Fred Thompson jumped into the GOP presidential pool this month on the same night he skipped a debate. Now, he’s skipping another, tonight’s Values Voters Presidential Debate in Florida. Why? “Standing up here 10 in a row, you know, like a bunch of seals waiting for somebody to throw you the next fish, is not necessarily the best way to impart your information to the American people,” Thompson said. “I’m not above acting like a seal every once in a while and waiting for the next fish. I just don’t want to do it all the time.”
He may not be acting like a seal, but he sure is looking like a chicken.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Raptor on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
103 Comments
Lets see…
I have not watched any Republican debate yet.
I will not be watching this debate either.
I will be supporting Fred.
I do not think he is a chicken.
You want to hear more about Fred, here you go:
http://www.fred08.com/About.aspx
These debates are a joke anyhow. When we get closer to the election then I will start paying more attention to the debates when people like Sam Brownback have hopefully dropped out of the race.
An actor with government experience, and a tough-guy TV image, who’s amazingly high in the polls without even being a real candidate.
Duh. Why bother with debates, when you can steal the show with your ‘image’? He’s probably already rehearsing his catch-phrase (”There you go again” is already taken).
the lazy canidate is too lazy to go out and do canidate stuff.
fred is a loser.nobody knows anything about him.it’s like bush again
god help us.
Motions for Money?? Win or loose he gets paid!! Running his own Campaign is just like Bush running his own Government!! This has “”KIlled”" 3000 ++ Soldiers!! Vote “”Non of the Above”"!! Herbert West III, Publisher/Journalist, west.herb@yahoo.com,
September 10 Newsweek cover poking fun at Fred’s well known image as a lazy Senator:
Image of the cover of Newsweek:http://i1.tinypic.com/4ys6hab.jpg
an you name one major piece of legislation he authored while in office? Yeah, neither can anyone else.
Fred is a joke, which means he’ll probably be the republican candidate for president. Ferd isn’t going to debate…he has nothing to offer. Just a lot of bluster.
Why does it not surprise me at all that Nathan supports the one candidate who refuses to engage in debate? This is important information, it gets a message out to millions upon millions of voters.
We need to elect someone who is willing to go the extra mile for our country. Thompson obviously doesn’t care enough to do it.
If Fred can’t be bothered to catch fish in a debate, then he won’t want to put any lines in the water at a press conference, either. And I have bad news for Fred and his Republican anglers, anyhow: the pond is empty. All your fish are being eaten in Iraq.
The intra-party debates are worthless. The only fun debates to watch is when the Presidential Candidates for their respected Party is chosen and they debate.
The Classic one is the Gore and Bush debate, town hall meeting style. That was comedy my friends. :)
This thread fairly drips with Republican contempt for political participation. “Just tell us who to write the check to.”
So Nathan is voting for Fred. Kind of says it all, doesn’t it?
They’re worthless how?
They’re not supposed to be entertaining, they’re supposed to be informative.
How can they be informative, when you have 12 candidates answering talking point questions with a 30 second response?
There is no in-depth explanations of their positions or policies they will implement.
It also shows no honesty or integrity. It’s just sound bites and nothing else.
I don’t want a sound bite president. The next President, what ever party, is going to have to be a very honest and up front to the people. We have been lied to by Presidents forever. It’s time for that to stop.
I like Fred on L&O. However as a candidate he is and will continue to ne a ‘never-was’.
By the end of January he will be gone.
Joe makes a valid point that with so many ‘candidates’ (including so many nobodies) it is difficult to get any kind of substance. However, as bad as they are they are better than nothing. And I think Fred’s boycott will hurt him with the voters.
“an [sic] you name one major piece of legislation he authored while in office? Yeah, neither can anyone else.”
Personally, I consider that to be a good thing, Dave. Government is generally better when it does less, not more.
As to the debates, they are essentially worthless; they are there more for the press than the candidates. We’ll see how Fred does, over time. I’m with him, I’d be in no hurry to get in. The election’s not for over a year.
Besides, he is where he is without debating. Why would he debate?
Fred will just run some tv commercials and call it good. He knows all he needs for his base is to throw out a few catch phrases.
GMC and Phantom have expressed my thoughts on Mr. Thompson’s position better than I could. Why, indeed, should he be bogged down in these essentially meaningless debates when his absence from the race itself for the period others were busy running against each other got him where he was in the polls when he formally “announced”? Plus, wake me up when 2008 is here and there’s something meaningful to discuss with reference to the upcoming election.
The election’s not for over a year.Posted by: GMC70
The first primaries are less than 120 days away; the Republican nomination will be over by mid-March.
They call it a debate when 11 guys line up and get asked 3 questions each?
More like an interrogation by the Lib media to get sound bites.
And the Lib media gets much better sound bites from the questions they ask the Democrats.
