Really? You sure that “honest” was the word you wanted? I like Duncan, but he doesn’t have a chance. He might be a good VP though...to Fred Thompson.
Okay, we got your hint that you don't think Hunter is 'honest'. Then you say you like him. Please, we're tired of dishonest politicians, maybe you aren't. So, tell us what 'dishonesty' is it we should know about Hunter?
I have recently heard what I take to be the reason behind Thompson's recent surge in the polls and press. Thompson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
This CFR is the main moving force behind the politics in our country. They are in favor of what they call "free-trade" because they would like to create a world government by starting with regional economic Unions like the European Union.(Which Gorbachev has called Soviet Europe) They have been working toward this end for decades. Their plan is to create the North American Union. My problem with Thompson is that he is pro-NAFTA. That's why he will most likely be nominated. He will continue their agenda. And while he is greatly preferable to Mrs. Clinton he is not what he appears to be.
Just like George W Bush, he will parade as a populist conservative and continue the CFR agenda.
Duncan Hunter is not running a good campaign but then it's hard to run a good campaign when your friends are not actually in power.
“Okay, we got your hint that you don’t think Hunter is ‘honest’. Then you say you like him. Please, we’re tired of dishonest politicians, maybe you aren’t. So, tell us what ‘dishonesty’ is it we should know about Hunter?”
Well, obviously you didn’t get anything. I most certainly did not say Duncan wasn’t honest. Far from it. Let me reinerate. I would have backed him if he had a chance. I even said he’d make a good VP. You should re-read my post.
I don’t like dishonesty any more than you do. Perhaps you got me mixed up with someone else.