xd9fan
Member
this is a great why fred thread
Fred Thompson Mega-Thread (Merged)
- Thread starter R127
- Start date
- Status
Malone LaVeigh
Member
Cor, got ya. If our problem is with the CFR, we should keep the discussion to the CFR. 
So far no one's proven the connection between Thompson and the Reptoids.
Oh, and I still think he's a chicken-you-know-what.
So far no one's proven the connection between Thompson and the Reptoids.
Oh, and I still think he's a chicken-you-know-what.
NickEllis
Member
I thought his response to M&M was halarious, and kept himself above the muck of Moore and his like. Even dignifying that bucket of scum was going above and beyond.
Chicken $%^#? Naw, I thought it was just plain funny. What, do you want the man to debate every socialist wacko out there? Especially when THEY don't have anything on the line, and can lie and squirm their way through a debate all they want, while just ONE misspoken word could terminally hurt any potential campaign? If FT is going to debate, he needs to do so with reputable persons with equal to lose. No need to get down into the mud.
Chicken $%^#? Naw, I thought it was just plain funny. What, do you want the man to debate every socialist wacko out there? Especially when THEY don't have anything on the line, and can lie and squirm their way through a debate all they want, while just ONE misspoken word could terminally hurt any potential campaign? If FT is going to debate, he needs to do so with reputable persons with equal to lose. No need to get down into the mud.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
That would make some sense if Thompson hadn't started the whole thing by going out of his way to attack Moore for filming part of his new movie in Cuba. So in one sense, the term "chicken-etc" is appropriate in the sense of "coward," judging by his unwillingness to take Moore's challenge. (Not to mention posturing with a Bill Clinton sex-toy in his mouth.)
But it would also be an appropriate term in that he picked a rather gutless issue with which to try to garner some brownie points with the right wingers. He attacked what Moore can credibly claim was an attempt to get medical help for heroes and first-responders of 9-11. Whether you believe that or not (I think it was just another Moore stunt, but will reserve judgment till I've seen the movie) as an artist, Moore is entitled to a certain amount of freedom of speech and freedom to travel where he needs to go to get his story. Thompson came off looking petty and cruel. I think this bit of "political theater" backfired.
Not that many people are aware of either of them yet...
Thanks for telling me what my options are. When I want your opinion on what I should care about, I'll ask.
GoRon
Member
By pointing out the type of man Moore is lionizing? Castro deserves no good press.
Skibane
Member
Judging from the overwhelmingly positive response to his "political theater", I think the only folks who would agree with you are folks who aren't going to vote for Thompson anyway.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
Well, if punking out gets a positive response in this country, then I guess we get the leadership we deserve.
stevelyn
Member
Corriea,
No one mentioned jack about the Illumninati, Bilderburgers, Bohemian grove or anything else Alex Jones related.
I specifically mentioned the CFR because it's a real organization of global elitists as is the tri-laterals. We have and have had presidents who were members and presidential candidates who are members.
Wanna know who's laying the groundwork for a North American Union? CFR and Tri-Laterals.
Wanna know what happens after a NAU is established? A NAU parlament will have to be organized. That parliment will consist of representitives from the US, Canada and Mexico.
Do you know what representitves of Canada and Mexico are going to do? They are going to push for our gun laws to fall in line with theirs.
Do you know what the US representitives are going to do? Sell us and our sovereignty out for the good of the NAU.
They will also attempt to write a binding NAU Constitution that they will push to supersede ours.
Don't believe me? Take a look at the You're-A-Peein' Union and how they have subverted national sovereignty over there and look at who the holdouts are.
That's why need Ron Paul as President and why we need to reject trash like Thompson.
I'd rather vote for Hitlery or Obama, either of who would push us over the edge faster and for certain rather than teetering on the edge waiting for the other foot to drop and not being able to do anything about it.
No one mentioned jack about the Illumninati, Bilderburgers, Bohemian grove or anything else Alex Jones related.
I specifically mentioned the CFR because it's a real organization of global elitists as is the tri-laterals. We have and have had presidents who were members and presidential candidates who are members.
Wanna know who's laying the groundwork for a North American Union? CFR and Tri-Laterals.
Wanna know what happens after a NAU is established? A NAU parlament will have to be organized. That parliment will consist of representitives from the US, Canada and Mexico.
Do you know what representitves of Canada and Mexico are going to do? They are going to push for our gun laws to fall in line with theirs.
Do you know what the US representitives are going to do? Sell us and our sovereignty out for the good of the NAU.
They will also attempt to write a binding NAU Constitution that they will push to supersede ours.
Don't believe me? Take a look at the You're-A-Peein' Union and how they have subverted national sovereignty over there and look at who the holdouts are.
That's why need Ron Paul as President and why we need to reject trash like Thompson.
I'd rather vote for Hitlery or Obama, either of who would push us over the edge faster and for certain rather than teetering on the edge waiting for the other foot to drop and not being able to do anything about it.
Orthonym
Member
Well, as I wrote earlier in this thread, the description of the office of POTUS in the Constitution was written with George Washington in mind, and we should compare all aspirants for the office to him.
