Posted on 02/23/2007 2:58:35 PM PST by Jim Robinson
FReep this poll: Giuliani vs Duncan Hunter:
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=173
I have been remarkably civil to you, but obviously not agree with you and pointing out the fallacy of your post, was too much for you.
Nowhere did you mention Cheney's health and since you are accusing me of not taking the VEEP's previous heart problems into consideration, let me point out to YOU, that Cheney's health is strictly monitored, he hasn't had any heat attacks in years, and therefore, your statement re replacing Cheney with Hunter implies that President Bush should DUMP a loyal and trusted friend and ally, so that the guy YOU like can get some exposure. This is the thinking and writing, of someone who neither knows nor understand the workings of politics, government, nor President Bush!
You assume, with that proposition, that all the president, any president, has to do, is to just name someone and presto, that person gets the position. That is NOT true.
If I had written something other than "desperation" ( which really IS what you have, even though you deny it ), you would have complained about that word as well.
There is absolutely no reason for you or anyone else to believe that President Bush would choose Hunter to replace an ill or dead Dick Cheney; NONE!
First of all, should, GOD forefend, Cheney become ill, he WILL get the very BEST of care and there would be NO reason to replace him immediately.
Secondly, President Bush is 1)not close friends with Hunter 2) none of you can FORCE the president to pick "your guy" 3) any nominee would have to be passed on by Congress and right now, they would NOT even do anything about it...stringing such a nominee out until the next election!
Why?
That I have to explain any/all of these things to you, is appalling! Why don't you know any of it?
Oh, so you and Jim now hold private meetings about who to ban, do you? Or has Jim told you, personally that he is going to ban me in a couple of days? Or is this a combination of wishful thinking and LYING, on your part?
I don't lie! And any "hope" anyone here has in catching me is a "lie", will not come to fruition.
No, there wouldn't be any daily press conferences. The Congress would just ignore it all and since this is just some fanciful, factless, day dream of yours, the least your can do, the next time you decide to dream up some way to get Hunter "out there", the least you could do, is to make it plausible.
One of the best posts on this thread!
I'm really not interested in your sign off. Think whatever you'd like.
Your are right as we hit that moral button often against Clinton. I can just see Carville laughing his rear end off about this. This will be one dirty campaign.
If things appear that Rudy will win, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see them put Al Gore in this mess. Watch out for him at the Oscars which will be somewhat political, global warming. If he draws a lot of attention, he may end up being the Democrat pick. This would be a turn around on morals. Whoa! Ouch!
It looks like the Republicans need a good moral candidate.
Why don't you answer Jim Robinson before you claim to have been remarkably civil? The definition of civil seems to be stretched by the rudophiles on this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1789169/posts?page=616#579
To: nopardons
Lay it on us. Right here. Right now.
567 posted on 02/22/2007 9:36:45 PM PST by Jim Robinson (It's "originalists" not "constructionists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: nopardons
Your assertion:
"The facts, the REAL FACTS, are not allowed to be posted about Hunter and people who even get close to posting them have been condemned to the lowest reaches of hell and/or banned, with some of these posts deleted."
And if I catch you lying I damn will ban your ass.
579 posted on 02/22/2007 10:00:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson (It's "originalists" not "constructionists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
That's right. And my only goal tonight is to stay up later than you do. Luv ya, honey. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
Your entire argument is premised upon conveniently misreading what I wrote, again par for the course with you:
it doesn't matter if Hunter passes the congressional ratification process. That's the beauty of the plan. All the rancor would give him name recognition, regardless of whether he wins the spot or not. Example: Harriet Miers can do a lot more now with her name recognition than she could before, and she didn't even get ratified.
Now are you accusing me of lying? Come on out with it. And while you're at it, you should answer JimRob's post to you about admitting you're a liberal.
book mark
Well damn, can I join? :P
They are pushing all kinds of other marriages nowadays, why not LOL.
Sorry, it's late, too much coffee, and no I din't read all the posts. My head hurts from all of this reading I've done already :P
Hitting the moral button was effective at that time. We can't do it anymore with Guiliani.
Actually, it was kind of fun watching the Dems justify their morals. A lot of good jokes. Now, the joke is on us.
I was here ... before there was a Free Republic forum. I was here, in my heart. I was here, in my head. I was here, trying to do the right thing for my country. I was here, living and learning. And I joined the discussions at FR somewhere along the way, discussions I had been having in other ways, but came here mainly because of troops support... from a troops support forum... one thing leads to another. I'm glad I'm here. And I will be here as long as I can... good Lord willing.
That seems to be a common malady today on FreeRepublic. Supporting Republicans instead of conservatives.
My question to the afflicted is: Just how far left would a Republican have to go before you desert his posture?
The answer is obvious based on recent discussions, which brings up a logical follow on: Aren't you on the wrong forum?
BTW: Where did the facts come from in 497. It was interesting. Simon alienated conservatives, motivated a recall, the Austrian was a consequence of angry conservatives and the now the CAGOP is screwed up? I'm afraid to ask what was meant by screwed up.
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.