Posted on 10/03/2007 10:12:07 AM PDT by Petronski
Fred Thompson on Harry Reid’s attacks on Rush Limbaugh
Congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from insulting our military leader in Iraq and pandering to the loony left by attacking Rush Limbaugh. He is one of the strongest supporters of our troops, yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough. I wonder who General Petraeus and his troops think is most supportive?
Forget it, your certifiable.
oooops, my bad, you’re certifiable.
“oooops”
(Thanks for calling me yet another “new” name, LOL....I consider it now 2 wins, by your 2nd or is it 3rd default)
but this is false.......”yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough”
and gives dems a plausible route of escape........and freddie a little more breathing room till the dems pounce on him.........
Are you really this dense? My so-called "*new* freddie uttering" is quoted verbatim from Thompson's original statement. Just because you have repeatedly ignored it to focus on one part of Thompson's statement does not mean that it does not exist.
Seriously, go read the original post in this thread, the entire quote is there.
Go on......lie your arse off about me just like the tactic the idiots at the DU use.
You obviously don’t know a friggin’ thing about me and making up lies about me isn’t the FR way.
Covering the lie with “LOL”...how middle-school of you.
not once, repeat not once, since my first post on this thread at 405 have you posted the entirety of what freddie had posted on his campaign site DURING Rushes show yesterday.....
Now, you DID post a bit of what Rush had to say about one point in the cleverly timed freddie release, but I suppose you overlooked that Rush neglected (that means avoided) to mention precisely what I find objectionable in this hastily composed statement that appeared when Rush was on-air in day X (how many days is it now?) of this dem etc attempt at lynching Rush.
And still......after 4 or 5 hrs, now.....you STILL haven’t provided me with a quote or cite from any dem who has said anything resembling freddies gratuitous statement “yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough”.....and the reason is (as you know perfectly well) no democrat or any of their proxies have ever said it.........but they will, sooner or later, since freddie put it into their playbook.
Let me know if Rush says anything about freddie saying “yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough”........I doubt if he will, because he is too classy and gracious, and not an ingrate.....and also too savvy to not know it will sooner or later come back to bite freddie, but not in the form of anything Rush will say about that particular clause of freddies support.
One more time.....this is false: “yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough”.........but it will become useful to the dems and their machine.
Why should I? It was posted in #1 on the thread. If you're too lazy to read the article, then that's not my problem.
I suppose you overlooked that Rush neglected (that means avoided) to mention precisely what I find objectionable
I didn't overlook anything. It's not Limbaugh's job to divine your insane obsession over this. In reality, however, it was Limbaugh who called it a "great question" and a "searing point".
you repeatedly skip over the falsehood
And still......after 4 or 5 hrs, now.....you STILL haven’t provided me with a quote or cite from any dem who has said anything resembling freddies gratuitous statement “yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough”.....and the reason is (as you know perfectly well) no democrat or any of their proxies have ever said it.........but they will, sooner or later, since freddie put it into their playbook.
I think our basic difference on this is that I see it as freddie needing Rush; whereas YOU see it as Rush needing freddie.
Boehner (and others) said it straight up and pulled no punch, long before Rush went on the air yesterday....freddie me-too’d, but made a bad choice by adding the extraneous punch-pulling false clause.
Any reasonable person can read Senator Reid's letter and correctly interpret it as it saying "Rush doesn't support the troops". Just because it isn't a direct quote doesn't make that untrue. It's called summarizing, look that up while you work on capitalization -- your repeated "freddie" lines are childish.
Thompson's statement was as solid and straightforward as Boehner's, though more concise. Yet you pretend they're different because Thompson goes further and provides an insightful summary of the loony left's position, while pointing out the silliness of it.
I don't see Limbaugh or Thompson needing each other either way -- they're both more than capable of looking out for themselves. But that doesn't change the fact that it was the correct thing to do, nor that Thompson was the only Presidential candidate willing to call out the Democrats for their shameful actions.
So... here's the challenge. Find me 10 FReepers who agree with you that Thompson statement is false and/or offensive. Not even the Mittwits have gone that far. Have them post here. Otherwise, I'll take the aggrieved party's (i.e. Limbaugh's) word as the final one, not yours.
“So... here’s the challenge. Find me 10 FReepers who agree with you that Thompson statement is false and/or offensive.”
Not even necessary......you yourself have proven to me time and again that it is false......by not showing me that a simgle dem or lackey has ever said what freddie “thinks” they did. Your credibility with me is based upon your being such a fredbot; meaning that if such a statement existed you would produce it.
(”/or offensive” is your word, not mine, but you may have a point)
Your entire argument on this thread has been based on belittling and marginalizing the defense of Rush that Thompson offered, however, has Duncan Hunter said anything in defense of Rush?
Note, I like Hunter more than Thompson too, but this is hardly something one can "nail Thompson to the wall with", like you seem to believe. That is, unless Hunter did defend Rush. I ask: Did he?
I don't know. But if not, then, well the conclusion should be obvious; at least it is for me.
I want to thank you for continuing to bump my thread. Really, you’ve been doing great work. Keep it up.
You’re very welcome.
Your sentiment is obvious and appreciated.
Did you see how your boy did with Hannity last nite? He made Dole ‘96 shine by comparison.
Thanks for the bump!
  " border=0> I want more cash from Norman Hsu! - Senator Tom Harkin     |
Great post!
Use the ‘other’ Harkin gif!!
And the thing is ? most of us got what Rush was saying the first time in the right contexts he was using, these Democrats/MSM only want to hear or imagine what they want to imagine because of their hate for Rush.
he should have just spelled
G-H-E-Y and then said gay.
there’s only one way for Thompson and the conservatives to win. they have to cunningly draw gays into the fight and peel off disaffected liberal female, black and hispanic votes. I feel sorry for gays but they are going to have to be the perpetual whipping boy used to defeat democrats here on out. It’s just too easy, witness the gay marriage initiative in OH tipping the vote to the conservatives. Use it like a blunt weapon I say.
By spelling GHEY you can open a dumb but effective national debate on the whole subject of people thinking they are now protected from being offended. That’s BS and it’s unfair to everyone who holds no malice in their hearts when they utter a word such a gay thinking GHEY as in weak, stupid or lame. Gays would be correct to say that’s probably not cool but it’s gray area enough you could get soccer moms and such rolling their eyes at the whole peacock routine that you get with the resulting stupid protests. Pretty much the only way to get this turned around. Nothing Karl Rove doesn’t already know. Doubt any of these Pubs have the kind of staff chief that sees the things Rove saw.
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.