As Eccles is for FR's "team Romney", you are for "team Fred".
Posted on 08/24/2007 9:37:08 PM PDT by Doofer
Fred Thompson's decision to announce his presidential candidacy with a video was suggested by Newt Gingrich, who is considered a possible contender himself.
Former House Speaker Gingrich has indicated he will run only if Thompson does not or his late-starting campaign crashes and burns. Actor-politician Thompson plans to follow the model of Democrat Hillary Clinton by launching his campaign with a video, followed by a fly-around to several cities.
Gingrich has expressed contempt for becoming one of many announced Republican candidates at crowded debates. Thompson has decided to be one of many at the Sept. 27 debate at Baltimore's Morgan State University.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
You must be illiterate. He said Fred and Newt qualify on the "virtues" of "serial adultery" and "multiple divorces."
It would appear from the record that Newt does qualify.
Fred does not. Eccles lied.
For the record, I never directly criticized Fred Thompson for being divorced. Its just a general theme we’re seeing in our frontrunners, and nobody is concerned with that. Compared to the Democrat nominees and their families, our nominees appear highly disfunctional. That’s a general critique and is not specifically aimed at Fred. Maybe I’m overreacting and its just a sign of the times we live in. I thought we were the party of “family values” but apparently that means just getting along with your ex and making your child support payments now.
You are one sad, sorry, pathetic liar.
You are both dishonest debators, because you are both intentionally trying to mislead. As I said to you before, you two are twins in different camps. If you dislike the other's tactics and behaviors, look in the mirror.
FWIW, I think Fred has far better connections than Newt to get advice from regarding the staging of a candidacy announcement. It's not as if he has no friends in the professional production industry, and personal experience in public presentation. I doubt he is going to do a video production or a Tonite Show apperance based on Newt's say-so.
It seems to me that this article is a subtle PR piece to tie Thompson to Gingrich in the reader's mind, and thus tie Fred to Newt's negatives.
That's not a fallacy. I never said "official Romney talking points."
You are a dishonest debator, employing the strawman fallacy in a dishonest effort to discredit me and compare me to a liar like Eccles. Why? Were your feelings hurt?
No, what you said was "the latest Romney lying points--er--talking points". You implied that what Eccles said came from Romney, just as he implied Newt's behaviors were shared by Fred. The use of implication instead of outright falsehoods is what makes them fallacies.
Why? Were your feelings hurt?
Hurt? No. Disgusted? Yes. The world of politics has enough Carvilles and Begallas in it without your amateur efforts. Save it for the Enemy: She Who Shall Not Be Named and company. The scorched earth negative attack policy in our own primaries isn't going to be to our benefit, regardless of who emerges as our candidate.
Likely by mid-February, Rudy, Fred or Mitt will be that candidate. What credibility will you hyperpartisans have in the general election campaign if it isn't your guy? How much ammo will you have handed to the real opposition with all the pre-poisoning of the wells? Are you looking forward to Petronski quotes being featured prominently in "Hillary for President" campaign ads if Mitt is that candidate? Or Eccles quotes if Fred wins out?
That's the part that you added. I cannot control what you add. I was referring to Free Republic's "team romney" and the latest unpleasant spin--this time a lie--they have brought to the table.
Credibility in doing what?
How much ammo will you have handed to the real opposition with all the pre-poisoning of the wells?
Don't be so naive to think that they need me to come up with anything. They'll hit any GOP nominee with more than I could ever concoct.
Are you looking forward to Petronski quotes being featured prominently in "Hillary for President" campaign ads if Mitt is that candidate?
You need to calm down. You've become hysterical.
As Eccles is for FR's "team Romney", you are for "team Fred".
I figured it was your native language.
You continue to twist what I posted. If you prefer to debunk a strawman, I say, have a ball. Everyone needs a hobby.
“I know you are but what am I” is suitable on the playground. You won’t impress many here with such things.
I quoted what you posted, verbatim: "...it seems the latest Romney lying points--er--talking points are..." You are attributing said points to Romney directly, as you make no other qualifiers or distinguishments.
As the text stands, it is an example of the fallacy I pointed out. If you meant otherwise in your attribution of the "talking points", then you failed in your communication, since you made no attempt to attribute them to others, such as the FR Mitt camp instead, or specific individuals thereof. You leave the implication they come from Romney.
He called his second wife Marianne (?) at her mother’s 84th birthday party and told her he was dumping her just months after doctors told her they believed she had Multiple Sclerosis. He was cheating on her with his congressional aide, which is ironic, since Marianne was the “other woman” in his first marriage.
Spin on, troll.
Oh yeah? Sez you... and so's your ol' man!*
*"Ol' man" to be construed solely as an insult to the progenitor of Petronski and/or his siblings, and by extension, Petronski himself. No relationship with real candidates, living or dead should be implied. Batteries not included. Manufacturer's suggested retail price only.
Since you butted in, I will. You butted into a two-person conversation to let them know how superior you are to them—all for naught, I might add. You chose to put your interpretation on someone else’s words. You’re supposed to read for the speaker’s meaning, not your own. Why don’t you go find someone else to lecture? Someone who might care what you have to say, someone who might be willing to accept that you are superior. [Good luck on that.]
Why cause you say so? Include some info if you’ve got any to share !!!
Tell you what lonestar,I’m going to PROJECT my opinions whether you like em or not !!!
Amen. Morality seems to be just for talk. I didn’t
and won’t vote for a politician who is suspect...and we
all know who they are. If Democrats want to put up a
person of suspect nature, and even proven in some cases...
that should be spelled out....in all media..not just in
these blogger site....So much more..but que sera, sera...JK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.