Posted on 09/01/2007 1:41:38 PM PDT by Tears of a Clown
“Tancredo has never offended me. Maybe the folks he’s offended need offending. God forbid a conservative should ever offend a liberal or jihadi...that would be tragic!”
Perhaps, but I think Duncan can do better, without the similiar language. Even though I’m treading in a thread that is clearly on the side of Duncan, and I’m a Fred supporter...I greatly respect Duncan. And had he been more present among the greater public in the last few decades, I would actually think he had a big shot, and might reconsider where I stand or whom I support. Either way I hope the best for him.
Lately I’ve been getting huge amounts of junk mail from Tancredo, and that all stems from the Minutemen. While I respect their intentions, I hate their vial use of my personal information. That is definitely one think that took them down a notch in my book, especially when I still continually get nutty mail based on conspiro-immigration themes. And the fact I told them to stop mailing me this junk.
That’s the other part of why I dislike Trancedo’s compaign. Never give me anything I don’t ask for.
Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, South Carolina is a darn good showing. Has anyone else won as many? If not, Hunter should play on it that he’s won more than any other candidate.
Actually no. Immigration yes which has nothing to do with regulation but rather is a proper power of the national government under the Constitution and defense. 'Cheap labor'? An aspect of the free market and not the business of the government. Unless you're now going to argue the Department of Labor was really intended by the Framers but it took a 20th century Progressive (another thing to 'thank' Wilson for) to implement the real vision of the Framers...
If you can find someone to work for a penny and they'll work for a penny that's a contract between you and that worker. Would I work for a penny? No. The cost of labor is what the market can bear not what a government regulates it should be.
There’s the difference - you see containing a nuclear power experimenting with missiles and with a history of selling weapons as a problem not worth fixing.
The defense of the citizens is the purpose of the government. Defense depends on strength. The strength and protection of the sovereignty of the United States includes protecting our borders from jets, missiles, nuclear fallout and bioweapons. Our defense can no longer stop at our physical borders.
I would have hoped that you could see the difference between food and war and between ensuring that the bargain made in exchange for that food is kept or ignored. Clinton gave food and did nothing when the bargain was broken. President Bush inherited this fiasco. At least since 9/11, and definitely since we marched into Baghdad, it is known that President Bush, like Reagan, will accept no aggression and punish fraud. (Just ask Qaddafi.)
This goes deeper than mere cultural and community differences between the anti-war faction and conservatives. You weren’t even aware that that phrase is unacceptable and why, or you didn’t care. Then, you couldn’t see my response as noting further proof of your lack of understanding of FReeper customs, but saw it as changing the subject.
You don’t know or don’t care how much your rhetoric and tactics resemble A.N.S.W.E.R. and the “Kos”es and “Pinks,” and that you are being used to break up the Republican party by those women and men on the street trying to “Register” Dems as Republicans and inside the Convention Center trying to buy credentials and booing and heckling our guests and officials.
Either way, your response is still essentially, “Put some ice on it,” as though it’s all my hangup and you have no personal responsibility for getting out of line by local standards.
At the least you, and the Paulers at the Straw Poll are impolite and don’t care. That’s impolitic as well.
I agree. However, the last speaker before we voted was a Lt. Col. (retired) who was burned at the Pentagon. He reminded us that we have work to do, and it’s not teaching petty lessons.
My response is to work hard for the candidates that I can back, rather than the Party. And to tell the RNC why. But I won’t waste a vote, even at the Straw Poll.
LOL! That depends on your definition of "conservatism." And, they get it wrong, plenty of times! They couldn't see through the most obvious smoke-and-mirror fiscal tactics in California and their promotion of free trade as resembling anything like free enterprise is ridiculous. In Arnold's case, it took them 2 years to figure it out.
Schwarzenegger Tops Cato's Governors Report Card (2004-with an "A")CA: Governor Gets Graded... a "D" (CATO Report Card on America's Governors: 2006)
He voted no on those two bills on federalism grounds, and some liberal judge would have shot it down anyway.
He’d condemn the Berlin Airlift in ‘48 and certainly will never be Ronald Reagan, saying “Tear down this wall.
He has been one of Reagan's staunchest defenders on defense and supported him during the Cold War.
The rest of your post is speculation.
Thank YOU, Tg. We all make a great team.
Yes, Whenever I saw them on C-SPAN I was never really sure if they were conservative or otherwise. If they are conservative then I probably am not. Globalization, open borders, apologists for the Chicoms, if that is Conservatism then I missed a meeting.
To be quite honest, and not to be insulting, I see them and those like them as nothing more than cheerleaders for the evil money cult under the guise of advocating freedom and liberty.
It would seem you had Arnie’s number before they did, good catch and thanks for the links.
I think you and I are pretty much in agreement.
I appreciate Cato when they are advocating limited government, fighting things like the Real ID Act, and giving a forum for questioning the Global Warming hoopla. But when it comes to globalization, trade, and borders, they are clearly in the camp of those that fund them—the transnationals. I also strongly disagree with much of their push for privatization of infrastructure. I don’t want our ports and highways owned by foreign interests subjecting us to international laws and taxes. I have the same criticism of the Club for Growth folks who seem to take a similar stance.
He voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act - it wasn’t overturned by the courts. Neither was the Amber Alert, which provided for stricter punishment for child molesters. These haven’t been overturned. The bans on abortion in military hospitals have stood, despite his votes.
He did compromise on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, while making comment that the bill was un-Constitutional. And, of course, it wasn’t overturned.
I didn’t say that Paul didn’t support Reagan - I said he’d never be Reagan, demanding that another nation cease oppression. Since he believes we had no place in World War I - how could you justify that or fighting Germany in WWII, or the altruism of the Berlin Airlift by Ron Paul’s stated criteria?
I think folks realize Tom is not electable. Duncan has a (marginal) shot. The fact he was rejected for military service because of nerves will be enough to provide Jay Leno material for two months.
bttt. Go Duncan!
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.