Posted on 09/27/2007 3:52:21 AM PDT by davidosborne
I love your zeal, and your service to this country, but seriously, stop acting like such an idiot.
The assertion is absurd.
That is your most deeply delusional assertion yet.
Personally I have a real problem with the CFR thing, regarding Thompson. As well as the illegal immigration debate.
Stands to reason then, chose a Candidate the base is behind, the rest will follow. Aside from that, if Hunter becomes the nominee, he will get all the recognition he needs.
As someone else has said here, the problem is the present administration and the RNC/NRCC don’t want a real Conservative. It is THEM we need to get to.
Honestly, some Hunterites sound like Paulites.
The assertion comes from observation not tinfoil hats or black helicopters, neither of which do I subscribe too. The RNC is an honorary position which you can buy into for a donation of $25.00 to the RNC (Do you want me to later scan the letter into my computer so I can email it to you). Where that money goes is controlled by the Republican Leadership Council. Let’s examine some common sense here, If you are attacked from a foreign source among the first things you do is seal your borders!! How has the brilliant administration missed that critical point all this time (6 years) with admissions that cells have come through our porous southern border and they aren’t sure where they are now? Bush is a globalist and Fred Thompson has made comment that you need to give the 12 to 20 million a path to citizenship! If you dry up the jobs through enforcement they will go home! Fred is doing the same dance as W did!
Ravenstar
It is not just Duncan Hunter, it is any conservative. You look at all the liberal media polls and make your decision on who they say can win, which is always going to be a person that is not going to change the slide into socialism that we are on. If they report that someone is “unelectable” it is invariably a constitutional conservative yet they never say this about looney lefties and in certain districts they get elected! The people now believe these polls that they put out and so they vote for the “lesser of two evils”. There is an example where the people ignored the media however but at the time there was no Free Republic and just the beginnings of the internet—That was Reagan. They made the statement about him but it was one of the first times they had tried that scenario and they were ignored. However the public has basically gone for it since Bush I. Do I have to drag up several thousand posts on this site which people like you have rationalized “that we have to believe the liberal media that a true constitutional conservative is unelectable so I will support the RINO “lesser of two evils” candidate! The pollsters are not independant they are paid! If you drum in that a certain person is ahead long enough the sheeple will gravitate to vote for that person because they want to “vote of a winner”. The RLC is globalist so only RINO’s need apply but sometimes you do have to say that you are a “Compasionate Conservative” to get elected but then you don’t do much you talk about it and keep on with the globalist agenda — as W has done.
Ravenstar
These are liberal paid pollsters so you are basing your decision on what liberals want you to believe.
Ravenstar
It's deja vu all over again, baby. Been there done that, not voting for the lesser of the evils this time.
I’ll never sit out an election, but I will skip the presidental lines of the ballot if the ‘Pubbies nominate Guliiani or McInsane.
The “it” factor you are looking for is who the liberal media will decide that they will cover—The Hollywood Celebrity Factor if you will. There have been documented situations where there are for example 15 antiwar protestors and 2500 support the troop demonstrators in the same area and who do they cover!?! The 15 of course. This is because they have an agenda! Do you think this agenda goes away when they do the election stuff????
Ravenstar
Just a question....why would Vets support Thompson? Perhaps the information below is incorrect?? Or is it?
Fred Thompson: Hollow Speeches Won’t Erase Non-Candidate Thompson’s Record of Ignoring Veterans
[snip] While Thompson tried to play the part of a strong supporter of veterans’ issues, a look at Thompson’s voting record shows that he has a long history of abandoning our men and women when they come home from war.
“Standing with our veterans is about more than photo-ops and hollow speeches,” said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Amaya Smith. “Thompson had an opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to veterans when he cast his vote in the Senate, but instead he chose to vote against health care and benefits for veterans and their families in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy. Veterans are tired of a President who uses them for backdrops and photo- ops, and deserve a Commander and Chief who supports them on the battlefield and honors their service by providing the proper benefits and care when they return home.”
