Thompson never got going

thompsonleftpointinghead.jpgAfter Fred Thompson’s mediocre showing in Saturday’s South Carolina Republican primary — which his campaign said was a “must win” — it wasn’t surprising that he dropped out of the presidential race today. Despite initial support from conservative Republicans and the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee, Thompson’s campaign never got going, in part because of perceptions that Thompson rarely got going. One campaign insider complained to the Washington Post: “His rivals would do more in a day than Fred would do in a month.”

86 Comments

  1. Posted January 22, 2008 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Thompson was Max’s candidate, wasn’t he.

    Way to pick ‘em, Max.

  2. Posted January 22, 2008 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Clearly he had to much sex appeal and had to drop out to spare the health of so many women fainting from his muskiness.

  3. Ben
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Fred Who?

  4. Posted January 22, 2008 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    Fred, we hardly knew ye – were running.

    What did you stand for Fred, what were your positions, what the Hell did you do besides show up at a diner to get some lunch?

    Bye Fred, we’ll see you on down the road.

    And, by the way, Fred, Steven Hill was better on Law and Order than you were.

  5. Max
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    Yup Capn, I was for Thompson.

    And you were for Gore.

    And all The People are sooooo excited about the remaining candidates to choose from.

    Half The People are soooo excited they won’t even be voting in November.

    On to the least of two evils…..

  6. Posted January 22, 2008 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    Gore, unlike your candidate, actually won the majority in 2000.

    “Get over it?”

    In your dreams . . . never forget is more like it.

  7. outlander
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    Fred wasn’t going to win. It was plain from when he got in. Yet, he might have have made a helluva president. We’ll never know.

    We pick our leaders in a really screwy, personally destructive way. And we wonder why we don’t get the best of the best. Why we have to settle.

  8. The Phantom
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Fred, we hardly knew Ye!

  9. Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    “In your dreams . . . never forget is more like it.”

    Never forget is right. We will forget when the Republic Party stands on their hind legs and admits that they screwed the country for the benefit of a Yale Frat Boy, wannabe Cowboy that has turned this great nation into a laughingstock.

    Forget, yeah right.

  10. TDT
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Max – I assume you mean half the Republicans won’t be voting in November, because the Democrats are excited about all 3 of our top candidates.

  11. MonkeyHawk
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    “outlander,” with 20/20 hindsight, offers –

    “Fred wasn’t going to win. It was plain from when he got in.”

    He “got in?!” Funny how we all missed that.

    Fact is, “outlander,” Fredrick of Hollywood was ballyhooed as the 2nd Reagan last spring. A movie star! A man of the people!

    And turned into a lazy fart who got a lotta money on a fluke (and the trophy wife). That was back when 9iu11iani was on top of the world and McPain was dead and the Huckster was nowhere.

    Sorry if I find it diffucult to take any of you so-called “principled” conservatives seriously anymore.

    I know your type. You’ll show up in six months or so as the “always knew Newt was the guy” kind of Republic Party advocate… should the primaries continue to be the GOP disaster. Or “always knew Rudy was the guy,” or “always knew Mittens was the guy….”

  12. Max
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    Yeah right TDT.

    Name 3 SPECIFIC reasons for each of your 3 candidates why you are so excited about them.

  13. Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    “Name 3 SPECIFIC reasons for each of your 3 candidates why you are so excited about them.”

    For each of the candidates on the Democratic side….

    1. They are not a Republican.

    2. They are not a Republican.

    3. They are not a Republican.

    That is the bare minimum requirement for the next president of the United States.

  14. TDT
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    Max – Clinton has been vetted, there will be no surprises, ’cause everything that could be dug up has. Plus, she’s a powerful woman that many Democrats really like. And for the Democrats, many would be happy to have Bill back in the WH. Obama is young, fresh, and a natural leader. He can truly inspire hope, and just by his presence in this primary, has changed the focus in BOTH parties. And Edwards has a long history of advocating for what he believes in, and looking at his record, he believes in advocating for helpless people, people of the middle class, and poor people. He doesn’t just talk the talk, he walks the walk. He seems to have a calm head on his shoulders, and he will truly fight, and hard, for what he believes in.

  15. Econ101
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    Max
    Thompson was my first choice, based on issues.
    Only thing was that Thompson did vote for McCain-Feingold, a direct attack on the First Amendment.

    Anyway, Conservatives are only in a mind because no one candidate represents ALL of our views —

    YET!

    They are all moving further to the right, as we speak. Watch them all fight for Fred’s loyal supporters, between now and Florida!