I just think Fred is the best of a bad lot, and wish I had a skilled cross-examining lawyer-type person to interview both him and Ron Paul and find out what they really mean, and really think.
I just think Fred is the best of a bad lot, and wish I had a skilled cross-examining lawyer-type person to interview both him and Ron Paul and find out what they really mean, and really think.
Orthonym
Member
Oh, Bogie?
I call those kinds of folks "thumpers", as in "Bible Thumper."
There are still some scholarly, intellectual (in a good way) Baptist folks. There is not much, if any, central governance for Baptists. Individual believers get to pick and choose according to their consciences. That's kind of the point of being a Baptist, forgotten by so many these days.
I write as a sort of lapsed Methodist who feels soothed by Episcopalian rituals.
I call those kinds of folks "thumpers", as in "Bible Thumper."
There are still some scholarly, intellectual (in a good way) Baptist folks. There is not much, if any, central governance for Baptists. Individual believers get to pick and choose according to their consciences. That's kind of the point of being a Baptist, forgotten by so many these days.
I write as a sort of lapsed Methodist who feels soothed by Episcopalian rituals.
longhorngunman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 852
Fred hit a home run with his well made video putting that Marxist Moore in his place. He single-handily got more positive press with that video than any of the dimwits that were in the GOP debate that night. Well, besides Mr. Paul's asinine comments that let Giuliani whack them out of the ballpark. If Fred enters he wins. And he better, I don't like thinking of having McCain, Romney, or Giuliani on the head of the ticket.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
Speaking of Jimmy Carter, he's been in the news lately...
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
GoRon
Member
Not to go off on a tangent...
I'm glad Matthews gave up on pretending to be objective or non partisan.
He was always a partisan hack but these last few years he hasn't tried to hide it.
For some reason I thought you were an anarchist. I'm surprised you want any leadership. Apologies if I remembered incorrectly.
NickEllis
Member
You mean criticizing Moore for a) siding with Castro, a KNOWN human rights violator and general badguy, and b) breaking federal law by not having proper travel docs in line? And secondly, that brings no responsibility to have a debate in the mud with one such as Moore. I see absolutely zero justification for calling the man a coward because he didn't want to go there. And he counter punched, on his own terms. Lets see what Moore wants to do now. When is it ever tactically sound to meet someone on their own terms, on their level? No way man.
Um, the word "assinine" comes to mind, somehow. Your point being? Or were you just filling the air with empty rhetoric? I thought it was pretty funny myself. Didn't see anything negative at all, besides using Moore's silly claims about cigars against him.
On his radio program he talks about dozens of similar items every week. Moore was all over the TV, news radios, etc. Its doesnt' look like he went out of his way to FIND a "gutless issue" against Moore. Just a current topic, and he treated it. Now, do you seriously believe that Moore's justification and purpose in going to Cuba was to find medical treatment for the 9-11 workers? Honestly? And he didn't go to Canada why? It couldn't have had anything to do with Moore's red-bellied communist agenda, could it? Naw, probably not. I think Thompson's response was a justified return: Moore would chose an avowed enemy to air his communist rhetoric, using emotional props to get across his point (9-11 survivors); in an attempt at showing the "benefits" of a communist system. Its right, therefore, then, to point out the tremendous negatives and historical failures of said system, which are diametrically opposed to Moore's overall point. Doesn't seem chicken*&^% to me.
Not if it breaks federal law. And to counter-point, Thompson is "entitled to a certain amount of freedom of speech" to point out the grave flaws of someone like Michael Moore and his broader communist "Che" agenda.
Well, since we are on opinions, I thought it was popular-level dialogue on a much deeper topic, and touched alot of people's buttons. The overwealmingly positive response seems to indicate that it didn't backfire. And a LOT of people are aware of FT, and more every day.
Who gives a damn about "how I'll look to the average American"? The average American doesn't read a damned thing and doesn't follow what's going on in this country so they're a "NON-ISSUE" to me. The TRUTH IS THE TRUTH. Period.
Do advocate coddling these people? Then how do you get this nation back on solid ground? When do you "choose to inform" these people? I've got news for you; it's later than you think and NOTHING will be accomplished unless these issues are addressed.
And, no, I'm no evangelist for Ron Paul or any person. I speak as the Founders spoke; end of discussion. If you struggle with this you may wish to hop on the bandwagon.
larry starling
Member
Cause he is the only real conservative out of the bunch, That has a chance of beating Hillary or Osama Obama....
NickEllis
Member
And that, man, is why you will never gain anything in this fight. Simply, those "average americans who don't read a damned thing", far from being a non-issue, are who decides the track of this country. Your idealism is as unbelievable as your rhetoric. Thats the problem with a democratic republic: you can't impose your views (no matter how correct they might be), you have to convince people of their truth.
There is a good book out, called Wisdom and Eloquence, on the topic of classical education. They point out that much of Greek classical education can be divided into two topics: those dealing with knowledge, truth and understanding (Wisdom); and those dealing with the art of demonstrating the truth, through dialectic, rhetoric, etc (Eloquence).
