Announcement

fadedsteve
GOP Sympathizer
+266|5826|Menlo Park, CA

Braddock wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

Braddock wrote:

I'm so not in the Republican loop at the moment ...Fred Thompson the actor is running for office WTF???
He has been in the Senate before. . . .

He represented Tennessee as a Republican in the U.S. Senate from 1995 thru 2002.

He has more fucking experience than Obama or Hillary combined. . . .

He may be an actor but so what. . . .since when does acting disqualify you as a candidate?? See Arnold and Reagan for example.
I seen all of that on his wikipedia profile, and he has cancer too (non-fatal non-Hodgkin's lymphoma). I wasn't saying he should be ruled out because he's an actor, I was just surprised to see a famous character actor in the Presidential running. I like him as an actor, I'd say he could play a good US President!
I think he is the best candidate out of all the pricks running in both parties!!

thats if he formally enters. . . . . We'll see, I am honestly not thrilled with anyone from either party.  He seem like a breath of fresh air out of all the blowhards currently running

Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-07-15 06:24:06)

AutralianChainsaw
Member
+65|5533

fadedsteve wrote:

Braddock wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:


He has been in the Senate before. . . .

He represented Tennessee as a Republican in the U.S. Senate from 1995 thru 2002.

He has more fucking experience than Obama or Hillary combined. . . .

He may be an actor but so what. . . .since when does acting disqualify you as a candidate?? See Arnold and Reagan for example.
I seen all of that on his wikipedia profile, and he has cancer too (non-fatal non-Hodgkin's lymphoma). I wasn't saying he should be ruled out because he's an actor, I was just surprised to see a famous character actor in the Presidential running. I like him as an actor, I'd say he could play a good US President!
I think he is the best candidate out of all the pricks running in both parties!!

thats if he formally enters. . . . . We'll see, I am honestly not thrilled with anyone from either party.  He seem like a breath of fresh air out of all the blowhards currently running
You are about to make the same mistake you made twice by voting for a dumb candidate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070707/ap_ … atergate_2

Even Nixon said that Thompson is "not very smart"

""We've got a pretty good rapport with Fred Thompson," Buzhardt told Nixon in an Oval Office meeting on June 6, 1973. The meeting included a discussion of former White House counsel John Dean's upcoming testimony before the committee.

Dean, the committee's star witness, had agreed to tell what he knew about the break-in and cover-up if he was granted immunity against anything incriminating he might say.

Nixon expressed concern that Thompson was not "very smart."

"Not extremely so," Buzhardt agreed.

"But he's friendly," Nixon said

Guiliani is not better.. he have no idea about the foreign policy of you country.

Take a look at Dr. Ron Paul, vote for a guy with a brain for once.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5740|North Carolina

Harmor wrote:

Here is the latest Real Clear Politics poll:

http://www.foxnews.com/images/feed_rcp_src.gif

Republican Presidential Nomination

Code:

RCP         Average
Giuliani     28.6%
Thompson     19.2%
McCain       15.4%
Romney        9.6%
Giuliani   +9.4%
Thompson, who is not even an official candidate is leading McCain and Romney.  Should there be a Thompson + Giuliani ticket?

And the reason why I'm not suggesting a Giuliani + Thompson ticket is because Thompson has already stated that he has no aspirations of being a Vice Presidential candidate.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … ompson.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … uliani.jpg Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani
First things first, while I like Guiliani's stance on abortion, he makes Lieberman look like a pacifist.  We don't need another warmonger in there.

As for Thompson, we don't need a lobbyist in there either, although, having a lobbyist would probably be more honest about how our system works.  Why have a middle man?  Lobbyists really are the ones that run our government already.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|5891
Rudi Giuliani having even the slightest connection to the office of the President of the United States of America is an extremely scary thought.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|5884|San Diego, CA, USA

CameronPoe wrote:

Rudi Giuliani having even the slightest connection to the office of the President of the United States of America is an extremely scary thought.
So when you hear Giuliani and Thompson say that they will stay on 'offense' you are worried because that means the United States will continue unilateralism?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5740|North Carolina

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Rudi Giuliani having even the slightest connection to the office of the President of the United States of America is an extremely scary thought.
So when you hear Giuliani and Thompson say that they will stay on 'offense' you are worried because that means the United States will continue unilateralism?
It sure as hell worries me.

