Posted on 10/07/2010 8:49:15 PM PDT by Inyokern
I’m in Missouri and some of Kirk’s ads are running here; odd because the station is out of Phelps cty. Anyway, Kirk states quite dramatically that he’s a fiscal conservative. Which as we all know means, he’s pro abort, pro homosexual etc.
Just a dim with an R behind his name.
BUMP what you said. Right on.
When somebody qualifies their conservatism with the word “fiscal”, you can smell the bullcrap a mile away.
Absolutely
Yes, Kirk is pretty much a socialist. Conservatives lose no matter who wins. Giannoulas may win and be an Obama drone, Kirk may win and be a backroom lib who will undermine Republicans the next 6 years.
Hahahahahahahaha.....hohohohohohohoho.....hahahahahahahaha.... never heard of ARLEN SPECTOR or JIM JEFFORDS did you? Both used to be "Republicans" too before finally admitting to their true ideology and switching to the DemoKKKRat party.
He holds what used to be Don Rumsfeld's congressional seat and his views are similar to Rumsfeld.
Hahahahahahahaha.....hohohohohohohoho.....just because Kirk holds Rumsfeld's old Congressional seat doesn't mean Kirk holds a candle to Rumsfeld. Besides NOT closing Gitmo (which Kirk has repeatedly flip-flopped on) name ONE OTHER issue that Kirk and Rumsfeld agree on, that KIRK hasn't flip-flopped on already.
He is not going to be as liberal as Jeffords because Illinois is not Vermont.
Notice I'm not laughing at this one because clearly you DO NOT live here. If you had, you'd truly understand the similarities between upstate Illinois (specifically CHICAGO) and Vermont from a political perspective.
Don't believe me? One look at DICK DURBIN'S record in the Senate proves it. And don't get me started on Roland Burris or Carol Mosley Braun .....
And Kirk is an ultraliberal turd.
This seat is not about Kirk, it is about who will be the Senate Majority Leader.
If Kirk vows to be neutral on social issues - then all Illinois Republicans will vote for him for the good of the Party.
However, you chose to ignore it and continue to "report" the same false information about Kirk's beliefs, so I'm going to post them again, along with proof that Kirk is NOT "with us" on this stuff:
>> He is against immigration amnesty and supports completing the border fence and sending more troops to the border. <<
Numbers USA reports that Mark Kirk answered NO on whether he would oppose amnesty
Mark Kirk Opposes AZ Immigration Enforcement Law
>> He is against closing Gitmo <<
Kirk caved to Democrats on bringing Gitmo terorrists to Illinois
>> As a congressman, he voted against Obamacare and he has indicated that he wants to repeal it. <<
Mark Kirk Backs Off "Repeal" Charge on Obamacare
Kirk Regretting Health Bill Repeal Pledge
So sorry, Inyokern, facts are facts and the facts show Kirk will do the same thing as Alexi when it comes to giving illegal alien's amnesty, shutting down Gitmo, and keeping Obamacare as the law of the land, regardless of what lies he told voters to win the primary. Now that you've been informed of Kirk's actual RECORD on the issues, please stop repeating his lies. China call itself "the people's Republic", but that doesn't prove it really is a people's Republic and "different" from Cuba's form of government. Likewise Kirk can say whatever he wants, but his record shows he supported the RATs on those issues.
However, you chose to ignore it and continue to "report" the same false information about Kirk's beliefs, so I'm going to post them again, along with proof that Kirk is NOT "with us" on this stuff:
>> He is against immigration amnesty and supports completing the border fence and sending more troops to the border. <<
Numbers USA reports that Mark Kirk answered NO on whether he would oppose amnesty
Mark Kirk Opposes AZ Immigration Enforcement Law
>> He is against closing Gitmo <<
Kirk caved to Democrats on bringing Gitmo terorrists to Illinois
>> As a congressman, he voted against Obamacare and he has indicated that he wants to repeal it. <<
Mark Kirk Backs Off "Repeal" Charge on Obamacare
Kirk Regretting Health Bill Repeal Pledge
So sorry, Inyokern, facts are facts and the facts show Kirk will do the same thing as Alexi when it comes to giving illegal alien's amnesty, shutting down Gitmo, and keeping Obamacare as the law of the land, regardless of what lies he told voters to win the primary. Now that you've been informed of Kirk's actual RECORD on the issues, please stop repeating his lies. China call itself "the people's Republic", but that doesn't prove it really is a people's Republic and "different" from Cuba's form of government. Likewise Kirk can say whatever he wants, but his record shows he supported the RATs on those issues.
Primary season is over. The people who wanted Labno needed to make him win the primary. We need to get behind whoever is the Republican nominee in all cases where the nominee is not to the left of the Democrat (which is not the case here).
No.
Perfect.
These people are insane, according to Einstein’s definition of that word.
Hey Billy Boy,
If Giannoulias wins by a small margin, will you be satisfied then? Can we all credit you with Giannoulias’ victory?
We can look forward to six years of having a senator whose only qualification is that he plays basketball with Obama. Won’t that be great? I am hoping for the Bush tax cuts to be extended for everyone. That will be dead if you get what you want. Thanks.
Kirk can’t win without people lying for him?
Don’t you see a problem with that?
I don't know exactly what that means but when Giannoulias wins by a small margin and the Democrats succeed in holding the Senate, I am sure you will be proud of your accomplishment.
You can pay the extra income tax I am going to be hit with Jan 1. Is that fair enough?
Would that be the same Chicago Tribune that endorsed Comrade Obamamao??? I cannot tell you how impressed I am not. It must be that it is OK by the Trib if a candidate is an enthusiastic supporter of baby-killing (may even be mandatory nowadays), a supporter of perversion posing as “marriage,” a gun grabber, and a spendthrift posing for unholy pictures as a “fiscal conservative” (as though there were such a thing) so long as the candidate’s credentials as a brie and chablis lover are in shape. “Oh, Muffy, Nancyboy is just one of US!!! Isn’t it about time WE had a senator? So what if he has a yen for other men?”
It means I already informed you on another thread that Kirk had voted to close Gitmo, voted for amnesty, and admitted he won't repeal Obamacare. Yet you choose to ignore the facts that were presented to you and repeat Kirk's talking points to get people to vote for him under false pretenses. Kirk supporters have been challenged on this board to show how Kirk differs from a Democrat and you can't think of any major issues so you resort to repeating Kirk's lies about he's "fiscally conservative" and "a hawk on defense" and so on. If Giannoulias wins by a narrow margin he'll be one of the weakest RAT Senators on the planet and so tainted by corruption that he'll have next to zero clout in the Senate. No one will want to get near him, including his fellow RATs. He's likely to get indicted and removed before the end of his six-year term, and if that happens I would indeed be happy because Bill Brady is almost certain to be Governor and would appoint a decent Republican (which means it won't be defeated RINO Kirk) to replace him.
But would I be happy with Giannoulias as Senator? Of course not, that's why I'm voting for Mike Labno. I won't be happy with either socialist liberal in the Senate, whether their name is Kirk or Giannoulias. Both are scum. If you're pleased that one of the socialists is likely to win, that's your problem. I'd prefer they both lose and Labno gets elected.
You say Alexi has no qualifications for the Senate other than being Obama's basketball buddy. He is of course a statewide elected official and serves as our state treasurer. I guess you don't count that qualification because he's been a failure in the role. The same is true of Kirk, his "qualification" for being Senator is being a Washington insider in Congress for 10 years. But during those 10 years, the man has compiled a track record of being on the WRONG side of history on nearly every major policy debate (stem cell funding, Iraq surge vote, SCHIP, ANWR drilling, TARP bailouts, no funding for Border Wall, Charlie Rangel's bonus tax, CAFE standards, etc.) Why does this man deserve a promotion after such an abysmal failed record? Congress has totally wreaked this nation during the last four years, and Kirk was eager to suck up to Pelosi and get on the "winning" side for most of those debates. Those policies have probably done even more damage to this country than Alexi did during his reign as Illinois Treasurer.
You're for Kirk because he supported the Bush tax cuts and doesn't want them to be repealed? There are over two dozen card-carrying Democrat Congressman (31 at present) who hold the same view. Do you endorse their candidacies too? Should we give them a promotion to the Senate so they can be a better position to continue championing the Bush tax cuts?
Patrick Fitzgerald should sue the Trib for libel unless it withdraws the claim that Nancyboy would see to the appointment of anyone like Patrick Fitzgerald to any responsibility much less US Attorney.
Nancyboy would be an ultraliberal senator. Nothing to see here. Just move along.
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.