THOMPSON’S RECORD SHORT ON SUPPORT FOR VETERANS
Thompson Voted Against Ensuring Funding For Health Care Facilities Remained At An Acceptable Level. Thompson voted to kill an amendment to prohibit the VA from reducing funds to any state for health care facilities in fiscal 1997 below the fiscal 1996 funding level. [Senate Vote #275, 9/5/96]
Thompson Voted Against Extending Vets Health Care to Children Of Vets With Neurological Injuries. Thompson voted against a provision that would extend veterans health care and related benefits to the children of Vietnam Veterans suffering from spina bifida, a spinal cord birth defect that causes neurological damage. [Senate Vote #276, 9/5/96]
Thompson Voted Against Increasing Funding For the VA. Thompson voted against increasing funding provided to the Veterans Health Administration by $1.3 billion. [Senate Vote #285, 9/22/99]
Thompson Voted In Favor Of Tax Cuts For The Rich Instead of Increased Funding For Veterans Health Care. In 2001, Thompson voted against an amendment to increase funding for veterans health care by $1.7 billion, by redirecting the same amount from the proposed tax cut. [Senate Vote #84, 4/6/01]
Thompson Voted To Limit Compensation For Mentally Disabled Veterans. Thompson voted for provisions that limited compensation for certain mentally disabled veterans. [Senate Vote #465, 9/27/95]
Thompson Voted Against Increasing Benefits For Veterans In Favor of Special Tax Breaks. In 1995, Thompson voted against increasing veterans’ benefits by reducing special tax breaks for individuals or groups of individuals. Thompson voted similarly in 1999, voting against reserving $3 billion per year for five years for veterans’ health care, offset by decreasing tax reductions for upper income taxpayers. [Senate Vote #226, 5/25/95; Senate Vote #243, 7/30/99]
“It’s deja vu all over again, baby. Been there done that, not voting for the lesser of the evils this time.”
Agree, which is why I won’t be voting for Duncan Hunter. Although perfection is hard to come by. The guys who are fighting the earmarks are heroes, but DH isn’t helping them. Ronald Reagan was for limited government, cutting government spending. I’m looking for someone like that. DH hasn’t shown me the inclination by his voting record. There are other things as well.
You need to take another look and don’t believe the innuendos that are dropped with no facts to back them up.
DUNCAN HUNTER: Let me give a few examples of Hunter “earmarks”:
1) The double fence between Tijuana and San Diego that reduced smuggling of people and narcotics by more than 90%.
2) 10,000 jammers for troops in Iraq to protect against roadside bombs.
3) Filtration ponds on the most polluted river in North America (New River at the Mexican border) which have been credited with providing a 90% cleanup of the tainted water which is diverted through them.
My point is: Representatives of congressional districts are supposed to put together the budget of the United States. There is no Constitutional basis for the new thinking that the President’s budget is sacrosanct and that any changes by the very Representatives of the areas affected are somehow “illegitimate”. Spending or participating in the budget process is not, in and of itself, illegitimate, but is rather the very obligation of Congress. That said, wasteful projects should be eliminated, and their authors held politically accountable. You may notice that I post all my Congressional initiatives on the internet so that Americans can judge my record.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1880600/posts?q=1&;page=101
AuntB,
Be careful now, pointing out facts can be considered an “attack” on FRed. We don’t want anyone to think we don’t like FRED, we just want to let folks know that we like Duncan Hunter MORE than FRed, that’s all..
:)
FReegards,
David
Don't worry I don't take that personal.
Your FRiend,
David
“actually a lot of folks I have talked to have said that if the Republicans fail to nominate a REAL conservative, the will sit out the General Election.... Personally I disagree with this approach as siting out would all but guarantee the HildaBeast victory... ..”
That’s what they did in ‘06. I begged some people not to, but that’s what many will do. Now the Dems have the majority, and many of President Bush’s judicial picks won’t even make it to the floor for an up or down vote, because the Dems are in control of the judiciary committee.
You would think Americans would AT LEAST show up at the polls and vote 3rd party, or do a write-in, when men like you are fighting for our right to vote.
Bill Clinton only had 2% poll ratings in Oct. of ‘91, but he won (sadly in this case).
This is roughly about as insignificant as the hairs on a fly's backside.
Sorry to be a downer! :)
“Duncan Hunter doubled the totals of the next-closest candidate, garnering 534 of approximately 1,400 votes cast. Fred Thompson came in second with 266 votes, and Paul rounded out the top three with 217 votes.
Here are all the results:
Duncan Hunter: 534
Fred Thompson: 266
Ron Paul: 217
Mike Huckabee: 83
Rudy Giuliani: 78
Mitt Romney: 61
Ray McKinney: 28
John Cox: 10
John McCain: 8
Sam Brownback: 6
Tom Tancredo: 6
Hugh Cort: 3”
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.