Skip to comments.
Where Do We Find These People?
[a pro-illegals; an opportunist, one with racist links, etc.]
Gulf1 ^
| 01-01-2008
| Col. Robert L. Pappas, USMC, Ret.
Posted on 01/01/2008 1:30:09 PM PST by XR7
I have yet to decide for whom I will vote much less who I will support in the process. I might have supported John McCain, but he shot himself in the foot with his openly pro-illegal immigration stance then had the temerity to badmouth those of us who oppose illegal, (repeat for those who need to have it pointed out to them), ILLEGAL immigration; then, I might just vote for Ron Paul, but he's so far right, he's left. Then there's Romney or Biden, they certainly have the distinguished looks for the role, but there's something about Biden on the left and Romney being a hypocritical political opportunist that bugs me.
Obama is an empty suit, long on oratory and short on experience and knowledge. Check out the website of Obama's church, http://www.tucc.org/about.htm and while you are there check out the church's "ten point" vision. It is both racist and segregationist; whatever happened to integration? Does Obama's church have any interest in the land that has given African Americans (oh, that they would join the country and be Americans) hope, promise, Affirmative Action and trillions of dollars in assistance? Evidently not. Does anyone believe blacks would have had those opportunities in Africa? Check this one element of the church's vision: "A congregation committed to the "HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA." (Humm. Diaspora means to be "scattered.") Where did the rest of America come from, that is, except for those of us who are Native American? How about a little inclusiveness?
What these dear people haven't come to grips with is that they are infinitely better off in the United States of 2008 than they would ever have been in their respective lands of origin. It's time for our black brothers and sisters to join the country that they are blessed to live in, and get the chip off their shoulders about how they got here. If Obama's church is an indication of his social philosophy, there is no way he can be the "unifier" that he professes he wants to be.
The campaign's most hilarious statement so far is: "I risked my life while traveling on White House missions." Listen Ms. Clinton, you don't have a clue about risking your life, ask any member of the Armed Forces, or the Secret Service that protects your arrogant, unworthy behind. It is increasingly clear that Ms. Clinton has sold her soul for the Office. The sheep that follow her are a pathetic lot, tails wagging behind them while with typical nose in the air arrogance, at the head of the gaggle Clinton refuses to talk to the press on substantive issues so she doesn't make a mistake. What an "act!" But, she isn't nearly as good at acting as her erstwhile husband, remember the Ron Brown Funeral! Incidentally, would the Clinton who is actually running for office please stand up?
Bloomberg is a rich, socially liberal, political opportunist who bought the Mayoralty of New York and evidently believes he can do the same of the Presidency. If he wants to be President why doesn't he resign as Mayor of New York City and run for it, not try to do both? The same goes for "Stay home and bake cookies" Clinton, Biden, Richardson, Paul, Tancrado, McCain, Obama and the entire group of elected candidates who are so self-serving that it calls into question their real motives. Forget service, it's all about the acquisition and exercise of power.
Richardson can't work hard enough to move as far left as possible. In fact the entire slate of Democrat candidates are trying so hard to "out left" each other that they will soon eclipse Hitler [yes, Hitler was a socialist] and Stalin.
Thompson, the one who really "doesn't particular want to be President" is no Ronald Reagan except for the falling asleep part. He's toast.
Edwards is a proven lying leftist loser and if Ralph Nader's support means anything, Edwards is so far left he, along with the entire Democrat field they might as well admit themselves the socialists that they are.
Guliani can't manage his personal life much less the nation and is so socially liberal he gives Hillary a run for the money.
So far, the only benefit the campaigns have to offer is the entertainment value. Hopefully a real leader will emerge from the pack that will lead the nation aright. Non-Candidate Newt Gingrich makes more sense than the entire field, both left and right, put together.
