Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 74

Thread: Fred's out.

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

    NAPLES, Fla. (AP) - Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson quit the Republican presidential race on Tuesday, after a string of poor finishes in early primary and caucus states. "Today, I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort," Thompson said in a statement.
    Thompson's fate was sealed last Saturday in the South Carolina primary, when he finished third in a state that he had said he needed to win.
    In the statement, Thompson did not say whether he would endorse any of his former rivals. He was one of a handful of members of Congress who supported Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2000 in his unsuccessful race against George W. Bush for the party nomination.
    The actor-politician best known as the gruff district attorney on NBC's "Law & Order" placed third in Iowa and South Carolina, two states seemingly in line with his right-leaning pitch and laid-back style, and fared even worse in the four other states that have held contests thus far. Money already tight, he ran out of it altogether as the losses piled up.
    Thompson departs the most wide open Republican race in half a century; three candidates each having won in the six states that have voted.
    In Florida, McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani are battling for the lead ahead of its Jan. 29 primary, while former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee evaluates his next steps amid money troubles of his own.


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

    NAPLES, Fla. (AP) - Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson quit the Republican presidential race on Tuesday, after a string of poor finishes in early primary and caucus states. "Today, I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort," Thompson said in a statement.
    Thompson's fate was sealed last Saturday in the South Carolina primary, when he finished third in a state that he had said he needed to win.
    In the statement, Thompson did not say whether he would endorse any of his former rivals. He was one of a handful of members of Congress who supported Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2000 in his unsuccessful race against George W. Bush for the party nomination.
    The actor-politician best known as the gruff district attorney on NBC's "Law & Order" placed third in Iowa and South Carolina, two states seemingly in line with his right-leaning pitch and laid-back style, and fared even worse in the four other states that have held contests thus far. Money already tight, he ran out of it altogether as the losses piled up.
    Thompson departs the most wide open Republican race in half a century; three candidates each having won in the six states that have voted.
    In Florida, McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani are battling for the lead ahead of its Jan. 29 primary, while former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee evaluates his next steps amid money troubles of his own.


    Tarzan

  3. #3
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    Conservatives have no pull in that party anymore. Fred's departure leaves 4 liberals and one conservative who's being ignored by the power elites who chose the current liberal in the WH.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Hilliard, OH, , USA
    Posts
    91

    Post imported post

    Although I'm a Ron Paul guy, I would have liked to have seen he and Fred get more recognition and get conservative views back in the spotlight.:?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    Doomed...we're doomed...

    I guess I couldget behind a McCain/Thompson ticket, but I don't think that's gonna happen...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    Off topic

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    tarzan1888 wrote:
    except for Paul who is an anarchist.
    I wasn't aware of this. Please cite when he denounced all government. Heh...why would he be running for president than?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    tarzan1888 wrote:
    except for Paul who is an anarchist.
    I wasn't aware of this.¬* Please cite when he denounced all government.¬* Heh...why would he be running for president than?¬*
    Only if in your world anarchy means "following the constitution".

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    Sorry to see him out of the race. But, no reason he can't come back later. Reagan did.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    Off topic

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    tarzan1888 wrote:
    ama-gi wrote:
    tarzan1888 wrote:
    except for Paul who is an anarchist.
    I wasn't aware of this.¬* Please cite when he denounced all government.¬* Heh...why would he be running for president than?¬*
    All things political are a matter of prospective.

    To a non-libertarian like myself someone like Paul, has views that are so close to the definition of anarchy as cited in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1973, "c. a utopian society made up of individuals who have no government and who enjoy complete freedom."¬* I admit that it does not completely agree with the definition of Libertarian in the same volume, "2: one who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty esp. of thought and action." But from where I sit they are close enough for me.

    ¬*

    Tarzan
    I think you are confused about Ron Paul's views if you think they are even remotely close to the definition of anarchy you posted. Does Ron Paul believe in a smaller federal government? Sure. He believes the constitution is a good starting point for limits on the government. He does not advocate getting rid of the constitution and removing all federal government, and certainly doesn't advocate the removal of state government.
    I guess if your perspective only has room for "Huge government" and "No Government", you may have a point. I would hope you have room for the big gray area in the middle "Some Government limited by the powers set aside in the constitution".

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    tarzan1888 wrote:
    Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1973, "c. a utopian society made up of individuals who have no government and who enjoy complete freedom."

    Oh, so he believes in having no government? Wow, shocking...please cite!!

    All things political are a matter of prospective.
    Did Webster's not have a listing for the word "perspective?"

    And further, are you saying that words don't have meanings and there's no objective truth? So "infringed" in the Second Amendment could mean something other than..."infringed" in your world?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    Off topic

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    tarzan1888 wrote:
    mkl wrote:
    tarzan1888 wrote:
    .....All things political are a matter of prospective.......

    Tarzan
    I think you are confused about Ron Paul's views.......
    ¬*

    I think you are confused by MY views.¬*¬* I understand Paul's views quite well.¬*¬* Remember it is all a matter of prospective.¬*¬* My prospective is based on where I am standing and yours and Mr. Paul's on where you are standing.

    Tarzan
    Perspective does not allow you to change the meaning of words in my world. Tell me about your world, it's very interesting. Can you just think things and make them fact? Randomly mutate the meaning of words? Sign me up, it would make things much easier for me.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    Off topic

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    tarzan1888 wrote:
    mkl wrote:
    Perspective does not allow you to change the meaning of words in my world. .....
    ¬*

    If I were standing in the desert and I saw two¬*Mountains.¬* Mountain #1 is 105 miles away and mountain #2 is 100 miles away.¬*¬* From where I am standing they look very much the¬*same.

    To some one standing between Mountain #1 and Mountain #2 ,¬* the mountains appear to be in¬*a very different position.¬* The prospective on the man by the mountains and the man in the desert affects how they see the two Mountains.

    It is obvious that we have a common interest in gun rights, but have many differences in our other views.

    ¬*

    Tarzan

    ¬*
    I agree with you about perspective. I just think you can't apply a word that has a set definition to something, when that definition is wrong. It is not a question of perspective, it is a question of fact.
    I have no problem with you saying "Ron Paul is too small government for me" Or, "I believe Ron Paul will remove parts of the government we need".

    I have a problem with people using a word like "anarchist" to confuse others and have them write off a candidate. You are confusing people who may actually believe you, and think Ron Paul is interested in actually getting rid of the government. When he isn't.

    It would be like in your mountain example if :
    you saw 2 mountains, one is 10,000 feet high and 50 miles away, two is 30,000 feet high and 200 miles away. If you say "Mountain One is taller than Mountain two". In your perspective you may be right. But factually, you are wrong.
    When you say Ron Paul is an anarchist, You are factually wrong. There is no arguing, you are wrong.
    I understand you don't like Ron Paul, fine, no big deal. But please stop using provably wrong words to discredit and belittle him. Believe me, he has plenty of actual faults that you can pick on without making things up.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    I'm still waiting for an answer from Tarzan for my last post.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    Off topic

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    tarzan1888 wrote:
    mkl wrote:
    tarzan1888 wrote:
    mkl wrote:
    Perspective does not allow you to change the meaning of words in my world. .....
    ¬*

    If I were standing in the desert and I saw two¬*Mountains.¬* Mountain #1 is 105 miles away and mountain #2 is 100 miles away.¬*¬* From where I am standing they look very much the¬*same.

    To some one standing between Mountain #1 and Mountain #2 ,¬* the mountains appear to be in¬*a very different position.¬* The prospective on the man by the mountains and the man in the desert affects how they see the two Mountains.

    It is obvious that we have a common interest in gun rights, but have many differences in our other views.

    ¬*

    Tarzan

    ¬*
    I agree with you about perspective. I just think you can't apply a word that has a set definition to something, when that definition is wrong. It is not a question of perspective, it is a question of fact.
    I have no problem with you saying "Ron Paul is too small government for me" Or, "I believe Ron Paul will remove parts of the government we need".

    I have a problem with people using a word like "anarchist" to confuse others and have them write off a candidate. You are confusing people who may actually believe you, and think Ron Paul is interested in actually getting rid of the government. When he isn't.

    It would be like in your mountain example if :
    you saw 2 mountains, one is 10,000 feet high and 50 miles away, two is 30,000 feet high and 200 miles away. If you say "Mountain One is taller than Mountain two". In your perspective you may be right. But factually, you are wrong.
    When you say Ron Paul is an anarchist, You are factually wrong. There is no arguing, you are wrong.
    I understand you don't like Ron Paul, fine, no big deal. But please stop using provably wrong words to discredit and belittle him. Believe me, he has plenty of actual faults that you can pick on without making things up.
    I have said nothing about faults.

    I am a geologist and have spent my life studying faults. Some are good and some are bad.

    My comments in this thread have been on prospective.

    I have changed no meanings of words as my prospective does not require it.

    Tarzan
    Ha! I'm done with this thread. This is a good example of how people can twist a word and claim it can mean things it does not.
    Exactly how people who don't like guns can claim they are all "assault rifles" and that all guns are "evil". In their perspective, I guess they are. In my world, I show the definition of "Assault Rifle" and show how most guns aren't, and I can show that a gun isn't, and can't be, "evil".

    But, I guess we have learned from Tarzan that it is all perspective, so to some people a bolt-action rifle can be a "machine gun". I guess compared to a flintlock it is? Right? Heck, in some people in the medias perspective a glock is an AK47, and a .22 is a tactical sniper rifle. Tarzan, I hope you realize that no matter what your perspective, some things are fact and reality based, and perspective doesn't change it.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    Off topic

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    I'm still waiting for an answer from Tarzan for my last post.
    ama-gi, Tarzan doesn't have time to give straight answers. He is too busy campaigning for Fred Thompson. Didn't you hear? In his perspective Fred is still in the running, heck, in his perspective, Fred won every state so far!
    Yay for perspective!

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    SNIP Don't waste your time and effort arguing with the godless/pagan Ron Paul idol-worshippers.
    Ow! Ow! Owwwwwwwch! Hey! Watch it there! Or I'll throw one of my idols at you.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    Tarzan,

    Don't waste your time and effort arguing with the godless/pagan Ron Paul idol-worshippers.

    As I have said, Libertarians are only anarchists in sheeps's clothing, and consequently they're not worth any attention at all.

    -- John D.

    Wow, I didn't know I was a godless pagan idol-worshipper, cloudcroft. Thanks for insulting me in such a constructive manner. Are you satisfied that you've won the argument now, or do you think another round of verbal abuse is in order? I'm not sure your insult has really sunk in, why don't you pile on some more? I'll check back later, I have to go clean my sheep's skin. I got it dirty yesterday down in Richmond rallying for my godless pagan rights. And as for not being worthy of any attention at all, that's what the MMM told me, too. Maybe you and them should compare insults.

    As for Fred Thompson, I was hoping he would at least make a better showing. He acted as if he didn't really want to be there and was talked into it. And aside from his movie star personality I'm not sure quite what was different about him.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    Don't waste your time and effort arguing with the godless/pagan Ron Paul idol-worshippers.
    What idol do you worship that gives you the power to read minds and look into souls of people you've never met (on a)cloudcroft?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •