GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson stops in Austin (with Video)

KVUE-TV ^ | September 19, 2007

[maine-iac7]

LOL

Thanks for that link - too funny. I emailed it to everyone I know _

Fred puts Hilliary Care in the dumpster. Classic.

Rather like the way he did with Michael Moore - here's the link, in case someone hasn't seen it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe5Q6obYYS4&mode=user&search=

So many people, even Freepers, swallow and follow, like sheeple, the MSM mantra about Fred not jumping up on the debate stages with the others.

Debates are "so yesterday" - Fred's using the communication links of today, directly to WE the People. YOU TUBE is one perfect conduit.

You who keep blatting - that's what sheeple do - about "Where does Fred stand on the issues????" "Why doesn't Fred tell us...""

Poppy cock. Either these complainers are 1:ignorant about using todays tools - the biggest of which they use to post their veiled rants; 2: too lazy to look 'em up for themselves; or 3: lying through their teeth because they're backing another horse and aren't honest enough to just push their man without trying to tear Fred down - thinking we wont be smart enough to know what they're doing. (No. 3 sounds like tactics of the libRats, eh wot?)

[Waryone]

You might want to pay attention to the post I was replying to.

[Waryone]

Now I have seen Plutonic Warming. That is precisely what I expect out of a candidate I would support.

However, I have also seen other words come out of Mr. Thompson’s mouth. If he thinks Gorebull Warming does not exist, great, I agree with him. He should consistently say so. The problem I have with him and each of the top four is their inability to be consistent. It is as if they have a problem with the truth. Or maybe they are just saying “what is truth?” If that is the case, I can’t support them.

I want a candidate with a strong belief in truth and who stands by the truth. This cagey behavior so many here seem to admire just causes me not to trust them. Also, because we live in an electronic age, their words can be made to contradict what they say causing others to doubt and distrust.

The problem is there will not be fredheads at every turn ready to explain away the contradictions to everyone. If we as conservatives can’t find a candidate ready to stand on what he believes in, we’re in trouble. The democrats will use the contradictions to defeat us. Needless to say, I would like it more if he and the other candidates could keep the vacillating down to a bare minimum.

[Waryone]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=191;results=1

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." -- Abraham Lincoln

Fred needs to remember this quote when his CFR ideas gets the best of him.

[RockinRight]

Truth? That Hunter is not going to win, and Fred is?

[WildcatClan]

"Fred offers his conservative position and opinion on all the issues. Problem is, you Duncanista`s in the "pissant brigade" don't want to hear it. Never have"

A tourist goes somewhere and he sees what he came to see; A traveler goes somewhere and he sees what he sees. I am not part of any brigade. This is about my country, period. So you can save all your juvenile taunts for someone else. I am not offended, I just gave you the truth. You're telling me I don't listen and then you posit some crap about "butt kicking'? Fred isn't kicking anything as I can see, if you do, great. I am more interested I guess in what someone has done and not what someone has said. No one is smearing Fred, I simply pointed out he spends a lot of time talking and not really saying anything. If you buy the hype, the pandering, good for you. That will make your life a lot less complex, in the short-term.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>A tourist goes somewhere and he sees what he came to see; A traveler goes somewhere and he sees what he sees.

Here I thought you were an accidental conservative, reacting to Fred`s success by whining and showing us all how offended you were. LOL Actually, I was responding to this load of trash talk you offered up.

>>>>>Fred says everything and nothing and his supporters pick the position they like and attribute it to Fred. He has to really believe one of his positions, right? You can spin all you want and make whatever assertions about posters you wish; but in the end, you and I both know the truth, don't we?

What a load of hooey!

Fred didn't get in this race for your benefit. Fred entered this race because conservatives were dissatisfied with the available choices of Giuliani, Romney, McCain and a second tier of candidates that couldn't get anyones attention, outside of their own hardcore supporters. Like Ike in 1952, Fred was drafted to run. Fred doesn't go around giving mostly canned speeches as other candidates do all the time. Fred is a straight shooter, but he likes to mix it up rhetorically and even improvise his remarks. So what. At least Fred isn't bulls**ting conservatives like so many candidates have done this primary season. The fact you take exception to Fred`s communication efforts, says more about you, then it does about Fred.

