Posted on 10/01/2007 10:22:17 PM PDT by goldstategop
Defense Secretary Duncan Hunter
Dept of State John Bolton
Director of Homeland Security Tommy Franks
Attorney General Miguel Estrada
Director of Heath and Human Services Eliminated
Dept of Energy Eliminated
Dept of Education Eliminated
Dept of Veteran Affairs Eliminated
EPA Eliminated
Depending on who you talk to, neither do any of the others it seems.
I don’t plan to vote for someone who’s press releases sound like a Republican Bill Clinton. Lots of words, little meaning and plenty of posturing.
I don’t believe Fred said that. Source it.
And he's been elected to 10 terms, unlike Keyes who's the Bob Schrum of the GOP.
When I think about the huckster, I remember reading about the “Judas Goat” and Luke 9.62. After all, he was supposed to be a Minister.
“I have already had my life threatened at least 10 times for being against illegal immigration”
I have too.
Ron Paul is no conservative. He’s a libertarian. One with no regard for the inalienable rights to life and liberty that are supposed to be guaranteed to every American.
Which explains why so many moonbat leftists have signed on to his campaign.
Unfortunately, other prominent Republicans, some of whom are running for President, have caught the Ron Paul disease.
People have actually threatned your life?
Sure. I was a local activist against illegal immigration. My next door neighbor was murdered by a drunken illegal in a pizza parlor. One of the outstanding murder warrants in LA County.
That’s terrible.
Good choice for Homeland Security
Can we please stick a fork in Huckabee and put him out of his misery. He seems like a nice guy and I wish him well in his future endeavors to combat that global health menace that almost killed him...bacon double cheeseburgers...for the greater good.
We don’t need to see his nanny state liberal policies of smoker bans and COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM ON STEROIDS on the federal level.
He is a liberal on every issue except two...he is pro-life and pro 2A. If he was a baseball player he would be batting .125 on limited government conservative issues.
Even EV doesn’t support him and he is a social conservative. Good luck in your private life Mike. Best wishes.
But those are not your choices. You need to do a little information gathering before you make any more ill-infomed comments.
Care to explicate? Feel free to give an exacting and well premised response.
Who made "preference for the individual" a hallmark of our Republic? Freedom with responsibility, yes. Preference for irresponsible, isolated individualism, not hardly. That's "Libertarianism," not founding American political philosophy.
It is the Values Voter whom I mostly hear using class warfare rhetoric and whom express their disdain for foreigners — hardly hallmarks for not coveting thy neighbors things and loving one’s neighbor
Well, LCJ, I suppose I could commend you for not listening to liberals, per "class warfare rhetoric."
By "distain for foreigners," you must mean respect for nationhood and citizenship (which you'll find in spades, in Mexico, etc., BTW).
6.8%
Ridiculous article.
What I had written was “the preferences of the individual”. In my opinion, it (the change from “for” to “of”) changes the meaning in an important way. Anyhow, I think the proceeding bolded line from the preamble to our constitution should clarify the position of what I see as a hallmark: let’s see if you agree.
“ We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Yes, from my view, this includes the liberty to be irresponsible (and a rugged individualist) providing that said irresponsibility does not cause direct harm to anyone else’s liberty. Tell me where you might disagree and please do not take me on some argumentative path that basically says that irresponsibility will lead to someone being on the public’s dole…for that argument, by itself, has indeed violated the responsibility argument from the get go with the public establishing such perverse incentives that leads to such irresponsibility. And besides, can true liberty really be a trait of a collective more so than that of an individual?
Oh, and I’ve got news for you; modern day libertarianism is what was once called classical liberalism. It was such liberalism which inspired the founders to create the Articles of Confederation – later abandoned because of the statists like Hamilton who preferred a larger role for the federal government (mainly in monetary matters) and was persuasive in his (their) argument(s).
Well, LCJ, I suppose I could commend you for not listening to liberals, per "class warfare rhetoric."
It does not matter where the class warfare rhetoric comes from, whether it’s from the Left or Right; it is toxic at its source and is rooted in jealousy and insecurity.
By "distain for foreigners," you must mean respect for nationhood and citizenship (which you'll find in spades, in Mexico, etc., BTW).
No, that’s not what I mean although I sympathize with anyone who wishes to come here and better their lives as long as they are not criminal by nature and are not interested in getting on the dole. Please do not argue semantics on criminality equating to those who break the immigration laws only…I concur that by definition this is criminal but that would only be an obstacle in advancing this dialogue (if you even want dialogue). I only wish that conservatives would advocate making it easier for people to come to the USA in a legal fashion – applying for temporary rights to reside in the United States and to pay the necessary fees that go toward paying for their children’s education while they are here and to pay fees for any documentation, enforcement, and health examination costs associated with the entry process – rather than being xenophobic about it.
Instead, what I do mean is the distain that is evident to me like that put forth in post #47, above. Why shouldn’t business try to attract Hispanic consumers in heavily populated-by-Hispanic areas? Is a business catering to its consumers “selling out” America by doing so? Imagine saying, now, that by allowing Irish and Italian sections of large metro areas to flourish throughout the early 1900s, this had “sold out” Americans. It would sound ridiculous now to most sensible people. But I am sure that the same kinds of things were being said back in those days, without the benefit of realizing what the future would bring Americans because of the Irish and Italians immigrating here. Whenever I hear the argument that, “well, this time is different”, it most often is no different!
Many immigrants that enter the United States illegally do so by paying human-trafficking scumbags large quantities of money to be smuggled in. They are coming in anyway even as border enforcement costs have risen five-fold in inflation adjusted dollars [five-fold in inflation adjusted dollars is a factoid that I cannot prove on the spot but remember reading several months back]. You would think that we could do this much more intelligently and even add – rather than subtract through enforcement costs – to U.S. Treasury coffers. But that’s just me; I prefer not to have a deep hatred of these people and to save enforcement cost/improve economic activity, simultaneously.
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.