Posted on 06/17/2007 11:06:39 AM PDT by rob21
This is an email that I got from info@gohunter08.com. I asked them if it was ok to post this here, and they approved:
Dear Rob21, We wanted to say thank you for all your time spent working on posts for Duncan on Free Republic. It's grassroots Americans like yourself that are making a huge difference in this race. We appreciate your efforts and we hope you can continue to write about Duncan. We will keep you in our prayers as you leave for Iraq this July. Thanks again for everything! Sincerely, The Hunter Family
So.....Can we get back to Duncan Hunter. I need to get him to send me a bumper sticker and yard sign.
‘The man WHO is going to be your next president!
Of what? Some local civic association?
Sorry, never heard of him.’
(SEE that first word in the last sentence? thats the opreative word ....the boy is pretty ‘sorry’
If the trash-Hunter bots and their sympathizers can find something better to do, I’ll be more than happy to get back to Duncan Hunter.
this ‘humble gunner’ that is,
No, I’m defending a friend from being labeled a troll. you and your friends seem to like to get the older posters banned and that is how it starts. You call them a troll and then bait them until they get annoyed enough to strike back. Then you pounce and the person finds themselves banned.
As far as “trashing” Duncan Hunter...he is a current political figure. He is open game, as is Guilliani, Romney, etc...
Guess not. Sigh. How about the rest of yall? Anyone interested in discussing Duncan Hunter?
CindyDawg, I’d be happy to discuss Duncan Hunter if these anti-Hunter trash-bots would take their charade and head to their own little playground, wherever that it is.
As long as they’re trashing the good Congressman, or defending the trashing of him, I intend to give them no quarter.
Goodnight then.
Sleep well.
I would imagine he isn’t here because he probably went to sleep. He works.
I didn’t call for your banning. I simply pointed out the posts that broke the rules so they could be dealt with.
Duncan who?
My big gripe is that the MSM won’t let him be heard. In the debates he could barely get a word in edgewise. They constantly called on McCain, Romney, Guiliani. I know, they were the first tier, but I wanted to hear Hunter and the others.
I favored Alan Keyes in '00, so I'm not completely unwilling to interest myself in a second tier candidate, but electability does have to be a consideration. Otherwise we'd all just favor our own selves to be president, more or less. Sadly, I think Keyes completely jumped the shark in Illinois. But Keyes will make valid, thought-provoking constitutional points from time to time.On point, Objective JournalismTM is in the business of using printing presses and radio/TV transmitters for fun and profit. Journalism is topical nonfiction, and it stands or falls commercially on its ability to attract attention (and thereby to attract eyeballs to advertisements). And it does so by promoting itself generally as being important and "objective, and specifically by promoting its reports with "headlines and other emphases which suggest that your trust in the people/organizations which get things done (e.g., the police/military, businessmen, Republican politicians - not to put too fine a point on it, white men generally) is misplaced.
And in claiming objectivity but never competing among themselves on that basis, Objective JournalismTM functions as a single entity, an establishment, which promotes its own interest as "the public interest." That is what claiming to be objective actually implies. But as the "'Man Bites Dog,' not 'Dog Bites Man'" dictum makes clear, journalism is about what interests the public. Journalism conflates that with "the public interest," but they are different matters entirely
- the public interest is in a growing economy and the public is therefore interested and alarmed by reports of weakness in the economy.
- the public interest is in 'domestic tranquility,' and the public is therefore interested and alarmed by reports of riots.
- the public interest is in justice, and the public is therefore interested and alarmed by reports of injustice and police brutality.
- the public interest is in the common defense, and the public is therefore interested and alarmed by reports of weakness and venality anywhere in the military.
In short, journalism promotes itself by promoting the idea that the rest of society does not fulfill its obligations - in effect, that our society 'couldn't be worse' and our constitutional order is deeply flawed. IOW, Objective JournalismTM is inherently radical.
In an FR posting, in print, I can express that concept using the TM device to make clear that I am not speaking about actual objectivity, which it is inherently arrogant to claim, but the ersatz "objectivity" of the deeply committed ideologues who run establishment journalism who honestly do not realize that they even have a viewpoint, let alone that a different viewpoint might be legitimate. Objective JournalismTM therefore functions in American politics the way a bull does in a china shop - completely oblivious to values outside itself. But the spoken word is limited in its ability to express the concept, because Objective JournalismTM promotes Newspeak inversions of the English language which limit discussion of any criticism of itself. "Objective" becomes an adjective which applies to journalists only, and its meaning is distorted to the point of inversion. "Liberal" and "progressive" become synonyms for "objective," but never apply to journalists even though they refer to exactly the same attitudes that make a journalist "objective." "Conservative" becomes a pejorative for attitudes which are in reality progressive and liberal, but which are in opposition to "progressive" and "liberal" ideas.
Once understand that Objective JournalismTM is inherently radical, and it becomes obvious that there a distinction but not a difference between Objective JournalismTM and what Objective JournalismTM calls "progressive" or "liberal" politics. A Hillary Clinton can therefore speak of a desire to transform American society without raising the slightest alarm among journalists.
So we see that there is no reason why Objective JournalismTM would promote any conservative idea or candidate.
Thanks for your service (now) to this nation. July 3rd you are on your way to becoming another of America’s finest.
Go Duncan Hunter!
You do a great job with your Hunter posts and it’s great they sent you that nice email. Keep up the great work!
I and my friends will decide what is on Houston Liberty not you.
Thanks for the suggestion although no more are required or desired.
Duncan Hunter is well known here but he is not too well known on the street. The average voter is not going to seek him out so he must seek them out. This is all that humblegunner was pointing out in his own way. Are you telling us that you know the political positions of all 100 Senators and 435 Representatives? Do you even know all of their names?
Like it or not facts are facts. I do support Hunter but he has his work cut out for him as did Carter and Clinton back in their day.
However you and the others here with the tactics you are using attacking people is not helping your effort. If y’all are representative of Hunter supporters then no thanks.
Yeah, it really is an honor to get a personal email from the Hunters. When I first saw it in my inbox, I thought that it would be one of those emails that gets sent out automatically to all of his supporters.
Thank you Duncan Hunter for all that you are doing for this country, and thanks for the email!
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.