freddy lost to a nigger, freddy lost to a nigger...oh wait..he lost to a senile racist old fuck who got pwn'd by gooks for being a navy faggot...who then got beat by a nigger..my bad
M e t a m u c i l . . . . Z z z z z z z z z . . . . Fitting with all-things-Fred, that was the most boring and lethargic Reagan pander I've ever seen, despite the "trophy wife" (his words, not mine...).... Z z z z z z z z z . . . .
Fred just proved his Presidential qualities in tonight's debate (1/10)! He's intelligent, humorous, serious, determined, articulate, sincere and far more Conservative (qualified) than the others. He totally kicked Huckabooty!
SLEEPY; "adjective"; // Meaning: Ready for or needing sleep: dozy, drowsy, nodding, slumberous, slumbery, somnolent, soporific. See unawareness/Fred Thompson/out-of-touch. Inducing sleep or sedation: hypnotic, narcotic, opiate, sedative, slumberous, somnifacient, somniferous, somnific, somnolent, soporific. See Z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z . . . .
I challenge anyone to find something on Fred Thompson that indicates he is dishonest, immoral, or incompitent. Your problem will be that you can't. Fred is the most qualified candidate to be the next president from either party. So, if your problem is that you would rather have someone tell it like it is than to spin and lie about something then you need to grow up.
How about his whole red pickup truck incident? He made people think he was driving around this beatup pickup truck he had for years during his original congressional campaign but the fact is he rented it and had a staffer drive it the whole time and he'd drive it the last mile or so to the event. Very dishonest
This guy is the laziest candidate I have ever seen. His idea of campaigning is calling talk shows from his house and doing a few TV interviews. The guy has no popular support except for unmotivated Law and Order fans who will be too busy watching reruns when the primaries roll around. Ther reason he probably even registers in the polls is because all his supporters are watching TV 24-7 sitting right next to the phone when the pollsters call.
It's great to see that the Republicans have finally come to their senses and supported a pro choice, pro gun control, pro gay marriage candidate. Go Giuliani. Subvert from within.
Fred Thompson is the real conservative choice for 2008! On Thanksgiving Eve, November 21, 2007, let't thank him and give him the boost he needs to become President!
Fred thinks that the best way to reform the military is to throw more money at it and get 1,000,000 young people to sign up to be ground troops and increase defense spending to 4.5% of GDP. Currently, military spending total about 4 percent of our GDP, or $544 billion out of $13.06 trillion. For the record, he opposed the children's health insurance bill that Bush vetoed.
Pogue I do believe ive already explained to you about the failings of the Clinton administration. Carter was and is still an embarassment. Reagan admitted his mistakes and corrected them on Iran-Contra. Clinton has never once admitted to any of his back door dealings, let alone his personal sex life (which is between him and God...oh and Hillary too I guess.)
Again NEVER USE REAGAN IN THE SAME SENTENCE AS CLINTON!
Carter was an embarrassment only because you guys think he was. He tried all he could with Nixon and Ford's mistakes of running down the economy and inherited their economy in recession. Reagan made a deal with terrorists to arm them in release of the hostages in his october surprise that's what got him the election. Throughout his term he showed a penchant of negotiating with terrorists
So how exactly does Ronald Reagan make a deal with Iran BEFORE he becomes President. Im not denying that the hostages were release to make Carter look bad (which is surprisingly easy to do) but Iran does this all the time, just look at the timing of the British Hostages. Reagan negotiated with Iran, he negotiated with the Soviet Union, he DID NOT negotiate with terrorists.
And yet that's exactly what happened. He negotiated the release of our hostages before he was president. You dont find it fishy that the day he became president they were released and we ended up helping Iran first in the war against Iraq. Yes we were selling weapons to both sides during the war.
And yet it happened. He was more than a civilian he was a presidential candidate and very public figure. Its more than just circumstantial. Its an odd coincidence that the hostages get released the day he takes office and then we start shipping arms to iran.
You didn't explain anything about your misgivings about Clinton. You only showed that you were too busy watching saturday morning cartoons during the 90s and weren't paying attention as Clinton actually caught terrorists and tried passing antiterrorism legislation. You know the conviction rate of the DOJ is only at 29% now compared to a norm of 93%? Clinton didn't admit to his personal sex life? Wow I remember him apologizing on TV when has the current president apologized on tv?
Clinton's sex life is his own darn business, I do not recall him ever apologizing for his faults, nor has any President ever apologized for their faults, nor will any President ever apologize for their faults.
Look you can pull poll numbers out your ass all day long but we had Oklahoma City, WTC, USS Cole, and several embassy bombings during the Clinton years. Apparently Clinton was not effective at stopping terrorism.
Of course you don't recall Clinton apologizing you were busy watching your cartoons. Right after the monica lewinsky affair was all over tv Bill Clinton had a press conference in which he apologized for lying on tv. Yeah and Clinton caught those responsible for attacking Oklahoma City, WTC and the embassy bombings. What did Bush do about those who plotted the Cole or those directly responsible for 9/11? Nothing
Oh good he caught them...but he made no attempt to prevent such actions from happening again. Clinton viewed terrorism as simple law enforcement. Incidentally ive never been fond of cartoons so cut the cheeky crap.
Clinton not only caught them but put them in jail. He also increased our counter terrorism funding, had the CIA looking for bin laden with orders to kill. Had drones that were looking for bin laden. He was obsessed with bin laden and the republicans at the time even said it. He prevented many credible attacks on our soil during his administration from the 12 airliner plot to the lincoln and holland tunnels, to the plot to blow up FBI headquarters. Do some more research kid.
Those held in Guantanamo Bay detention camp on Terrorist charges under GWB order are not terrorist/ not responsible for 9/11? Is that why you're complaining so much about the camps? Or you're one of those wackos that think 9/11 was an inside job and want to blame GWB on doing nothing but taking our freedoms away. I would rather have my security over a fascist Islamic ruling.
Those held at Guatanamo haven't been charged with anything why do you think they have kept them there. If they were charged you would have trials instead you have the Bush administration trying to avoid trials because their cases are week. Look at the case recently where there was a mistrial against a few charities whom they said supported terror. The government had no case and so now its going to be tossed out
No one here has said 9/11 was an inside job but you. Look at what happened at Abu Ghraib. You had a fair majority of the people held there being let go because we had no evidence to hold them. People at Abu Ghraib were being plucked off the streets because their neighbors would selling them out for money. Not because they were actual terrorists. If you have a case then charge them. A sense of justice is something this country was founded on.
Poque, Honestly, I rather LIKE having GIT-MO just the way it is! a waste disposal unit of terrorist trash. And the more of those bastards we put in the glad trashbags, the less trash on the field our soldiers have to deal with, or did you pull an Al Gore and inconvieniently forget the truth? The man who INVENTED the internet?! Love that shot of Al lookin down the barrel of his M-16 in nam. Guess he forgot to load it if he was gonna off himself...
We could use the same metrics for Bush. Add up the deaths from all those previous attacks to the attack Bush did nothing to stop on 9/11. Plus those not being caught for the anthrax mailings, the ongoing attacks on our allies and our troops in Iraq, if you're going to add non Us homeland attacks from foreigners to the mix like you did. Then Clinton stopped it from 93 to the end of his term. Clinton did more about stopping terrorism than Bush did or has done since.
DOJ conviction rate is down to 29% under bush. It is usually around 90%. What this means is either they are pushing too many cases without evidence, hiring bad staff, or everything got so politicized nothing gets done. You take your pick
All we have had in Bush's term is 9/11 which was huge but at least it woke us up, and the anthrax scare. We have not been attacked since and we all know that the terrorists would like nothing more than to attack us at home. Bush has for his credit taken real steps towards defeating terrorism by attacking the root of the problem, which is far more than I can say for Clinton.
9/11, our allies in spain were attacked, we had the anthrax mailing to the reporters, congress, etc. beltway snipers and continued attacks on our troops. You're not being fair here kid. You're not counting all the attacks on our troops under bush jr. But you're counting them under Clinton. Clinton took far more engaging steps to fighting terrorism than even Bush has and Clinton actually got results while Bush sat on his hands while 9/11 happened and now our conviction rate is down to 29%
Yeah Reagan would be on a lower pedestal than Clinton as Reagan shot the economy dick cheney style in the face. We had recessions during the reagan and bush sr years. We had reagan supporting death squads. Reagan didn't correct anything in regards to Iran-Contra. He had altzheimers and seemed to forget what was going on during the hearings. Reagan and his crew should have been prosecuted but they were left off the hook when the blame fell on Ollie North.
Now I know your are a loon and a Clinton fanatic. Reagan's supply-side economic policies repaired the economy without the need for massive goverment, new-deal style intervention and without the need to raise taxes. Reaganomics worked and still does. Reagan never supported death squads. Reagan admitted his mistake in Iran-contra and stopped selling the Iranians weapons. Reagan's alzheimers did not take hold until several years after he had left office. Any more misconceptions you need cleared up?
I'm a clinton fanatic? Clinton was okay. Reagan's trickle down economics repaired the economy? Kid you weren't even conscious during the 80s. Ask any economist and they'll tell you how Reagan caused a recession that lasted through the end of his term and past Bush Sr. Reagan had to raise taxes several times before the end of his term because his policies were bad. Even Bush Sr. called his theories Voodoo economics. Reagan did support the death squads he propped up in Latin America.