I’m with Fred on this. Wait for the real debates.
Now, if you want to have 5-hour informative “Meet the Candidates” session, fine. Then give each candidate 30 minutes to make their speech, and move on to the next guy.
Max,
Tonight’s debate is _hardly_ one being conducted by “Lib media.” Here’s the press release from Christian Newswire:
=====================
Historic Values Voter Presidential Debate Today
Straw Poll Expected to Unify Pro-Family Movement
Contact: Karen Golembe, 954-263-9633, valuesvoterdebatemedia@comcast.net
MEDIA ADVISORY, Sept. 17 /Christian Newswire/ — The Values Voter Presidential Debate, that is being held later today at the Broward Center for the Performing Arts in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, may very well choose the pro-family candidate for Values Voters to rally behind.
Host Committee members include Phyllis Schlafly, Paul Weyrich, Don Wildmon, Mat Staver, Rick Scarborough, and Janet Folger.
“Unlike other straw polls where candidates have bussed in supporters or paid for their tickets, forty national leaders hand selected more than 600 delegates who accurately represent America’s largest voting block,” said Mat Staver, Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “This will be the most important straw poll yet.”
At least seven of the announced Republican candidates will be participating. “The door is still open for the others to come,” said Rick Scarborough. “If you care about our votes, you need to care about our values enough to show up.”
“Don’t miss it!” said Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum who added that candidates who snub us will not be happy with the results. A Voter Guide DVD is being filmed and produced at the event for wide distribution.
The Democrats were invited to a similar event, but all declined. “Would you elect a man President of the United States who was afraid of tough questioning from Phyllis Schlafly?” asked World Net Daily founder and CEO Joseph Farah, who will moderate tonight’s debate. “I expect tonight’s straw poll to decide the nominee,” said Janet Folger, President of Faith2Action.
The Values Voters Presidential Debate can be seen LIVE from 7:30 to 10:30 P.M. ET tonight on Sky Angel’s “Angel One” (Channel 9701), which is also on the Dish Network at Channel 262. It will be broadcast live via satellite by the VCY America Network and carried by the American Family Radio and Calvary Chapel Reach FM Networks. It will be streamed live online at http://www.AFA.net and http://www.ValuesVoterDebate.com.
I’m amused that Thompson has decided this one’s not important, and that he’s sitting it out.
Just because it bears repeating:
“Would you elect a man President of the United States who was afraid of tough questioning from Phyllis Schlafly?” asked World Net Daily founder and CEO Joseph Farah, who will moderate tonight’s debate.
OK, Tom,
Phyllis Schlafly will not ask the candidates the questions that I think are important. Furthermore, the premise of Joseph Farah’s question is false.
Now, would you elect a candidate that refuses to debate on Fox News? Question is just as valid, and the premise is correct.
Hank
Tom, there’s no ‘debate’ when you have 11 guys on a stage.
It’s more like dinner at my house growing up as a kid. So many relatives around you can’t get a word in edgewise.
Hank,
I was responding specifically to Max’s assertion that this debate is “Lib media” going for “sound bites.” Whether you think Schlafly’s questions are important or not misses the point, which is:
STOP BLAMING THE LIBERALS WHEN IT’S THE CONSERVATIVES WHO ARE ****ING THE WHOLE THING UP.
But thanks for playing, anyway :)
Max,
See above response to Hank.
Would you elect someone president who refused the logo debate on gay and lesbian issues?
Same question, different verse.
Tom, you only gave part of that quote, which could be interpreted as disingenious on your part since it applied to the Dems that refused to attend as much as any Republics that refused:
The Democrats were invited to a similar event, but all declined. “Would you elect a man President of the United States who was afraid of tough questioning from Phyllis Schlafly?” asked World Net Daily founder and CEO Joseph Farah, who will moderate tonight’s debate.
Tom:
The fact that Fred’s not going to go down and grovel before the “values voters’” self-appointed spokesmen says a lot for Fred. If his “values” fit mine, I don’t need Shafley and company to tell me so. And if they don’t, I don’t want a president who panders to whatever group he’s addressing.
“The Democrats were invited to a similar event, but all declined.”
That’s not a quote. That’s a talking point from a Christian Newswire press release.
OMFG. Has reading comprehension among the radicons declined that much???
“Would you elect a man…”
HEH! Obviously he is oblivious to the possibility of President Hillary.
Just keep thinking that. Just keep thinking it.
Tom I hear so much negative talk on here about Fox news that Hank’s question begs a point. Why are the libs afraid to go on a debate moderated by Fox?
Think of the ‘millions upon million’ they would be reaching, afterall Fox has the top rated evening new show. More people get their news from Fox than from any network or other cable news outlets.
Any thoughts on this Tom?
“Why are the libs afraid to go on a debate moderated by Fox?”
I dunno. Why are the cons afraid to go on a debate moderated by Logo and Margaret Carlson?
GMC,
See, I actually agree with the point you’re making. But that’s not the point Max was making, which is why I posted the Christian Newswire propaganda. Max was making this out as another “Lib media” event; it’s clearly _not_. I tire of the constant attempts to blame every shortcoming, every failure, every disaster in this country on the “liberals,” which is what Max was doing.
I don’t know. If you have the answer Farmgrl let me know. By the way omission isn’t the same as answering. I have a feeling that the kind of question Margaret asks are like some I heard from the lib. questioners of Petraeus last week – a rambling 5 minute statement with no question at the end. People have to keep asking – Is there a question there somewhere?
Ksgrm,
Again, for the reading-comprehension impaired: My comments are not about which debate any candidate does or does not participate in. My comments are about the tendency of the so-called “conservatives” on this blog, and across the country, to immediately blame “liberals” or “Lib media” for damn near everything, even when the facts are _TOTALLY_ clear that it’s not a “liberal” issue at all. It’s the so-called “conservatives” making excuses, avoiding the truth and the facts, and spinning absolutely. everything. in. sight.
I don’t think the democrats are afraid to debate on Fox. Anyway, they are not afraid of Fox. They have made a calculated decision to not alienate their ever deminishing base.
Moveon.org has threatened them with political consequences if they participate on Fox.
Fred, on the other hand, has been conducting a campaign that will allow him to stand out from the rest of the candidates. By not participating in the debates early he is getting more attention than if he ran with the flock.
Good decision? We’ll see.
Hank
Tom sorry if my post hit a nerve it wasn’t intended to. I simply wanted to know why some are critized for not participating and others aren’t. I myself think this has started much to early and there are still to many candidates for any serious consideration. I am looking forward to a smaller field where real differences can be identified and considered.
“I have a feeling that the kind of question Margaret asks”
Since you clearly didnt watch the debate on Logo, you have NO idea what kind of questions were asked. By a panel. Margaret MODERATED the debate.
So why are all the big bad cons afraid to go on Logo? Scared of us gay folks?
Or scared that the truth of their bigotry will be plain for all to see?
Heheheh. I love it that a buncha queers were too scary for all those big bad republican MEN!
Ok Tom, then even according to you I may be only half wrong.
I object to 2 things:
1. The format of the ‘debate’. 11 guys on a stage is not a format which allows debate back and forth, unless you have a 2-day debate with 12 hour sessions each.
When you get more than 3 or 4 people debating each other, it’s almost impossible to give each speaker an opportunity for one on one statements, rebuttals, readdress, etc…
It’s simple group dynamics.
2. For most ‘debates’ I’ve seen this go around, the interrogators or I mean facilitators are obviously biased Libs (in most cases) who ask a different set of questions of Democrats then they do Republicans. If this wasn’t true, then the Democrats wouldn’t have a problem debating on Fox as easily as they do on CNN.
But of course, it’s all the liberal media’a fault, all that republican flop sweat and all…
Tom is exactly right.
And gee, who else do we know who ALWAYS finds a “lib” under every tea cup…
What’s a Logo? Is it like a Lego? How many would I have to stack together to get something worthy of any notice at all?
It figures gmc would be THAT uninformed. Maybe like cheney, the channel is put on fox and the “knob” ripped off?
“Moveon.org has threatened them with political consequences if they participate on Fox.”
And the fact that they listen to Moveon.org says all I need to know about the democratic candidates.
Oh my GOSH!
GMC will not be voting DEMOCRATIC next year!
What a loss for our side . . .
…and the fact that the repukes fawn over fox also just about says it all…
“It’s the so-called “conservatives” making excuses, avoiding the truth and the facts, and spinning absolutely. everything. in. sight.”
I don’t buy that silly generalization Tom. As if you are the model of objectivity. Chuckle… I’ve read your posts. You’re far from it.
Everyone has their prejudices, whether they want to admit it or not.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296938,00.html
America’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W. Bush’s economic policies.
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
******
And from the reich-wing bloggers here?
Deafening silence.
Nathan, GMC, outlander, Hank, Kansas . . .
Anyone? Anyone?
Max,
I don’t “object” to the debates – I frankly don’t care one way or the other. It’s all rehearsed talking points, and I can get a better idea of what a candidate stands for by looking at voting records, reading the paper, or reading position statements issued directly by the campaigns.
It doesn’t matter who hosts a debate, it doesn’t matter what the motives of the interrogators / moderators / facilitators / whatever are, it really doesn’t even matter what the _answers_ are. The MSM, whether FOX or CNN or MSNBC, only covers what they were wearing and whether or not they mispronounced “nuke-you-lar” or not. It’s all very facile and superficial.
