God, you MittWits are funny as all get out.
Posted on 11/30/2007 4:18:45 PM PST by HAL9000
He's played a politician on TV and in real life. Now Fred Thompson wants to be president. He and his wife join Larry to talk about the upcoming primary and their personal life.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Krauthammer wrote an excellent column on stem cell research which was actually printed in the Dallas Morning News yesterday.
The point was that Bush was the only one to recognize a moral problem with embryonic stem cell research and that he has now been vindicated.
Only problem: Liberals never admit they were wrong, or they never think they are wrong.
First and foremost, I want Fred, (and any candidate) to do well. I am not Fred’s enemy. Fred is.
Mitt has publicly changed his position on those issues; He has asked for forgiveness. It is our desire to rehabilitate the pro-abortionist, or anti-marriage fence setter, not to brow beat them for an opinion that they once shared with millions of other REPUBLICANS. You guys don’t even realize that in ostracizing MITT, you are pushing away millions of voters who we need to defeat Hillary.
People are not stupid. They read this shallow attack as a lack of vision. I am doing you a kindness by telling you this. If you or Fred ever got a clue on this, he might regain some support which HE, FRED, HIMSELF has lost. But I tell you truly, knowing that your demonstrated incapability to receive means that you will continue to reject sound advice, and present no threat to a serious candidate who wants the support of ALL Americans.
I have not insulted Mary by stating that she sleeps with her husband. I would be insulting her if I said that she didn’t sleep with her husband.
All the funny cat pictures will never change these facts.
LOL! I just went to Fred’s site to check out this ‘attack ad’. WHATTA CROCK! Fred simply used his opponent’s own words to point out the differences between his positions and theirs. No attack there, simply laying out the facts for the voters to see. I thought it was a very well done ad.
You're right, people are not stupid, and they will be suspicious of a politician who changed his "rock solid belief since 1970" to paraphrase Mitt's own words, so that he could position himself better for a campaign for the Republican nomination.
The ad wasn't an attack, simply a laying out of the facts, and pointing up differences. Folks can make up their own minds, and they will, but I doubt vey seriesly that this mild ad will turn anyone against Fred for being 'mean'.
Certainly those in LE and our fine military are among the ones we want (and have) watching our back. As far as my foxhole, I want people who can discern and respect decency, won’t shrink from hard effort and will show a level of courage and steadfastness against what’s wrong and for what’s right.
Thanks for the compliment. There are many on this board I’d share holding the torch with, to be certain, and it’s fortunately the minority and I would not want to be around me in a bad spot.
BTW.......is a ma’am allowed in your foxhole?
;^)
God, you MittWits are funny as all get out.
I don’t view it as an attack when you use the opposition’s own words against them.
Exactly!
But Fred is honest. A true conservative.
Thanks, Jim. Some people go way too over board...and they need to be reprimanded.
Couldn’t happen to a better person.... : p
Ron Paul...lol..lol....thanks for the laugh.
My what a convincing counter argument. Oh wait you can’t make a conservative counter argument against him...sorry I thought there was going to be intelligent debate for a moment...
Larry to HRC:
“If you weren’t a goddess,could you still be so humble and lovable?”
Larry to Fred:
“Only being Satan’s evil twin,can you still aspire to the wickedness of Bush—answer yes or no!”
No, you just gave me my daily laugh. Thanks.
Glad I could help. Just hope you’re laughing as much if the Republicans nominate another big government nanny warhawk. Because the 18-34 age group of Republicans (and even some of us who have left that bracket since 2004) who have gotten behind Dr. Paul and have been fired up by his message of liberty and freedom may just be sitting at home next election day. Or even worse write in Dr. Paul’s name if necessary
“Just hope you’re laughing as much if the Republicans nominate another big government nanny warhawk.”
I’m guess you’re labelling everyone else as that....?
“Because the 18-34 age group of Republicans (and even some of us who have left that bracket since 2004) who have gotten behind Dr. Paul and have been fired up by his message of liberty and freedom may just be sitting at home next election day. Or even worse write in Dr. Paul’s name if necessary”
Not all young people will support Paul, nor are many of them primary voters. Truthfully, I’m somewhere in between the common conservative candidate and Paul’s more modern libertarian view of foreign policy.
I tend to think people get too overly idealistic in their perspective on foreign policy.
Not at all. But some polls in Iowa show an over 50% support for leaving Iraq within 6 months, if not a year. And that was at least 3 months ago. To top that, well over 50% nationwide now question the incursion into Iraq. I can't find a single poll that states over 50% think Iraq was a good idea. Think a warhawk that advocates another ridiculous police action against Iran is going to win the general election in that environment? I don't even think Fox News can spin that, although it is humorous to watch Hannity try on a nightly basis.
But do please support a candidate that mouths platitudes about a more 'common sense' foreign policy. The general public is tired of it and any candidate that makes continuing the police action long term (or expanding it) a major plank of their platform is going to lose next November. That's your business and your right. But didn't 2006 teach Republicans anything? LOL, you don't seriously believe the Republican whipping of '06 was about healthcare or some other domestic policy did you?
This isn't about ridiculing the 'mainstream' Republican candidates. That's much too easy and there's enough fodder for even a child to do that. This is about electing a conservative candidate that stands for limited constitutional government. Something Republicans used to stand for.
I didn’t support entering the Iraq war, but I do support seeing it through. I didn’t even vote for Bush in 2000...I didn’t vote at all. I was disguisted in politics. Still am.
All though polls don’t dictate my line of thinking.
Ever read the book, ‘Art of Contrary Thinking’? Well, it seems like when ever the public thinks something...it tends to be wrong. When they think the economy’s good, it’s trending in a bad direction...and when they think it’s bad...it’s going well. They all seemed to think the war was a thing to enter...I suppose when the polls favor your view...it’s fine?
Same with the foreign policy pre-world war II. Everyone was like Ron Paul. Avoid the war at all costs. Roosevelt had to act the part, and had to push and shove on the Japanese a bit....agitating them into a conflict. But pragmatics rein true even then...we can’t just allow everything and anything to happen external to us. Idealogy alone would call that ‘policing’ the world. It’s called practical thinking and the fact we aren’t an ‘island’ on ourselves.
I don’t want war with any country, but I do want someone whom sees the practical nature of things and isn’t set in stone by ideology.
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.