• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Kiss of death for Fred Thompson from PMSNBC Tim Russert

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21623208/page/3/

MR. RUSSERT:
And we are back. Senator Fred Thompson is our guest. Virginia Tech, last April 32 killed, terrible tragedy. You had a radio report back at that time, and I’d like to share it with you and our viewers. “Virginia Tech,” the “administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon,” on the “campus. Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. Whenever I’ve seen one of those ‘Gun-free zone’ signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I’ve always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at.” My sense in reading that is that you would be in favor of licensed citizens of Virginia, students, including students, to carry concealed weapons on a college campus.

MR. THOMPSON: It would have to be consistent with campus rules. I don’t think that all students need to be carrying weapons on the school campus. What I would, I would feel more comfortable with, if a child of mine was on campus, when I read about these people, 30 people or so being lined up and systematically killed without anybody apparently around to do anything about it, I think some, some thought really needs to be given as to who should be properly qualified and permitted and, and armed on campuses and other places where large people gather. But...

MR. RUSSERT: But you would, you would allow a campus to bar their students from carrying concealed weapons?

MR. THOMPSON: Yeah, it, it would have to be consistent with state law and, and, and school rules. And different schools would have, you know, the, the freedom to, to have their own rules as, as, as they see fit.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Im shocked, shocked that he was just pandering to the gun vote, say it ain't so!
LOL glad I'm on the Paul bandwagon.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071106/NATION/111060024/1002

Thompson talks guns in N.H. from the other side of his mouth, face head, ... farther South?

"You remind the people of the importance of their constitutional rights. I've been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment ever since I've been in politics; that's the way I've been yesterday, that's the way I am today and that's the way I'll be tomorrow," he said to cheers from the crowd, gathered in a concrete-floor warehouse.

Mr. Romney got into hot water when he told a man wearing a National Rifle Association hat in Keene, N.H., in April that he has "been a hunter pretty much all my life." In reality, he's hunted just twice: rabbits on a ranch in Idaho when he was 15, and last year, when he shot quail on a fenced game preserve in Georgia.

Mr. Giuliani aggressively went after gun traffickers when he was mayor, filing a lawsuit against a several gun manufacturers and dealers and supporting tough new gun laws, including a ban on assault weapons.

Mr. Thompson, who entered the campaign in September and has sought to sell himself as the bona fide conservative in the race, said "that's one of the advantages of having a record."
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Knock your socks off, guys. But....

a vote for Ron Paul = a vote for Rudy Giuliani

yessmiley.gif
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Even Fred Thompson doubts he'll be president
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/06/wuspols106.xml

"Trying to encourage his studio to hurry up so an interview could start, Carl Cameron of Fox News said into his microphone: "The next president of the United States has a schedule to keep." Standing beside him, a deadpan Mr Thompson interjected: "And so do I.""
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Now youve done it. Now hes going to tell us because Guilliani is equal to Clinton, a vote for Paul is really a vote for Clinton.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

sedjester wrote:
HankT wrote:
Knock your socks off, guys. But....

a vote for Ron Paul = a vote for Rudy Giuliani

yessmiley.gif

Would you care to expound upon that statement?

It's pretty simple...just the way I like it: In the primaries, if one is voting for Paul, one is logically much closer to voting for Thompson, Tancredo, Hunter, Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Brownback than to Giuliani. And the distancefrom avoter's preference for Paulis 35.7 x 10[suP]45 [/suP]light-years away from Giuliani.

Giuliani is the favorite right now and looks to stay that way through the first primaries.

Soooooo, voting for Paul means that one of the non-Giuliani candidates will generallyhave avote taken from them (if Paul doesn't get it). Now, in the case of minor candidates, like Tancredo and Hunter, it doesn't mean anything. But if thePaul voter denies his second choice to Romney, Thompson,Huckabeeand McCain, then itlessons their chances to beat Giuliani.


I'm not saying (venemously or otherwise) that Paul is bad. I'm just saying that the better he does, the better Giuliani likes it. Paul may very well play the spoiler for Messrs. Romney, Thompson, Huckabee and McCain. He'll certainly play the spoiler for at least a few of them in at least a few primaries.

If you support Giuliani, and you really want him to win....max out ontributing to him and then double up by sending an equal amountto Paul.

