I hear you. Here's a little political math that I've been using to make this point:
= 
- 
Posted on 09/27/2007 3:52:21 AM PDT by davidosborne
“One tells me I have ‘no credibility’ and then admits what I showed him with links is the truth.”...... Once it has beed admitted as truth, you can do no more.
I hear you. Here's a little political math that I've been using to make this point:
= -
That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on this site.
See, now this is a perfect example of personal attacks. Unless of course you can provide some links that back up your “little political math”, which somehow, I think not.
Lies.
He voted ‘NO’ on stripping those, which is a yes vote for the pork.
He’s addicted to pork and can’t show up for work.
To what do I link? It's my informed opinion. I've explained it in other threads. It's not a "personal attack", it is an observation based upon my political experience.
A no vote actually was the vote to reject the flake amendments, but he is equating rejecting Flake amendments with voting FOR these projects. Hunter has stated this is not the way to do business. But none of those are Hunter earmarks.
No, not lies. He rejected the Flake amendments. It is NOT the same as voting FOR these programs. and I found no indication that any of these were Hunter earmarks.
Once again, for the 3rd time...
Debating Earmarks On The Floor Is A Healthy Exercise.
If you had a chance to tune in to C-SPAN last night and watch the House of Representatives, you would have witnessed a few hours of debate over a series of amendments to the Agriculture Appropriations Bill offered by Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona which would have eliminated several “earmarks” from the bill.
(Tim Chapman of Townhall’s Capitol Report has a nice summary of those following the debate.)
Last night’s debate was a good opportunity for Members to debate and defend their projects on the floor. And Rep. Flake agreed. In fact, in concluding the debate, Rep. Flake said:
“I know it’s not easy to sit through the Amendments in a row and I appreciated this process. For one to actually see and hear people defend their earmark on the floor. That’s something that has been missing.”
Some may be trying to spin the story that voting against the Flake amendments was a vote against fiscal responsibility. However, we should point out that logistically, passing the Flake Amendments would not have actually “cut” any federal funding from the bill, and instead would have re-allocated the funds to a bureaucrat at the USDA to spend.
Let us be perfectly clear: Passage of the Flake Amendments would not have saved a single penny.
http://kingston.house.gov/blog/?p=281
First of all ... presuming you were talking about me (a safe assumption, since I explicitly stated you lacked credibility), I’d appreciate being notified when I am referred to in a post. If you weren’t talking about me ... you still failed to notify the person you WERE talking about.
>> Do you not understand/see that the names are being called every time we post any of Fred’s records or former remarks? One tells me I have ‘no credibility’ and then admits what I showed him with links is the truth.
Ridiculous. This is EXACTLY why you lack credibility. You routinely misstate facts, poorly paraphrase quotes and conversations, selectively choose information so as to assassinate the character of conservative flagbearers, and continually obfuscate so as to make your ramblings and obnoxious hit-pieces on non-Duncan-Hunter-conservatives look more reasonable.
When I spoke to you we weren’t talking about Fred Thompson, Thompson’s record, or Thompson’s “former remarks”, as you stated ... we were talking about John Cornyn as a possible running mate for Thompson.
Second, you posted three narrowly selected articles as your evidence against Cornyn ... and two of the three were absolute nonsense! One was a Dallas Morning News Democrat hitpiece ... and the other was about Cornyn’s support for LEGAL immigration (though you implied that he suppored ILLEGAL immigration). The third article seemed to be a legitimate complaint - but certainly not enough to crucify a conservative stalwart.
You were 1 for 3 in your supposed “evidence” against Cornyn ... and I admitted the legitimacy of only the third article.
Thus, you LACK CREDIBILITY! Batting .333 in the truthfulness of your articles does not particularly inspire confidence. Additionally - you outright lied about whom we were discussing - Cornyn, not Thompson - and you outright lied that I admitted that your selective linked-to articles were the truth. This won’t help your credibility.
>> How are we to deal with that kind of nonsense, day after day, month after month. It’s getting old.