What got me started on this was the mental cacophony about "Huck," readers' posts, [following a NYT article, ("Huckabee's Remarkable Play," 31 December 2007, by Katharine Q. Seelye)], make the Republican "attack machine" seem like a Sunday School picnic: talk about a huckster, talk about wearing his religion on his sleeve, talk about cunning, talk about hypocritical, talk about immoral, talk about some one not playing with a full deck, talk about a fraud, talk about making one sick, talk about a complete lack of decency, talk about sneak punches, talk about an unethical bigoted liar, talk about deceptive, talk about running a country the same way that he runs his campaign, etc. etc.
If these are the best the left has to offer, they prove themselves to be a bunch of high school level imbecilic morons who should wise up, because without realizing it they are talking about Bill Clinton and had best knock it off…or Hillary will get "pissed."
Semper Fidelis
TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: barak; barakhusseinobama; derhildebeast; duncanhunter; election2008; elections; herthighness; hildebeast; hitlery; huckabee; hussein; mccain; mittromney; mormon; obama; obamasama; osamabama; president; primaries; romney
Scary.
The ol' Colonel has put his finger on the mess we're in.
So who can we wholeheartedly support?
1
posted on
01/01/2008 1:30:12 PM PST
by
XR7
To: XR7
2
posted on
01/01/2008 1:33:26 PM PST
by
American Quilter
(In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant. - Charles De Gaulle)
To: XR7
So who can we wholeheartedly support?
Duncan Hunter!
Here’s a snapshot from Intrade yesterday. There is evidence that Hunter is gaining ground in Iowa.
For the Iowa caucus, Thompson is at the bottom of the pack, Romney has regained the lead from Huckabee. Ron Paul and Hunter are both embedded together, so there’s no way of knowing if he’s gaining ground, but on the basis of the president.field contract moving, I’d say he’s probably at ~0.3 and Ron Paul is at ~4.8, which puts Hunter ahead of Thompson.
Caucus
REP.IOWA.HUCKABEE
Mike Huckabee to Win M 45.0 46.0 45.0 1690 +5.0
REP.IOWA.ROMNEY
Mitt Romney to Win M 40.2 54.9 50.0 1960 0
REP.IOWA.THOMPSON(F)
Fred Thompson to Win M 0.1 1.4 0.1 642 -1.4
REP.IOWA.MCCAIN
John McCain to Win M 0.6 4.4 0.2 860 -2.8
REP.IOWA.GIULIANI
Rudy Giuliani to Win M - 0.1 0.1 701 0
REP.IOWA.FIELD
Field (any other individual) to Win M 4.7 5.9 4.8 1384 +1.0
2008.PRES.FIELD
Field (any other candidate) to win 2008 US Presidential Election M 0.2 0.3 0.2 14910 +0.1
Rasmussen has started using Intrade results.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945852/posts
They seem to openly admit that the data for Iowa between Christmas and New Year’s is unreliable: “Rasmussen Reports has not conducted polling in Iowa between Christmas and New Years. We have doubts about the ability to obtain reliable results during that time frame.”
Huckabee has surged because he won a couple of debates and he’s got evangelical support. If a quick rise can happen to the liberal pro-life evangelical Huckster, it can happen to the conservative pro-life evangelical Hunter.
Thompson tops the list of most likely to drop out in January, per Intrade. Judging from momentum, Thompson is the one who won’t be on the ballot in February.
Dropouts from 2008 Presidential Race. Jan 2008
DROPOUT.JAN08.EDWARDS
John Edwards to drop out of 2008 Presidential race on/before 31 Jan 2008 M 35.0 49.0 35.0 15 -7.0
DROPOUT.JAN08.MCCAIN
John McCain to drop out of 2008 Presidential race on/before 31 Jan 2008 M 10.0 30.0 10.0 31 0
DROPOUT.JAN08.HUCKABEE
Mike Huckabee to drop out of 2008 Presidential race on/before 31 Jan 2008 M 10.1 29.8 14.9 27 0
DROPOUT.JAN08.OBAMA
Barack Obama to drop out of 2008 Presidential race on/before 31 Jan 2008 M - 10.0 5.0 10 0
DROPOUT.JAN08.CLINTON
Hillary Clinton to drop out of 2008 Presidential race on/before 31 Jan 2008 M - 10.0 1.0 0 0
DROPOUT.JAN08.GIULIANI
Rudy Giuliani to drop out of 2008 Presidential race on/before 31 Jan 2008 M 5.0 10.0 7.0 40 0
DROPOUT.JAN08.ROMNEY
Mitt Romney to drop out of 2008 Presidential race on/before 31 Jan 2008 M 8.0 25.0 6.0 20 0
DROPOUT.JAN08.(F)THOMPSON
Fred Thompson to drop out of 2008 Presidential race on/before 31 Jan 2008 M 35.0 99.0 40.0 70 +12.0
DROPOUT.JAN08.PAUL
Ron Paul to drop out of 2008 Presidential race on/before 31 Jan 2008 M 10.0 15.0 15.0 24 +5.2
.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
In this poll Hunter is up 3% and even with Paul and Thompson.
