, are the same nutjob who thinks that Al-Qaeda isn't a threat to us cuz they're probably just regular dudes if we would only leave them alone, swarms of millions of illegals is no issue, and have no problem inflating the welfare/nanny state a hundred fold (at least). Who in their right mind should listen to you?

Oh yea! You're a fan of Noam Chomsky too.

Mick, are you on crack?

I''ve been saying that the present (unelected) cabal has served to greatly enhance Al Qaeda. Got it?

As for Noam Chomsky, he is a great American, period, about whom you know nothing, and whose positions you cannot refute.

As far as illegal immigration, I'm against stupid legislation that directly attacks the immigrants who are working hard.

Neither you nor any of your dithering breed can mount a real argument against any of my takes, just playground wind-pissings.

Anyway, another basic reason to shitcan Fred Thompson from any consideration is his lock-step support of Global Warming denial. Yep, he's a total corporate whore--who IS dangerous, given the myopic amnesiac ignorance of the average voter in this country.

WW

[quote="LTS TARD 2"]

As for Noam Chomsky, he is a great America Hater, period, who knows nothing, and whose positions nobody can comprehend. /quote]

FTFY, fuckbag

Wolfman wrote:Oh--my head !!

Sober Man?

You call Chomsky a great American. That alone disqualifies you from the realm of sane political thought. Chomsky says that America is worse than Nazi Germany, we conduct genocides, and has fucking defended Pol Pot among others. I've actually used those specific examples (because they are the most disgusting and come to mind first) of his opinions in another thread when you mentioned Chomsky. He's a sick man, and you must be on his level. He has the rare-but-still-too-prevalent disease that causes intellectuals to embrace ideas like third-worldism. Everything about this country is terrible is his eyes, but I've never heard him rail against any of the real evils of the world.

Immigration - Our laws should attack the crime, but not the criminal? What should we do, somehow accomplish massive improvements in Mexico's economy, crime, and general standards of living so maybe they'll stop the human smuggling? That's not ours to deal with.

And the global warming "denial"...That's the key word liberals use to make the Earth's warming cycles analagous to the Holocaust. The Earth is slowly warming, but it's been exploited and politicized to take advantage of simple people. Now that you've seen Gore's movie and you realize that the guilt is on you, we must hand over control to the saviors and they will lead us to redemption. And tell you what you can't drive (but they can) along the way. In case you didn't know, the Earth had to warm A LOT to come out of the last Ice Age, which like the current cycle, and the warm period in the Middle Ages, occurred naturally. Use your brain.

You use a lot of funny phrases and big words. Well done.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As for Noam Chomsky, he is a great American, period, about whom you know nothing, and whose positions you cannot refute.

Please address these 100 points:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/100chomskylies.pdf

Goober McTuber wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As for Noam Chomsky, he is a great American, period, about whom you know nothing, and whose positions you cannot refute.

Please address these 100 points:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/100chomskylies.pdf

He'll never answer them, you know? If he does, it'll be cherry picking those for whom he has the best chance to refute. I'd be shocked if he even clicked that link you gave.

Wrong, as usual.

Let's start by considering the source of this hit piece. Paul Bagdanor, a fervent Zionist.

Gee, could we expect a less biased attack from the Brookings Institute, or Victor David Hanson?

Without going over every point, consider Bagdanor's basic methodology.

In one of the essays on West Asia, Paul Bagdanor claims that in Chomsky's work "falsehoods are disseminated in the belief that few readers will want to research the facts". Bagdanor seems to believe that the Jewish National Fund, an independent charity, is as much available to the Arabs as to the Jews. He conveniently remains unaware of the fact that Arabs are excluded from nine-tenths of the territory. Chomsky's dissidence, it has to be realized, is not baseless and it must be understood that it is he who has inspired sincere journalists such as John Pilger, who salute him for teaching them to "breach walls of Orwellian `truth' that often conceal the machinations of power in our `free' societies and the source of suffering of those throughout the world who pay for our `freedom'". In this context Chomsky's analysis of Zionism is rather relevant to grasp how misguided Bagdanor is to not recognize how discriminatory the Jewish state has been towards the Palestinians.

The "Lies" and "Facts" concerning Latin America are particularly ludicrous. But then, that's what the rightwing style is all about. From Rove to Limpdick, just keep repeating bizarre reversals of fact and wait for folks to forget.

Fred Thompson is the current deluded crypto-fascist we have to worry about. And that means YOU!!

WW

You must be very familiar with this "Bagdanor" fellow. Seeing as you can't even spell his fucking name. You've still got about 99 points there to address. And you're still a fucking joke, Wacky Wack.

Toobs, you're just a piss-ant nipping at my heels. You've got NOTHING beyond some downloaded hit piece from a Zionist, and a bunch of playground taunts.

The issues of Chomsky? YOU really feel you're ready to refute ANYTHING?

As for Bagdanor, well his name is whatever I say it is, for starters. As to his credibility, I've easily pointed out a basic flaw in his (extremely) prejudiced methodology. Indeed, each of his "100 Lies" could be refuted, but what's the point? It's an absurd compendium that paints a picture of the U.S. as having never really made any serious errors or crimes in its foreign policy designs. Pure Rovian horseshit that preaches to its own demented choir. Like you, you jerk-off.

WHO ARE YOU DEFENDING..AND WHY?

No, babs, I've outted the author and his lame "drive-by" style. You, meanwhile, are part of the chanting neocon choir.

Again, Who are you defending, and why?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:No, babs, I've outted the author and his lame "drive-by" style. You, meanwhile, are part of the chanting neocon choir.

Again, Who are you defending, and why?

No. You attacked somebody who gave us resounding and damning evidence against Chomsky. Instead of attacking the evidence, you attacked the messenger. Hence, your point is moot. You might as well have run through the board, carrying a white flag aloft.

It seemed to me that that Bagodonuts feller had a fair amount of footnotes for a drive-by.

Sure, "footnotes" that may as well include Judith Miller's columns from the N.Y. Times. Or perhaps some "reports" from Robert Novak.

Look, the author of the anti-Chomsky hit-piece is an avowed Israeli supporter whose overall "take" suggests that America has NEVER done anything wrong. It's a Rovian wet-dream, basically, with all manner of bizarre assumptions and outright lies. EACH of the areas it examines is treated to this ludicrous Orwellian revisionism. But if you want to most easily see through its preaching to the choir simplicity, start with the Latin American section. This is perhaps the most twisted and howling reordering of reality I seen in a while from any rightwing political hack. Not surprising, really, since the entire neocon pardigm is collapsing into a fervid neofascist writhing of desperate criminals and perverts.

Chomsky is an obvious target for the right, especially the Ziocon wing. Rusp Limpdick doesn't even mention him, course, because he knows his audience doesn't read and can't hold an entire paragrapgh, let's say, of connected information. Just sound bites, etc.

If you REALLY want to dispute an issue of Chomsky's, just do it. Don't post some sleazy and completely biased hit piece from a freakin' Zionist.

Just pick a subject and see what YOU can do. I'll bet it's not much. I'll bet you really don't have much marrow.

Where's Chomsky's unbiased footnotes for his writings/opinions? Chomsky might as well, according to your rationale, be defending himself with articles written by Goebbels, Himmler, or Goering.