Actually I have at least two economists at different schools and they would seem to agree with me about Reagan's trickle down economics which still work today.
lol my god you have a slanted view of history. Time to infuse some reality into the debate. Reagan's altzheimers affected him so much during his second term it has been said Nancy was running things much like Eleanor was running things during the end of FDR's term. So whose fault was it for the stock market crash of 87? Reagan claimed ignorance and continued the authorizing of the sale of arms after the investigation began.
As for taxes 1982: Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes 37.5 billion, Highway Revenue Act 3.3 billion, 1984 decifit reduction act 18 billion, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconcilliation Act of 1985, Tax Reform Act of 1986, Omnibus Reconcilliation act of 1987.. youre right he didn't raise taxes
Fred Thompson is the best candidate. He's calm, in control, and a compulsive omnivore. If you're looking for the perfect deodorant, then you're out of luck.
He'll support our Armed Forces by providing them essential supplies, such as curling irons and week-old sushi.
He wants to fix health care. On Day One, Fred will demand health insurance for animals.
With passion for innovation, Fred will over fund the 5-wheel automobile concept.
Other than the fact that clinton did do stuff when terrorists attacked like finding those responsible and locking them up like he did for the WTC in 93, Oklahoma City, several were convicted and serve for the embassy bombing in kenya and tanzinia. It was the republicans who fought Clinton in Congress over antiterrorism legislation.
DONT EVER USE REAGAN AND CLINTON IN THE SAME SENTENCE!
Now that we have that little matter out of the way. History has already judged Reagan to be one of our great Presidents. The jury is still out on Clinton and both Bushes.
Reagan was a great President and he acted better than any other man could in his position and in his time.
I wouldnt pay 10 cents for Nixon's opinion about Fred Thompson or anyone for that matter.
Reagan was a 2nd rate actor who gets too much credit by republicans, whith no foresight of danger to America but the Soviet Union, when radical Islam had declared war on all Americans since the 1970's
G.W. Bush may not seem like much now to many American fools but history will praise his actions for many generations to come. Long after you and I are long gone!
Reagan's policies hastened, if not caused, the ultimate down fall of the Soviet Union. He repaired the economy left to him by the worst President of the 20th Century (Jimmy Carter), and championed true Conservative values.
History remembers Reagan as a truly great leader, which he most certainly was.
Reagans policy did nothing but help cause recessions in our country. Jimmy Carter was the worst president? Are you kidding Carter had 4 years in office how could carter be responsible for the policies of Nixon and Ford that caused our recession. The saudis are the ones who caused the oil crisis. If you knew anything about reagan it was he was about to be impeached over the iran contra affair if it wasn't for his altzheimers
Reagan was no more a great man than Clinton is a puritan. Reagan was responsible for the death squads he helped finance in Latin America as well as helping Saddam and Bin Laden get in power. He was responsible for providing chemical arms to Saddam and helping foster terrorism not stop it. The russians were collapsing on their own not because we outspent them.
Ron Paul will NOT be elected president because Ron Paul is NOT presidential. Sorry you Ron Paul fans...I mean no disrespect to Mr. Paul...BUT HE WON'T BE PRESIDENT!
The CFR is working for the absolute destruction of everything that made America the greatest Country in the history of mankind. For any Presidential candidate to be a member of this organization is an affront to the senses and some would say a treasonous act.
Through the secrecy of the CFR they seem to be getting away with supporting the very destruction of the U.S.
PLEASE DO NOTE VOTE FOR ANY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO IS A CFR MEMBER: These same people are for the North American Union (NAU), NAFTA, NASCO, CAFTA, and keeping the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, American Protection Act, and every Executive Order Bush has already signed. these candidates are C.F.R. Members: Fred Thompson Rudy Giuliani Hillary Clinton Barack Obama John Edwards Joseph Biden Chris Dodd John McCain Mitt Romney Bill Richardson
The war is all political. It has nothing to do with republican or democrat liberal or conservative. Its about control, occupation of an strategic location in the middle east, and yes oil. The tankers are lined up at the oil wells right this very minute constantly stealing it. Vote for a candidate who voted against the war and say no to war supporting CFR member Fred Thompson.
Buddy the only thing political about this war is how Reid and Pelosi use it as a platform to attack Republicans, but notice how when push comes to shove, every single major democrat says the troops will probably stay in Iraq even if they get elected. As for stealing oil, thats just bunk with not a shred of evidence to support it.
Yeah I forgot you still think this war is about freedom and liberation and has something to do with 9/11. Oil and billions of dollars to Israel for defence is why our troops are there fighting otherwise we would regard the middle east much like many African countries. We really wouldn't have that much to do with them.
They don't have to use it as a platform to attack republicans. The american people are turning against them in droves. Actually Hillary just said she would pull out the troops and Richardson won't keep troops in either. Even the Marines are trying an exit strategy from this failed foreign policy blunder.
Funny thats not what Hillary said at one of her debates, oh thats right Hillary keeps chaning her story depending on who she is talking to. Conservatives arent too fond of the GOP right now thats true but its not because they support the war, (Ron Paul is the only anti-war GOP candidate and has an amazing Conservative socail resume and yet he is constantly languishing at the bottom of the polls).
Actually the Marines want to manage the Afghan front by themselves while the Army manages the Iraqi front, makes it easier to coordinate actions when you dont have to deal with two military organizations.
You have completely misrepresented the move and quite frankly I dont see how you think they are withdrawing. The Army seems perfectly happy with the move, if it was as you say the Army would want to be the ones in Afghanistan. Once again Pogue you demonstrate you lack of ability to think through issues with even the most simple logic.
Misrepresented? Are you kidding? The marines want to redeploy all their forces to Afghanistan. How come when the marines want to redeploy elsewhere you claim its something else but when the american people want redeployment you chickenhawks call it cut and running?
We are talking about the Marines here. Call me crazy but I dont ever remember any point in History where the Marines packed up and left because the mission was too hard. Plus how come the Army isnt actively trying to get out of Iraq? Instead they seem quite keen on letting the Marines run the show in Afghanistan while they run security in Iraq. Logically your argument just doesnt make sense.
...Are you quite finished. I have already given my take on history and you have given yours. You refuse to accept my logic and I can find none in your argument. I am sure you feel the same way about my argument. I can go on if necessary but as I said before the whole argument is very much meaningless. Neither Bill Clinton or George Bush is up for re-election (Thank God). Instead of arguing a meaningless point I once again ask that we talk about something more relevant to present issues.
You have no logic seekster. You have shown yourself to have a fleeting grasp at history. You continually dismiss all information you are given with proof to back it up and then you yourself make statements without a sliver of proof to back yourself up. Maybe after you've become a learn'ed individual you will have the cursory knowledge needed to engage in debate with adults
I could say every single word right back at you Pogue but Im not one to care too much about what other people think of me. Especially those who seek to attack me personally for my political views. Also not real big on people who continually try to debate a meaningless topic like who was to blame for 9/11. Once again the only person who can be blamed are the people who hijacked the planes and those who planned it.
You could kid but that wouldn't make it accurate. You have a fleeting grasp at history and context which is probably why you think Thompson is such a great guy. I'm not attacking you for who you are. I'm attacking your lack of being candid and honest. You have made many false statements
Correction, I am a History Major whose area of specialty is Military History. I understand that history is up for interpretation but you seem to think that it can only be seen in one way. Im not attacking you as a person either. Honestly I have my problems with Thompson but compared to the other candidates I agree with him on more things.
False statements? Like what? No seriously name some.
Claiming terrorism wasn't an issue before 9/11. That no one thought they would crash planes into the towers, that clinton did nothing about terrorism. Everytime you post on here you usually post absolute fallacies. You don't even have a cursory understanding of your candidate's history. You're right history can be taken many ways but when you believe falsehoods that's not another opinion its rewriting history
I could claim the britains invaded and captured america during world war 2 and claim I just have a different interpretation of history. Hell you're making a claim that one could be totally wrong on the facts and it would just be a different interpretation of history.
Thompson is a carbon copy of Bush, which means more spending, more bureaucracy, more war, more debt, etc. He seems like a high character guy but God help us if this neo-con agenda continues
You and I could debate all year long about if Clinton did enough to fight terrorism before 9/11 but in the end we would just be viewing history differently. The argument itself is just as pointless as debating whether or not Thomas Andrews knew that the Titanic design was flawed, it still wouldnt change the fact that the ship sank.
Actually it'd be a short debate Seekster as you have provided no information to back up your claims while I have. You can claim he did nothing. No history says you're wrong as its right there in the public docket. Clinton had to fight congress on doing something about terrorism that's a fact. You're throwing out hypotheticals and trying to square them against your false statements.
He did get one passed but it was watered down. You miss the point again kid. Clinton was doing something about fighting terrorism and I also listed several of his executive orders as well. Which is more that could have been said about Bush. There was a focus on fighting terrorism it just wasn't done by the republicans.
Glad that is over with. I find it pointless to play the blame game so can we please move on to something more relevant to our current lives. Im sure you have your opinons on how best to fight the War on Terror.
So why couldnt Clinton get a single one of his "anti-terror" bills passed? Im asking you but my theory is that once the terrorism issue left the headlines of the 1990s then Clinton couldnt glean any popularity points out of supporting "anti-terror" bills and so he just stopped caring and went on to the next popular issue.
Clinton did get one of his anti-terrorism bills pasted but it was watered down by the republican majority who voted on party lines. I think it's time you go back to school and take a civics class. Its obvious you have no idea how our government works. Clinton is not a legislator he can only sign or veto a law he cannot vote on it. The congress votes to adopt the law if the majority in this case republicans vote against it then its defeated.
Apparently you don't know how it works. How can Clinton with a hostile congress trying desperately to impeach him over anything get anything done? The new congress already has said they wouldn't impeach Bush and they have yet to actually hold his feet to the fire. Are you saying that Clinton should have made up false terrorist threats to put pressure on lawmakers like this president has?
Clinton tried fighting terrorism for his term up until his team warned the Bush team about Bin Laden and Al Qaida. Remember Republicans were more worried about impeaching Clinton than about national security. Once again your statements don't fall in line with the record and with statements Clinton's contemporaries made at the time.
People have relised Thompson has nothing really fresh or interesting to say he isnt the no nonsense leader in Die hard 2 that was an acting role this is reality.
Actually if you watched the debate last night Fred Thompson was the life of the party (pun intended). It really is alot more interesting with him in the race.
Pogue you wrote alot and said nothing. I keep telling you that I blame the terrorist for 9/11. Yet you insist on bring up something that doesnt even matter anymore.
I said plenty seekster you didn't bother reading it. You continually falsely claim Clinton did nothing about terrorism and then fall back on blaming the terrorist for 9/11 because your statements hold no weight. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously kid if you continue making false statements?
*sigh* No I said from the beginning that I blame the terrorists for 9/11 but you seemed to blame Bush who hadnt even been in office for a year when 9/11 occured. You turned around and made Clinton look like some great fighter of terrorism which he never was, nearly all of his actions failed (as you so helpfully pointed out he couldnt get any of those "anti-terror" bills passed) and so he Bill Clinton in effect did nothing to fight terrorism...
Clinton was a fighter of terrorism. He put the guys in jail for the first WTC Bombing, oklahoma city, the embassy bombings. Bush had an opportunity to do something and when warned about eminent attack he went on vacation for a month and then sat on his hands while our country was under attack. Not all of Clinton's actions failed. He stopped more actual plots than Bush has even been able to try.
He caught people involved with plots. He was stonewalled by a congress who didn't give a shit about national security. If Clinton was warned by Bush Sr about an probably attack on our country 8 months before it happened and then Clinton did nothing about it. That would be clinton doing nothing. Bush was warned he did nothing. He is more culpable than the republican majority who cared nothing about national security in the 90s
Once again I blame terrorists for terrorism. I also refuse to play the pointless blame game with you. Yes in retrospect both Bush and Clinton could have done more to prevent 9/11 however neither of them had the advantage of being able to look back like we can and see the steps towards 9/11. I dont like Clinton, Im not too fond of Bush (Though he has done better than Gore or Kerry could have) but its irrational to blame someone for something that no one could even imagine before 9/11.
What credible threats did Bush stop? Miami seven wasn't credible as they never had the means or even planned to carry it out they were like the 3 stooges. Yeah because everyone knows Gore or kerry when told that our country was going to be under attack they sure would have gone on vacation and sat on their hands as it happened. The fact is people did imagine that it could happen just like they imagined the levees in NO would be a problem.
Just because you can't imagine something happening doesn't mean we didn't know it could. Our intelligence agencies told us it was imminent. We were warned several times that it was likely. In fact the military had run drills for just such an attack. So yes we did know it could happen it was just ignored by the Bush Administration as they weren't concerned with fighting terrorism
I contest that, Bush has put more terrorists in jail than Clinton ever did, but now Clinton's party keeps trying to get them released. Bush's admin has also stopped more plots than Clinton could. If I remember correctly, WTC 1, Oklahoma City, our embassies and Africa, and the USS Cole were all attacked during Clinton's admin. As for Bush's admin, we have not had a similar attack since 9/11.
Name the terrorists Bush has actually put in jail and convicted? Right now there has only been about 2 actual trials of suspected terrorists. Claiming someone is a terrorist without charging them is not the same as putting a terrorist in jail. Look at Abu Ghraib most of those there were let go because they were turned in by their neighbors for money.
See this is the funny thing about your types you'll count attacks outside our country and then not hold bush to the same standard. How many attacks did we have on american soil by foreigners during Clinton's administration? 1? You forget the anthrax attacks, and if you want to count homegrown terrorism, the beltway sniper, not to mention we're being attacked everyday in Iraq.
...and dont give me that old sob story about Clinton having to deal with a Republican Congress. Bush has to deal with a Democratic Congress and he still seems to get most of what he wants passed.
Are you kidding me Seekster? Clinton had more than just a slight majority in the congress against him. The reason Bush can get stuff done is simple. The republicans threaten filibuster of any law coming through it takes at least 60 votes to get it out of congress. 67 to override a veto. The democrats just dont have enough votes to override a veto. Go back to civics class kid
Oh please where the hell do you get that crap from? Its the Democrats who kept threatening filibusters back before they came to power, if the Republicans were threatening to filibuster we would here about it all day long on MSNBC and CNN.
Bullshit democrats rarely did or threatened filibusters. It was only on actually important issues that they tried it. Name all the bills they tried to filibuster. The current republicans have been threatening filibuster of virtually every bill the democrats try to put through congress. Ha CNN and MSNBC is more focused on stuff like Paris Hilton than news
Didn't Reagan have brighter star power than Thompson??..
Meaning Reagan was a larger celebrity in terms of bigger and better acting credits. I'm young but I only know Thompson as a character actor in Law in Order. After looking up Regan's resume i realize he was a leading man.
Thompson may be the next reagan but rather in the mind is fading sense. Thus far Thompson doesn't remember what happened over the Terri Schiavo incident, who controlled congress 2 years ago, that the soviet union hasn't existed since 1991, or that lethal injection was ruled unconstitutional in his state
Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."
Thompson is CFR scum and the conservative right is sickened by the media's annoitted front runners. Paul is the man.. wake up. help us take our country back and quit feeding in to the fearmongering.. you are a small minority. probably in the 20% that approve of Bush.
So what that means is you can't think of an accurate rebuttal and so you choose not to debate it. The information I have posted thus far has been more accurate than anything you have yet posted.
No its just it wouldnt be fun to rebut something that easy. In fact you kinda did half the work for me in your other post. If someone comes up to me and asks me to prove something that is a proven fact then I cant help but laugh in their face. Come back when you have a real issue to debate.
It wouldn't be fun for you as you have shown you can't rebut anything that has been stated. Your great white hope of a savior for the republican party is falling apart before his campaign has even begun. He didn't even know who controlled congress 2 years ago. He's out of touch with reality.
I read your comment 3 times and I'm still laughing at the sheer stupidity of it. If you could rebut any of the previous statements you would have but instead youve decided to run off with that statement. I'll wait for you to come back with one of your other screen names and show that you know just as little
You had all the issues read back through the pages where I responded to your rebuttals and respond to each one. That's the problem with Fred and kids today they're too lazy to do their own work
Actually what bulletproof posted is correct. Fred did still think Iraq had WMDs when pressed about it he backtracked and started talking about the kurds which took place over 20 years ago. He mentioned the soviet union in a recent interview. The soviet Union hasn't existed since 1991 which means Fred is either not in touch with reality or he's just lazy. What makes you think Fred is even a good candidate? Are all the other republicans that bad?
Why do we want a continuation of the Bush regime with this "Glue Horse". This guy is not smart enough to be president just like Bush. He does not have consistant principles and has voted against hand gun ownership 13 times.
The NRA may give him the support him but the NRA has stated that no individual needs more than a 5 round clip. The Gun Owners of America support Ron Paul because they know that Guns are not for hunting or self defense but they are about protection from government.
Justin your problem is you lack credibility. Want credibility than show me decisive evidence not propaganda that you keep repeating. For details check out Seek and Find. You will find the URL on my youtube profile.
Nice kid, now try putting that hateful statement into a complete and comprehensive sentence. Better yet, dont and spare us your ignorrant hate-mongering.
Hillary will Poo her diaper? Thompsons campaign is imploding. He keeps making gaffes that show how out of touch he is with whats going on in the country. Why anyone would want this nixon stooge in the white house is beyond me. Fred is only good when scripted. His recent speech drew a crickets response and he had to ask the audience to applaud for him.
For your information it was Thompson that brought up the question of the oval office tapes to begin with. If it wasnt for that Nixon might have gotten off the hook.
You just concern yourself with your lame Democrats. The best advice for Hillary is to never appear on stage with her husband. I greatly dislike Bill Clinton but he had charisma and he could lie like a dog and yet someone make people believe him. Hillary on the other hand has very little charisma, she is shrill, boring, and a largely unlikable person. These things are going to kill her campaign.
Who is claiming the democrats here? I'm just saying Hillary is more articulate and a better public speaker than Fred Thompson. You hate Clinton just admit it. He beat your boy's dad handily and you hate him for it. Hillary may seem shrill to you but she seems to be able to raise more money than any of the lame republican field.
I hate Clinton's policies but there are only a few people whom I actually hate as a person and Clinton is not one of them. I dislike Clinton because he practically destroyed the presitge of the Office of President, Im not even refering to his sex scandals here. I am refering to Whitewater, China-gate...and those are just the tip of the iceberg, stuff is STILL being found with Clinton's fingerprints on it.
