Posted on 11/24/2006 5:28:09 AM PST by bushfamfan
Oh no! Not the "I'm rubber and you're glue!" defense! What will I ever do?
Do yourself a favor: beat your head against the wall. It can't possibly cause any more brain damage then you already have, and it feels so good when you stop.
After saying they were against Amnesty, and then confusing the issue...about who was who on "reform".
So your position, and interpretation is "flat out false."
The RATs nationwide in all the seat take-away situations were on a thematically common page. Scripted.
I agree with your overall assessment, but I totally disagree with your application. Schwartzenegger's appeal is totally different from the other people you mentioned, and he's also much too left. He's easily to the left of Giuliani and McCain, who are a lot more conservative on most issues then they are given credit for.
I don't actually think his endorsement means all that much, I don't even know if he'll get involved.
I do agree that Mitt Romney has some of what you are speaking of.
Guess that you have already shown us what real brain damage looks like. Must be contagious. RINO.
You are really hilarious. You remind me of Howard Dean. You keep essentially posting saying, "Yah, you're right, but YAAHHHHHHGGGGGG!!!!"
I liked Cap too, and maybe I'm missing something there, but damned if I can see what it was.
Except Duncan Hunter IS, ideologically, like Reagan. Peace through strength is his byward.
the policy is usually not like Reagan
Your argument doesn't fly against Hunter, RINO.
and the arguement is therefore meaningless.
Your argument is, you mean. Note, you never did refute the facts of that analogy.
It's a tactic for the intellectually bankrupt ...
Again your argument is bankrupt. And your spelling is atrocious! LOL! RINO!
I would agree. I am putting my bets on Guliani even though he has some liberal issues that not all conservatives agree with. However, when you consider what's inside the trojan horse, Hillary, you had better make up your mind that it's anyone but Hillery. Make no mistake, this nation cannot afford another Clinton; especially a far left socialist commie Hillary.
Did you read the entire interview? Doesn't sound like it!
There was an-in-depth explanation of what the posture was...and the internal fractures in the policy. There was no mission. There was no political possibility of having a real mission. We were in the middle of a genocidal civil war...where one of the sides clearly didn't want us there at all.
There were much bigger fish to fry...the Soviets who were angling in the region to smear us. And there was no initial understanding of Iran's complicity in hitting us. Not for YEARS. Cap was all for hitting who ever did it. But it wasn't a straightforward "we did it" situation.
It was a one-man suicide run. The "finger-prints" of Iran took a lot longer to piece together.
That negative approach is essentially defeatist. Hence, it is not the goal, of course. The GOAL is to elect an honest, upright...and solidly conservative President who will do his best to restore America. Limiting Government. Preserving Liberty. Restoring National Security.
When we nominated Reagan in 1980 it was for all the right reasons. But none of the RINOs thought for a second that we would actually succeed, and defeat a sitting RAT President. They were hoping that we would go down in flames...and that they would then be rid of Reagan and his movement.
Now, here we are again, after nothing but RINOs being put up by the GOP...Bush I (who started betraying his promises to Reagan without much ado by '91), Bob Dole, Bush II, and now you only want to give us a worthless "choice" between two clearly unacceptables as the "choice"?
Doubt it very much. She has proven incapable of going off script. Hunter has shown an ability to debate.
I am four-square against the OBL, and while I would love it if a true conservative like Hunter could win, I don't think any House Member, however gifted, can make it without additional qualifications.
pro-Duncan bump!
I'm open to him, but I don't know that much about him and I've never heard him speak. Do you have any links to audio or video?
We could use another credible candidate. Right now we got the guy who's a bit too off his rocker, the guy who's a bit too liberal, and the guy who's a bit too Mormon.
Pan-Islamism existed long before that. Tell it to the Marines, one guesses.
OKAY. Let's leave the doubts aside then.
I don't think any House Member, however gifted, can make it without additional qualifications.
Maybe he won't. But maybe he will. It depends on how vigorously and solidly he gets the conservative base behind him. If we have a solid base of support...that doesn't waver...the RINOs will split the field between them...and pave the way for our success.
As against Hitlery...I think it would be a challenge. I don't think any of us dream of it being otherwise.
But God provides. And that...is where our Faith has to be. Not in Liberal MSM-designated "Princes"...who supposedly can "win". Do we have the courage of our convictions?
Is that quote in the article, why am I not finding it? Thanks!
That unknown House Members do not get nominated or elected President predates the MSA, and has nothing to do with it.
Love your VP picks of Coburn and Steele!
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.