It’s because both of them have contracts with ABC Radio.
A very unsound and criminal past. You gotta wonder what got into that ‘diversified group of investors,’ to place a bet on this sleazeball.
I also have to disagree with this pitting. This commercial just shows what an empty shell Thompson is. He’s a suit, a pair of baggy eyes and a nice voice. He apparently has no idea what he’s reading. We need to get this guy the nomination. Joe Biden could kick his ass. Hilary will be marinading his liver by Halloween 2008.
Was he speaking for himself, or just acting as a spokesman for the company? If he, said, “I, Fred Thompson, personally endorse this company.” that would be a different case than if he just read the script extolling the virtues of Lifelock.
Is it any worse than Sam Waterston tricking old people into buying a lot of useless insurance? Or how about Wilford Brimley and the diabetes supplies? Hell, Dennis Hopper is selling financial services of all things. “Not just secure, Dennis Hopper secure.” is not the endorsement I’m looking for in an investment firm, but they’re the ones who hired him, not me.
An unknown or unrecognizeable actor can be the spokesperson for any product willing to pay the price. Why should Fred Thompson be denied that privilege just because he has a famous face and voice?
Three cheers for capitalism absolving everyone from personal responsibility!
Before you get a bee in your bonnet about the president of the ‘other’ party pardoning people, let’s see how much time I Lewis Libby spends in jail.
Good. Seeya in the other thread.
And I know the GOP has been fighting, tooth and nail, to close those loopholes, but the Dems keep blocking them.
Seriously, back in the days when I used to participate in gun threads, a major beef of the pro-gun crew was that the gun-control types were trying to write gun laws without actually understanding guns, and as a result they were writing incoherent laws, e.g. the assault weapons ban.
There’s a parallel here, and the hedge fund sector is surely much more complicated than assault weapons.
Aww, how sweet. I didn’t know you cared. 
Maybe “the SDMB community in general” doesn’t see it the same way you do. Maybe it’s just you.
Actually, in this instance I was driving to work, listening to the radio. When I got home after the second time I heard it, I typed in “Fred Thompson identity theft commercial” (or something like that; I couldn’t remember LifeLock’s name) into Google, and the L.A. Times article was right at the top.
Trust me, with your crew, no digging is necessary. Most stuff, I simply forget about before I have the chance to even think of posting about it here.
Look, it’s really simple: there are people who like Fred Thompson; I can count on them to talk up his positive stuff.
But given Thompson’s somewhat thin record on the issues, right now, stuff that says something about his character is pretty much all we have. And in some cases, character considerations should overcome stands on the issues. For instance, if a candidate loaned office space to the local NAMBLA chapter, I don’t care if he’s got all the right stances on Iraq, global warming, health insurance, immigration, unionization, and anything else I can think of; I’m not voting for him.
To what extent less extreme issues of character matter obviously depends on the individual voter. But it’s absurd to say they shouldn’t be brought up. It is up to the speaker, of course, to draw a connection between “candidate A has done X” and “why I think you should care.” You may not care anyway, but that’s why “Edwards house haircut hedge fund” doesn’t do much by itself.
Lie. This does not show that Fred Thompson has little respect for the troops.
Lie. Fred Thompson is endorsing LifeLock, not Robert Maynard.
Well, since you call Maynard a crook and a liar when because he didn’t follow through on his contractual obligation to pay his debt (the FCC charges went away, so the only context of him being a crook is his debt), why are you so dismissive of Thompson following through on his contract? Oh, because you’re a hypocrite.
So? Are you acknowledging then that the contract prohibited him from pulling out of a radio spot for a company that has no bad record? Again, hypocrite.
You have, of course, evidence of this motivation?
Lie.
Sleazy and manipulative on your say-so. Ok. In any case, it took an alternative Phoenix newspaper two years to dig up the dirt on Maynard and make connections, which only came to light in May. What research, exactly, were you expecting Thompson to do?
This is another case of the OP’s subject line blatantly mischaracterizing the content, incidentally.
ArizonaTeach you really need to look up the word “Lie”. You keep using that word, I don’t think it means what you think it means. I like the over the top knee jerk defense of all things republican though, even a shill who will stoop to exploiting “the troops”. Face it using “the troops” to sell anything is tacky and tasteless, I wish I could expect more from those thinking about running for office, especially from those who I presume will attempt to stake out the moral highground.