Lol and you act as if Clinton was worse than what Nixon did for the office of the president. This president has thus far failed on his campaign promise to restore honor and integrity to the white house. In fact the democrats should all run on the platform of restoring honor and integrity to the white house.
Moran, for someone who is only 7 years older than me, I really dont think you are in any position to chide me on my age. You and I are in the same generation after all. Do avoid personal attacks and I will do my best to avoid them as well.
I am in plenty of position to chide you actually im over 8 years older than you and started watching the news and politicals well before I was your age. I've also studied a multitude of subjects that to date you have been totally unfamiliar with.
Justin what a dull and unoriginal attack. Do you really believe that all members of the CFR support a North American Union? That is like saying all members of the DNC support Abortion. A group with membership as diverse as the CFR could not possibly stand in complete solidarity. To write Fred or anyone for that matter off because they are a member of the CFR without further backing is downright thoughtless.
Just great, Reagan raised taxes... TWICE!! If Lazy Freddy is the next Reagan, I'm sure as hell ain't going to vote for that C-rated Hollywood wannabe.
1) Canada's healthcare system is awful because socialized medicine is a terrible mistake!
2) Clinton tried to buy off N.Korea, ignore terrorism, react weak on the embassy bombings (2 cruise missiles?) which led to 300% growth in Al Qaeda recruitment, ignore Sudan, help 2 outsource American jobs & profit off it, support Palestine/Hamas, lie under oath, & support partial birth abortion. Did I mention missed a chance to take out Osama bin Laden? Weak!!! I'll pass, thanx.
Other than the fact that you pretty much were wrong on most of your points. Clinton was criticized by the mainstream at the time for being so obsessed with bin laden and fighting terrorism. Orin Hatch stood on the congressional floor and said Clinton was wagging the dog and terrorism was a fake issue. Clinton stopped over 16 plots, enacted the first antiterrorism measures in years and caught those responsible for several attacks
Al Qaida was a small under the radar organization that Clinton warned Bush Jr. about before he took office and which Bush promptly ignored. He threw out a lot of the measures Clinton enacted to fight terrorism and did nothing about fighting terrorism pre-9/11. He is the one who bolstered Al Qaida. Blame Clinton all you want but at least he was trying while the republicans were fighting him tooth and nail. Why didn't the current president care about fighting terrorism when he took office?
Why didnt Bush make terrorism one of his big issues when he took office. Probably because Terrorism wasnt a big popular issue because nobody had any idea that this nuts would fly planes into the WTC! You people have such a hatred for Bush that it borderlines on a mental disorder. I know some extreme cases of Bush-haters who actual blame W for World War I!
Bullshit it wasn't an issue. Your republicans fought clinton tooth and nail on antiterrorism. They ignored the issue. The Clinton team told the Bush team that Al Qaida and Bin Laden is their number 1 threat. Miss Rice did not even have a meeting with Bush on this. They were more concerned with missile defense. They were already warned pre 9/11 that people would try to fly airplanes into buildings. I don't hate Bush I just think he should have never been in any place of power.
Oh yeah Clinton took Terrorism very seriously, I mean the Saudis offered Bin Laden to us on a silver platter and since Clinton was so concerned about terrorism he killed Osama when he was offered the chance didnt he...oh wait that didnt happen.
Ha if you're going to quote a rumor seekster at least get the country right who supposedly offered Bin Laden on a silver plate. It was Sudan not saudi arabia. Clinton talked to the Sudanese government and they told him they never had him. The source of the story was a discredited Mansoor Ijaz who would have become the lead exporter of sudanese oil if the US lifted the embargoes against them
Caught the WTC bombers, embassy bombers caught and have a life sentence, Executive order 12947, republicans sabotaged the 1995 Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act, he introduced that legislation even before Oklahoma City, his proposals for the comprehensive antiterrorism act of 1995, Antiterrorism Amendment Acts of 95,
Effective death penalty and antiterrorism act of 95, Clinton wanted to freeze Bin Laden's assets in 98, Bin Laden death squads, antiterrorism task force.. Yeah he did nothing you're right. The CIA met with Bin Laden in 2001 in a hospital in Dubai where he was undergoing treatment. They could have taken him in then before 9/11. Bush had him at torah borah but instead let him go.
Bush hasnt done anything in the way of anti-terrorism? Really? Have you heard of the Patriot Act? You know that law that has contributed to the foiling of countless plots in the last 5+ years.
Wow you kind of missed everything I just said. I was talking about pre 9/11. That patroit act law hasn't contributed one bit to foiling plots. If you bothered reading about those plots they were stopped via good old fashioned police work and not through the patriot act.
Its funny how you say terrorism wasn't a big issue when Bush was president and then say Clinton didn't take terrorism seriously when he did. Which is it? You can't contradict yourself in two different posts and then claim to sound reasonable.
Its not a contradiction Moran, in the public eye, terrorism was not a big issue in the 90s (at least not like it is today). Therefore Clinton did little to fight terrorism.
Terrorism was a big issue. Stop spreading the lie that Clinton did nothing especially after I listed many of his antiterrorism accomplishments. If you actually did some research you would find it was your republicans who didn't give jack shit about fighting terrorism when Bill Clinton brought many antiterrorism bills and measures to their feet and they defeated every one.
I can say this about Clinton with certainty. William J. Clinton is perhaps the most talented Politician of his generation. He can look a man dead in the eye, tell him the biggest lie youve ever heard and even opponents are inclined to believe him (if only briefly). Politicians are self serving and since taking a hard line against terrorism would not help Bill in the polls he largely did nothing.
Baaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa! Did any conservatives even check his voting record? Or how hard he worked?
tattypatty 3 years ago
freddy lost to a nigger, freddy lost to a nigger...oh wait..he lost to a senile racist old fuck who got pwn'd by gooks for being a navy faggot...who then got beat by a nigger..my bad
DaytonaRoadster 3 years ago
LOL epic fail
Zdaytona05 3 years ago 2
we see how well this worked out.
JohnMichaels20 4 years ago
M e t a m u c i l . . . . Z z z z z z z z z . . . . Fitting with all-things-Fred, that was the most boring and lethargic Reagan pander I've ever seen, despite the "trophy wife" (his words, not mine...).... Z z z z z z z z z . . . .
WadeBlazingame34 4 years ago
Fred just proved his Presidential qualities in tonight's debate (1/10)! He's intelligent, humorous, serious, determined, articulate, sincere and far more Conservative (qualified) than the others. He totally kicked Huckabooty!
It's just beginning.....47 States to go!!
GO FRED!
egginanest 4 years ago 3
To bad he can't win a primary...
mnfriend 4 years ago
boooooo
y2knoproblem 4 years ago
Thompson the next Reagan? Perhaps. What better reason to shut out this scumbag now?
nosleep62 4 years ago
SLEEPY; "adjective"; // Meaning: Ready for or needing sleep: dozy, drowsy, nodding, slumberous, slumbery, somnolent, soporific. See unawareness/Fred Thompson/out-of-touch. Inducing sleep or sedation: hypnotic, narcotic, opiate, sedative, slumberous, somnifacient, somniferous, somnific, somnolent, soporific. See Z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z . . . .
WadeBlazingame34 4 years ago
Let's get some Law and Order up in this bitch! Fred Thompson '08!
johnedwards08 4 years ago 3
Fred Thompson is Fred Thompson!!! DUH...Fred Thompson for President!!
newyorknaked 4 years ago
I challenge anyone to find something on Fred Thompson that indicates he is dishonest, immoral, or incompitent. Your problem will be that you can't. Fred is the most qualified candidate to be the next president from either party. So, if your problem is that you would rather have someone tell it like it is than to spin and lie about something then you need to grow up.
rpa99 4 years ago 4
How about his whole red pickup truck incident? He made people think he was driving around this beatup pickup truck he had for years during his original congressional campaign but the fact is he rented it and had a staffer drive it the whole time and he'd drive it the last mile or so to the event. Very dishonest
PogueMoran 4 years ago
That's gay middle American patriotic nonsense - just what we've come to expect from braindead conservatives.
twochordcool 4 years ago
This guy is the laziest candidate I have ever seen. His idea of campaigning is calling talk shows from his house and doing a few TV interviews. The guy has no popular support except for unmotivated Law and Order fans who will be too busy watching reruns when the primaries roll around. Ther reason he probably even registers in the polls is because all his supporters are watching TV 24-7 sitting right next to the phone when the pollsters call.
publius87 4 years ago
Fred Thompson the next Ronald Reagan? Maybe in your dreams. I wouldn't vote for that phony damned "REDNECK" in a million years!!
buddybleau 4 years ago
For hilarious and accurate satire watch my video. Just click on my username, you'll be glad you did.
JFields781 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's great to see that the Republicans have finally come to their senses and supported a pro choice, pro gun control, pro gay marriage candidate. Go Giuliani. Subvert from within.
hillaryyo2008 4 years ago
Fred Thompson is the real conservative choice for 2008! On Thanksgiving Eve, November 21, 2007, let't thank him and give him the boost he needs to become President!
fredsgivingday com
cmitchz 4 years ago
Fred thinks that the best way to reform the military is to throw more money at it and get 1,000,000 young people to sign up to be ground troops and increase defense spending to 4.5% of GDP. Currently, military spending total about 4 percent of our GDP, or $544 billion out of $13.06 trillion. For the record, he opposed the children's health insurance bill that Bush vetoed.
