Posted on 09/12/2007 3:49:22 AM PDT by blogsforthompson.com
Despite their efforts to put the "Anti-Fred" Website Scandal to rest, Mitt Romney's people continue to be directly tied to it as the story reverberates across the blogosphere and around the internet. The storyline is now pretty well set as "Romney responsible for...." or "Anti-Fred site traced back to Romney". Here is a good example of.........
(Excerpt) Read more at blogsforfredthompson.com ...
Well if you refuse to acknowledge scripture were not going to get anywhere so I suppose you’re right.. Have a nice day..
I certainly “acknowledge scripture.” I just don’t agree with your selective citations and interpretation.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think character matters in a candidate. You, apparently, disagree.
Please feel free to offer some citations of your own and tell me how you would interpret the words written in Isiah or the Gospels..
Some other time. I’m supposed to be doing something else, now.
No I just don't restrict Character to marital fidelity, I consider things like flip-flopping to not just be political liabilities but character liabilities as well!
Under some circumstances, I would agree with you. I’m not sure whether those circumstances are here, though. Lying is terrible, and a sin. An honest change of mind is not a sin. Neither is as bad as promiscuity, IMO. If we disagree about that, so be it.
I dont know weather to agree or not, where are you getting that deception is a lesser sin than infidelity?
In my religion, one can lose one’s membership for infidelity, but not for lying. Both require repentance, but sexual immorality usually results in church discipline. It would be my opinion even if the foregoing were not true. As I said, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Okay?
Well thats certainly not biblical, so if your basis is that your profits told you x and mine is the bible says this I guess were at an impasse.
Agreed. Except that I think the Bible does condemn sexual sin more harshly than lying. As I said, I’m not in a position to look up the scriptures right now. BTW, it’s “prophets,” or was that deliberate?
Where?
Acts 5:
1 A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. 2 He retained for himself, with his wife's knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles. 3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God." 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him. 7 After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened. 8 Peter said to her, "Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?" She answered, "Yes, for that amount." 9 Then Peter said to her, "Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out."10 At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
Genesis:
The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, niether spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart. Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed. And the people to whom they prophesy shall be cast out in the streets of Jersalem because of the famine and the sword; and they shall have none to bury them, them, their wives, nor their sons, not their daughters: for I will pour their wickedness upon them."
Well, since Precious Willard isn't a Republican, that's not an issue.
"But, Fred is no victim, “rescued” by his young wife."
I stated the facts. I remember seeing the man 5 years ago and how broken he was. I never expected that he'd ever want to reenter the realm of political office again. I would indeed say his young wife, her love, and those two young children did indeed rescue him from the despair he was in in those days. I know what that pain is. If people want to knock that, as the Mittwits have, it only speaks to their own pathetic desperation.
"He had a perfectly good family, that appears to have broken up because of his infidelity."
Sleazy and unproven allegations.
"He was admittedly an amoral Lothario between marriages."
He was admittedly nothing. More sleaze and innuendoes. What he did between marriages, as long as it wasn't illegal, was none of our damn business. He was single and dating during the bulk of his Senate service, and the only people bitching and moaning about it were the same people defending a known rapist and pervert in the White House.
"Heck, one of his former mistresses, Georgette Mosbacher, was on Fox shilling for him the other day, so I guess he left ‘em smiling. How very sophisticated and European."
You're disgusting, madam. A "mistress" implies he was cheating on his wife. He DATED Miss Mosbacher. You are familiar with the concept, aren't you ?
"And his current wife was in a long term shack up relationship with one rich old guy, until a richer old guy — Fred — came along. I think that’s an indisputable facts. An English newspaper has already called her an aspiring “First Babe.” There will be more of that."
No, this is just sleaze. Shame on you for trying to validate it. This isn't some arranged "show" marriage like the Clintons. Shall we engage in speculation on the part of the Precious one ? I'm sure somebody that "good looking" might veered away more than a few times. What ? Is that below the belt ? I do find it remarkable the female Mittwits on FR dig up and imply some of the most disgusting bottom-of-the-barrel sleaze against Jeri Thompson. Pathetic.
"All of this will be discussed if he is the nominee. We’d better face up to it, and factor it into our decision as to whom to support."
Face up to sleaze allegations... against a CLINTON ? This isn't even worth spending 2 seconds on.
"It matters to me. But maybe it doesn’t matter to enough other folks any more to make a difference."
Like I said, because the RINO traitor Precious Willard is losing so badly, he has to resort to this sort of garbage hate to try to give him traction. He AND his supports are beneath contempt. I wouldn't vote for that piece of garbage under any circumstances.
"Have said that, if he is the nominee, I will certainly support him and vote for him. There is so much at stake in this election."
Save it. I don't think Fred needs to lower himself to get your vote. Good day to you, madam.
Yeah, you'd like that, wouldn't you ? I don't support sleaze liberal RINO liars like your boy Precious Willard, and have an even lower opinion of his termitic flunkies. You people are disgusting. You should all be put under a microscope, no telling what will come oozing out.
“It is one thing to rebut another Republican’s positions or to criticize him for his actions. It is another thing to smear him personally.”
MItt Romney has been smeared personally by many Fredhead Mitt-bashers taking and spreading false allegations and assumptions.
“When one family member messes up, it is completely appropriate for the other family members to tell him he is messing up”
Please tell the above-mentioned folks they are messing up by smearing Romney and accusing him of doing something that he had nothing to do with.
“Mitt’s problem here is that he did not do the web site, and did not approve of the web site. So, because he’s an honest guy, he had to say he didn’t approve of it, and had nothing to do with it.
Unfortunately, people don’t trust politicians, and the truth sometimes isn’t the best political response.
What the bloggersforfred people don’t understand is that if Mitt Romney actually decided to attack Fred for Fred’s past, he would have put the blog up himself, and when asked about it he would have taken CREDIT for it.
IN all the comments about the defunct blog, one word has been missing from the Thompson supporters who are complaining about it: “False”.”
Good points.
“Thompson doesn’t want to look like he is whining, after all.”
But some FredHead Freepers dont mind the drama queen role, apparently.
Plutarch’s point is let the vetting happen now. Better on the GOP watch than on the Hillary watch.
Mitt’s faith has come up often in the media and in debates ... it’s out there. So has his position changes and flip-flops.
Rudy’s skeletons are to some extent out there.
Fred’s background will be exposed, either now or later.
Would someone care to explain why a vanity thread from a blog sourcing itself is thriving in “News/Activism” when it should be in “Bloggers/Personal”?
I agree that smears are not necessary. People who are using this episode to say that Romney is a bad person or not a fit candidate should stop. Romney way well be our nominee, one day, and we will all want to support him.
On the other hand, I do not think it is a smear to point out that people closely associated with Romney's campaign made a mistake here by producing a web-site that Romney would probably not have approved of, if he had known about it.
Romney bears ultimate responsibility, of course. He employed the people who produced the web-site. His campaign team in the state had direct supervisory authority in two our of three of the webmaster's jobs, and probable supervisory authority in the third, though that is less clear. The company founded by his state campaign team owned the server. The connection is there.
The above is not a smear on Romney. Things happen in a campaign. Not everything goes according to plan. From time to time underlings will wander off the reservation and go too far. That is the nature of campaigns. The only way the above is a smear on Romney is if you assumed that Romney was all-knowing, in perfect and absolute control of his organization, and never made a mistake. This is, obviously, not true.
It is obviously not true of Fred Thompson, either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.