I think the following line should go in the dictionary definition of hypocrite:
We could even get a picture of ol’ Marty looking all tough and everything.
-Joe
I have arrived to the conclusion that Republicans do not pick a leader, but someone that can be lead around.
I have to go :dubious: on that.
You see, that does sound like the perfect republican president of late: Someone that is not a leader, but by showing that he can be lead by others, then the others (that are the real power behind the front man) will invest heavily into making sure that he gets elected.
He was convicted of the equivalent of passing a bad check. I suppose that equates to not following through on his contractual obligation to pay his debt, but not in a straightforward and legal “I owe you money but I’m broke” sort of way. This country did away with debtors’ prisons a couple of centuries ago.
Or maybe I recognize the difference between civil and criminal law. And maybe I regard the choice of whether or not to exploit the troops for personal gain as being more important than the choice of whether to honor a civil contract; YMMV on that.
Anyway, the rest of what you’re saying is equally absurd.
You’ve got a point. 
Isn’t this pretty much true of all successful politicians? Leaders, by definition, create a trail, and by doing so they are sure to piss off enough people that there is not way a true leader can get elected. It is only by giving the appeareance of leading, by more or less pandering to whoever they are talking to, that politicians get elected. Consequently true leaders are unelectable, and only empty suits get elected.
By contrast, dictators can be true leaders, in the sense you’re describing. Take Fidel Castro for instance, he can decide that Cuba will cut electrical consumption by 50%, and it gets done, because he does not have to worry about getting elected, or opinion polls, or opposition parties. So island wide blackouts are implemented, and sugar mills are made to sit idle. And no one complains, because Castro took the lead and made complaining illegal.
Democracies, unless there is some sort of emergency, appear to produce leaders who more or less appear to try to not let things get too fucked up. And having lived under both systems, I’ll take democracy any day.
“Led” around and by others I mean.
Your own quote sez he is not a crook or a criminal "Maynard settled both allegations with the FTC in 1997 without admitting wrongdoing but agreed to be barred from “advertising, promoting, offering for sale, selling, performing or distributing any product or service relating to credit-improvement services.”
He settled a lawsuit. Big fucking deal. I have settled a lawsuit- am I a crook? He was accused of some violations (that don’t appear to be criminal in nature)- since when has being accused but not convicted make one a criminal? In America that makes you a NON-criminal.
But then you are just justifying mediocrity, and the worst kind. And yes I’m talking about the fact that Americans did choose poorly in 2000 and 2004, pointing to that has diddle squat to do with embracing dictatorship. (unless you are implying that electing a democrat is similar to embracing dictatorship)
Even having power on a limited base (and that is the way is supposed to be) allows a leader to make unpopular decisions that he or she can explain properly and make change happen or suffer the consequences. The problem we have right now is that the Republican party still insists on the whole to not take the leader to task for any of the bad decisions. (Even though the democrats are the majority they are not enough to make a big difference regarding this)
Explain to me how the statement, “Fred Thompson is willing to go to bat for him and his product” is truthful. Let’s start with that step.
And I love the absolute dismissal of anyone who tries to defend a blatant falsehood as “knee jerk defense of all things republican.” What an honest debater you are.
Hello? REPUBLICAN?
Sounds like I didn’t make myself clear. My point is that the polical process, specially when you’re talking elections with such a large number of voters, will usually produce candidates that are so called “empty suits” in terms of leadership. At least that’s what I have seen so far.
As an interested outsider I can tell you that from my perspective both Republicans and Democrats are almost identical. I imagine when the US President is a Democrat there will be all kinds of posts here about how awful he is.
Something may not in actual fact be true, but if the person saying it believes it to be true then he is not in actual fact lying. He may be mistaken. He may be incorrect. But if he believes it to be true then it is not a lie. Furthermore an opinion canot be a lie. If a person does not actually hold the espoused opinion then that could be a lie. Do yo suggest that RT does not find Fred’s position disturbing? You also called him a liar when he said he cared about his integrity. You may not think he has any, but you have no basis to say he does not care about it.
What an honest debater you are for ignoring the gist of my argument. That is that it is tacky and tasteless to use appeal to the sacrifice of “the troops” (I was one of them, were you?) to sell products or services.