http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=3481ef60-8195-46a9-af04-b87b907bcfdd
3
posted on
01/01/2008 1:34:10 PM PST
by
Kevmo
(We should withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
To: Kevmo
Either this Pappas guy simply doesn’t think, or he is actively trying, in a cowardly manner, to sabotage
Fred Thompson’s campaign. I say just come out and fight, drop these wimpy backhanded attempts to obscure who Thompson is.
“Sen. Thompson positioned himself as willing to serve, not for an enlarged ego, but out of a deep desire to serve his nation. He has desire to make our nation better for his children and grandchildren. Far from a slick Branson like presentation, he presented himself as a dedicated patriot willing to serve if we, the American people, were willing to have him do so. He refuses to be a President under false pretenses.
“In the end, Sen. Thompson was right, the next President should be someone who wants to serve the nation, not someone who wants to be President.”
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2RhN2UwMWRlMjRjOThjNDM3NGMxMzFmMzFkNGY2MTA=
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946833/posts
4
posted on
01/01/2008 1:52:19 PM PST
by
reasonisfaith
(Fred Thompson is the only candidate who appeals to instinct.)
To: XR7
Where Do We Find These People?
Abandoned houses, alleys/urinals, prisons, etc...
5
posted on
01/01/2008 2:01:54 PM PST
by
kinoxi
To: XR7
6
posted on
01/01/2008 2:04:15 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(There is an odd comfort in nursing the wounds we give ourselves. It saves us from blame.)
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
To: XR7
I notice you never hear any criticisim of Thompson or Hunter on the issues.
8
posted on
01/01/2008 3:11:21 PM PST
by
NavVet
(If you don't defend conservatism in the Primary, you won't have it to defend in the Election)
To: All
Col. Pappas, sir:
support the candidate in the primary who seems to want to limit the size, scope, and spending of the FedeRal govErnment the most anD who also has a foreign policy thaT is coHerent -- one who still believes in american [the "a" intentiOnally Made/Placed in lower caSe] hegemONy.
i am sure you'll figure it out soon!
Respectfully,
LowcountryJoe, former Staff Sergeant of Marines.
9
posted on
01/01/2008 3:11:40 PM PST
by
LowCountryJoe
(I'm a Paleo-liberal: I believe in freedom; am socially independent and a borderline fiscal anarchist)
To: LowCountryJoe
Duncan Hunter would make a great President, the question is; how does the freerepublic put a real face on him.
Someone very important could call the Pope and get him an interview, make it like a paid per-view show and maybe add some face value to him. Duncan just does not have the required face value. I truely pray we can find a way to give him that value.
If some method was found to make him a solid rock star, Duncan Hunter would get my vote in a heart beat.
The other republican candidates just don’t make me Enthusiastic
10
posted on
01/01/2008 3:23:11 PM PST
by
Mojohemi
To: LowCountryJoe
Saving the Republican Party
Our party can not survive unless we adhere to our basic conservative principles and nominate a person whose values lie in those principles and one that all Republicans will support. If we fail, history will record the death of the Republican party as occurring during the caucus primaries of 2008. This is not speculation on my part, but the opinion of many other experts in political science. Many republicans and independents would either vote for a democrat or abstain, rather than vote for anything less than a person with "true conservative" values.