Moveon.org has threatened them with political consequences if they participate on Fox.Posted by: Hank Price
Really? I’d love to see some substantiation of that. Something factualy, you know – not the rantings of comedian Rush Lim-bought or anyone like that.
Capn,
Greenspan is a ZIONIST, so you didn’t really expect him to come out and say that the war was to benefit the position of Israel in the region, did ya? You are not to bright, are ya, boy?
Dear Tom and Farm girl,
You are a lot more hung up on ‘conservatives’ than I have ever been on liberals.
Hank
“Really? I’d love to see some substantiation of that.”
GOOGLE it Tom. Go to their website. If you really want to know, get out of the conseravtive bashing rut you’re in.
Hank
Hank,
Waitin’ on that link about Moveon.org “threatening” the Democratic candidates.
Druid,
Greenspan is an atheist. He’s not a Zionist. Or do you think everyone with Jewish parents is automatically a Zionist?
Zionist . . . zionist?
Oh, you mean JEW!
So’s Noam Chomsky.
Yeah, screw you, Kansas Druid.
Hank,
I’ve never been to Moveon.org’s website. Isn’t that funny? But seriously, I have as much use for far-left talking points as I do for far-right talking points: None at all.
Hank–
Way to duck the Greenspan quote.
It’s nice to know that when you and Nathan accuse me of “tin-foil” hat conspiracies because I see the dead obvious–we invaded for the freakin’ oil–you’ll now also have to accuse the voice of right-wing sobriety of it as well.
Capn,
Watch: The radicons are going to start accusing Greenspan of being a “liberal.”
You saw it here first.
Yeah, Tom, it’s almost sad, isn’t it.
Rush hasn’t told them what to say yet, so they don’t have anything to say.
Get a sense of humor, KFG.
And I’d be willing to bet that 90% or more of the public has never heard of the “logo debate on gay and lesbian issues,” or Logo itself.
I take it, from a quick Google search, that Logo is a gay/lesbian cable TV channel. Were I gay, I suppose that would matter, otherwise, why would I know that? I do not have it on my TV, but then neither do I have any one of many other sliver of the audience channels, nor HBO, nor Cinemax, etc. And I don’t miss them.
Given the Republican base that matters in the primaries, why would Republicans trot over there for a “debate?” Similarly, why would the Democrats trot over to Shafley’s little dust-up; it’s similarly stacked and unimportant to the base that matters in the primaries.
Good morning Captain!
It appears that Greenspan is already trying to back off from that BS:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html
Hank
Even GMC is speechless on the issue.
And that’s damn near a MIRACLE!
Hey GMC70,
Now you’re trying to bring common sense into the discussion. We’ll see how many heads that goes over.
Hank
Well done, Hank, perfectly consistent and true-to-form.
This is Hank’s idea of Greenspan “backtracking.”
“I have never heard them basically say, ‘We’ve got to protect the oil supplies of the world,’ but that would have been my motive.” Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, “Well, unfortunately, we can’t talk about oil.”
Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, “I talked to everybody about that.”. . . a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled “Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy” and signed by Bush in August 2002 — seven months before the invasion — listed as one of many objectives “to minimize disruption in international oil markets.”
“If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands,” Greenspan said, “our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first.
Tom,
Zionists are not “religious’ per say.
Capn,
You would take the word of this zionist, the guy largely responsible for allowing the fraud and excess of the tech and housing bubbles? Mr Magoo is corrupt and dishonest and you seem to be dumb as dirt or maybe just willfully blind!
Home » It’s Not About Oil, Stupid, but Flattening Arab and Muslim Countries
September 16, 2007
It’s Not About Oil, Stupid, but Flattening Arab and Muslim CountriesIsrael, Iraq, Iran, Neocons | 1 comment
Now that he is retired, elderly, and has nothing to lose, former fed banking cartel don Alan Greenspan “has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil,” the Times Online reports. “In his long-awaited memoir,” Greenspan writes (or his ghost writer writes) that he is “saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Greenspan’s use of the adverb “largely” is deceptive. The invasion and occupation of Iraq, as Bush crime family intimate Philip Zelikow admitted, was about the “unstated threat” to Israel, that is to say Israel’s hegemony in the neighborhood. “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990—it’s the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002. “And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.” Because it was not a “popular sell,” the neocons were obliged to invent any number of implausible Brothers Grimm stories about weapons of mass destruction, all of it claptrap lies, not that such lies carry a burden of responsibility as most Americans apparently don’t mind that the decider-commander guy is a pathological liar.
