I have no idea what you're saying here^ Then again I'm on Vicodin:D

Only if he loses that skinny microphone he's been holding onto since 1965.

Which part?

You talking about Clinton or the peanut farmer? Neither one was worth a damm...

Just a few beers at lunch:D But I'm getting ready to start:D I hope:D

Good for you, Byron. The early bird gets the worm.

I get it now, but it didn't flow for ****, c- for composition:D

JK, but what's with the mighty mouse thing?

Slate? You found a reference to the claim and debunk the claim based on your choice of 'source'.

Back to the original question... Reagan had convictions and set to work being the two term govenor of CA applying thos econvictions. He went after the pres multiple times.

Thompson was a senator and decided that he liked acting better. He is now playing the 'reluctant savior' role. The knock is that he isnt up to the task of an arduous campaign and that he doesnt have the convictions to follow through and be a leader. Again... maybe its a good thing. Bush has some serious f'ing convictions and look what its gotten him (a mess).

Honestly, i think he's too fat and ugly to be elected. But then again... he's banged lotsa hot broads... so what do I know.

FWIW i consider myself some sort of socially liberal, fiscally conservative isolationist or some crap like that... so i'm not really particular to any of them. I suppose Rudy somewhat would be the closest to that, but he gives me the creeps.

-b

The fact that Thompson is a "reluctant savior" appeals to me way more than anyone whose lifelong goal is to become president. And the fact that Thompson won't say or do whatever it takes to get elected is even better.

The article makes a claim then rather than substantiate it they discuss it's ramifications. Yes, I find that to be poor journalism.

LOL!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1181254149.jpg

The slate article isn't debunk-able because of its source, but because of it's content, like Len points out. Len doesn't mention the source at all. It is a lame article.

It does appear he was a senator who liked acting better. Which makes him un-Reagan-like. Reagan was an actor whose passion clearly was politics, Thompson appears to perhaps be the opposite.

scripted. hmmm, how's he know how to build drama? hmmm.

:D

Thats niave. They all do that. Every ******* one of them.

His change of stance on abortion w/regard to his senate run was a classic example of towing the party line.

His work as a lobbyist for umpteen years completely revolved around doing whatever it took to get paid. i see no reason to not suspect that he applies the same principals to his politics.

If you like him, he's a regular, plain-speaking Joe. If you don't, he must be scripted. It's sort of like calling something you dislike a special interest, but if you agree with the cause, they're a grassroots or watchdog outfit.

If you're a lobbyist, you represent your clients' interests and it has little to do with personally agreeing with their issue. Just like lawyers represent clients they personally loathe. I have to deal with a lot of clients in my own job, all of them political entities, whose positions I disagree with 180 deg.

I agree. There's a tone he has that would immediately conflict with how she screeches when she speaks.

The fact is Thompson is a large personality in a large frame, and Americans like that. The acting thing just gets him on the map for better or worse, and lately, it's better as his poll results, as of last night, were rising.

Funny thing about Hillary is not many left-liberals I know out here aren't speaking of her as favorably now as a month ago.

Jury's still out on that one. Apparently his first off-notes speech (to a small, very R crowd) was a disaster. If he can deliver unscripted lines as well as he does scripted ones, I agree he may be the best hope for conservatives in a, um, difficult year. If not, he'll be outed and disposed of quickly.

I don't think that speech was a disaster at all. It was a disappointment to those who were expecting red meat, but that doesn't mean he bombed.

Obama? ...he really hasn't done much.