Posted on 02/14/2007 7:28:54 PM PST by rodomila
I used to think Free Republic was a site with mostly rational people. I can't understand why so many of you waste your time with Duncan Hunter fantasies. Really folks hallucinogenic drugs are illegal and bad for you too. Stop taking them !!! No one outside of the Hunter family and this website thinks he has the remotest chance of being elected President. The Ronald Reagan comparisons are idiotic. Reagan had been a two term Governor of the largest state in the nation. He had been a national household name for over 40 years when he ran in 1980. God only made one Ronald Reagan. Duncan Hunter, although he is a solid Congressman, is no Ronald Reagan. I'm a conservative and I would love to have a viable conservative to work for this election cycle. But we don't have one. McCain is a no go for me. I loathe the treacherous man and believe he is non-compos mentis (loony). That leaves Mitt and Rudy. Newt's entry would hopefully pull the other two to the right (which would be great), and he might even win the nomination (which would probably be bad as I don't think he would win the general election).
That would leave us with Hildebeast or even worse B. Hussein Obama. Therefore, although I'm pro-life, pro-gun, and anti the mainstreaming of homosexuality, I am trying to decide between Rudy and Mitt.
For me the war on islamo nazi psychos is the top issue and Rudy gets my vote on that one.
Issue two is finding a candidate who won't give in to global warming hysteria because that is the lefties preferred path currently to world government and destruction of our economic system. I have to look into Mitt's position on this because Rudy made some rather discouraging comments on this recently (although they were not as bad as originally reported here.)
Next is immigration. We need someone to enforce our laws and get control of the borders. Mitt seems to the right of Rudy on this but both have a way to go. Maybe Tancredo in the race can generate some movement.
Taxes - we need to keep the Bush tax cuts at the very minimum and hopefully get a bolder overhaul of the system.
Judges - we want young Scalias.
Spending restraint - I'm hoping that both, as successful businessmen, will hold the line on spending better than GWB who was a total disappointment in this area.
Let's try to move the viable candidates closer to us on the issues rather than engage in self defeating fantasies of "ideal" candidates who no one has ever heard of and who have never run any larger organization than a Congressman's staff.
No kiddin'?
So be it then. :)
If there a larger version of that image, I thought about e-mailing that image to the local newspaper (they have a sign design department) and I can have them create a yard sign for me. They've created everything from storefront painted window signs, storefront billboard signs, and billboards for placing along the highway. I've got plenty of wooden dowels in my shop to attach to it and poke it into the ground.
Make your own!
I just don't see a lot of that from any of the "Hunter Only" crowd. Too many are willing to let the country fall into the hands of the truly dangerous candidates, ie Obama, Clinton, et al, than throw their support to someone that they don't see eye to eye on 100% of the issues.
***This is an overexaggeration. No one gets a 100% candidate, so it's a given that there are choices to be made. But to put moral choices like Partial Birth Abortion on the same plane as FreeTrade vs. Fair Trade vs. mostly Free Trade, well that just belittles the gravity of the moral issue behind dead babies having been sacrificed to the god of comfort. In addition, it is a false dilemma, because it assumes that Duncan Hunter will not gain ground in terms of recognition over these next several months, and that the RINO candidate could win against a Hillary when the base is divided. Another exaggeration is that there have been several Hunter supporters who openly pledge their support for some other candidate if Hunter should flame out, so to say that you haven't seen "any" means you haven't been looking. Unless, of course, you're re-defining your statmement to mean a subset of Hunter supporters who ONLY support Hunter ("Hunter-Only") crowd, which means that you're being even more selective and you shouldn't EXPECT to see "any" from such an exclusive crowd because they would no longer fit your definition.
I suppose there's that. I'll have to put my creative genius to the test.
Seriously, you'll get orders for signs --- money making venture.
I'm shocked!
Shocked, I say!!
:-D
My opinion is that Dominic Harr DOES belong here and I've said it in a prior post. Maybe it's because Dominic shares the initials of my favorite candidate, DH... ;-)
But I do wish Dominic would answer the questions I pose in the posts I put up in response to him(her?) rather than moving onto another thread and posting the same contention elsewhere like here.