If indeed Greenspan is at least partially right, the effort to steal Iraq’s oil is floundering big time. “Despite a large reconstruction effort (including Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF) support of $1.72 billion), the industry has not been able to meet hydrocarbon production and export targets since 2004,” reports EnerPub. “According to the January 2007, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) report, Iraq’s petroleum sector faces technical challenges in procuring, transporting and storing crude and refined products, as well as managing pricing controls and imports, fighting smuggling and corruption, improving budget execution, and managing sustainability of operations. Oil production has not recovered to pre-war levels, and parliament and cabinet officials are working to map out investment and ownership rights that will help move the industry forward.”
As Greg Palast notes, the oil industry has a vested interest in making sure Iraq does not export oil instead of the other way around, as shortage translates into gargantuan profits. “The oil majors had a better use for Iraq’s oil than drilling it—not drilling it,” writes Palast. The oil bigs had bought Iraq’s concession to seal it up and keep it off the market.”
And [oil] won’t be drilled, not unless Iraq says, “Mother, may I?” to Saudi Arabia, or, as the James Baker/Council on Foreign Relations paper says, “Saudi Arabia may punish Iraq.” And believe me, Iraq wouldn’t want that. The decision to expand production has, for now, been kept out of Iraqi’s hands by the latest method of suppressing Iraq’s oil flow—the 2003 invasion and resistance to invasion. And it has been darn effective. Iraq’s output in 2003, 2004 and 2005 was less than produced under the restrictive Oil-for-Food Program. Whether by design or happenstance, this decline in output has resulted in tripling the profits of the five U.S. oil majors to $89 billion for a single year, 2005, compared to pre-invasion 2002. That suggests an interesting arithmetic equation. Big Oil’s profits are up $89 billion a year in the same period the oil industry boosted contributions to Mr. Bush’s reelection campaign to roughly $40 million….http://adereview.com/blog/?p=42
Congressman Under Fire for Mentioning AIPAC
U.S. House Democrat Said Pro-Israel Lobby Promoted War
By Amy Gardner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 15, 2007; B05
Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) has again come under fire from local Jewish organizations for remarking in a magazine interview that the “extraordinarily powerful” pro-Israel lobby played a strong role promoting the war in Iraq.
In an interview with Tikkun, a California-based Jewish magazine, Moran said the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is “the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. I don’t think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful — most of them are quite wealthy — they have been able to exert power.”
Moran’s remarks were criticized by the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington and the National Jewish Democratic Council. Ronald Halber, executive director of the first group, said Moran’s remarks are anti-Semitic and draw on ugly stereotypes about Jewish wealth, power and influence….http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402171_pf.html
Capn:
The only person raising that “issue” is you, Capn. The thread is about Thompson and debates. You seek to hijack those threads for a pet conspiracy theory.
However -
“. . . a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled “Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy” and signed by Bush in August 2002 — seven months before the invasion — listed as one of many objectives “to minimize disruption in international oil markets.”
“If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands,” Greenspan said, “our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first.”
Well, DUH! Did the fact that Iraq sits on top of a major oil supply factor in the decision? OF COURSE. It’s called reality, Capn. Conservatives prefer to deal in it.
If your assertion is that the US went in to “steal” the oil, you’ve still offered exactly zero evidence.
So what if one of the reasons of the Iraq war was to remove Saddam in an attempt to stabilize the supply of oil that is absolutely critical to our economy and way of life?
It’s a better reason than most.
Beautiful. Lawyer speak in all its glory.
“We invaded for the oil and yet it’s not about the oil.”
You can’t make this sh*t up . . .
“Even GMC is speechless on the issue.
And that’s damn near a MIRACLE!”
And shall we count our respective number of posts, Capn, and decide who it is “miraculous” when they don’t write a post? I’m guessing you outpost me, Capn, something like 3-1, probably much more.
So put your self-rightousness back into it’s overheated bottle.
What I meant is you always get the last word.
Just watch . . .
“We invaded for the oil and yet it’s not about the oil.”
Wanna find that quote for me in my writings, Capn?
Good luck. Now that you’ve created the strawman, you attack it. Bully for you.
You’ve become a fly, Capn. Much buzzing, no impact. You rarely matter around here anymore. Neither do I, truth be told. But I am not burdened with illusions of my self-importance; you seek to remind yourself how important you are with every post.
Oh, and Captain,
I’ve never ducked the issue about the oil. It’s always been about the oil. The free flow of oil.
For those of you that have short memories Saddam invaded Kuwait. Kuwait is an ally. We’ve been at war with Iraq since then.
If we had allowed him to keep Kuwait then what would have been his next victim?
Of course it’s been about oil! Every war we were involved with in the 20th centuray was about oil!.
However, we don’t want to ’steal the oil’ we just can’t allow an idiot like Saddam controlling it.
Hank
JR the same as Capn?
J R is J R thank you. Though you flatter me with comparison to Capn.
Good to see total honesty from you Hank. If bush had tried that he might have managed to sell this misadventure. Now, he never will. The American people don’t like being lied to and manipulated. Now? there is a very real danger that bush has damaged the military and the national guard for the next decade or more.