The last thing we need is another president quick to invade.  Granted, I wouldn't necessarily be against more action in Pakistan.
golgoj4
Member
+51|6109|North Hollywood

T.Pike wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

Thompson is the most empty suit since Reagan.
Reagan an "empty suity".

Yeah, OK.

How old are you?

Did you ever think you would see the Berlin Wall fall in your lifetime? I know I didn't.

I know, you're probably saying "What wall ?" Since Reagan tore it down before you were even born.

Show a little respect.
My beef with Regan. Iran contra. All those extra circular activities in south America. The wall, im on the fence about. I was only 8 when it came down.  Was it Regans master plan or was it the failure of the Russian system? God knows he outspent them...
ChaosSka5
Member
+4|5545|Wisconsin- We Eat People

ATG wrote:

Fuck them both.
Vote independent.
QFT couldn't agree more
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,980|6107|USA

fadedsteve wrote:

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

That said with all the respect I can muster for a lying, conniving, murderous, sack of shit betrayer of both Constitutional principles and his oath of office.
Are you talking about Bill Clinton. . . . .lol?
If Bill was president in Reagan's time, the other side'd be expecting us to heap praise upon praise on him.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5740|North Carolina

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

That said with all the respect I can muster for a lying, conniving, murderous, sack of shit betrayer of both Constitutional principles and his oath of office.
Are you talking about Bill Clinton. . . . .lol?
If Bill was president in Reagan's time, the other side'd be expecting us to heap praise upon praise on him.
That probably is true to an extent.  It's unfortunate that people miss the forest for the trees on the progress made in the 80s and during the 90s.  Both were concerted efforts by both sides.

At the same time, both sides can be blamed for increasing the wealth disparity between the rich and poor.
HunterOfSkulls
Rated EC-10
+246|5615

fadedsteve wrote:

Are you talking about Bill Clinton. . . . .lol?
Ah, I see steve's still stuck in that "If they hates Reagan they must loves Clinton, yessssss" illogic loop. How can you argue with a thought process like that? I can't. I can only poke it with a stick and laugh really.

Turquoise wrote:

At the same time, both sides can be blamed for increasing the wealth disparity between the rich and poor.
QFT

Neither political party is a friend of mine. Thompson, Clinton and Bush the current are cut from the same cloth, IMO. Bullshit folksy "everyman" schtick wrapped around a core of "I'm in it for the Benjamins"; beholden to lobbyist groups and corporations, making empty promises that appeal to the masses, occasionally tossing their constituents a few pathetic scraps while giving the choice cuts to whoever backs them financially. Obviously perfect representatives for their political parties.
logitech487
Member
+16|5738|From The State Of Taxes
Well anybody would be better then Hillary , Any she already served two terms as president while slick Willy was busy under his desk not having sex
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5936|132 and Bush

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Rudi Giuliani having even the slightest connection to the office of the President of the United States of America is an extremely scary thought.
So when you hear Giuliani and Thompson say that they will stay on 'offense' you are worried because that means the United States will continue unilateralism?
Iran, NK? Not exactly "unilateral" moves.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
HeadShotAK47
Hand's shaken' / Heart's beatn' / Still Shootin'
+32|6061|Ft. Laudy, FL, USA

fadedsteve wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

T.Pike wrote:

I know, you're probably saying "What wall ?" Since Reagan tore it down before you were even born.
Yeah mate, because Reagan was single-handedly responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union and the end of communism.
Reagan told the Soviets to either put up or shut up!! They were so scared Reagan would do something, they bankrupted themselves. . . .

Ronald Reagan was absolutely instrumental in the further destruction of the Soviet Union. . . . Lets put it this way, Jimmy Carter was a fucking joke, and the Soviets knew it!! When Reagan took the helm they knew that they were dealing with a guy who would put his "money where his mouth is". . . .

