Fred Thompson confusing TV with reality?

America's activities ANYWHERE isn't why Islamic Fascism does what it does. That's a lie propagated to feed the guttural hate in the politically uninformed and immature. They attack Russia, Spain, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Kazakhstan, and ANYWHERE that they have a grievance because they lack the ability to address their grievances in a civilized way. Hell they BURNED France for weeks.

Those that would rather snort and giggle then get to the reality of things buy these lies. It's intellectual laziness to buy it and repeat it, kinda like believing a slip of the tongue is evidence that Fred Thompson doesn't know that the Soviet Union is gone and repeating it like it's a fact.
 
I'm sure everyone here is a perfect public speaker (just like they are all perfect shots) and would never make such a terrible slip while speaking.

The USSR wasn't dissolved until 1991... Fred Thompson was about 50 years old when it happened. HE GREW UP DURING THE COLD WAR THAT LASTED UNTIL HE WAS 50!

Those who didn't spend the first ~50 years of their life during the cold war have no right to criticize someone who makes a slip of the tongue like this.


Imagine this:

You are born in 2000. Soon after you are born the US sends troops to Iraq. Imagine this lasts for the next 45 years. For 45 years it is mentioned constantly in the news, it is a large part of political debates, they make movies about it, you are constantly reminded of the conflict in Iraq. The conflict results in Iraq changing its name. Wait 15 years and see if you don't slip and occasionally call it Iraq.

Ridiculous!
 
The way the BEAR has been acting the last couple of months,do you guys really believe that the USSR is over? Bombers,space,arms deals. Yeah the Russian threat is over. On the subject of Fred in 08, Auburn was a 17 point underdog to Flordia. You are not going to vote untill NOVEMBER 2008!!!! To many things happen in that length of time.:)
 
"it's indicative of his lack of familiarity with details which he needs to be familiar with, to run the country and the free world. "

Are you running? You know everything that's necessary to run the country, right?

John
 
And anyway, Russia was the majority of the Soviet Union and it's still the big dog. It's the bear minus a few toes and fingers, but still the bear. See map.

fig16.jpg
 
because although Fred can't lose in the race for the Republican nomination, he also can't win a general election. I don't understand why conservatives can't see that.
Click to expand...
I guess because conservatives know history and know that the more conservative a candidate, the more sweeping the electoral victory. No liberal has been elected in over thirty years and only one since the 40s. (Remember that Bill Clinton always morphed into a Republican just before elections and even ran to the right of George Bush the Daddy and that John Kennedy ran on a platform of tax cuts and attacking communism and the mob.)

You're right, Fred does not believe that. And Fred is 100% wrong, just as Bush is, because that is precisely why terrorists do what they do.
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe if we'd be just like France, Jimmah Carter, and Ron Paul, the jihadis wouldn't attack us... just like they didn't attack France or Jimmah Carter?
 
Yeah, maybe if we'd be just like France, Jimmah Carter, and Ron Paul, the jihadis wouldn't attack us... just like they didn't attack France or Jimmah Carter?
Click to expand...

Knowing why we were attacked does not justify the attack. If a black man walks into a KKK rally and is beaten it does not justify the attack, but he had to know what he was getting in to.

We should have known what we were doing involving ourselves in the policies of Islamic states. They should not have committed 9/11 but we certainly should have seen it coming.
 
Last I checked, very few people would oppose sending in the cops after a black man was beaten up by the KKK, or sending the cops in after those who funded and/or trained said folk just to be sure.

We're gun owners. We don't blame the rape victim for being in the wrong part of town, we don't blame the murder victim for going to a bank on the wrong day. We do what we can to ensure that it won't happen to us or our loved ones. If you think turning tale is the way to do that on this issue, you really need to take another gander at the history books.
 
Nobody is saying the actions of Bin Laden were justified. We need to know WHY they happenned though to understand what motivates these people. The BS mantra of "they hate our freedom" is not the answer. There are real reasons this stuff is happenning that we DO have something to do with.

They may hate our way of life but if we are not precieved as parading around their holy lands they are going to be more concerned with the other sect that is oppressing them.

I have absolutely no problem with going after the KKK members who would beat a black man at their meeting or our attacking Afghanistan for their support of the terrorists who carried out 9/11. I have not seen anything but but perhaps you can enlighten me, has Ron Paul opposed our invasion of Afghanistan in response to 9/11? Even I, who supported going into Iraq to eliminate any potential WMD programs, agree that there was NO CONNECTION between Iraq and 9/11. It is intellectually dishonest to state that opposing Iraqs continued occupation has anything to do with not responding to 9/11.

What are we still doing in Iraq though now that we have eliminated any possible WMD programs and why are we no longer focused on Bin Laden?
 
If you think the sectarian fighting would last forever without any actions against the Great Satan, you really need to look into the history books. Internal squabbles have never lasted long when a valid method of obtaining land, particularly any deemed Holy or Islamic, was around. Smaller sects have had little problem overthrowing others (see Hamas v Fatah), and there is little reason to believe this trend will stop.

They might not come after us immediately, but it'd be much easier for them to win if they've taken over the vast majority of two continents rather than their current status.

Even I, who supported going into Iraq to eliminate any potential WMD programs, agree that there was NO CONNECTION between Iraq and 9/11.
Click to expand...
Saddam didn't plan or command the 9/11 attacks, but I've never said that. There's muchos available information showing that Iraq had no problem funding Al Qaeda and providing training grounds. A quick google search should reveal this. It's a rather quick step between funding a group that executed the attacks and is believed to have provided training grounds, and having some responsibility.

What are we still doing in Iraq though now that we have eliminated any possible WMD programs and why are we no longer focused on Bin Laden?
Click to expand...

Because killing a dead man or a figurehead in hiding on a large, decentralized force like that doesn't tend to actually defang them? I mean, if Hillary Clinton got hit by a bus tomorrow (not hoping, or comparing her to a terrorist or anything, just a theoretical), we wouldn't see much change in leftwing politics.
 
What are we still doing in Iraq though now that we have eliminated any possible WMD programs and why are we no longer focused on Bin Laden?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with Fred Thompson? :D

We're still in Iraq because the Democratic majority wants us to stay there. That's why the Democrats keep funding the war in Iraq.

No longer "focused" on Bin Laden? Once again, it is the Democratic majority in congress that is funding the war on terror in Afganistan, so you'll have to ask them about that. Perhaps you can convince them to spend more money on the war on terror in that part of the world. Give Nancy a call about that.

If you want to cut and run from Iraq, Thompson is not your candidate of choice. Especially given the recent progress from the troop surge, as reported by General Patraeus. Not to worry, though; there are plenty of demo candidates (and one Repub candidate) who are prepared to cut and run and surrender to the terrorists in Iraq.
 
Thompson is not my man on Iraq. I just happen to think he is the candidate with the best chance of winning nationally who is most aligned with my goals.

As always politics is compromise.
 
No longer "focused" on Bin Laden? Once again, it is the Democratic majority in congress that is funding the war on terror in Afganistan, so you'll have to ask them about that.
Click to expand...

Thats a bunch of bull. Congress can fund the war, but thats all they can do. Whether to be focused or not on Bin Laden is an executive, not Congressional, decision. Bush is commander in chief, not Pelosi or Reid.
 
Well on the economic issues debate on CNBC tonight Fred looked pretty much like a deer in the headlights. He may get better with practice, but he better get a lot better fast.

Hillary would destroy Fred in a debate if tonight was anything to go by. McCain actually looked the best of a pretty weak group.
 
On the issue of national security Paul also had that deer in the headlights look when he stated that the US has never faced an attack in 240 years. Man, either he slept in US history, or my original opinion about him being a kook is correct.
 
I am still not convinced that Fred gives a flip whether he is president or not and that is exactly why I support him. Pretty much the opposite of Hillbama and John Edwards who care nothing about the people but only for their own personal ego. Fred comes across to me as a person who really wants to do the best job he can for the people or America and I am like Fred, if you think the USSR doesn't really exist then you better clean out your fallout shelters and restock them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top