Take a closer look at the candidates
Rudy Giuliani is intelligent and has proven himself to be capable as mayor of New York City, however Rudy is a liberal in every sense of the word. He is pro-abortion, pro-gay, and pro-gun control. I just can't vote for someone who "cross dresses" and marches in gay pride parades. He is liberal, no other way to put it. He would not represent the values of the Republican party and would not garner the support of all Republicans by any stretch of the imagination. Death of the Republican Party as we know it would occur if he was the nominee.
Mitt Romney is sharp, intelligent and on the face seems to be a good candidate to save the party. If you look closer you will find that in the past few years he has supported sanctuary cities for illegal aliens, supported pro-choice on the abortion issue, supported gay marriages and was elected governor of the most liberal state in the union. Mitt's Mormon religion is not a factor and should not be a factor in America. Mitt may have made a real change as he has stated and may have come to embrace a conservative views on the issues, but he'll have to prove it to me AND that may take years. Mitt might be make a good president for the republican party one day, but not in 2008. Mitt should wait a few years and give us the proof we need that in fact he is a "real conservative" as he says he is. The Republican Party would not be united behind Mitt in 2008, due to his religion. This is a shame , but a fact. We would loose to the Democrats in 2008 if Mitt was nominated.
Mike Huckabee is a good speaker, probably a nice guy and I'm sure an excellent preacher. Mike is conservative on only two issues, abortion and marriage. He is a populist liberal on all other important issues. His popularity base is evangelicals who can't seem to separate religion from electing the leader of the free world. . He was even endorsed by the Democratic governor of Ohio, who said that he reflected Democratic liberal views as well as the other Democratic candidates. He has even went so far as to criticize President Bush, calling his foreign policy "bunker mentality". Huckabee is a Democrat running as a republican, no other way to put it. He would divide the republican party and cause a division from which we could not recover. He is more dangerous to the republican party than having a democrat elected. Probably the most dangerous thing about Huckabee is his naivetie on how to deal foreign policy and the threats facing our nation today. To put it bluntly, he is ignorant on foreign affairs and the part the United States plays as being the premier world superpower and bastion of freedom. Death of the Republican Party as we know it would occur if he was the nominee.
John McCain is a true American hero and I honor and respect him for all he has given in the service of his country during the Viet Nam war. John is a conservative on most issues, but John tends to flip -flop on the issues. Last year he and the despicable Edward Kennedy were two of the main players in the Amnesty Bill that Pres. Bush was pushing down the throats of the American people. Thank God the people spoke up and the bill was defeated. If McCain was the nominated and elected I have no doubts that he would revive that very bill and the next time it may pass. I don't trust him to stop illegal immigration and therefore he gets "thumbs down" from me. He also tends to be a little "hot headed" at times. I'm not sure we need an emotional "hot head" with his finger on the button, if you know what I mean. The Republican party would not unite behind McCain due to a lack of trust. We would loose to the Democrats in 2008 .
Ron Paul...can you say "nut case"....Ron has a libiterian view of what the world and the US should be like. He is so far off having "true conservative" values, he is not worth discussion. The fringe radicals seem to like his message , much the way people who bought in to Ross Perot did some years ago. Ron's idea of US foreign policy is for the US to withdraw from everywhere and become an isolationist country and "everybody would leave us alone" Total BS. Ron could not unite the party, in fact he would cause a split. Death of the Republican Party as we know it would occur if he was the nominee.
Duncan Hunter..... A "true conservative" in every sense of the word. Duncan is strong on all conservative issues, especially illegal immigration. Duncan could unite the party behind him. Our party would have someone that all republicans could support. The liberal media has failed to get behind Duncan, which is what should be expected. They would prefer a republican candidate , like Huckabee, which would divide our party and be easier for the democrats to defeat next November. Duncan gets a "thumbs up" from me.