I am sure it will all go away ... as will you ... once the futile candidacy of Duncan Hunter is no more.
H
Did you happen to be around FR in 1999 and the run up to that primary season of 2000?..... What Freepers do as a composite group aren’t necessarily what the public at large will do when it becomes time to pull the lever. For it they were the accurate barometer then we’d be finishing out the reign of Keyes/Buchanan or vice versa.
Here is a Hunter earmark...
California Congressman Opens Up About Earmarks
Monday, June 19, 2006; Page D09
Of the 13 defense projects totaling $254.3 million that Hunter listed in his news release, more than $210 million of it was for programs to address roadside bombs, the chief source of casualties for U.S. troops in Iraq. Two others — $27 million for an inexpensive missile called the “affordable weapon” and $25.7 million for a catamaran ship called Sea Fighter — would benefit Titan Corp., a large defense contractor in southern California.
There was also $8 million for the DP-2 “vectored thrust aircraft,” made by DuPont Aerospace, another southern California firm. The plane’s testing was delayed because of what this year’s Navy budget justification called “a nozzle box failure” in late 2004.
Hunter also requested $1.7 million to develop a skin disease test for troops in Iraq and $1 million for a wound dressing that includes pure oxygen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800679.html
I would presume that you would believe the samething of W??? That is that you picked him not the pollsters?
Ravenstar
They’re things he voted to keep in the bill. You can spin it however you want to. If it meant so little, why didn’t he vote for stripping them? I’ll tell you why, because he didn’t want to change his porkbarrel spending ways.
He’s very resistant to changing his ways, when he does actually bother showing up to work.
Last year, he even killed an amendment sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) that would have required a Department of Defense spending bill report card revealing to the public all pork barrel spending in Congressional bills, along with the names of their sponsors.
So, go ahead. Keep pimping a teapot museum funding candidate who can’t even be dragged out of bed to go to work. I’m sure you’ll be just as successful as you have been so far in converting people to his cause.
Why can’t you figure out that the polls are put out by the LIBERALS or do you think they halt their agenda when they start talking about elections???? They should be especially ignored during the PRIMARIES. Who ever gets the majority of the Repub vote can conceivably win regardless of who it is so vote for the Candidate that is a true conservative not who the Libs say can win!!!
Ravenstar
You would presume stupidly and incorrectly if you were to presume something so ridiculous.
Apparently, you haven’t been paying attention to what’s been going on.
You don’t know David Osborne very well. Reading his many posts on this forum passionate yes! Contrarian??? I dont see it. I we dont agree all the time either.
Ravenstar
Was the Ames straw poll run by LIBERALS?
Do you actually pay attention to politics at all, or do you just don the tin foil and fly blindly? You seem rather clueless as to what’s going on.
The Fred Heads say when someone else than Fred wins a straw poll that they are meaningless. I believe all polls should be treated as meaningless. The sample of the straw poll is two small and too localized to be meaningful.
Ravenstar
>> You don’t know David Osborne very well. Reading his many posts on this forum passionate yes! Contrarian??? I dont see it. I we dont agree all the time either.
I am aware that I don’t know David Osborne. But, I don’t believe I specifically named David Osborne as a contrarian, either.
I said I believe MANY Duncan Hunter supporters are simply contrarians. I certainly didn’t call out anyone in particular ... its more of a general impression. Sort-of like the impression I get that many Ron Paul supporters around here are Democrat operatives stirring up an anti-war debate on a conservative board.
H
Isn’t it great how these guys argue? Apparently, it seems that you don’t know David Osbourne, so he can’t possibly be a contrarian, therefore your whole idea is just crazy.
Well, how about this, Ravenstar: You must not know Ozzy Osbourne, otherwise, you’d be aware that Duncan Hunter has about as much chance of winning the presidency as your average llama at the county fair petting zoo.
In fact, I can make a case to vote for the llama instead! At least the llama will show up for work and it’s a vegetarian, so no pork for the llama!
Go Llama 2008!! B4llama!!
Llama/Cox 2008!!!
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.