>>>>>Fred isn't kicking anything as I can see ...

Then you're blind as a bat.

Member Opinion
Fred Thompson	49.6%		1,597
Duncan Hunter	20.8%		671
Other/undecided	6.3%		204
Ron Paul	5.9%		191
Mitt Romney	5.8%		188
Rudy Giuliani	5.2%		169
Tom Tancredo	3.0%		95
Mike Huckabee	2.4%		78
John McCain	0.6%		18
Sam Brownback	0.3%		9
	99.9%		3,220

[prairiebreeze]

You do realize that in order to win a national election it’s the middle 30-40% that must be swayed, don’t you? The successful republican candidate must appeal to them, to right leaning Dems and maybe even peel off some lib votes as well.

Somebody who appeals only to the base....of either party....is dead in the water for winning a national election.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>You are a hopeless shill.<<

Now I don’t share Kimberly’s certainty that Fred is going to be a disappointment, but I am not going to trust him 100% until he clears up his position in immigration. Kimberly, like almost 100% of FReepers, believes that immigration is at the top of the 2008 issues.

[jellybean]

Every time Fred attempts to appeal to the RHINO’s he ends up saying everything and nothing. Sometimes he makes no sense at all, sometimes he’s condescending and sarcastic, and at times, his ramblings are left to interpretation, time and again leaving his supporters scrambling to explain, justify, and defend.

Fred is understood perfectly by those who don't look to the government for all their needs and wants, nor see the president as santa claus handing out goodies.

Fred's Saying What Needs to be Said

I've heard the complaints and read the articles complaining that Fred Thompson is saying a lot with out saying much. What some people don't understand is that he is saying very important things - things that need to be said. Instead of talking about abortion, gay marriage or some other polarizing, hot-button issue, he has chosen to focus much of his time and energy a much more important issue, specifically, restoring the roles and responsibilities of the President, Congress and Supreme Court to those defined by the Constitution.

Fred is big on Federalism. I, for one, am glad to finally hear a candidate talk about this. I firmly believe it is the lack of respect towards and adherence to the basic design of our government that is really at the heart of many of our problems. To begin with, the President is not a king. Now, many people would answer me by saying that they know this. If that's the case, then why do they continue treat him like one? Why is every President and candidate besieged by questions about issues over which the office of the President has absolutely no authority?

Let's think about this. The Constitution is very specific about the roles and responsibilities of the three branches of our government. A President's word is by no means absolute and is usually subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate. He/she alone does not have to power to raise or lower taxes, create or overturn laws, declare war, peace or alliances or find people guilty of crimes. A President may and, according to the Constitution, is expected to make suggestions to Congress regarding budgets, taxes, laws and treaties. Often, this happens on an almost daily basis, but at the very least, it is Constitutionally required at the yearly State of the Union Address.

For things such as declaring war and appointing most federal officers (cabinet members, judges, etc), he must basically ask permission. With respect to military action, a President may take limited, immediate action to defend America, its citizens or interests, or in retaliation for some attack but a prolonged military engagement or war itself requires the Senate's approval. So, what this boils down to is a job 90% of which consists of suggesting, advising and asking permission. Only 10% of the President's job is autocratic, such as the aforementioned limited military action, granting reprieves and pardons, dismissing federal officers or employees, or making temporary recess appointments to fill vacancies. For the really big stuff, it's "mother, may I?"

So, why is the President held publicly accountable for poverty, inflation and taxes when it's the House of Representatives that controls the money? Why is he to blame for a war or lack of protracted action when the Senate must approve of it? Why is the continued existence of a bad law or failure to pass a new one assumed to be part of the President's job when it really belongs in the hands of the Congress to create them or, in limited cases, the Supreme Court to overturn them? Three groups are to blame: the public, the press and the candidates.

Regardless of what these groups may actually know of the President's responsibilities, by and large, they ignore it. Instead, they revert to the sheep and shepherd mentality of one person in charge of all. Maybe it's human nature to always want to follow a single leader. It sure makes it easier to blame someone when things go wrong. But in the President's job description, the words "official scapegoat" or the like don't appear anywhere. Nevertheless, people whine and gripe, the press publishes and editorializes, and candidates pander. As a result, we usually elect our Presidents on promises they are completely impotent to uphold once in office.

The most important thing a citizen or candidate can do is to read the job description of the office for which they are voting or running. If the candidate is talking about things that don't relate or making promises they can't guarantee, the voters should look for another candidate and the candidate should look for another job. Fred Thompson has read the President's job description. Now it's the voters' turns. Read the Constitution and listen to the candidates. You'll be surprised how few really know what is expected or allowed by the job for which they are competing.

But, Fred does!

---

---

[WildcatClan]

"Then you're blind as a bat.

You're technically right, but then very wrong. Bats aren't blind so I suppose it's possible I am blind as a bat. I am not sure why you and others continue to think I am whining or offended.

I just made a simple post stating there seems to be some definite differences in what Fred says from one period to another. I wasn't offended at all, on the contrary, it's funny watching the spinning. If only we could harness all that power.

I would much rather watch liberals or Rudy, spin. Wait, same thing, but you get my meaning. I take no pleasure in pointing these things out to what I can only assume are good conservatives.

What you denoted as trash was all truth and thus far has not been proven to be otherwise. Fred may not have entered the race for my benefit, that goes without saying, my post, however, was for your benefit.

The spinning and statements along the lines of "well some people believe in that stuff, you can't just say GW is BS", "you can't just send 12 million people home at gunpoint" is pure unadulterated nonsense.

If a man doesn't think he can say what he believes and get elected, then why bother? Is this some new form of Republican taquiyah? If he doesn't believe in our conservative principles and ideas enough to express them at every opportunity, then why would anyone? If we don't believe in them, then who will? Thanks for posting the poll that seems to be the answer to a lot of my questions where Fred is concerned.

Although polls are not meritorious in anyway without those who choose to believe in them. I don't, and not one vote has been cast as yet and that is the poll that counts.

Conservatives had better start taking this primary seriously and quit playing popularity and poll games and spinning like a top. We are at war and we better select someone who knows something about a war. Our country has been invaded by illegals and we had better select someone who has done something about illegals.

We have had no shortage of great positions and politicians saying things about securing our borders and winning the WOT and stopping terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons. These candidates are in great supply but we are short on Duncan Hunter's, who has done and will do, not what is politically expedient, but what is right.

[Reagan Man]

Nice incoherent rant. LOL

You know absolutely nothing about politics or the truth.

[WildcatClan]

rant: A loud bombastic declamation expressed with strong emotion. Pompous or pretentious talk or writing. Talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner.

I know plenty about the truth. Politics, I couldn’t care less. What I do care about is my country. You are not a great deal different from any Fredhead I engage in a discussion.

Just so much pretense about polling numbers and a lot of spin. I suppose when you repeat the same banal spin and talking points often enough you begin to believe it, huh? All style (being kind) no substance. LOL

* For your edification, I included a definition of “rant”.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>Politics, I couldn’t care less.

Obviously, one true fact.

The operative word here is "incoherent".

I suggest you learn to use both a dictionary and a thesaurus, among other offerings. A rant is a discourse. Usually of a political nature. To lecture. "Pompous or pretentious talk" is right. Carry on, if you must.

[#1CTYankee]

"pissant brigade"

Snort!

[WildcatClan]

Nothing was incoherent, you just chose to suspend comprehension to ignore the facts in my original, rather benign post.

It has become increasingly clearer over time that Fred supporters, for the most part, have no interest in discussing issues.

Any discussion of issues ultimately evolves into some arrogant verbal attack or else the obligatory poll-number gobbledygook. I fail to see the need for all the very obvious ignis fatui among conservatives, if indeed, we all seek to achieve the same goals.

Attack as you will, as you must, internet bravery is a wonderful thing. Just understand (Mr. Poltically savvy and all knowing), neither you, nor your candidates arrogant and mocking demeanor will play in Peoria.