Without Wisdom, Eloquence is mere political rhetoric, devoid of substance or truth. However, without eloquence, wisdom is useless, as a stillborn, dead even as the words leave your lips.
If you don't find a means, and especially in politics, a person, who can communicate those ideas clearly to the "average american", you're irrelevant. You might even be right. But you have absolutely zero influence.
Last edited:
You'd be much better off preaching to the masses because they CHOOSE TO REMAIN IGNORANT.
Fact: There's not a damned difference between a person who cannot read and one that doesn't. I just have a bit more tolerance (and patience) for the uneducated person...
The facts of the matter is that the Wholly Ignorant wish to convince the well-read that "they hate us because we're free" and "Al Qaeda and Saddam are friends" and "if we don't fight them there we'll have to fight them here" and "conspiracies are what happen to other people and other places, but never here" and "we are always right; always wearing the white hat."
These people are fools. Correction. Self-imposed ignorant individuals. They have access to the same gov't websites, magazines and papers that I do. They CHOOSE to follow Fox, MSNBC and CNN... just like many here, I'm afraid.
You wish to put the reponsibility on me and others like me as well as Ron Paul, but what about the rest of the nation? I cannot live for you (and if I could I would NOT) any more than you can for me.
We can type here and provide links for you to read and you CHOOSE NOT TO. SO BE IT.
P.S.
The USA was founded with a constitutionally limited Republican form of gov't not a "democratic Republic" and it was the same IDEALISM THAT THE FOUNDERS HAVE THAT I HAVE. DO YOU DISRESPECT THEIR IDEALISM? WERE THE FOUNDERS SOMEHOW "BETTER" AT "CONVINCING THE MASSES" OR WERE THE MASSES MORE INTELLECTUALLY SHARP, PHILOSOPHICALLY SOUND AND MORALLY COURAGEOUS? BEFORE YOU ANSWER STUDY THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATES AND THEIR LETTERS.
If I could get you to reason with me you'd agree with me.
Fact: There's not a damned difference between a person who cannot read and one that doesn't. I just have a bit more tolerance (and patience) for the uneducated person...
The facts of the matter is that the Wholly Ignorant wish to convince the well-read that "they hate us because we're free" and "Al Qaeda and Saddam are friends" and "if we don't fight them there we'll have to fight them here" and "conspiracies are what happen to other people and other places, but never here" and "we are always right; always wearing the white hat."
These people are fools. Correction. Self-imposed ignorant individuals. They have access to the same gov't websites, magazines and papers that I do. They CHOOSE to follow Fox, MSNBC and CNN... just like many here, I'm afraid.
You wish to put the reponsibility on me and others like me as well as Ron Paul, but what about the rest of the nation? I cannot live for you (and if I could I would NOT) any more than you can for me.
We can type here and provide links for you to read and you CHOOSE NOT TO. SO BE IT.
P.S.
The USA was founded with a constitutionally limited Republican form of gov't not a "democratic Republic" and it was the same IDEALISM THAT THE FOUNDERS HAVE THAT I HAVE. DO YOU DISRESPECT THEIR IDEALISM? WERE THE FOUNDERS SOMEHOW "BETTER" AT "CONVINCING THE MASSES" OR WERE THE MASSES MORE INTELLECTUALLY SHARP, PHILOSOPHICALLY SOUND AND MORALLY COURAGEOUS? BEFORE YOU ANSWER STUDY THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATES AND THEIR LETTERS.
If I could get you to reason with me you'd agree with me.
Last edited:
NickEllis
Member
Your question:
Well, lets just put it this way: honestly, you are no Thomas Jefferson. So yeah, people who try to communicate as you have tried to communicate your ideas in the above posts have zero hope of communicating to the masses.
Well, lets just put it this way: honestly, you are no Thomas Jefferson. So yeah, people who try to communicate as you have tried to communicate your ideas in the above posts have zero hope of communicating to the masses.
budney
member
Also honestly, the masses were not all behind Jefferson in the first place. The majority were against revolt from King George, and the "Sons of Liberty" managed to force the issue.
If the majority weren't initially for the revolution, you can be sure they certainly weren't Jeffersonian libertarians.
--Len.
If the majority weren't initially for the revolution, you can be sure they certainly weren't Jeffersonian libertarians.
--Len.
NickEllis
Member
Certainly, but noone would say that therefore TJ "didn't give a damn about the common American". Instead, he spoke and wrote in a way that convinced and won over those masses. He DIDN'T just put his fingers in his ears and chant "THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH, PERIOD"; or talk among his fellows (ahem, Highroaders) and decrying the ignorance of the masses.
Autolycus
Member
Do you know what a Marxist is?
The video was a sad cheap shot and not high road at all. If the best the Neo-Cons can come up with is a man who cant act like an adult when someone makes a snide remark to him. But hey the Neo-Cons love him for his "ballsy" attitutude and unwillingness to back down. Do we need another "Decider" in the vein of 'W?
- Status
