Posted on 02/01/2007 5:41:39 AM PST by areafiftyone
"I am motivated to maintain human life in the womb.
It's funny how some want me to sacrifice my own goals for theirs."
Yeah, OK.
I'm pro life also. But I am also pro American and pro military and anti ISLAMIC FASCIST.
If someone who is pro life gets the nomination I will vote for him.
If Rudy gets the nomination, I will vote for him.
If you can't say the same, you are just as pathetic as the left wing trash that uses the baby killing litmus test on thier side.
Wow, now there is an articulate, mature retort!
Have you been given the job of trying to respond to my every post?
Speak for yourself. JimRob ended up endorsing Ah-Nold over McClintock, and that decision certainly wasn't because JimRob thought that Ah-Nold was the more conservative candidate.
There's no point in backing someone who (a) isn't interested or (b) has no realistic chance to win. I agree with you that it is TOO EARLY to come to any firm conclusions about the 2008 nominee. However, anyone who really wants the nomination needs to get in the process NOW or it will be too late. Talk of Fred Thompson or Jeb Bush is a waste of time; they aren't interested.
The Republican Party does not nominate unknowns. I think the deck is stacked against people like Duncan Hunter who are trying to come out of the House with no national profile and not even a leadership position in the House. Same with Tancredo.
It is likely to be one of the top four now. In that group, I think Gingrich has too much baggage; McCain is distrusted and disliked by his fellow Republican pols and by the voters; and Rudy is clearly a stronger candidate than Romney.
It's too early to come to any firm conclusions, but at this point I'd have to say Rudy has the best chance no matter how many times those that dislike him here post articles from the 1990's on the guy.
Thanks for proving my point.
Nope, just having fun.
How are you doing? Did you all get snow down your way? It's heading up here for tonight into tomorrw.
Which point, or lack thereof, would that be?
Then please explain how Reagan won Massachusetts in 1984.
"Actually, I would consider Fred Thompson. I don't know much about him, but what I've seen is fine so far. Do you have any idea how his views align with the Republican Party Platform and conservative ideals?"And you replied:
Snot.
Very mature.
Do you even know Thompson's views on the issues? I am seriously interested in knowing where he stands on issues important to Republicans - like the ones so important that the national delegates meet every four years, hash them out, and enshrine them in a document called the Republican Party Platform. I would support him if he supports most of those positions. I would fight him if he does not.
lol...now FA, remember that pic you posted this morning of the college student hurling beer out of his nose.
I don't think you have a platform from which to criticize the maturity of others.
"We'll put you down as yet another "Me Before My Country" voter."
No. Put me down as a Jesus before abortion voter.
My answer was :
No RATs, no forced military/US defeat, how does this grab ya?
Now you ask :
Please review your post 340. I merely asked you to back up your assertion, which you are failing to do.
I don't have the time to teach you reading comprehension. You should have learned that in school, public or otherwise.
You can't answer a question and you can't admit it. Just rundown the clock and it'll all go away
What was their excuse in 2006? The GOP lost seats in 2006 because the Independents and Moderates were sick of the GOP and voted Democrat. Rudy can bring those voters back to the Republican side.
You seriously misunderstand the nature of the coalition that has been voting or nearly voting Republicans into office over the last 2 decades. Reagan Democrats and Independents don't vote in Republican primaries. While Giuliani may fool enough gullible Republicans into voting for him despite his oppositional position on most Republican issues, but that does not mean that he can gain/retain the support of the larger loose coalition of voters required to elect a Republican.
LOL, it was more about pointing out hypocrisy than maturity.
Thanks for chiming in, though.
They have a blindness to any other issues, particular the war. Arguing with them is like arguing with a lamppost.
They mean well, but can't see the forest for the trees.
Another DNC contender
What do you mean, FR?
I see you use two screennames, just this one hasn't gotten a smackdown from the powers that be here, yet. Cute.
OOppps, FA.
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.