TheTruthHurts101 4 years ago
by "Reagan", do you mean, brain-damaged actor?
hairhorn 4 years ago
Pogue I do believe ive already explained to you about the failings of the Clinton administration. Carter was and is still an embarassment. Reagan admitted his mistakes and corrected them on Iran-Contra. Clinton has never once admitted to any of his back door dealings, let alone his personal sex life (which is between him and God...oh and Hillary too I guess.)
Again NEVER USE REAGAN IN THE SAME SENTENCE AS CLINTON!
Seekster 4 years ago
Carter was an embarrassment only because you guys think he was. He tried all he could with Nixon and Ford's mistakes of running down the economy and inherited their economy in recession. Reagan made a deal with terrorists to arm them in release of the hostages in his october surprise that's what got him the election. Throughout his term he showed a penchant of negotiating with terrorists
PogueMoran 4 years ago
So how exactly does Ronald Reagan make a deal with Iran BEFORE he becomes President. Im not denying that the hostages were release to make Carter look bad (which is surprisingly easy to do) but Iran does this all the time, just look at the timing of the British Hostages. Reagan negotiated with Iran, he negotiated with the Soviet Union, he DID NOT negotiate with terrorists.
Seekster 4 years ago
And yet that's exactly what happened. He negotiated the release of our hostages before he was president. You dont find it fishy that the day he became president they were released and we ended up helping Iran first in the war against Iraq. Yes we were selling weapons to both sides during the war.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
So a civilian negotiated with Iran? I find that very hard to believe and all your "evidence" is purely circumstantial.
Seekster 4 years ago
And yet it happened. He was more than a civilian he was a presidential candidate and very public figure. Its more than just circumstantial. Its an odd coincidence that the hostages get released the day he takes office and then we start shipping arms to iran.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
You didn't explain anything about your misgivings about Clinton. You only showed that you were too busy watching saturday morning cartoons during the 90s and weren't paying attention as Clinton actually caught terrorists and tried passing antiterrorism legislation. You know the conviction rate of the DOJ is only at 29% now compared to a norm of 93%? Clinton didn't admit to his personal sex life? Wow I remember him apologizing on TV when has the current president apologized on tv?
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Clinton's sex life is his own darn business, I do not recall him ever apologizing for his faults, nor has any President ever apologized for their faults, nor will any President ever apologize for their faults.
Look you can pull poll numbers out your ass all day long but we had Oklahoma City, WTC, USS Cole, and several embassy bombings during the Clinton years. Apparently Clinton was not effective at stopping terrorism.
Seekster 4 years ago 2
Of course you don't recall Clinton apologizing you were busy watching your cartoons. Right after the monica lewinsky affair was all over tv Bill Clinton had a press conference in which he apologized for lying on tv. Yeah and Clinton caught those responsible for attacking Oklahoma City, WTC and the embassy bombings. What did Bush do about those who plotted the Cole or those directly responsible for 9/11? Nothing
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Oh good he caught them...but he made no attempt to prevent such actions from happening again. Clinton viewed terrorism as simple law enforcement. Incidentally ive never been fond of cartoons so cut the cheeky crap.
Seekster 4 years ago
Clinton not only caught them but put them in jail. He also increased our counter terrorism funding, had the CIA looking for bin laden with orders to kill. Had drones that were looking for bin laden. He was obsessed with bin laden and the republicans at the time even said it. He prevented many credible attacks on our soil during his administration from the 12 airliner plot to the lincoln and holland tunnels, to the plot to blow up FBI headquarters. Do some more research kid.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Those held in Guantanamo Bay detention camp on Terrorist charges under GWB order are not terrorist/ not responsible for 9/11? Is that why you're complaining so much about the camps? Or you're one of those wackos that think 9/11 was an inside job and want to blame GWB on doing nothing but taking our freedoms away. I would rather have my security over a fascist Islamic ruling.
mixfevers 4 years ago
Those held at Guatanamo haven't been charged with anything why do you think they have kept them there. If they were charged you would have trials instead you have the Bush administration trying to avoid trials because their cases are week. Look at the case recently where there was a mistrial against a few charities whom they said supported terror. The government had no case and so now its going to be tossed out
PogueMoran 4 years ago
No one here has said 9/11 was an inside job but you. Look at what happened at Abu Ghraib. You had a fair majority of the people held there being let go because we had no evidence to hold them. People at Abu Ghraib were being plucked off the streets because their neighbors would selling them out for money. Not because they were actual terrorists. If you have a case then charge them. A sense of justice is something this country was founded on.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Poque, Honestly, I rather LIKE having GIT-MO just the way it is! a waste disposal unit of terrorist trash. And the more of those bastards we put in the glad trashbags, the less trash on the field our soldiers have to deal with, or did you pull an Al Gore and inconvieniently forget the truth? The man who INVENTED the internet?! Love that shot of Al lookin down the barrel of his M-16 in nam. Guess he forgot to load it if he was gonna off himself...
LordBicen 4 years ago
How.... INCONVIENIENT!!!
LordBicen 4 years ago
We could use the same metrics for Bush. Add up the deaths from all those previous attacks to the attack Bush did nothing to stop on 9/11. Plus those not being caught for the anthrax mailings, the ongoing attacks on our allies and our troops in Iraq, if you're going to add non Us homeland attacks from foreigners to the mix like you did. Then Clinton stopped it from 93 to the end of his term. Clinton did more about stopping terrorism than Bush did or has done since.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
DOJ conviction rate is down to 29% under bush. It is usually around 90%. What this means is either they are pushing too many cases without evidence, hiring bad staff, or everything got so politicized nothing gets done. You take your pick
PogueMoran 4 years ago
All we have had in Bush's term is 9/11 which was huge but at least it woke us up, and the anthrax scare. We have not been attacked since and we all know that the terrorists would like nothing more than to attack us at home. Bush has for his credit taken real steps towards defeating terrorism by attacking the root of the problem, which is far more than I can say for Clinton.
Seekster 4 years ago
9/11, our allies in spain were attacked, we had the anthrax mailing to the reporters, congress, etc. beltway snipers and continued attacks on our troops. You're not being fair here kid. You're not counting all the attacks on our troops under bush jr. But you're counting them under Clinton. Clinton took far more engaging steps to fighting terrorism than even Bush has and Clinton actually got results while Bush sat on his hands while 9/11 happened and now our conviction rate is down to 29%
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Yeah Reagan would be on a lower pedestal than Clinton as Reagan shot the economy dick cheney style in the face. We had recessions during the reagan and bush sr years. We had reagan supporting death squads. Reagan didn't correct anything in regards to Iran-Contra. He had altzheimers and seemed to forget what was going on during the hearings. Reagan and his crew should have been prosecuted but they were left off the hook when the blame fell on Ollie North.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Now I know your are a loon and a Clinton fanatic. Reagan's supply-side economic policies repaired the economy without the need for massive goverment, new-deal style intervention and without the need to raise taxes. Reaganomics worked and still does. Reagan never supported death squads. Reagan admitted his mistake in Iran-contra and stopped selling the Iranians weapons. Reagan's alzheimers did not take hold until several years after he had left office. Any more misconceptions you need cleared up?
Seekster 4 years ago
I'm a clinton fanatic? Clinton was okay. Reagan's trickle down economics repaired the economy? Kid you weren't even conscious during the 80s. Ask any economist and they'll tell you how Reagan caused a recession that lasted through the end of his term and past Bush Sr. Reagan had to raise taxes several times before the end of his term because his policies were bad. Even Bush Sr. called his theories Voodoo economics. Reagan did support the death squads he propped up in Latin America.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Actually I have at least two economists at different schools and they would seem to agree with me about Reagan's trickle down economics which still work today.
Seekster 4 years ago
So tell me Seekster what caused the Stock Market crash of 1987?
PogueMoran 4 years ago
lol my god you have a slanted view of history. Time to infuse some reality into the debate. Reagan's altzheimers affected him so much during his second term it has been said Nancy was running things much like Eleanor was running things during the end of FDR's term. So whose fault was it for the stock market crash of 87? Reagan claimed ignorance and continued the authorizing of the sale of arms after the investigation began.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
As for taxes 1982: Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes 37.5 billion, Highway Revenue Act 3.3 billion, 1984 decifit reduction act 18 billion, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconcilliation Act of 1985, Tax Reform Act of 1986, Omnibus Reconcilliation act of 1987.. youre right he didn't raise taxes
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Fred Thompson, a failure as a senator. At least Reagan could communicate!!
JOYOUSONEX 4 years ago
Spend 5 minutes of your time to Youtube--
Ron Paul
--do it for yourself...
--and decide for yourself...
edclam 4 years ago
--and then go to paypal and send me money...its uh...for a good cause...yeah that sounds good.
Seekster 4 years ago
Spend 5 minutes of your time to Youtube--
Ron Paul
--do it for yourself...
--and decide for yourself...
edclam 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fred Thompson is the best candidate. He's calm, in control, and a compulsive omnivore. If you're looking for the perfect deodorant, then you're out of luck.
He'll support our Armed Forces by providing them essential supplies, such as curling irons and week-old sushi.