Oil? We gotta get past it. Carter knew that. But it got pushed back 30 years. Now as we approach peak oil, we are going to HAVE to make the investment in alternative energy and infrastructure.
Removing Saddam moved oil from 32 dollars a barrel to 80 dollars a barrel and put the Arabs in a weaker position of defense from marauding Zionists-Jews, who feel free to threaten atomic war against Iran.
Saddam would never be strong enough to attack the rogue terrorist State of Israel, but strong enough to keep their unlawful expasion in check, thus stabilizing the Middle East oil supply.
That oil supply being essential to stabilizing the United States economy.
Interesting Junior,
Carter gave us the Department of Energy. Since then the price of oil has increased from $14 dollars a barrel to over $80 a barrel and no new nuclear power plants have been built.
Carter? We have to get past his failed policies.
Hank
The biggest effect on world oil prices has been the rise of the industrial economies of China and India.
Let’s see….whose idea was it to offshore US industrial production to foreign countries? Hmmm…
I’ll give Capn the “Duh” award with his writings about the war and oil.
No kidding? Welcome to reality Capn and the necessity of the world economy if the primary fuel we use for almost everything is threatened.
Either you are very shortsighted Capn or just clueless about life in general.
Of course it was about the oil. Not wanting to be held in blackmail by Saddam Hussein who wanted to control the oil in Kuwait and the ports where oil flows from Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Welcome to reality Capn, glad you are finally getting adult enough to realize what the world is about.
It certainly isn’t about some pink-shirted baboon with a protest sign. How will that feed anyone?
Back to Thompson,
doomp doomp (Law and Order sound)
:)
Cap check the link that was about Greenspan. I addressed your question there.
Farmgrl I don’t have a clue who or what LOGO is. I do know Margaret Carlson and her long winded questions. Why would the candidates have to go before every special group that asks? Time gets to be an issue for some. Don’t take it so personally. Do you define yourself as a lesbian before anything else? You and Tom need to broaden your horizons. There is a whole wide world out there.
Weight Watchers has a big membership too. I vote that they have a prez debate and do away with the fast food joints. Entirely to many of them springing up.
JR good to see you back.
Back in the spring just before a trip I took you and I reached a bargain.
Well while on vacation I watched that dumb movie, An Inconvenient Truth – did you read the book you promised to read?
Just wondering.
“Welcome to reality Capn, glad you are finally getting adult enough to realize what the world is about.”
Posted by: Kansas
Written by someone who denies all of the science proving that humans are causing global warming — and instead, with no credible proof, insists that it’s natural.
Our government is guilty of short-sighted and irresponsible energy policy! Dems and Repubs can all share the blame! Yes, the only reason we are interested in the middle east is because of oil, why else would be willing to risk thousands of lives, and spend billions on two wars? What else is over there that we should care about?
Our government would rather spend lives and billions of dollars then spend billions on research and development for alternative forms of energy that will ultimately get us off the oil addiction. As long as our government continues to persue policies to insure oil supplies, instead of spending our tax dollars to find other alternatives to oil, we will be stuck in that part of the world. So, those of you with children, I feel for you. You can count on more and more conflict in the world, all related to dwindling oil supplies and increasing demand.
Think about it, if we didn’t have a stake in the middle east, we wouldn’t be meddling in that part of the world. We wouldn’t have radical islamists using terrorism as a tactic to kill Americans. Don’t confuse this statement for supporting those “terrorists”, but the reason we have been attacked is because of our foreign policy of intervention and meddling. The only reason we are intervening, meddling, and bribing around the world is because we haven’t had the foresight to secure our own energy supply, something other than oil. These “terrorists” hate our government policy, and use a disgusting tactic, the killing of innocents, as the only tool they believe will get our attention. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I greatly object to my elected representatives giving away my tax dollars to foreign governments (many times not supported by the people), as bribes so that we have access to oil, and sell our products.
Hey Tom, did you see where the neocons (you know, the ones who said they have nothing against gays, but wanted to ‘defend marriage’ with their hate amendment were all in arms over Kathleen’s order that sexual orientation be protected for state employees? They’re saying now that the Marriage Amendment should bar gays from protection. Isn’t that lovely?
Now WHO here still says it wasn’t an anti-gay piece of legislation?
Ooops wrong forum
Ahhh…
I guess CapnAmerica can’t keep going around with that quote demanding a response from us Conservatives anymore.
For everyone who is being critical of Fred…
What Republican candidate would you vote for?
I find it very odd that a bunch of liberals are in here complaining about Fred when they wouldn’t vote for a Republican anyhow…
I certainly vote for Ron Paul, but he doesn’t have a prayer of getting nominated and if my choice was between say Hillary and Rudy i might vote for Rudy if I dont go for a another option. Mcain was Ok before he morphed into Bush.
Nathan – no different than all the Republics telling us who the Democrats should nominate.
Hehehe, Rush must have come on.
Check the NEW spin from the Republic Party:
IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE OIL ALL ALONG!
Of course, damn. We want the oil profits to go to our companies and not the French or the Russians in payback for our imposing the sanctions.
But we’re not fighting for oil. We’re fighting for FREE TRADE, the right of our companies to profit and other companies to get stiffed.
Ah, okay, got it . . .
Thank God, our boys aren’t dying for oil–they’re dying for Free Enterprise.
Big difference.
Thank you germ and gmc for making my point FOR me. The repukes dont go where they arent worshiped, like LOGO, and the dems wont go to fox. Tweedle dee and tweedle dum. That was the point I was trying to make.
But then, when your head is already pointy, I guess such things just fly right over….
Oh and germie? Heheheh. You need to stop talking about things you know nothing about. Obviously you didnt watch the Logo debates, or you would know that Margaret Carlson didnt come up with the questions or ask them. The questions were asked by a panel.
Duh. But thanks again for being wrong and speaking as though you knew it all. You are wrong so often, we might have to start calling you Wrong Way Wooten.
Heheheheh. And THIS sounds like it could have come from any of the usual bigots here. You must be so proud of your Army of God buddies. Google ‘em.
“DEAR SODOMITE,A SPIRITUAL MAN JUDGETH ALL THINGS AND YOU HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY,GUILTY, GUILTY!!! GOD SENT YOU A PLAGUE, BUT YOU DID NOT TAKE WARNING. AMERICA, LIKE ROME, HAS FALLEN BECAUSE OF YOU.THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD AND THIS IS HIS LAW: “IF A MAN ALSO LIE WITH MANKIND, AS HE LIETH WITH A WOMAN, BOTH OF THEM HAVE COMMITTED ANABOMINATION. THEY SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. THEIR BLOOD SHALL BE UPON THEM.” ___ LEV (HANDWRITTEN) 20:13REPENT IN THE NAME OF JESUS FROM YOUR FILTHY LIFESTYLE OF SATAN, OR IN THE ETERNAL LAKE OF FIRE YOU WILL EXPERIENCE AGONIES THAT MAKE AUSCHWITZ SEEM LIKE PARADISE!THE ARMY OF GOD
At least 2 leaders of the GLBT community received these letters on September the 11th.
http://yafwatch.blogspot.com/2007/09/commentary-hate-gr...
For those who don’t know, the Army of God is a domestic terrorist organization that has participated in bombings of women’s health clinics, murder, armed robbery, and sending fake anthrax through the mail.”
“IF A MAN ALSO LIE WITH MANKIND, AS HE LIETH WITH A WOMAN, BOTH OF THEM HAVE COMMITTED AN ABOMINATION.”
*******************************
That sounds to me like it could be taken several different ways. Mankind? Could that be you are out to screw the public? Let the public bring you some sort of illicit pleasure?
No slam dunk there. Just some radical’s interpretation.
“REPENT IN THE NAME OF JESUS FROM YOUR FILTHY LIFESTYLE OF SATAN, OR IN THE ETERNAL LAKE OF FIRE YOU WILL EXPERIENCE AGONIES THAT MAKE AUSCHWITZ SEEM LIKE PARADISE!”
That sounds like it could have been written by nathan!
Farmgrl I have never passed judgement on your lifestyle and don’t plan to do so now. Yesterday I tried to say why I didn’t think that sexual orientation was an appropriate for a five year old. I also don’t think they should be told about STDs at that age. What message do you take from that?
Because of my opinion PMom and Chas jumped all over me. Was I not suppossed to jump back?
Why do you call me names and try to demean me all the time. As adults can we not have a discussion without the name calling?
It is like a gang mentality. Pmom will say something and Chas says ‘me too’ right on schedule. The reason I start on Chas is because he makes some insane remark about Christianity and why wouldn’t I think I could talk back.
By the way I agree with something Tara said on another thread about ‘domestic partnerships’. Not sure how you feel on this but it would give the legal protections that aren’t in place now. Have I missed something here?
I don’t think the repuks as you call us have a lock on intolerance. I log on each day to have a good discussion about timely topics. Some days it works others like yesterday are a waste.
ksgrm posts: “The reason I start on Chas is because he makes some insane remark about Christianity and why wouldn’t I think I could talk back.”——————————–
Whatever Chas posts he does so under his own name, never under yours, so he takes credit for the opinion you say is insane. If you post your opinion then both you and he would be on record with your differing positions. Everyone reading knows what he thinks and what you think without anyone needing to call anyone names, or judging another’s opinion as “insane.”