That is so true.
I think the media would define conservative as "evil incarnate"! :-D
I agree, there are folks from all sides that seem to use these boards to vent against others in ways they'd *never* do face to face!
"My opinion is that Dominic Harr DOES belong here"...
That's the great thing about opinions..we all get one. :o)
When he/she does respond to your questions, ping me please. I'd be interested in reading them.
MM
I'll work on it, and show you what I got when I finish. :)
I'm glad you werent insulted by what I said. It wasnt meant as a personal slam... No worries though, Kevmo came to your defense and says that you DO belong here. :o)
MM
LOL. I'll be waiting.
I'm sorry if that happened . . . altho if you mean the post you put in #270 here, I really have no comment about you feeling I'm not a conservative.
I really don't feel a need to defend myself on that topic. Politically, I'm one of the most conservative folks you'll meet. But conservative as in my tagline -- as in 'Conservative with your money' or 'conservative use of govt power'.
Socially, I'm live and let live. Again, I believe in a very conservative use of federal power over the lives and choices of human beings. Gays, abortion, race, vice, etc -- I don't think the fed gov should be verrrry conservative in it's use of force to make folks do what it wants.
I like the 'component design' of the constituion. let the states have any laws they want, and let people vote with their feet and move, if they don't like the social laws of their state.
Yup. That's what JimRob posted. I won't bother to go back and find Arnold's remarks.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782181/posts?page=82#82
(Duncan) Hunter's Promise
Posted by Jim Robinson to upsdriver
On News/Activism 02/09/2007 1:51:01 PM PST · 82 of 153
Let's see:
Pro-National Defense........... check
Pro-Border Security............. check
Pro-Small government.......... check
Pro-Low Taxes.................... check
Pro-1st amendment.............. check
Pro-2nd amendment............. check
Staunchly Pro-life................. check
Opposes "gay marriage" ...... check
Is a patriot and veteran......... check
Conservative voting record... check
Sounds like a right-wing kook to me.
Was Bill Clinton a "national household name" in 1991? How about Jimmy Carter in 1975?
But I suppose that there's no reason for the facts to get in the way of campaigning for liberal RINOs.
I did get that sense from what you wrote.
Besides, I'm pretty thick skinned. I've been on FR for almost a decade now, and I was on Usenet news groups for years before that. The absolute worst flamings I've ever received were on the technology threads, from a few specific Microsoft people who are long gone now.
I'm a Java developer, and let's just say that some MS workers have very little love for anyone that chooses another flavor of technology!
Here it is, shortened.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1784420/posts
post #63...
ya'll socials are 'Solibs'. Because you want greater control of govt in certain circumstances. More intrusive govt, not less.
***Were the abolitionists in desire of greater control of guvmint for a moral issue? Not really. It was an expansion of the definition of who had rights in our society, not an intrusion of guvmint. I don't particularly care what you call us or them -- socons, pocons, solibs is good enough shorthand for me.
Pro-choice means you don't want govt to intrude on that decision.
***Pro-choice is a copout. Would pro-choicers allow private individuals to make a decision as to whether or not to own slaves? NO! Because as a society we came to believe that slaves were people too, and they had the right to life/LIBERTY/pursuit of happiness. As a society we are coming to the realization that it is a BABY that gets killed in this "choice", and that the preborn person should have the right to LIFE/liberty/pursuit of happiness. Prochoicers are behind the times when it comes to biological knowledge (ask any biologist when life begins) and the straightforward acknowledgement of an individual's right to life.
Oops, also this contention, since you bring up the "live & let live" philosophy here, and someone actually needs to have a life in order to let the person live it.
The Reagan 'big tent' Republican thingy. The 'Reagan Democrats'. Socially, I'm 'live and let live'. I do not want govt controlling people's social lives.
***I'm about the same. But that "live and let live" thing don't fly if the baby dies.
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.