He wants to fix health care. On Day One, Fred will demand health insurance for animals.
With passion for innovation, Fred will over fund the 5-wheel automobile concept.
FRED 2009
MAN, ACTOR, NO HOMO TENDENCIES
frodolinkimo 4 years ago
Passionate supporter of states rights. (Jun 2007)
Term limits counter professionalization of politics. (May 2007)
Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997
FRED 08
libralssuck 4 years ago
Clinton is and will be viewed in history as the man who did nothing after six major terrorist attacks on Americans
H.W. Bush did very little as well with Muslim extremists
EarstoWall 4 years ago
Other than the fact that clinton did do stuff when terrorists attacked like finding those responsible and locking them up like he did for the WTC in 93, Oklahoma City, several were convicted and serve for the embassy bombing in kenya and tanzinia. It was the republicans who fought Clinton in Congress over antiterrorism legislation.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Nixon once called Thompson an idiot and I agree
Even if Ronald Reagan were alive and running for president, I don't think he would be better than the other republicans running now
Reagan's time was so long ago and the world has changed a lot and we have better people to do the job
Reagan surrendered to terrorists just like Bill Clinton did in the 1990's as president
EarstoWall 4 years ago
DONT EVER USE REAGAN AND CLINTON IN THE SAME SENTENCE!
Now that we have that little matter out of the way. History has already judged Reagan to be one of our great Presidents. The jury is still out on Clinton and both Bushes.
Reagan was a great President and he acted better than any other man could in his position and in his time.
I wouldnt pay 10 cents for Nixon's opinion about Fred Thompson or anyone for that matter.
Seekster 4 years ago
Reagan was a 2nd rate actor who gets too much credit by republicans, whith no foresight of danger to America but the Soviet Union, when radical Islam had declared war on all Americans since the 1970's
G.W. Bush may not seem like much now to many American fools but history will praise his actions for many generations to come. Long after you and I are long gone!
EarstoWall 4 years ago
Reagan's policies hastened, if not caused, the ultimate down fall of the Soviet Union. He repaired the economy left to him by the worst President of the 20th Century (Jimmy Carter), and championed true Conservative values.
History remembers Reagan as a truly great leader, which he most certainly was.
Seekster 4 years ago
Reagans policy did nothing but help cause recessions in our country. Jimmy Carter was the worst president? Are you kidding Carter had 4 years in office how could carter be responsible for the policies of Nixon and Ford that caused our recession. The saudis are the ones who caused the oil crisis. If you knew anything about reagan it was he was about to be impeached over the iran contra affair if it wasn't for his altzheimers
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Reagan was no more a great man than Clinton is a puritan. Reagan was responsible for the death squads he helped finance in Latin America as well as helping Saddam and Bin Laden get in power. He was responsible for providing chemical arms to Saddam and helping foster terrorism not stop it. The russians were collapsing on their own not because we outspent them.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
241 U.S. servicemen killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, ordered by Iran and carried out by Hamas. Reagan did nothing!!!
Ronald Reagan could've reacted the way we did after 9/11 and quite possibly prevented all the attacks in the 90's, 2000 and 2001
EarstoWall 4 years ago
Ron Paul will NOT be elected president because Ron Paul is NOT presidential. Sorry you Ron Paul fans...I mean no disrespect to Mr. Paul...BUT HE WON'T BE PRESIDENT!
Nashcountryboy 4 years ago 2
fred can suck a cfr dick
zdwade 4 years ago
if you mean next near brain-dead ex-actor president, then yes!... except he'll never get in.
hairhorn 4 years ago
The CFR is working for the absolute destruction of everything that made America the greatest Country in the history of mankind. For any Presidential candidate to be a member of this organization is an affront to the senses and some would say a treasonous act.
Through the secrecy of the CFR they seem to be getting away with supporting the very destruction of the U.S.
bohemianowl 4 years ago
bohemianowl 4 years ago
The war is all political. It has nothing to do with republican or democrat liberal or conservative. Its about control, occupation of an strategic location in the middle east, and yes oil. The tankers are lined up at the oil wells right this very minute constantly stealing it. Vote for a candidate who voted against the war and say no to war supporting CFR member Fred Thompson.
buddyfreakinholly 4 years ago
Buddy the only thing political about this war is how Reid and Pelosi use it as a platform to attack Republicans, but notice how when push comes to shove, every single major democrat says the troops will probably stay in Iraq even if they get elected. As for stealing oil, thats just bunk with not a shred of evidence to support it.
Seekster 4 years ago
Yeah I forgot you still think this war is about freedom and liberation and has something to do with 9/11. Oil and billions of dollars to Israel for defence is why our troops are there fighting otherwise we would regard the middle east much like many African countries. We really wouldn't have that much to do with them.
buddyfreakinholly 4 years ago
They don't have to use it as a platform to attack republicans. The american people are turning against them in droves. Actually Hillary just said she would pull out the troops and Richardson won't keep troops in either. Even the Marines are trying an exit strategy from this failed foreign policy blunder.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Funny thats not what Hillary said at one of her debates, oh thats right Hillary keeps chaning her story depending on who she is talking to. Conservatives arent too fond of the GOP right now thats true but its not because they support the war, (Ron Paul is the only anti-war GOP candidate and has an amazing Conservative socail resume and yet he is constantly languishing at the bottom of the polls).
Seekster 4 years ago
Actually the Marines want to manage the Afghan front by themselves while the Army manages the Iraqi front, makes it easier to coordinate actions when you dont have to deal with two military organizations.
Seekster 4 years ago
You have completely misrepresented the move and quite frankly I dont see how you think they are withdrawing. The Army seems perfectly happy with the move, if it was as you say the Army would want to be the ones in Afghanistan. Once again Pogue you demonstrate you lack of ability to think through issues with even the most simple logic.
Seekster 4 years ago
Misrepresented? Are you kidding? The marines want to redeploy all their forces to Afghanistan. How come when the marines want to redeploy elsewhere you claim its something else but when the american people want redeployment you chickenhawks call it cut and running?
PogueMoran 4 years ago
We are talking about the Marines here. Call me crazy but I dont ever remember any point in History where the Marines packed up and left because the mission was too hard. Plus how come the Army isnt actively trying to get out of Iraq? Instead they seem quite keen on letting the Marines run the show in Afghanistan while they run security in Iraq. Logically your argument just doesnt make sense.
Seekster 4 years ago
...Are you quite finished. I have already given my take on history and you have given yours. You refuse to accept my logic and I can find none in your argument. I am sure you feel the same way about my argument. I can go on if necessary but as I said before the whole argument is very much meaningless. Neither Bill Clinton or George Bush is up for re-election (Thank God). Instead of arguing a meaningless point I once again ask that we talk about something more relevant to present issues.
Seekster 4 years ago
You have no logic seekster. You have shown yourself to have a fleeting grasp at history. You continually dismiss all information you are given with proof to back it up and then you yourself make statements without a sliver of proof to back yourself up. Maybe after you've become a learn'ed individual you will have the cursory knowledge needed to engage in debate with adults
PogueMoran 4 years ago
I could say every single word right back at you Pogue but Im not one to care too much about what other people think of me. Especially those who seek to attack me personally for my political views. Also not real big on people who continually try to debate a meaningless topic like who was to blame for 9/11. Once again the only person who can be blamed are the people who hijacked the planes and those who planned it.
Seekster 4 years ago
You could kid but that wouldn't make it accurate. You have a fleeting grasp at history and context which is probably why you think Thompson is such a great guy. I'm not attacking you for who you are. I'm attacking your lack of being candid and honest. You have made many false statements
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Correction, I am a History Major whose area of specialty is Military History. I understand that history is up for interpretation but you seem to think that it can only be seen in one way. Im not attacking you as a person either. Honestly I have my problems with Thompson but compared to the other candidates I agree with him on more things.
False statements? Like what? No seriously name some.
Seekster 4 years ago
Claiming terrorism wasn't an issue before 9/11. That no one thought they would crash planes into the towers, that clinton did nothing about terrorism. Everytime you post on here you usually post absolute fallacies. You don't even have a cursory understanding of your candidate's history. You're right history can be taken many ways but when you believe falsehoods that's not another opinion its rewriting history
PogueMoran 4 years ago
I could claim the britains invaded and captured america during world war 2 and claim I just have a different interpretation of history. Hell you're making a claim that one could be totally wrong on the facts and it would just be a different interpretation of history.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
You're right history can be taken many ways but when you believe falsehoods that's not another opinion its rewriting history.
(Thank you for saving me the trouble of having to write my own response to this.)
Seekster 4 years ago
CFR member. Would support movement to form North American Union. No thanks.
Ron Paul 2008
atlcowboy2536 4 years ago
Thompson is a carbon copy of Bush, which means more spending, more bureaucracy, more war, more debt, etc. He seems like a high character guy but God help us if this neo-con agenda continues
Nolimit75 4 years ago
Bush is a populist, Thompson is a Conservative, they are very different.
Seekster 4 years ago
You and I could debate all year long about if Clinton did enough to fight terrorism before 9/11 but in the end we would just be viewing history differently. The argument itself is just as pointless as debating whether or not Thomas Andrews knew that the Titanic design was flawed, it still wouldnt change the fact that the ship sank.