  16. TDT
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    Okay WSC, that is so true, and I wish I would’ve seen your answer before I wrote out mine, because it would have been much easier.

  17. outlander
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    Sorry if I find it diffucult to take any of you so-called “principled” conservatives seriously anymore.

    I know your type. You’ll show up in six months or so as the “always knew Newt was the guy” kind of Republic Party advocate… should the primaries continue to be the GOP disaster. Or “always knew Rudy was the guy,” or “always knew Mittens was the guy….”

    ———–

    Dear Monkeyhawk, I’m glad that you think know my “type”, but you don’t. As near as I can tell, you are just another windbag who thinks he can write.

    Nothing personal.

  18. Econ101
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    My 3 requirements:

    1.) Not a Clinton

    2.) Not a Clinton

    3.) Not a Clinton

  19. lindainks55
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    All the Democratic candidates understand what a serious mess bushco have made of our country.

    Whereas I’m having a difficult time deciding who is my favorite because they are all good candidates and I wouldn’t mind having any or all as POTUS, it seems the Republicans are having at least as much difficulty finding anyone they could support.

    All I hear from those who profess to be everything / anything except a Democrat are complaints about Democratic candidates, no positives about any of those running with the “R” beside their name.

  20. lindainks55
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    My last post (4:35) wasn’t fair or complete. I DO hear positives about Ron Paul from his supporters!

  21. Kansas
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    Econ 101 had better get his ass to some other country cause his kind is about to get whupped!

  22. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    So Paulie, then by your standards, you could support Obama or Edwards. Good to know.

    I thought of YOU today when I read this:

    “Faith in trickle-down is a bit like feeding racehorses superior oats so that starving sparrows can forage in their dung.”John Kenneth Galbraith

    Hell, Max would bag up the dung and sell it just so the birds COULNT forage in it. Mean is as mean does.

    Prepare for the “socialist” attack in 3… 2… 1…

  23. Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    “My 3 requirements:”

    To quote your hero, Paul, “who cares what you think?”

  24. outlander
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

    Interesting. Republican front runner McCain beats Hillary or Obama.

  25. Kansas
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    Of course McCain’s past hasn’t been presented to the American public…just yet.

  26. Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Outlander–

    Good post. That is exactly what the polls show, although with Obama it’s virtually a statistical tie.

    You’d better hope McCain is your guy because all the rest of the RepubliCONs lose massively to any Dem.

  27. Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    Come November, Outlander, the Democrats are going to turn out in record numbers – young and old – black and white – gay and straight – all to ensure a victory for the forces of decency and concern for ALL people.

    The Republic Party is going down to defeat – no more Reagan Lite, no more Bush II.

    The American people are sick to death of the “Uniter, not a Divider” that ended up being the most virulent partisan president that we have ever had.

    The American people are sick to death of “Compassionate Conservatism” that had no semblance to compassion.

    The American people are sick of Voodoo Economics and arrogant foreign policies.

    Americans are ready for a change.

    And another Bush Clone in the White House is just not going to do it.

    There is a good reason that less than one third of the American people approve of the job that George W Bush is doing.

    There is a reason that nearly eighty percent of American think that our country is on the wrong track.

    The reason is George W Bush and Americans are ready for a change.

  28. Max
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    To summarize then TDT:

    Clinton:
    1. No surprises as dirt has been dug.
    2. Powerful woman.
    3. Comes with Bill.

    Obama:
    1. Young.
    2. Fresh.
    3. Natural leader.
    4. Inspires hope.

    Edwards:
    1. Good advocater.
    2. Helps helpless people.
    3. He walks the walk.
    4. Calm head.
    5. Fighter.

    Ok, I’m convinced.

  29. Max
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    All three, ClintonObamaEdwards will:

    1. Implement the highest tax increase in history.

    2. Increase Socialist Programs including National Health Care.

    3. Destroy the health care system, Doctor shortages galore.

    4. Break the Bank before the Social Security/Medicare Crisis even hits.

    5. Regulate Industry to death leading to a 10% unemployment rate.

    6. Sign global warming treaties that will funnel taxpayer dollars overseas. (Following the jobs that left first)

    7. Destroy the 2nd Amendment in the name of the children and crime control.
    *Ban semi-automatic firearms
    *Ban guns with a capacity greater then 6 rounds
    *Register all remaining guns
    *License all gun owners

    8. Do nothing about Energy, resulting in $200/barrel oil and 10% inflation.

    9. Try to ethanol a solution resulting in food shortages and 300% price increases on food.

    10. Keep us in Iraq blaming Bush the whole time.

    11. Show us how much they CARE.

    And that’s just the first year, 2009!