What do you think about this idea, sedjester? Anyone?



longwatch wrote:
Now youve done it. Now hes going to tell us because Guilliani is equal to Clinton, a vote for Paul is really a vote for Clinton.
I'm not sure what you mean there, LW. I hadn't taken my thoughts beyond the primaries.
 

dng

State Researcher
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
1,290
Location
, , USA
imported post

I am tired of being told (now, also by the NRA) that if I vote for a third party candidate, I am taking away from the "wonderful", "gun-loving" republicans. That's bull, it's time the NRA Republicans stop assuming that we're going to jump in line when they say so. Maybe if they loose some elections because we refuse to get in bed with theanti-America crowd, they'll wake up. The Republicans are still trying to figure out why they didn't get reelected during the last election. They're screwing us, and we are sick of it. But they assume they aren't liberal enough, and just go farther off the deep end. Until they wake up, I am done with politicians who whip out the NRA membership card and say "I love guns, see?" Bull, all that means is you paid the NRA $25.00 for a piece of plastic. Look at the candidate's record and judge them on that.Not the fake smiles, perfectly ironedplaid shirts partially covered with a tactical shooting vest in an attempt to look they shoot all the time, and the humorous but disgusting attempts to get votes from the 2nd amendment crowd just because they hold a gun or have a photo session with them attempting to shoot a gun. You know what fake conservative Democrats and Republicans? If Hilary gets elected because we voted for a third party candidate who really really "gets it" then I'm OK with that. The fake conservatives are pushing us down the same road that Hilary is on, the only difference is that Hilary is taking us there on a plane, and they're taking us on a train. It's like choosing between being murdered or being killed on purpose; it's the same frickin' thing.
 

sedjester

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
93
Location
West Valley, Utah, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
sedjester wrote:
HankT wrote:
Knock your socks off, guys. But....

a vote for Ron Paul = a vote for Rudy Giuliani

yessmiley.gif

Would you care to expound upon that statement?
<snip>

Soooooo, voting for Paul means that one of the non-Giuliani candidates will generallyhave avote taken from them (if Paul doesn't get it). Now, in the case of minor candidates, like Tancredo and Hunter, it doesn't mean anything. But if thePaul voter denies his second choice to Romney, Thompson,Huckabeeand McCain, then itlessons their chances to beat Giuliani.

<snip>
Like I've said before, if I have to vote between the lesser of two weevils then we need to get new flour. I will vote for who I think "will do the best job" whether or not they will get elected. If I vote for somebody just so Giuliani or Clinton won't get elected then I am not being true to myself and my country. Shame on you for suggesting such a thing.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

sedjester wrote:
HankT wrote:
sedjester wrote:
HankT wrote:
Knock your socks off, guys. But....

a vote for Ron Paul = a vote for Rudy Giuliani

yessmiley.gif

Would you care to expound upon that statement?
<snip>

Soooooo, voting for Paul means that one of the non-Giuliani candidates will generallyhave avote taken from them (if Paul doesn't get it). Now, in the case of minor candidates, like Tancredo and Hunter, it doesn't mean anything. But if thePaul voter denies his second choice to Romney, Thompson,Huckabeeand McCain, then itlessons their chances to beat Giuliani.

<snip>
Like I've said before, if I have to vote between the lesser of two weevils then we need to get new flour. I will vote for who I think "will do the best job" whether or not they will get elected. If I vote for somebody just so Giuliani or Clinton won't get elected then I am not being true to myself and my country. Shame on you for suggesting such a thing.

Can you show me where I suggested such a thing?

Or is that just a rhetorical flour-ish?
 

dng

State Researcher
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
1,290
Location
, , USA
imported post

It's nice to know what Sean Hannity thinks of true Americans and conservatism. What is wrong with the "conservative" radio hosts? Have they even forgotten what America is all about?
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272617088.shtml

Ron Paul Given a Time Out by Sean Hannity

By Keith Walters Jones
Nov 6, 2007


Ron Paul has been given a time out by Sean Hannity. In the forums section of the website this message gas been posted: "Due to the troll raid following the activities of Nov 5th posting of Ron Paul threads has been suspended. Doing so will result in removal of the thread and a ban. I will review the status of this periodically and open RP threads again when appropriate."

Many of the Paul followers have complained mightily that they don't get a fair shake in the mainstream media but one would believe that certainly a Fox commentator would grant the good doctor a forum for his followers to push his message.
***

This is similar to what happened a few years ago with the popular online message board Free Republic. At that time Hannity ripped the "Freepers" and they fired back not only on their own website but on Sean's as well. This is the message tha was palce online then.

"I am going to lock this thread down. The Hannity boards are not here for you guys & gals to argue old business from the Free Republic board. Don't bring your personal issues and battles here. Now if you look through our rules you won't find one on that..... but I will enforce the issue anyway."


***

Let me preface this by noting that I will vote for Ron Paul in the primaries and likely in the general if I get the opportunity. I can't defend Hannity one bit unless there were threats of violence or foul language. But it is his message board so if he wants to clamp it down so be it. I'm guessing there is no stopping the Ron Paul revolution just with one small step like this.

I am reminded that on air after the Fox debate Hannity mentioned to Dr. Paul in an interview that he didn't believe Fox's own poll that Paul was winning the inevitable "who do you believe won the debate." Paul joked with Hannity at the time that it was a bit odd that he didn't believe his own network's polling.
 

sedjester

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
93
Location
West Valley, Utah, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
sedjester wrote:
HankT wrote:
sedjester wrote:
HankT wrote:
Knock your socks off, guys. But....

a vote for Ron Paul = a vote for Rudy Giuliani

yessmiley.gif

Would you care to expound upon that statement?
<snip>

Soooooo, voting for Paul means that one of the non-Giuliani candidates will generallyhave avote taken from them (if Paul doesn't get it). Now, in the case of minor candidates, like Tancredo and Hunter, it doesn't mean anything. But if thePaul voter denies his second choice to Romney, Thompson,Huckabeeand McCain, then itlessons their chances to beat Giuliani.

<snip>
Like I've said before, if I have to vote between the lesser of two weevils then we need to get new flour. I will vote for who I think "will do the best job" whether or not they will get elected. If I vote for somebody just so Giuliani or Clinton won't get elected then I am not being true to myself and my country. Shame on you for suggesting such a thing.

Can you show me where I suggested such a thing?

Or is that just a rhetorical flour-ish?
"Lessens their chances to beat Giuliani" sounds like you are advocating voting for one of the "lesser weevils" so that Giuliani won't win. It was flour-ish, but not rhetorical :D
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

sedjester wrote:
HankT wrote:
sedjester wrote:
HankT wrote:
sedjester wrote:
HankT wrote:
Knock your socks off, guys. But....

a vote for Ron Paul = a vote for Rudy Giuliani

yessmiley.gif

Would you care to expound upon that statement?
<snip>

Soooooo, voting for Paul means that one of the non-Giuliani candidates will generallyhave avote taken from them (if Paul doesn't get it). Now, in the case of minor candidates, like Tancredo and Hunter, it doesn't mean anything. But if thePaul voter denies his second choice to Romney, Thompson,Huckabeeand McCain, then itlessons their chances to beat Giuliani.

<snip>
Like I've said before, if I have to vote between the lesser of two weevils then we need to get new flour. I will vote for who I think "will do the best job" whether or not they will get elected. If I vote for somebody just so Giuliani or Clinton won't get elected then I am not being true to myself and my country. Shame on you for suggesting such a thing.

Can you show me where I suggested such a thing?

Or is that just a rhetorical flour-ish?
"Lessens their chances to beat Giuliani" sounds like you are advocating voting for one of the "lesser weevils" so that Giuliani won't win. It was flour-ish, but not rhetorical :D
Nah, it doesn't say that. It was just neutralanalysis. And buta derivation of the classic 3rd party spoiler structural form.


Andyour commentwas both. Trust me. Thanks for the set-up. I couldn't have done mine without you.:p
 

sedjester

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
93
Location
West Valley, Utah, USA
imported post

Neutralanalysis or not I still stand by my opinion that:

a vote for Ron Paul =\= a vote for Rudy Giuliani


To me it sounded like you were saying in order to beat Giuliani we need to vote for somebody else besides Ron Paul. If you didn't mean that then I apologize for putting bad flour in your mouth. :p
 
Top