Fred Thompson considering a run at the White House (merger) - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Johnny K · #61 (**permalink**) 03-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheBurgh

Well that's good, because your sophomoric contributions seem to lack any thought or insight for me or anyone else to have an opinion on in the first place.

Be forewarned sir, I will not abide personal insults from you or anyone else. I suggest that if you cannot act in line with the code of conduct of this forum when addressing me, put me on ignore.

enigma2 · #62 (**permalink**) 03-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheBurgh

Oh, thanks for that thoughtful insight. You've contributed greatly to the discussion. Now if you don't mind, go run along and play. The adults are trying to have a conversation.

Stop paraphrasing and pinching my lines!!

Anyway, the way I said it was better!

enigma2 · #63 (**permalink**) 03-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry American

Fortunatly for me the facts are.

The reality of Ronald Reagan is a polar opposite from public perception--the uber bullshit artist; remember Iran-Contra? Do ya, do ya, huh? Reagan ruined public education, and restricted access to higher-learning for millions of Americans. No I'm sorry, America will be better off when all the Reaganites are dead and buried, thanks, but no thanks.

He was also stupid, and only stupid people could praise him!

enigma2 · #64 (**permalink**) 03-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diuretic

I was being flippant of course. btw you'd be pleased with Carlton winning the NAB cup

(just a little threadjack there).

The only win I want to see them make is in September!

Does anyone care about the NAB cup in comparison?

Well, which Jack Bauer are we all talking about. I got the complete Season Three out of the library the other day. Finished it last night. What a bloody boring piece of rubbish it was! One and Two were terrific. Unfortunately, I think that's was all it had in it. Channel 7 put the last series on at about 10.30pm the timeslot which is only for insomniacs, shift-workers and me! And I never bothered.

SamInTheSouth · #65 (**permalink**) 03-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by enigma2

He was also stupid, and only stupid people could praise him!

Yes, the man was so stupid that he was able to get millions of people to vote him in as the President of the United States of America, not once, but twice mind you and in landslide elections both times, and so stupid that he became a pivotal juncture in the downfall of the USSR. That is how stupid Ronald Reagan was.

Honestly, some of you have a lot of audacity accusing somebody else of being stupid.

tamperpr00f · #66 (**permalink**) 03-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheBurgh

Yes, the man was so stupid that he was able to get millions of people to vote him in as the President of the United States of America, not once, but twice mind you and in landslide elections both times, and so stupid that he became a pivotal juncture in the downfall of the USSR. That is how stupid Ronald Reagan was.

Honestly, some of you have a lot of audacity accusing somebody else of being stupid.

WORD UP!

Diuretic · #67 (**permalink**) 03-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheBurgh

Yes, the man was so stupid that he was able to get millions of people to vote him in as the President of the United States of America, not once, but twice mind you and in landslide elections both times, and so stupid that he became a pivotal juncture in the downfall of the USSR. That is how stupid Ronald Reagan was.

Honestly, some of you have a lot of audacity accusing somebody else of being stupid.

Now that simplifies the process of electoral campaigning. Provided the right image is projected any fool can be elected to an important office.

Reagan didn't bring the "downfall" of the USSR, you're revising history. Gorbachev and glasnost and perestroika dismantled the old Soviet regime. Come on, credit where it's due.

In time Reagan will resume his rightful place among the presidential "also rans", the Republicans found it useful to project a mythology around Reagan so Bush could get selected and elected. Good trick though.

Slon · #68 (**permalink**) 03-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheBurgh

Yes, the man was so stupid that he was able to get millions of people to vote him in as the President of the United States of America, not once, but twice mind you and in landslide elections both times, and so stupid that he became a pivotal juncture in the downfall of the USSR. That is how stupid Ronald Reagan was.

Honestly, some of you have a lot of audacity accusing somebody else of being stupid.

It is possible to be elected to be President through your intelligence. However, it is also possible to do so with large quantities of money devoted to advertisements that trick idiots into voting like it's a popularity contest. You can also help along a falling Soviet Union by funding terrorists, although I don't think Reagan called them that or advertised them in that manner when he was filmed speaking in the ads.

ViolaLee · #69 (**permalink**) 03-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheBurgh

Yes, the man was so stupid that he was able to get millions of people to vote him in as the President of the United States of America....

You don't have to be smart to get millions of people to vote for you. You just have to have Karl Rove orchestrate lies about the opponents and scare homophobes with gay marriage. As if a gay person getting married will affect a straight marriage.

CYDdharta · #70 (**permalink**) 03-26-2007

Well, he certainly sounds disturbed by some of DC’s biggest problems;

Quote:

War-Funding Puzzlement

By Fred Thompson

The House’s emergency war-funding bill contains several conditions on how the war should be run. They’ll never become law but they “send signals” they say. They’re big on sending signals in Washington. But what I was really surprised to find in the bill was what looked like $25 billion in pure pork. Since a lot of the people who voted for the bill campaigned against pork, I was puzzled.

