Posted on 08/07/2007 7:36:00 AM PDT by Calpernia
His lettuce to Chertoff campaign was great. Chertoff should be fit for salads for the rest of his life.
Says you. I'll go with the conservative FredT, you can have the liberal Giuliani. LOL
That is still his work and he was on the Armed Services Committee. Show me someone else that has come out and given the Clintons a public whoopin like that and lived.
Some military historian who is also a DH supporter needs to research the units that Duncan was in during the time period he was in. No doubt he must’ve seen some heavy combat and most likely thats why he’s reluctant to talk about it. But it could help his campaing a lot if it came to light that this particular unit that he happened to be in was involved in heavy combat, etc, etc, with some of the details. Kind of a “reverse swift boat” if you know what I mean. I mean, if you compare Duncan and John Kerry. Kerry droaned on and on about his Vietnam experience. Hunter refuses to talk about his. Kerry, turns out, insisted on a Purple Heart after a medic pull a grain of rice out from his bottom. So he could get out of there after 4 months or so. Hunter volunteered for a 2nd term.
More info about what actions his units were involved in, possible medals or awards he might have won, etc, could propel his candidacy. But its up to others to do it. Duncan will not. He’s too much of a real man for that.
You military historians out there - get busy. DD
It is already public knowledge that Duncan Hunter was honored with the Semper Fidelis award by the United States Marine Corps and the Keeper of the Flame Award by the Center for Security Policy in 2006.
The wall is around him because he poses a threat to people with financial interests in free trade, wall street and the borders.
Heck, I’m convinced God even spoke during the NH debates.
Gathering more information at this point would be doing the same old/same old and running in the same circles.
This is going to take a major out of the box effort.
*applause*
“There’s that ‘you give Hunter a bad name’ crap again. It’s ridiculous.”
I don’t think it’s so ridiculous. I know posters who have decided that Mr. Hunter’s not for them, because the supporters that he seems to draw don’t represent him well. It’s just human nature.
As for what happened with the rudybots, although a few posters got personal, most of the rudybots were complaining about “bashing” when folks reminded them that Mr. Giuliani is pro-abort, pro-homosexual agenda, anti-gun, etc. I’m not complaining about folks pointing out that Mr. Thompson backed McCain-Feingold, or other faults, perceived or real.
However, there ARE threads that have repeated lies or distortions about Mr. Thompson, and that does get tiresome.
“Go back and look at where the ‘trouble’ of personal attacks started on those Fred threads.”
I don’t really need to go back to old threads to see the source of the trouble is. I see it right here.
sitetest
Thank you. I hope you have a copy of this post to use again. It is well thought out, well written and right on.
You obviously see what you want to see. I see the insults at 50/50, and that’s being generous. SInce I’ve been the recipient of a heckuva lot of it.
But unlike some who get their feelings hurt because I exposed Fred’s moderate past, I did not and won’t bellyache to the Fred campaign, to the FR mods or to anyone.
Regardless, for the most part you and I have been civil, so I anticipate it will stay that way.
“...I’m afraid candidates would use ‘states’ rights’ as a cop-out to avoid stating their honest position.”
I guess, I don’t care as much about their honest position, if they work to send the issue back to the states.
That’s because if Roe were overturned, laws would go into effect in about 30 states significantly restricting abortion.
And that would be a great start.
And when folks saw that the sky didn’t fall in when most abortions were made illegal in most states, folks would start to think about making even more illegal in more states.
The fact is that at the time of the ruling of Roe in 1973, no state had passed more permissive abortion laws since 1970, and several states were moving back to more restrictive laws.
In fact, two years after passing the most liberal abortion law in the United States, the legislature of New York in 1972 repealed the permissive abortion law, and the bill they passed would have made abortion mostly illegal again. Only the veto of Gov. Rockefeller prevented that.
I may be wrong, but I have a firm belief that if folks are given back their right to legislate on this issue, that folks will vote for ever-increasingly pro-life policies.
Thus, a president who privately wishes this would all just go away as a federal issue, and doesn’t really care whether abortion is legal, illegal, mandatory, or what, and is willing to appoint justices who will overturn Roe to make it go away as a federal issue, is fine with me, if not ideal.
sitetest
In my own estimation, I think that Mr. Thompson took seriously things like separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, etc. Not to say that he always and everywhere acted perfectly consistently with these principles, but I think that he at least gave them thought and consideration when making political decisions.
I don’t think that any of the other candidates currently running, Democrat or Republican, ever gave a first thought to these issues, with the exception of Dr. Paul. I’m not sure that all of the candidates actually even UNDERSTAND these issues at any depth.
In any event, it would be nice to have a president who actually thought about these questions before setting policy. I’m sure that anyone politically successful enough to become president would also be savvy enough to compromise on these questions when he thought necessary, but it would be refreshing to see them brought back into political thought at the highest levels of our federal government.
sitetest
>Says you. I’ll go with the conservative FredT, you can have the liberal Giuliani. LOL.<
Obviously you don’t read taglines. :)
Do you recall that originally I said I would like to see a one on one debate between FDT and Rep. Hunter? Maybe I should have said in my last post to you that Rudy AND Rep. Hunter could clean FDT’s clock in a debate.
Thats ny story and I’m sticking to it.
“I see the insults at 50/50, and that’s being generous.”
Since we discussed this previously, I’ve been paying more attention, because although my impression of Hunter supporters before was highly negative, I thought that I should give it a more critical look. I don’t have time to go back through multi-hundred-post-threads, but I CAN pay attention to new threads, especially those in which I participate. So far, it looks about 90% - 10% (generously) from what I’ve seen since I’ve paid more attention.
“But unlike some who get their feelings hurt because I exposed Fred’s moderate past, I did not and won’t bellyache to the Fred campaign, to the FR mods or to anyone.”
I’m not sure it’s a matter of folks getting their feelings hurt. I think the folks I’ve seen turned off from Mr. Hunter because of the actions of his supporters have been OBSERVERS of food fights, not participants. In fact, in the thread that I misattributed to you, I was an observer initially. I was disgusted at the treatment of others, not of myself.
“Regardless, for the most part you and I have been civil, so I anticipate it will stay that way.”
You’ve mostly been civil, and mostly avoided insult and invective toward me.
And I appreciate that.
It can be fun to disagree with folks, but it’s more fun when we’re not disagreeable (credit to Mr. Chesterton, of course).
sitetest
When you work from the "comments" page, you don't see taglines. Silly you.
>>>>>Thats ny story and I’m sticking to it.
Fine. You're impressed with the Duncan Hunter campaign and you handout kudos to liberals. Okay.
Aw Fuhggettaboutit, Reagan Man.
I wish I could share your belief but I don't. Here in California, for example, I have little doubt it would be made legal if left to the tender mercies of Sacramento.
"Thus, a president who privately wishes this would all just go away as a federal issue, and doesn’t really care whether abortion is legal, illegal, mandatory, or what, and is willing to appoint justices who will overturn Roe to make it go away as a federal issue, is fine with me..."
We disagree here as well. This is the kind of attitude that encourages, say, someone like Bush to toss CFR over the transom to SCOTUS because he didn't want to make the hard decision to veto the damned thing and left it to the gang of nine who, of course, screwed it up and declared only a small part of it invalid. That was a travesty having real freedom of speech consequences.
“I wish I could share your belief but I don’t. Here in California, for example, I have little doubt it would be made legal if left to the tender mercies of Sacramento.”
Probably not. At least not until the culture changed in California.
But the only way to build support for a nationwide solution is first for folks in the several states to see that they can live without abortion on demand.
In my fantasies, I think it would be great if the Court were to decide that the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments did, in fact, apply to unborn human beings, and thus, by decree of the Court, said that abortion was the taking of an innocent human life. And then instructed the states to make laws protecting the lives of the unborn.
Or alternatively, we might elect a president who would understand that the Supreme Court had no more power to unilaterally overturn abortion laws throughout the United States than Chief Justice Taney had the right to declare that black folks weren’t persons. And then, this president would unilaterally act to dismantle the current abortion regime, ordering federal criminal prosecutions of abortionists, siezing their assets, prosecuting and closing down corrupt organizations like Planned Parenthood, etc.
But the first fantasy would likely create the mirror image of what we see today - a frustrated political system forbidden from dealing with the question. And the second fantasy would quickly become a constitutional crisis.
I’m not sure that either idea would permanently bring to an end the horror of legal abortion on demand.
More darkly, a dystopic path could be that our nation might suffer from some sort of discontinuity that would bring to an end the scourge of abortion on demand. The Civil War was the discontinuity that brought about the end of slavery. I’m not much in favor of discontinuities, even when I favor some of their results.
So, it seems to me that we’re just going to have to be in it for the long haul. And we’ll have to rely on those “laboratories of democracy” - the states - to show that there is life after abortion on demand.
It was happening already in the early 1970s, before Roe. By the grace of God, it could happen again.
But for that to ever start to happen, Roe must go. Hence my tagline.
“We disagree here as well. This is the kind of attitude that encourages, say, someone like Bush to toss CFR over the transom to SCOTUS...”
I understand what you’re saying, but I think that the two issues are fundamentally different, in fact, are the mirror images of each other. In the latter example that you give, the president was looking for the Court to correct the mistake of THE CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE, while in the case of abortion, a president with the attitude that I described is merely looking for the Court to correct ITS OWN mistake.
sitetest
I must say you were not paying close attention then in the Hunter-Fred wars of a few weeks ago. Now you see more Hunterite knocks on Fredheads (you) because you are on Hunter threads, and choose to challenge Hunter fans. Welcome to the club, feller.
Can you spot the only personal attack on this mundane thread? Hint, #43, and the brave soul did not even have the courtesy to ping me.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1872648/posts?page=43#43
ping
“Now you see more Hunterite knocks on Fredheads (you) because you are on Hunter threads, and choose to challenge Hunter fans.”
LOL!!
You guys may need to grow a little tougher skin if anyone views my participation here as a “challenge” to Hunter fans. Unlike many of the threads where Hunter supporters have genuinely denigrated Mr. Thompson, often with outright lies and distortions, all I’ve said here is, I like Mr. Hunter, but I prefer Mr. Thompson because I think he’s more electable.
About the most “challenging” thing I’ve said regarding Mr. Hunter is that I find him a competent, articulate speaker, but not with the charisma and force of personality that a modern president can really use.
As to your link, I’m really trying to avoid going through dozens of threads to try to figure out who hit who first. And if I start with the one that you offer up, seeing your bias, I’d be duty-bound to look for others myself, or solicit from Thompson supporters instances where they believe that you and others behaved egregiously. But the bottom line is that I’m not some sort of thread judge, and I just don’t have time, interest, or inclination for that sort of thing.
Like I said, my general impression previously had been that the Hunter supporters were mostly to blame for these internecine wars, but you persuaded me to give it a more careful look. I will for threads that I see now and into the future. This is really the first thread I’ve followed since our previous discussion. And frankly, some of the Hunter folks have acquitted themselves poorly.
I understand why I saw posters observing other threads get turned off from Mr. Hunter.
sitetest
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.