Fred Thompson. Fred is the only candidate that is conservative on all issues. He is a Federalist, meaning that he is a supporter of states rights and less government. Fred is the candidate that there are absolutely no negatives. He has never flipped his position on any issue. Fred is the one candidate that would appeal to every Republican. Ron Paul supporters might be the exception, but most of them are libertarian and nothing short of a revolutionary would please them anyway. Fred is for lower taxes, stronger military, anti abortion, anti gay-marriage, stopping illegal immigration and less government involvement in our lives, all main stay issues of the Republican Party. Fred is the only candidate in the list that could unite the party and defeat the democrats in 2008.
Just the Facts... check them out for yourself. America awaits your decision.
11
posted on
01/01/2008 3:23:13 PM PST
by
glmjr
To: XR7
Thompson, the one who really "doesn't particular want to be President" is no Ronald Reagan except for the falling asleep part. He's toast.Too bad the Col. had bought into the MSM's carp about Fred Thompson. Fred never said he didn't want to be President, he just said he hasn't lusted after it since Junior High, and isn't in the campaign because of some need to assuage his own ego.
12
posted on
01/01/2008 3:44:37 PM PST
by
SuziQ
To: XR7
All of what this guy says points to THOMPSON. Fred is becoming the clearer and clearer choice. Let’s drop the rest of the field and get behind the candidate who best fits our requirements. He is pro life, he understands the illegal alien invasion and most of all he “gets” the war on terror. The search is really over.
13
posted on
01/01/2008 3:52:04 PM PST
by
jmaroneps37
(Conservatives live in the truth. Liberals live in lies.)
To: jmaroneps37
The only way the savvy conservatives can get Duncan Hunter real face value would be to get him on a ticket with Fred Thompson and get them elected to the office.
Thompson acts like he really is not interested in the office and that scares me. I know he would do a good job as President but, he needs to show some ambition even if he has none. If we get Duncan Hunter in the inner circle of Government we have a natural winner. I see no other way to make a super star out of Duncan Hunter and that is what we need. A miracle from God himself.
14
posted on
01/01/2008 4:36:56 PM PST
by
Mojohemi
To: reasonisfaith
“Either this Pappas guy simply doesn’t think, or he is actively trying, in a cowardly manner, to sabotage
Fred Thompson’s campaign.”
In the whole rant, one or two sentences are about Thompson, and yet somehow this is an attempt to sabotage Thompson’s campaign? Thompson barely got a mention. What about the other candidates he slammed? Was that secret reverse psychology?
15
posted on
01/01/2008 4:59:23 PM PST
by
COgamer
To: glmjr
I would like to thank you for that handy little chart. I found your evaluations to be very fair and even-handed. I would add that, if Rudy’s the nominee, the press will have many embarassing questions to ask about why “Character Counts” only when the candidate is a Democrat. The moral high ground is something we must not surrender.
16
posted on
01/01/2008 5:08:43 PM PST
by
COgamer
To: COgamer
The status quo of Thompson detractors is to say as little about him as possible, limiting comments to meaningless insults or falsehoods. Because they’re afraid of him. I say just have the guts to have a real contest with him, on substance, not run and hide.
17
posted on
01/01/2008 7:50:31 PM PST
by
reasonisfaith
(Donating to Fred Thompson is the antidote to media bias.)
To: XR7
First of all, Diaspora doesn’t mean “to scatter”. It means, “the scattered”. Remember in the Bible God told Israel he would “scatter them” .. and the name for the scattered is “diaspora”.
How come the good Col doesn’t mention Fred ..?? Or .. did I miss that ..??
18
posted on
01/01/2008 10:35:38 PM PST
by
CyberAnt
(AMERICA: THE GREATEST FORCE for GOOD in the world!)
To: XR7
Well written piece, Colonel.
Semper Fi
19
posted on
01/01/2008 11:10:45 PM PST
by
Lexinom
(Build the fence and call China to account. GoHunter08.com)
To: glmjr
You calls ‘em exactly as I sees ‘em! :-)
20
posted on
01/02/2008 9:16:48 PM PST
by
TXnMA
("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