I’m puzzled there’s $283 million for dairy farmers in an emergency war-funding bill. But there’s also $74 million for peanut farmers so, I figured our soldiers are eating a lot of peanut-butter sandwiches; they need more milk to wash them down with.

Hey, I’m trying to keep an open mind, here, okay?

But I also wondered why the bill gives $25 million to spinach producers. Our troops should certainly eat their vegetables, but unless it turns out that there’s a scientific basis for that Popeye spinach thing, I don’t get it.

I’m also trying to figure out what $400 million for rural schools has to do with the war — unless that money produces students smart enough to explain why this bill includes over $300,000 for the widows of two ex-House members, and $80 million for low-income rent subsidies.

There’s a lot in the bill I don’t understand, but this sort of makes sense. There’s $50 million for repairs to the plant that supplies electrical power to the Capitol — where Congress works. To fund and win the war, Congress does need electricity at least to do its job.

Ah, I get it. This bill isn’t just about funding the war for democracy and freedom in Iraq. It’s a political statement. And it’s about buying enough votes with pork in order to make that statement. Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing, if Congress did have its power cut off every once in a while.

Fred Thompson on Iraq & Congress on National Review Online

Quote:

Southern Exposure

By Fred Thompson

We are all very well aware of the fact that we have an illegal-immigration problem in this country. As usual, we avoided the problem for as long as we could and when we couldn’t avoid it any longer we were told that, indeed, somewhere between 12 and 20 million people had somehow come into this country unnoticed.

It’s like we went overnight from “no problem” to a problem so big that it now defies a good solution. It’s become one of those “there are no good choices only less bad choices” that Americans are becoming all too familiar with.

We know that the overwhelming majority of illegals come across the Mexican border. Fortunately, we’ve got someone who is all too willing to tell us what we should do about it — the president of Mexico Philipe Calderon. President Calderon doesn’t think much of our border policies. He criticizes our efforts to secure the border with things such as border fencing. He says that bottle necks at U.S. checkpoints hurt Mexican commerce and force his citizens to migrate illegally in order to make a living (and of course send money back to Mexico). He apparently thinks we should do nothing except make American citizens out of his constituents. Calderon also accused U.S. officials of failing to do enough to stop the flow of drugs in to the United States. Mexican politicians gave President Bush an earful of all of this during his recent trip to Mexico.

I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like:

hey guys, you’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but it’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies won’t be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created.

My friends, it’s also time for a little introspection. Since we all agree that improving Mexico’s economy will help with the illegal-immigration problem, you might want to consider your own left-of -center policies. For example, nationalized industries are not known for enhancing economic growth. Just a thought. But here’s something even more to the point that you might want to think about: What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?

Fred Thompson on Immigration & Mexico on National Review Online

tamperpr00f · #71 (**permalink**) 03-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

Well, he certainly sounds disturbed by some of DC’s biggest problems;

Fred Thompson on Iraq & Congress on National Review Online

Fred Thompson on Immigration & Mexico on National Review Online

HAHAHAHA! Beautiful. Give us more Mr. Thompson. Run for President already.

enigma2 · #72 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheBurgh

Yes, the man was so stupid that he was able to get millions of people to vote him in as the President of the United States of America, not once, but twice mind you and in landslide elections both times, and so stupid that he became a pivotal juncture in the downfall of the USSR. That is how stupid Ronald Reagan was.

Honestly, some of you have a lot of audacity accusing somebody else of being stupid.

Sam, Dr Helen Caldicott had an interview with him and he told her that the Soviet Union was far ahead of the US in their nuclear weaponry. Dr Helen, who had the figures down pat was astonished. Do you know what Ronnie Raygun replied when she asked him where he got his figures?

"I read about it in the Readers Digest" said the stupid f_ck!!!

tamperpr00f · #73 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

Biography of Ronald Reagan

SamInTheSouth · #74 (**permalink**) 03-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by enigma2

Sam, Dr Helen Caldicott had an interview with him and he told her that the Soviet Union was far ahead of the US in their nuclear weaponry. Dr Helen, who had the figures down pat was astonished. Do you know what Ronnie Raygun replied when she asked him where he got his figures?

"I read about it in the Readers Digest" said the stupid f_ck!!!

And the stupid fuck took them down. History doesn't lie. However, people like you do.

CYDdharta · #75 (**permalink**) 04-07-2007

He’s inching ahead with entering the fray, but he’s in no hurry to make it official.

Quote:

Fred Thompson, the “Law & Order” actor and former senator from Tennessee, has moved beyond pondering a bid for the White House and begun assembling the nucleus of a campaign should he decide to run, according to people involved in the effort.

…

Thompson will not make a final decision until at least May and may delay any announcement until even later because he recognizes the benefits of being “a non-candidate candidate,” according to advisers.

“As soon as you announce, they start throwing spitballs, so why not wait?” said a Thompson friend involved in the discussions.

Fred Thompson Gears Up - Politico.com

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/political-parties-campaigns-elections/36709-fred-thompson-considering-run-white-house-merger.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Fred Thompson considering a run at the White House (merger) - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum	This thread