Seekster 4 years ago
Actually it'd be a short debate Seekster as you have provided no information to back up your claims while I have. You can claim he did nothing. No history says you're wrong as its right there in the public docket. Clinton had to fight congress on doing something about terrorism that's a fact. You're throwing out hypotheticals and trying to square them against your false statements.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Actually you yourself served to back up my argument. It was you who said that Clinton didnt get any of his "anti-terror" bills passed.
Seekster 4 years ago
He did get one passed but it was watered down. You miss the point again kid. Clinton was doing something about fighting terrorism and I also listed several of his executive orders as well. Which is more that could have been said about Bush. There was a focus on fighting terrorism it just wasn't done by the republicans.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Glad that is over with. I find it pointless to play the blame game so can we please move on to something more relevant to our current lives. Im sure you have your opinons on how best to fight the War on Terror.
Seekster 4 years ago
So why couldnt Clinton get a single one of his "anti-terror" bills passed? Im asking you but my theory is that once the terrorism issue left the headlines of the 1990s then Clinton couldnt glean any popularity points out of supporting "anti-terror" bills and so he just stopped caring and went on to the next popular issue.
Seekster 4 years ago
Clinton did get one of his anti-terrorism bills pasted but it was watered down by the republican majority who voted on party lines. I think it's time you go back to school and take a civics class. Its obvious you have no idea how our government works. Clinton is not a legislator he can only sign or veto a law he cannot vote on it. The congress votes to adopt the law if the majority in this case republicans vote against it then its defeated.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
I understand how the government works smart ass. Clinton can however put pressure on lawmakers. Hell Bush does it all the time and gets results.
Seekster 4 years ago
Apparently you don't know how it works. How can Clinton with a hostile congress trying desperately to impeach him over anything get anything done? The new congress already has said they wouldn't impeach Bush and they have yet to actually hold his feet to the fire. Are you saying that Clinton should have made up false terrorist threats to put pressure on lawmakers like this president has?
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Clinton tried fighting terrorism for his term up until his team warned the Bush team about Bin Laden and Al Qaida. Remember Republicans were more worried about impeaching Clinton than about national security. Once again your statements don't fall in line with the record and with statements Clinton's contemporaries made at the time.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
People have relised Thompson has nothing really fresh or interesting to say he isnt the no nonsense leader in Die hard 2 that was an acting role this is reality.
damieandark 4 years ago
Actually if you watched the debate last night Fred Thompson was the life of the party (pun intended). It really is alot more interesting with him in the race.
Seekster 4 years ago
Pogue you wrote alot and said nothing. I keep telling you that I blame the terrorist for 9/11. Yet you insist on bring up something that doesnt even matter anymore.
Seekster 4 years ago
I said plenty seekster you didn't bother reading it. You continually falsely claim Clinton did nothing about terrorism and then fall back on blaming the terrorist for 9/11 because your statements hold no weight. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously kid if you continue making false statements?
PogueMoran 4 years ago
*sigh* No I said from the beginning that I blame the terrorists for 9/11 but you seemed to blame Bush who hadnt even been in office for a year when 9/11 occured. You turned around and made Clinton look like some great fighter of terrorism which he never was, nearly all of his actions failed (as you so helpfully pointed out he couldnt get any of those "anti-terror" bills passed) and so he Bill Clinton in effect did nothing to fight terrorism...
Seekster 4 years ago
Clinton was a fighter of terrorism. He put the guys in jail for the first WTC Bombing, oklahoma city, the embassy bombings. Bush had an opportunity to do something and when warned about eminent attack he went on vacation for a month and then sat on his hands while our country was under attack. Not all of Clinton's actions failed. He stopped more actual plots than Bush has even been able to try.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
He caught people involved with plots. He was stonewalled by a congress who didn't give a shit about national security. If Clinton was warned by Bush Sr about an probably attack on our country 8 months before it happened and then Clinton did nothing about it. That would be clinton doing nothing. Bush was warned he did nothing. He is more culpable than the republican majority who cared nothing about national security in the 90s
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Once again I blame terrorists for terrorism. I also refuse to play the pointless blame game with you. Yes in retrospect both Bush and Clinton could have done more to prevent 9/11 however neither of them had the advantage of being able to look back like we can and see the steps towards 9/11. I dont like Clinton, Im not too fond of Bush (Though he has done better than Gore or Kerry could have) but its irrational to blame someone for something that no one could even imagine before 9/11.
Seekster 4 years ago
What credible threats did Bush stop? Miami seven wasn't credible as they never had the means or even planned to carry it out they were like the 3 stooges. Yeah because everyone knows Gore or kerry when told that our country was going to be under attack they sure would have gone on vacation and sat on their hands as it happened. The fact is people did imagine that it could happen just like they imagined the levees in NO would be a problem.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Just because you can't imagine something happening doesn't mean we didn't know it could. Our intelligence agencies told us it was imminent. We were warned several times that it was likely. In fact the military had run drills for just such an attack. So yes we did know it could happen it was just ignored by the Bush Administration as they weren't concerned with fighting terrorism
PogueMoran 4 years ago
I contest that, Bush has put more terrorists in jail than Clinton ever did, but now Clinton's party keeps trying to get them released. Bush's admin has also stopped more plots than Clinton could. If I remember correctly, WTC 1, Oklahoma City, our embassies and Africa, and the USS Cole were all attacked during Clinton's admin. As for Bush's admin, we have not had a similar attack since 9/11.
Seekster 4 years ago
Name the terrorists Bush has actually put in jail and convicted? Right now there has only been about 2 actual trials of suspected terrorists. Claiming someone is a terrorist without charging them is not the same as putting a terrorist in jail. Look at Abu Ghraib most of those there were let go because they were turned in by their neighbors for money.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
See this is the funny thing about your types you'll count attacks outside our country and then not hold bush to the same standard. How many attacks did we have on american soil by foreigners during Clinton's administration? 1? You forget the anthrax attacks, and if you want to count homegrown terrorism, the beltway sniper, not to mention we're being attacked everyday in Iraq.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
...and dont give me that old sob story about Clinton having to deal with a Republican Congress. Bush has to deal with a Democratic Congress and he still seems to get most of what he wants passed.
Seekster 4 years ago
Are you kidding me Seekster? Clinton had more than just a slight majority in the congress against him. The reason Bush can get stuff done is simple. The republicans threaten filibuster of any law coming through it takes at least 60 votes to get it out of congress. 67 to override a veto. The democrats just dont have enough votes to override a veto. Go back to civics class kid
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Oh please where the hell do you get that crap from? Its the Democrats who kept threatening filibusters back before they came to power, if the Republicans were threatening to filibuster we would here about it all day long on MSNBC and CNN.
Seekster 4 years ago
Bullshit democrats rarely did or threatened filibusters. It was only on actually important issues that they tried it. Name all the bills they tried to filibuster. The current republicans have been threatening filibuster of virtually every bill the democrats try to put through congress. Ha CNN and MSNBC is more focused on stuff like Paris Hilton than news
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Didn't Reagan have brighter star power than Thompson??..
Meaning Reagan was a larger celebrity in terms of bigger and better acting credits. I'm young but I only know Thompson as a character actor in Law in Order. After looking up Regan's resume i realize he was a leading man.
mitchell5985 4 years ago
Thompson may be the next reagan but rather in the mind is fading sense. Thus far Thompson doesn't remember what happened over the Terri Schiavo incident, who controlled congress 2 years ago, that the soviet union hasn't existed since 1991, or that lethal injection was ruled unconstitutional in his state
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Ron Paul, a real conservative?
YEAH RIGHT! GET REAL! Ron Paul's a democrat in Republican clothing.
wvfisherguy 4 years ago
Who led the Reagan delegation to the GOP convention in 1976 for Reagan's first presidential bid?
RON PAUL, a real conservative.
rycodge 4 years ago
Thompson is CFR scum and the conservative right is sickened by the media's annoitted front runners. Paul is the man.. wake up. help us take our country back and quit feeding in to the fearmongering.. you are a small minority. probably in the 20% that approve of Bush.
cbgames 4 years ago
Fred thinks Iraq still has WMD's...I'd rather vote for someone who looks at the FACTS and EVIDENCE...
AND he still thinks the USSR is in power LOL!
Another retarded republican candidate
bulletproof12 4 years ago
^^
So wrong not even worthy of a real response.
Seekster 4 years ago
So what that means is you can't think of an accurate rebuttal and so you choose not to debate it. The information I have posted thus far has been more accurate than anything you have yet posted.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
No its just it wouldnt be fun to rebut something that easy. In fact you kinda did half the work for me in your other post. If someone comes up to me and asks me to prove something that is a proven fact then I cant help but laugh in their face. Come back when you have a real issue to debate.
Seekster 4 years ago
It wouldn't be fun for you as you have shown you can't rebut anything that has been stated. Your great white hope of a savior for the republican party is falling apart before his campaign has even begun. He didn't even know who controlled congress 2 years ago. He's out of touch with reality.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
I read your comment 3 times and I'm still laughing at the sheer stupidity of it. If you could rebut any of the previous statements you would have but instead youve decided to run off with that statement. I'll wait for you to come back with one of your other screen names and show that you know just as little
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Only have one screen name thank you very much. Lets take this arguments one at a time if you think I cant rebut them. I wont run. First issue please?
Seekster 4 years ago
You had all the issues read back through the pages where I responded to your rebuttals and respond to each one. That's the problem with Fred and kids today they're too lazy to do their own work
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Actually what bulletproof posted is correct. Fred did still think Iraq had WMDs when pressed about it he backtracked and started talking about the kurds which took place over 20 years ago. He mentioned the soviet union in a recent interview. The soviet Union hasn't existed since 1991 which means Fred is either not in touch with reality or he's just lazy. What makes you think Fred is even a good candidate? Are all the other republicans that bad?
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Why do we want a continuation of the Bush regime with this "Glue Horse". This guy is not smart enough to be president just like Bush. He does not have consistant principles and has voted against hand gun ownership 13 times.
The NRA may give him the support him but the NRA has stated that no individual needs more than a 5 round clip. The Gun Owners of America support Ron Paul because they know that Guns are not for hunting or self defense but they are about protection from government.
GameGeek1996 4 years ago
Justin your problem is you lack credibility. Want credibility than show me decisive evidence not propaganda that you keep repeating. For details check out Seek and Find. You will find the URL on my youtube profile.
Seekster 4 years ago
Somebody wrote hannity is a conservative lmao. Neo-con hack zionist bitch better expains. Vote Ron Paul or die without country and without freedom.
thekidhb11 4 years ago
Nice kid, now try putting that hateful statement into a complete and comprehensive sentence. Better yet, dont and spare us your ignorrant hate-mongering.
Seekster 4 years ago
i predict the two final candidates for the 2008 presidential election.
Fred Thompson and Hillary Clinton.
but what i really want to see is Hillary Clinton's knees buckle when it's just her and Freddy on stage for a debate.
she'll poop her diaper =)
chopperdan88 4 years ago
Hillary will Poo her diaper? Thompsons campaign is imploding. He keeps making gaffes that show how out of touch he is with whats going on in the country. Why anyone would want this nixon stooge in the white house is beyond me. Fred is only good when scripted. His recent speech drew a crickets response and he had to ask the audience to applaud for him.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
For your information it was Thompson that brought up the question of the oval office tapes to begin with. If it wasnt for that Nixon might have gotten off the hook.
Seekster 4 years ago
You just concern yourself with your lame Democrats. The best advice for Hillary is to never appear on stage with her husband. I greatly dislike Bill Clinton but he had charisma and he could lie like a dog and yet someone make people believe him. Hillary on the other hand has very little charisma, she is shrill, boring, and a largely unlikable person. These things are going to kill her campaign.
Seekster 4 years ago
Who is claiming the democrats here? I'm just saying Hillary is more articulate and a better public speaker than Fred Thompson. You hate Clinton just admit it. He beat your boy's dad handily and you hate him for it. Hillary may seem shrill to you but she seems to be able to raise more money than any of the lame republican field.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
I hate Clinton's policies but there are only a few people whom I actually hate as a person and Clinton is not one of them. I dislike Clinton because he practically destroyed the presitge of the Office of President, Im not even refering to his sex scandals here. I am refering to Whitewater, China-gate...and those are just the tip of the iceberg, stuff is STILL being found with Clinton's fingerprints on it.
Seekster 4 years ago
Lol and you act as if Clinton was worse than what Nixon did for the office of the president. This president has thus far failed on his campaign promise to restore honor and integrity to the white house. In fact the democrats should all run on the platform of restoring honor and integrity to the white house.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
You didn't even know Clinton's policies you were still watching saturday morning cartoons while Clinton was president
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Moran, for someone who is only 7 years older than me, I really dont think you are in any position to chide me on my age. You and I are in the same generation after all. Do avoid personal attacks and I will do my best to avoid them as well.
Seekster 4 years ago
I am in plenty of position to chide you actually im over 8 years older than you and started watching the news and politicals well before I was your age. I've also studied a multitude of subjects that to date you have been totally unfamiliar with.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
»»»FRED THOMPSON for PRESIDENT!
truthfbeauty 4 years ago
Justin what a dull and unoriginal attack. Do you really believe that all members of the CFR support a North American Union? That is like saying all members of the DNC support Abortion. A group with membership as diverse as the CFR could not possibly stand in complete solidarity. To write Fred or anyone for that matter off because they are a member of the CFR without further backing is downright thoughtless.
Seekster 4 years ago
Just great, Reagan raised taxes... TWICE!! If Lazy Freddy is the next Reagan, I'm sure as hell ain't going to vote for that C-rated Hollywood wannabe.
unc1e1am 4 years ago 3
hey everyone, dig deeply into your pockets! A democrat is getting elected odds are & you know what that means.....
HIGHER TAXES!!!! suckers!!! =P
sunnymaybaby 4 years ago
1) Canada's healthcare system is awful because socialized medicine is a terrible mistake!
2) Clinton tried to buy off N.Korea, ignore terrorism, react weak on the embassy bombings (2 cruise missiles?) which led to 300% growth in Al Qaeda recruitment, ignore Sudan, help 2 outsource American jobs & profit off it, support Palestine/Hamas, lie under oath, & support partial birth abortion. Did I mention missed a chance to take out Osama bin Laden? Weak!!! I'll pass, thanx.
sunnymaybaby 4 years ago 2
Other than the fact that you pretty much were wrong on most of your points. Clinton was criticized by the mainstream at the time for being so obsessed with bin laden and fighting terrorism. Orin Hatch stood on the congressional floor and said Clinton was wagging the dog and terrorism was a fake issue. Clinton stopped over 16 plots, enacted the first antiterrorism measures in years and caught those responsible for several attacks
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Al Qaida was a small under the radar organization that Clinton warned Bush Jr. about before he took office and which Bush promptly ignored. He threw out a lot of the measures Clinton enacted to fight terrorism and did nothing about fighting terrorism pre-9/11. He is the one who bolstered Al Qaida. Blame Clinton all you want but at least he was trying while the republicans were fighting him tooth and nail. Why didn't the current president care about fighting terrorism when he took office?
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Why didnt Bush make terrorism one of his big issues when he took office. Probably because Terrorism wasnt a big popular issue because nobody had any idea that this nuts would fly planes into the WTC! You people have such a hatred for Bush that it borderlines on a mental disorder. I know some extreme cases of Bush-haters who actual blame W for World War I!
Seekster 4 years ago
Bullshit it wasn't an issue. Your republicans fought clinton tooth and nail on antiterrorism. They ignored the issue. The Clinton team told the Bush team that Al Qaida and Bin Laden is their number 1 threat. Miss Rice did not even have a meeting with Bush on this. They were more concerned with missile defense. They were already warned pre 9/11 that people would try to fly airplanes into buildings. I don't hate Bush I just think he should have never been in any place of power.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Oh yeah Clinton took Terrorism very seriously, I mean the Saudis offered Bin Laden to us on a silver platter and since Clinton was so concerned about terrorism he killed Osama when he was offered the chance didnt he...oh wait that didnt happen.
Seekster 4 years ago
Ha if you're going to quote a rumor seekster at least get the country right who supposedly offered Bin Laden on a silver plate. It was Sudan not saudi arabia. Clinton talked to the Sudanese government and they told him they never had him. The source of the story was a discredited Mansoor Ijaz who would have become the lead exporter of sudanese oil if the US lifted the embargoes against them
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Caught the WTC bombers, embassy bombers caught and have a life sentence, Executive order 12947, republicans sabotaged the 1995 Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act, he introduced that legislation even before Oklahoma City, his proposals for the comprehensive antiterrorism act of 1995, Antiterrorism Amendment Acts of 95,
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Effective death penalty and antiterrorism act of 95, Clinton wanted to freeze Bin Laden's assets in 98, Bin Laden death squads, antiterrorism task force.. Yeah he did nothing you're right. The CIA met with Bin Laden in 2001 in a hospital in Dubai where he was undergoing treatment. They could have taken him in then before 9/11. Bush had him at torah borah but instead let him go.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Bin Laden came on the radar in 1996 so Clinton only had 4 years to catch him. Bush has had 6 years what's his excuse?
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Bush hasnt done anything in the way of anti-terrorism? Really? Have you heard of the Patriot Act? You know that law that has contributed to the foiling of countless plots in the last 5+ years.
Seekster 4 years ago
Wow you kind of missed everything I just said. I was talking about pre 9/11. That patroit act law hasn't contributed one bit to foiling plots. If you bothered reading about those plots they were stopped via good old fashioned police work and not through the patriot act.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Its funny how you say terrorism wasn't a big issue when Bush was president and then say Clinton didn't take terrorism seriously when he did. Which is it? You can't contradict yourself in two different posts and then claim to sound reasonable.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
Its not a contradiction Moran, in the public eye, terrorism was not a big issue in the 90s (at least not like it is today). Therefore Clinton did little to fight terrorism.
Seekster 4 years ago
Terrorism was a big issue. Stop spreading the lie that Clinton did nothing especially after I listed many of his antiterrorism accomplishments. If you actually did some research you would find it was your republicans who didn't give jack shit about fighting terrorism when Bill Clinton brought many antiterrorism bills and measures to their feet and they defeated every one.
PogueMoran 4 years ago
I can say this about Clinton with certainty. William J. Clinton is perhaps the most talented Politician of his generation. He can look a man dead in the eye, tell him the biggest lie youve ever heard and even opponents are inclined to believe him (if only briefly). Politicians are self serving and since taking a hard line against terrorism would not help Bill in the polls he largely did nothing.
Seekster 4 years ago