Posted on 06/26/2007 1:00:05 PM PDT by napscoordinator
A discussion thread about Fred vs Duncan
Biometrics are things like retina scans, fingerprints, DNA tests. RFID is not a biometric. The prefix "bio" is significant. You need to worry about something else.
This is your post below, I just changed the name of the state.
>>If the illegals in Illinois crossed the Mexican border in Texas without Texas doing anything to stop them, then yes, Texas state put Illinois in this position.<<
What do you believe should happen to Texas for allowing this to happen to Chicago Illinois? Should the state of Illinois sue the state of Texas for damages, crime, smuggled in drugs, social services, fraud etc?
Biometrics are things like retina scans, fingerprints, DNA tests. RFID is not a biometric. The prefix "bio" is significant. You need to worry about something else.
-------------------------------------------------------
You are full of baloney. Same company, same technology, VeriChip, Biometrics and RFID all work together with the same database for tracking.
HERE is their CHIP Subscriber presentation to show how it works:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595825/posts?page=3#3
I must admit that perhaps I need to take your words to heart. I probably am guilty of doing that a bit.”
Nice piece of waffling.
While I like Hunter better and believe he would make a far better President, I won’t waste my vote on him if he has no chance to win.
Political loyalty to a candidate ends at the polls when the fate of the country is at stake.
Actually I am not, and if you want to play that kind of crap, you can play by yourself. Biometrics is simply measuring aspects of a person's unique physiology, usually for identity purposes. It is used in all kinds of security applications. You can use biometrics without microchips and without RFID. Biometrics may be part and parcel to somebody's tracking system, but it is also extremely broad and NOT owned by one company for one application. The RFID is NOT biometrics.
I don't understand the need to make this into something it isn't, but that has been the theme of your posts. I have also noticed that twice, when I read your links, you had made up stuff out of whole cloth, so you really needn't bother posting links back to me. I will simply assume it is another lie.
Enjoy your day and Happy Independence Day.
Yes. I’m not sure why you want to talk about Texas and Milwaukee, but sure, put any name you like on the states involved.
I’m coming in and out of this forum while doing other things. Not ignoring you, just checking in, asnwering and checking out.
What do you expect Washington to do to secure your border?
What ever that is, the state should not be waiting on the fed to do it.
I don’t understand what you are trying to defend or where you are trying to go with this line?
At no point did I indicate that anyone was or should be seeking punative damages from the border states who have allowed their own borders to go unprotected while Washington fumbled around.
It is a very simple statement. The states could have and should have taken at a minimum, the same actions taken by the MinuteMen project. They should have beefed up their own border security and their is no law or constitutional right that would have stopped tham from doing so.
Instead of taxing legal citizens of the state to pay for education, medical care and food stamps for illegals, they should have deported them every time they found someone in their state illegally.
You know who many of them are, as you point out, they are sitting in your classrooms. Why? It is state laws that allow them to be there...
California and other border states have unique circumstances by virtue of being border states. We have a bottom up form of self-government in this country, not a top down dictatorship where the fed mandates state laws and enforcement.
I have made and repeated the statement that Califoria policies are in great part responsible for California problems. I don’t see how anyone could look at years of policies and come to any other conclusion.
So what’s you real point here? What are you driving at?
Both of them are conservative.
However...
As a matter of political strategy, what is Hunter bringing to the table?
Registered Republicans’ choice for nominee in 2008*
*The latest CNN/Opinion Research
Giuliani - 30%
Thompson - 19%
McCain - 18%
Romney - 9%
Gingrich - 8%
Huckabee - 2%
Paul - 2%
Brownback - 1%
Tancredo - 1%
T. Thompson - 1%
Gilmore - less than 1%
Hunter - Below Gilmore at less than 1%
Hunter is running dead last now. I agree he’s a good man. Why is he running dead last in the most recent national polls?
Why is Hunter less popular than all other candidates, especially after his case for border security was just reaffirmed by the American people who shut down senate amnesty efforts?
Can any Hunter supporter offer a real-life answer to why Hunter is clearly not resonating with America?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1804334/posts - I wrote this over 3 months ago, and it applies even more today... He’s DOA.
Suppose Thompson gets the nomination (Hunter is a fantastic person with a solid record, who stands a ZERO chance of getting nominated- ZERO)... Why would he nominate someone who...
Is further to the right of him? Isn't Thompson sufficiently conservative on his own? Not to FReepers, but to most Americans? I'd say absolutely.
Hunter is an unknown, what value will he add?
Neither Hunter, nor any other candidate will make us competitive in CA... Where is his value added? Fred would be adding another old white guy to the ticket... We need some energy there.
Once again, after getting shellacked 55%-45% last election, why do ANY of you think we should put up the most conservative ticket out there? So we can lose all 50 states, instead of 40? Please get real folks. Hunter is a fringe/protest candidate at best.
I stand by what I posted. What’s wrong with it?
That’s censoring? If that’s the best you can do, it’s sooo weak, and lame. That’s a disgrace
Agreed. Flame the flip-floppers and RINO's. Hunter or Thompson, or both on the ticket would be great.
Thompson could lift up Hunter, who deserves it, if Thompson wins and makes him the VP candidate.
Is Hunter’s lack of charisma only because of the silence of the media and refusal to cover him? His low fundraising, lack of mainstream media coverage has to be overcome by internet conservatives if we are ever going to find out if he has what it takes.
Hunter delivering California
___________________________________________________________
Unlikely anyone can put California in play, but any possibility of it makes the Dems pour tons of money into the biggest state with very expensive media markets, drains them elsewhere. So it’s worth a try.
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.