/sarc
Posted on 09/13/2007 8:21:01 PM PDT by Rennes Templar
***************
I would guess that most of we Fredheads agree on that.
If he does, I won't vote for him.
LOL
well, maybe that should give you a clue?
;o)
(Oh, and it's spelled "recommending" = spell-chedk is your friend)
**************
LOL! So it is. :)
It’s only an absurd comment on the very surface; underneath it all there’s a deeper, more important truth.
It is true that Thompson’s health might become a grave issue; yeah, it really could get bad suddenly, and he COULD die in Office, were he to be elected President.
BUT — and this is key — President Fred Thompson dying in Office of NHL — leaving the country in the hands of his VP — is LESS a threat to the Constitution, citizens, and future of the United States than a Hillary presidency.
The death of a President in Office is NOT a Constitutional crisis; a Hillary presidency would almost CERTAINLY result in the destruction of foundational elements of the Republic, itself.
“Okay, so how does that tie back to Hillary’s gender?”
The tie is this: we all thought the WJC Presidency was reprehensible, but his gender didn’t physiologically impede his assessment of raw facts by encumbering his decision-making faculties with the accompanying emotional load. Bill made some bad decisions, but if there were any emotional inputs to the process, they weren’t his.
Hillary would not have this benefit.
We know from medical science that the male and female brains are actually physiologically different in a crucial aspect, and the impact is this: men can review the facts of a situation WITHOUT feeling the emotional load implicit in that set of facts; when women review the same set of facts, the emotional load is felt simultaneously, and has to be actively blocked out in order for the woman to exclude that emotional load from the decision-making process.
Women do NOT have equal degrees of difficulty doing this, nor do they feel the emotional load of a given fact set with the same strength, so some women are nearly as unimpeded by emotional loads as men in their decision-making, but fifteen years watching and listening to Hillary leads me to conclude that she is NOT one of these women.
Hillary will not unemotionally review the facts presented to her regarding the boots-on-the-ground realities in Iraq, she will be influenced by her “get out now” emotional load.
Hillary will not unemotionally review the pros and cons of a national healthcare system, she will be influenced by hre “oh, the poor people” emotional load.
Fred Thompson could get elected, die in Office, and his VP could take the helm for his remaining term, and it would STILL not negatively impact this country the way either of those two (likely, IMO) Hillary scenarios would.
Fred’s health truly IS LESS an issue than Hillary’s gender.
Why isn't the press concerned about that?
Everybody will die of something. I don’t see this as a big issue.
Because McCain doesn’t stand a snowballs chance of getting elected. So he isn’t a threat to the beast.
Nope. Only a person with a conscience is capable of feeling guilt. A sociopath doesn't.
Or vice versa. Or if Rudy wins, he could pick Mike the Huck. Oh well, according to Newt, it is 80-20 against a Pub winning. I guess the public just is fed up with the right choices so they can have a socialist pacifist for Prez in Her Highness. Oh how our nation has fallen in common and moral sense.
“Cheney was supposed to’ve keeled over some time ago too”
True.
Interesting to observe the differences in cultural treatment of heart disease vs. cancer. Cheney’s heart condition was often the butt of jokes of pundits and talk show hosts, Leno, etc.
Freepmail me when you hear a joke about Thompson’s cancer.
Point is, cancer has a much more serious pall surrounding it. And when a candidate as well-known and viable as Thompson has it as his age, expect it to be an issue.
He is a lispy liberal New Yorker who believes in EVERY one of the democratic talking points save one. The war on terror.
I doubt it. He is much smarter than that.
I would not disagree with your assessment that a Hillary presidency would be a disaster for the country. However you set up a scenario based on only two choices, a man fighting Cancer and a woman none of us are comfortable with. I would respond to that by saying we have other choices. Fred is not the nominee at this time and there are others running for the Rep. nomination who are highly qualified to do the job who, to the best of knowledge, do not have the health issues surrounding Fred. If Fred was to become the choice of the party I would support him and hope he had a long and successful administration. I would also hope he would pick an outstanding person to run with him for VP. Personally though I do worry about his health and the stress of the job he is seeking, as I would anyone else who was running while battling a known illness like Cancer (for the record I have the same doubts about Rudy and John).
As for your treatise on the emotional instabilty of women, I wouldn’t touch that with a ten foot pole and Lech Stanzynski a ten foot Pole says he wouldn’t touch it either (a little non-PC humor there).
See 47
From what I've observed, that woman has had lots of practice suppressing her emotional reaction to data. She "compartmentalizes" as well as her husband.
(I really would like a reference for your supposition that men do not need the same practice to suppress emotion, however.)
Rudy as VP would be a big mistake.
Okay, CYA time, here.
FOR THE RECORD: I made NO insinuation that women are “emotionally unstable.”
What I DID do is point out the fact that, owing to brain physiology, women are inherently more likely to be emotionally influenced in their decision-making than men, and gave a brief explanation in layman’s terms.
This should NOT be construed as a slam in any degree, because, in many (often life-or-death) circumstances, it’s actually a very beneficial trait, and is a key element of what we have, for years, called “women’s intuition.”
As well, I noted that some women are very effective in putting their emotional inputs “on hold,” and making decisions on a “facts only” basis. The most effective among them consciously run the decision-making process both with AND without the emotional input, and compare the results in a sort of “The facts say THIS, and I feel like THAT” scenario. If feelings reinforce facts, confidence in a good decision is quite high. If not, further review or additional facts may be requisite.
Guys actually do the same thing, but our brain physiology requires that we have to intentionally poll our emotional inputs — do a “gut check” — to do it. And that’s the terminology we commonly use, “What’s your gut-level on this decision?”
Bottom line is that for men, emotional inputs have to be actively queried, whereas, for women, they are “always on”. Whether an individual man or woman is emotionally stable, or not, is an entirely different issue.
>>>>>
As for the health of Fred...
I guess I look at it this way:
If Fred thinks his health is good enough for a serious bid for the Presidency, then I’ll respect his assessment enough to focus on his positions on the issues. God knows he’s taken long enough to actually decide to throw his hat into the ring; I’ve gotta believe that a comeplete consideration of his health was part of that calculus. So, I’m comfortable letting fred Thompson be the one with primary concern for the health of Fred Thompson.
That being the case, while I’ll certainly keep his health in the back of my mind, I’m not going to use it as a basis upon which to relegate Thompson to second-tier status as a candidate; I’ll pit him toe-to-toe with everyone else in the Primaries, and see how he stacks up. Whether I agree with his positions, or not, I’m not going to wrap up a review of them only to turn around and say, “Yeah, well, and then there’s his health...”
I’d call that “taking your eye off the ball”; the precursor to striking out.
Prayers for Fred Thompson!
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.