Reagan was the straw that broke the "Communist camels back" so to speak. . . . . Its proven he was! His legacy will always associate him with being the man who finally ended the Communist stand off etc. PERIOD!
I was always under the impression that Gorbachev's policy of openness and the USSR's self-destructive form of communism was the real reason the USSR fell. People in Russia were held in the dark about the outside world until about the '80s. They always knew they could never rise/fall in society so why try harder? Their economy collapsed and they had inefficient production methods and transportation. They were spending so much on the military they bankrupted themselves. I don't think 1 person could be proclaimed "The man who defeated the USSR." It's more like decades of mismanagement and an incentive-less society of isolation and poverty.

PS. GO AMERICA...FUCK YEAH!!!
The_Mac
Member
+96|5560

Reciprocity wrote:

I dont think jesus would run as a republican.
No, he'd run as independent.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|5891

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Rudi Giuliani having even the slightest connection to the office of the President of the United States of America is an extremely scary thought.
So when you hear Giuliani and Thompson say that they will stay on 'offense' you are worried because that means the United States will continue unilateralism?
I think Giuliani is bad for the world and bad for America. He would just extend the failed policies of Bush.
Lai
Member
+186|5486
Reagan may have blown the budget a bit, but he did have principles, style, and guts. And though he may have been "just an actor", you can't deny he had better manners and was more well spoken than daddy's-boy-Bush.

Reagan ruled,.. and ruled!
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|5854|Πάϊ

Braddock wrote:

I like him as an actor, I'd say he could play a good US President!
That one really cracked me up!
ƒ³
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|5997|USA

fadedsteve wrote:

Braddock wrote:

I'm so not in the Republican loop at the moment ...Fred Thompson the actor is running for office WTF???
He has been in the Senate before. . . .

He represented Tennessee as a Republican in the U.S. Senate from 1995 thru 2002.

He has more fucking experience than Obama or Hillary combined. . . .

He may be an actor but so what. . . .since when does acting disqualify you as a candidate?? See Arnold and Reagan for example.
His role as a lobbyist should disqualify him. Sorry. I don't want someone who worked as a lobbyist to be my President. Regardless of wether it was Jack Abramoff or the Pope.

Forgot to mention that in his resume' eh?

Last edited by Mason4Assassin444 (2007-07-16 06:44:49)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5936|132 and Bush

Obama talked about invading Pakistan and using missile strikes in Iran. That should disqualify him as a Democrat .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5740|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Obama talked about invading Pakistan and using missile strikes in Iran. That should disqualify him as a Democrat .
I would support a carefully planned out invasion of Pakistan if Musharraf falls -- regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is running it.

Although admittedly, I hope we don't have to do that until Bush leaves.  We don't want him to fuck up ANOTHER war.

As for Iran....  Well, you can be sure I won't be voting for Obama.
RoosterCantrell
Goodbye :)
+399|5815|Somewhere else

Every time I see Thompson my mind wanders into John McClane Territory.
I'm Moonshine
Member
+1|5463
Most our choices for president are, well not really much of a choice. It's basically trying to pick the lesser of 2 evils. I want Ron Paul as president, but I know that isn't going to happen. Giuliani is the worst choice and he is in the lead for republican's? He will be Bush all over again. Same for McCain and Hillary, if any of them become president were are in for more government raping our country for profit.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5936|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Obama talked about invading Pakistan and using missile strikes in Iran. That should disqualify him as a Democrat .
I would support a carefully planned out invasion of Pakistan if Musharraf falls -- regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is running it.

Although admittedly, I hope we don't have to do that until Bush leaves.  We don't want him to fuck up ANOTHER war.

As for Iran....  Well, you can be sure I won't be voting for Obama.
Of course, we'll have to reintroduce the draft to find enough troops. The current troops have been subjected to years of war and deployment extensions. And we will need to kill at least a few hundred thousand tribesmen while occupying the miserable place indefinitely.

Oh yea, and Pakistan's a nuclear power already teetering on the edge of chaos.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Reciprocity
Member
+721|5916|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Kmarion wrote:

Of course, we'll have to reintroduce the draft to find enough troops. The current troops have been subjected to years of war and deployment extensions. And we will need to kill at least a few hundred thousand tribesmen while occupying the miserable place indefinitely.

Oh yea, and Pakistan's a nuclear power already teetering on the edge of chaos.
such a  pessimist.  these forums have ruined your innocence.  I'm sure there would be at least one good photo-op with an Iran invasion.l

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard