Posted on 05/10/2010 1:57:51 PM PDT by Patriot1259
The quote was taken out of context.
The Palin-Fiorina people are pulling a Romney. It stinks just as Romney stinks.
You're welcome.
Yes it was.
They are and it's disgusting.
Why ignore the obvious answer, that Palin endorsed Fiorina to stop a guy that is campaigning on a pro abortion, pro gay marriage agenda, in a republican primary, and WINNING.
That means that Campbell can take that agenda that he ran on and won with, straight to his 6 year term in the Senate.
You’re not on a ping list... you’re on a “reply” to a post and that’s not a ping list...
If you are answering a post or have one posted to you or you posted something yourself — I post to that — and thus you get the response ... it’s not a ping list, it’s a reply to a post ...
That isn’t the transcript from this weekend is it?
I can’t find the part about pulling out of Afghanistan and China.
Is this a radio debate from another time?
DeVore sounds like Ron Paul.
"I mean, they(Iran) are not a threat. They don’t have an army worth anything. They don’t have a navy, they don’t have an airforce. They don’t have inter-continental ballistic missiles. So it is not a threat to our national security."
Apparently both Paul and DeVore think that only an enemy army (or ICBM's) are a serious threat, forgetting everything we've learned since 9/11.
Unbelievable, really.
If pro-life, pro-gun, and fiscally conservative means RINO these days, then we’re sunk.
Yes, the Ron Paul sites love anti war DeVore
I couldn’t find it, I’m looking for the entire transcript, I got the impression that he gave, preparing for war with China, as one of the reasons we needed to leave Afghanistan.
You are correct.
Chuck wrote a half baked novel 10 years ago self published
and self promoting this agenda based on the year 2000.
Chuck just dismisses the years after 2000 because it doesn’t fit in with his Kabuki Theater.
Thank you, I missed that combination. However, it is the “military or terrorist threat to the existence of something, usually the United States. Usually involves nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.”
I’m not ready to say that AQ and the Taliban are not a terrorist threat to use biological or chemical weapons, and with Iran getting close to a nuclear weapon, I wouldn’t rule that out either.
But the context is better than the term “existential” by itself.
But if the argument is that countries with nuclear weapons are greater threats, I don’t see it. Countries mostly want to survive, which acts as a deterrent, even when they are run by meglomaniacs. Nobody wants to be the next Saddam Hussein.
Terrorists don’t have anything to lose, and can kill thousands of people and cause major damage to our country, even with rather small resources. 9/11 proves that — imagine if they had been able to hit the capital with one of the planes, taking out most of congress.
Pols will tell you what you want to hear. Arnold did.
BTW: Welcome to FR!
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.