What need is there other than I agree or I disagree? Or maybe just, this is what I think…
Why does it appear you can only see when you are called names and never when you are doing the calling?
Well Linda what I meant is that he puts down my opinion as ridiculous. You obviously didn’t understand this. He and pmom yesterday gave me grief because I don’t think a 5 year old should be taught sexual orientation in kindergarten. I do try not to call people names but I will have to admit that on ocassion I do.
Linda you are very tolerant with those you share beliefs with. We all are. We just need to get beyond that I guess and turn this blog into a forum for ideas.
Why do you call me names and try to demean me all the time. As adults can we not have a discussion without the name calling?
I don’t think the repuks as you call us have a lock on intolerance. I log on each day to have a good discussion about timely topics. Some days it works others like yesterday are a waste.Posted by: ksgrm
ksgrm, I have lurked on this blog since some of its earliest days. In reference to your first point, yes we as adults should be able to have discussions as adults. Unfortunately, an unmoderated blog or discussion board almost never leads to such discussions for prolonged periods as both sides start taking pot shots at each other.
Use of words like Repuke show a contempt, arrogance, and lack of tolerance for those using it that is just as bad as those who use words like DemocRAT. The most intolerant people on this blog are the ones trying to shove their brand of “tolerance” down your throat. Those same intolerant people are the first to bring up other people’s intolerances. Agree with them and everything is okay. Disagree with them or be tolerant of something they are intolerant and there is hell to pay. We are all intolerant of different things, that is a facet of human nature.
I gave up early on about trying to have intellectual debate since both sides are intractable in their positions. All most of the regular posters here want to do is argue their points into the ground. It gets old real quick. I wish the Eagle would place monitors and permanently ban a few of the worst offenders and enforce a code of civilty on this blog. Then, this would be a blog worthy of the discussions that we both want to see. Disrespect only weakens a person’s stance, as do shouting, personal attacks, trolling, flaming, and laming.
The other day someone lamented the loss of some posters. They left because they got tired of the same people making the same stupid arguments repeatedly. The hardcore regular posters are not going to change their minds, regardless of which side of the fence they are on and regardless of how much evidence the other side brings as evidence of proof. I do not try to change anyone’s mind, but I do raise questions on other people’s points because those points are not always clear or are hypocritical of their stances on these or other issues.
If a person wants to be hypocritical, that is their choice but they have no right to accuse someone else of being hypocritical. I see people defending their hate by saying the other side hates me or my friends. Such illogical only guarantees the hate will continue on both sides. I see similar comments about Democratic abuses: the Republicans did it, so now it’s okay for the Democrats to do it. If it wrong for one person or party, then it is wrong for the other person or party. You can’t have it both ways.
From my perspective, some people on this blog get a perverse kick out of arguing and trying to goad others. As an example, a poster recently said something to the effect that I was only trying to irritate another poster.
I used to be amazed how someone would make a valid point in commenting to another poster, and that poster would get quiet and not respond or respond by making a personal attack. This behavior occurs by both sides. I used to be amazed by people that post 50+ times a day claim to have outside lives or jobs, but posted throughout the day, night, and wee hours of the morning. I am not sure when some of these people have time to sleep, much less have time for a personal or work life.
While I hope this post will make a difference, I doubt it will based on the last however months I have been lurking here.
If the people that spend so much time posting here, instead turned that energy into making a difference in the real world, they might be surprised as to how much a difference they could make. If all a person does is grip about the problem, then that person is part of the problem and not part of the solution. Make a difference where you are at instead of complaining about what is wrong with the world. How is griping on this blog going to make the world a better place if you don’t turn that gripe into action? How many of you that complain about our politicians have called or written or otherwise contacted those politicians to let them know how you feel? When enough people do that, they do listen.
Point of clarity in my earlier comment:
“As an example, a poster recently said something to the effect that I was only trying to irritate another poster. ”
The I in question was the person posting the comment and not me. I should have said he and not I. I never post to irritate other people.
Thomas you make valid points. And yes I do write, call, email my elected congressmen and senators. This helped in some ways because votes have been changed. The last immigration bill was a good example.
It also helped because they know who I am and when I needed DC tickets for the White House and a tour of the House of Congress they were able to do that for me. Some fringe benefits for being active.
I will admit that I have been guilty of baiting after I get tired of logic not working. I’ll watch that.
Thanks for the comments.
I am visit other discussion boards and blogs and find if I get upset with someone else’s post to not respond immediately. I try not to get upset with other posters on any board I visit, but some people post such stupid garbage, I have to wonder why they haven’t won a Darwin Award yet.
I had a teacher that would write an e-mail in this situation, show it to a friend and his friend was to remind him why he should not send it. It allowed him to blow off steam and get over whatever his issue was with that employee.