  30. outlander
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    Oh,I see McCain beats Edwards too.

  31. Kansas
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    I guess Max needs to leave the country too!!!

  32. Kansas
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Wasn’t it Bush that said that the Constitution was just “a goddamned piece of paper”?

  33. outlander
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    Nope “Kansas”. Just another Democratic (did I get that right) lie.

  34. Posted January 22, 2008 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    Yes, it was, K.

    And wasn’t it the American press who ignored it?

    Yes, again.

  35. GMC70
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    On issues, Thompson would have been my preference. Unfortunately, he came in late, and acted like he didn’t really want the job. Of course, to some extent, that’s a good thing; anyone who really wants to be president should be automatically disqualified from the job.

    Too bad. Yes, all the others have flaws (as did, of course, Thompson; no one’s perfect – ‘cept me, of course ;)). McCain doesn’t believe in the 1st Amendment, per the McCain-Feingold Politician Protection and Public Suppression Act; Romney is inconsistent and malleable (though not as plastic and fake as Edwards); Huckabee wraps big expansive government up in a “conservative” package. No perfect candidates there.

    In any case: On to brokered conventions!!!! Wheeeeeeeee!

  36. Max
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    That’s Plan B, Kansas.

    And when all the hard-working American taxpayers quit fighting the system and just join the Socialists and quit working, or leaving the country, no one will be left to do the work! Or to tax!

  37. The Phantom
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    And, Fred was just hittin’ his stride! Should have kept the old truck routine, though.

  38. Posted January 22, 2008 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    Funny thing about those socialist countries Max, they aren’t going into a recession and their currency isn’t becoming worthless like here in America.

  39. Steven Davis
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    “Interesting. Republican front runner McCain beats Hillary or Obama.”

    Actually in some of the recent polls you post, Clinton beats McCain. All of the results of McCain v. Clinton polls you link were within the margin of error. It is a long time before the poll that counts. So, I’d save my putative victory laps for later, outlander.

    If I had to vote Republican, and that is not a mandate yet, I would vote for McCain. Hence, I would like to see a McCain v. Clinton contest.

  40. Posted January 22, 2008 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    So, Max, what is your Republic candidate do for us – other than increase the partisan divide to the point of revolution?

    Balance the budget? – Naw, Republics don’t believe in balanced budgets.

    End the War on Iraq? – Two thirds of the American public wants the War ended, but Republics say that we should “stay the course.”

    Save Social Security? – The Republics claim that privatization will save SS, except they conveniently ignore the reduced receipts that private accounts would yield, leading to more debt.

    Paying down the debt? – Republics are not concerned about any stinkin’ debt – they are real men that are not afraid of debt.

    Is that how it works, Max?

  41. outlander
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    Nah Steven, I know that polls can change significantly and probably can’t be relied on for much. I was just injecting a little reality check into the the conversation, which seemed to be assuming a Democrat(ic?) victory.

  42. Kansas
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    A reality check is admitting that the Republican party thinks (like their Prez) that the Constitution is “just a goddamned piece of paper”.

  43. Posted January 22, 2008 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    A whole lot of nic stealing going on. :D

    But if it’s the leftist libs that do it – they get a pass eh?

  44. mrcontroversy
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    Max:
    I’ll take your challenge… as soon as I’m off the air tonight.

  45. mrcontroversy
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    In fact, tune in… I’m going to make it my monologue tonight.

  46. Econ101
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    Hillary will be the Democrat nominee.

    Bush will not be on the ballot.

    The public is tired of Bush, true.

    The public is also tired of the Clinton TWO.

  47. Posted January 22, 2008 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    The public is not nearly as tired of Clinton as they are of Bush.

    Bush has an approval rating of 32%

    Clinton had an approval rating of 67% on the day he was impeached.

    Clinton still enjoys approval ratings in the mid-sixties.

    Bush couldn’t get to 67% if his Daddy bought it for him.

  48. Econ101
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    WS
    Bush is NOT on the ballot.

    Hillary’s NEGATIVES are very high.

    I think that you are sympathetic to Obama.

    I think that I understand why.

  49. Posted January 22, 2008 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    And Paul, Bush’s negatives are off the freakin’ chart – the worst negatives and the worst sustained approval ratings in history.

    Yet, you would have us believe that George is just a swell guy and a great president.

    Yeah, and Upchuck Norris is a great actor.

  50. Econ101
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    Clark
    Bush is not on the Ballot.

  51. Posted January 22, 2008 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    “Bush is not on the Ballot.”

    There is a God after all.

    Thanks be to God!

  52. Posted January 22, 2008 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    “Bush is not on the Ballot.”

    But his policies are. Are you going to walk away from the Bush Doctrines, Paul?

    Every Republican has to either condemn or support the Bush policies. They can’t deny the fearless leader of their party.

    Either they are in or out.

  53. Econ101
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    Try naming a Bush policy that did not have a bunch of Democrats, on board, would you?

    There are not very many.

    Heck, Hillary even voted for the war.

  54. Sam
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    Sorry to interrupt, but –
    Thompson seemed like an old drunk has been wherever he appeared. As for his trophy wife – she has to dumb as a stump.

    Now, please continue.

  55. Sam
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    Bush’s Policy to mislead the public on just about everything he did. Uhhh, Alberto Gonzalez should go down in history as the most ill-suited person to lead others. Harriet Miers was Bush’s idea. How about that whiny nasal Bradley Schlozman and his lying testimony before congress….and now the guy works in Wichita. Dick Cheney is satan.

  56. J R
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    Gosh Max is taking this hard!

    Shall I just slam his head in the oven door a couple times?

    Huckabee is backing off in Florida. But that won’t fade his showing much.

    Hard to tell where the Thompson vote there breaks. I guess this only HURTS McCain as Thompson backers won’t go his way. Huckabee may be backing off in Florida to help McCain against Romney. Or not.

    Sure makes the Dem field look better by comparison!

  57. Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    “Try naming a Bush policy that did not have a bunch of Democrats, on board, would you?”

    Jeez, I don’t know Paul – ah…………. withdrawing troops from Iraq, SCHIP, permanent tax cuts for the already wealthy, stem cells, Iraq War funding, let’s see now, faith-based programs, abstinence only sex (lack of) education, abortion, the Dept of Justice, Supreme Court nominees, wait, there’s more, gay marriage,signing statements, the Senate Intelligence report on Iraq, damn, that’s all I can think of off the top of my head.

    Jeez, I guess that Bush was truly a “Uniter, not a Divider.”

    Yeah, and Fred Thompson would make a GREAT president.

    Except he quit the race ‘cuz nobody gave a damn.

  58. American, of the USA
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    WS,

    Do you forget that the Democratically controlled Congess’ negative ratings are lower than the president’s.

    Don’t forget, they up for election too!

  59. Mod
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

    >> I know your type. You’ll show up in six months or so as the “always knew Newt was the guy” kind of Republic Party advocate… should the primaries continue to be the GOP disaster. Or “always knew Rudy was the guy,” or “always knew Mittens was the guy….” <<

    *SNORT* “Mittens” I really did LOL on that.

    Republicans really know how to pick ‘em, don’t they. Oh wait, no one voted for Nixon …

  60. Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    “Do you forget that the Democratically controlled Congess’ negative ratings are lower than the president’s.”

    Only because they didn’t have the cajones to get us out of Iraq.

    That is the only reason that Congress gets such low marks – they won’t kick Bush in the teeth and tell him to begin representing the American people and not just his narrow ideological base.

  61. American, of the USA
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    Hey WSC,

    Can Orc’s join the Democratic party?

  62. American, of the USA
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    Hey WSC,

    What God are you praising?

  63. Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    “What God are you praising?”

    Is there more than one?

  64. American, of the USA
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    No. Only one.

  65. American, of the USA
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    WS,

    What is his Name?

  66. Econ101
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    Actually,
    I am more worried about gaining back Congress than I am the Presidential race, though both are important.
    This is a major reason I do not want McCain.
    McCain will totally demoralize the Republican base.
    If Republicans stay home, we do badly in Congress.
    If Republicans turn out, we do well, regardless of which way “independents” break.

    Hillary’s negatives make it possible that she MIGHT win, but lose Congress, in the process.
    Anything can happen, but this will be another very close election.
    No mandates.
    Possibly divided government.
    Both paries will still retain enough power, after the election, to check and balance each other.

  67. Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    “What is his Name?”

    Well, let’s see………..

    Allah is the Arabic word for God. Yahweh is the Hebrew word for God. God is the English word for, ah, God.

    Now, I speak English…………..

    Let me see. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……………..

    I know!!!!

    God!

    Did I pass the test?

  68. Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    “Both paries will still retain enough power, after the election, to check and balance each other.”

    But the Republicans don’t believe in checks and balances.

    They want a permanent Republican majority in all three branches of government.

    They have said so………..

  69. American, of the USA
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    WS,

    “They want a permanent Republican majority in all three branches of government.

    They have said so………”

    And the Dems haven’t said the same thing?

  70. Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    “And the Dems haven’t said the same thing?”

    Nope.

  71. American, of the USA
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    WS,

    The God of Jesus Christ, his Name is NOT Allah!

    Allah is a false God.

  72. J R
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    The Dems are about to GET a permanent majority in the House Senate and the White House.

  73. American, of the USA
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    WS,

    I think that is a good example from J R.

  74. Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    “The God of Jesus Christ, his Name is NOT Allah!”

    I thought you asked me what God’s name was. You didn’t ask anything about Jesus or that stuff.

    Now, Allah is just a word in a foreign language that means God, just like Yahweh is the Hebrew word for God. God, the word, is just an English translation from the Ancient Greek or Ancient Hebrew.

    Is Yahweh not God either?

    I am confused – are you saying that the words Allah and Yahweh are not legit?

    Does that mean that only English speaking people can believe in God?

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmm……………….

  75. American, of the USA
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    WS,

    What God do you give thanks to and praise to? What is his Name?

  76. Posted January 22, 2008 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    “What is his Name?”

    God.

  77. Pedant
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

    Econ101
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    Bush will not be on the ballot.

    :lol:

    Incorrect, grasshopper. Bush’s name won’t be on the ballot, true. But trust me, Bush will not only be on the ballot, he’ll be featured.

    For example, looks like He Who’ll Be Front and Center in 2008 will probably get to make what, the eight gazilionth trip back in the ol’ way back machine to talk, yet again, about 2003:

    Study: False statements preceded war

    54 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON – A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

    The study concluded that the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study;_ylt=AkrOteOYS83oQ8GCg8fw4des0NUE

    You think he, and especially the rest of the Republics, just might be getting tired of talking about 2003 every stinkin’ year right up to 2008?

    You think it might come up a few more times before November?

    :lol:

  78. Econ101
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    Hillary was so ACTIVE under Bill Clinton’s Presidency, and she voted for war, based on what she already knew, as First Lady and a Senator, remember?

  79. Posted January 22, 2008 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

    Paul, stick to the Republic Party, your opinion regarding the Democratic candidates means nothing.

    Remember, you are a REPUBLICAN.

    Your vote doesn’t count regarding OUR candidate.

  80. Posted January 22, 2008 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

    So Pedant,

    Were the Democrats in this video complicit about Iraq with their false statements as well?

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE

  81. Posted January 22, 2008 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    Thats what happens when the Hollywood writers go on strike, see ya Freddy, keep your head up, I’m sure that there are plenty of other roles you can audition for that doesn’t involve thinking on ones feet.
    Let me see, strongest on the economy-Ron Paul
    foriegn policy of peace first- Ron Paul
    Strongest on civil liberties- Ron Paul
    The only candidate who will return us to Constitutional rule- Ron Paul.
    Everyone else is also just trying to play a role.

  82. Pleefer
    Posted January 23, 2008 at 6:20 am | Permalink

    “American, of the USA”:

    A very PATRIOTIC! but a very redundant name nonetheless… and you ain’t much of an American of the USA if you are gonna attack someone’s God like that. And God’s name is supposedly “not to be uttered”, but here you are saying it and isn’t is YWHW? The Tetragrammaton? Heck you won’t even know what that means cause you aren’t an American of Greece, sorry.

    What you are trying to say is that white anglo saxons “Americans from America” are the only people who are able to believe in this God of Abraham or Ibrahim. Sheeooot, sorry buddy, didn’t mean to confuse you, Ibrahim is the Arabic “name” for Abraham.

  83. Pleefer
    Posted January 23, 2008 at 6:24 am | Permalink

    Oh yeah, to get back on topic…good riddance to bad rubbish (Thompson). He was a couple of friends of mine choice. I told them then that America would know he was an evil lobbyist who was also just an actor.

  84. The Phantom
    Posted January 23, 2008 at 6:57 am | Permalink

    Thompson, will he run? Will he run?Yes! Race over.

  85. Ben
    Posted January 23, 2008 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    The God of Abraham whose name is Dios (in Spanish).

  86. TDT
    Posted January 23, 2008 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    Max
    Posted January 22, 2008 at 4:58 pm | Permalink
    All three, ClintonObamaEdwards will:

    That’s one hell of a crystal ball you got there Max. Considering you did back Thompson, who was never actually a candidate, I don’t put a lot of stock in your abilities to see into the future.

One Trackback

  1. By arabic film festival on February 17, 2008 at 6:39 am

    arabic film festival…

    Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !…