Posted on 02/11/2010 11:41:32 AM PST by DallasBiff
In a startling statement today, Republican candidate for governor Debra Medina refused to disavow the allegation that the U.S. government was somehow involved in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center towers on 9/11.
Medina made the statement during an interview on the Glenn Beck radio program
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
Did you want me to re-type it for you?
No I want to know why you called a guy that got such strong pro gun endorsements a “gun grabber”.
Read it and learn why
If you can’t explain yourself then don’t make the claim.
If you can’t understand plain written english, then don’t complain to me.
And Bill Clinton emphatically denied having sex with that woman.
Unfortunately for slick, there was a blue dress.
I thought he was pretty good on guns for a Massachusetts Senator, he got an A from the NRA and and a freeper said that he got an A+ from Gun Owners of America.
It was a simple enough question but you seem angry about this Medina truther thing.
"While I can't prove Dick Cheney and Karl Rove sat down and planned 9/11. it;s the kind of thing they did" (written calrification from my staff to follow)
Not angry in the least. Amused by the RINO lovers is more accurate. Did you even read the link? It’s got some good information in it. And Scott Brown certainly did not merit an A rating. But you would have understood once if you read the link.
FWIW, Rand Paul has more “truther” pedigree than Medina. But saying that would make your girl look bad.
No, when I make a specific claim I do not just send people to a thread to support it.
It isn’t my job to go read entire threads looking to see if I can figure out which answer you would have supplied, or if one is even there.
I should have known that to question you would simply consume time and lead to no answer.
Brown supports gun registration. How’s dat?
And should disqualify Rand Paul in Kentucky as well.
No doubt about it! Like Father, like Son.
I supported him initially. Until his polling went nowhere. Then I jumped to Thompson. After that it was no one until McCain added Palin. I don’t have a problem with Hunter. I do have a problem with allowing preference for someone to override judgement about their chances for higher elective office.
Ex. I have some issues with Palin but overall like her. I don’t think polls right now mean much of anything but I don’t think she is a lock for a nomination let along winning the W.H. if she was. If there are no other conservatives and she isn’t polling well then I favor supporting the long shot anyway. If there are other conservatives with a better shot, I’ll jump ship to the one polling higher even if they weren’t my first choice. It’s not about the person with me. Not anymore. At one time it was, but I learned my lesson with G.W.B. Loyalty to an individual will not come before success at pushing a conservative agenda and my allegiance will be with the conservative who polls best in ‘12 whether or not my heart is with that person or not.
I wouldn’t go by polls and there is so much crookedness in these races. Hunter is and was the best conservative candidate. He has a plan and he spoke clearly about his plan and how he would implement it. But the powers to be had already settled the race. It was Obama vs McCain. I think this woke some of the people up.
He wasn’t the best conservative candidate in the race because he he couldn’t even crack 10% in the polls while Thompson could.
I’ll always veer toward the conservative candidate but when there is more then one I’ll support the one that can draw double figures in national support.
As for ‘08 I wouldn’t even blame that all on TPTB. I think you had a number of conservative interests vying for supremacy unwilling to pander to each others causes. There are many different conservative planks. Fiscal, social, 2A, National security etc...but fiscal conservatives wanted to go it alone without the socials. Social conservatives wanted to go it alone without fiscal. It was a complete mess. Conservatives win when they respect each group and find a compromise candidate that can balance the different interests. The only two in that election I saw who could do that were Hunter and Thompson and as I said. Thompson did much better nationally. But Thompson had his own drawback to these various interests groups. He didn’t make any one of the planks his primary interest and 2) there is a subsection of the GOP that prizes eloquence and style over substance. hence Romney’s support. Result of all this was McCain skating by with a minority of the vote that is “moderate” and prizes rewarding those who are considered next in line in the establishment.
That’s the problem. People only want name recognition. They vote according to sound bites instead of the best candidate.
Hunter is and was the best candidate. He never lost sight of our ocuntry’s fundamental beliefs. He knows the issues. America is now off the mark of its fundamental issues.
Duncan Hunter most closely mirrors my idea of what’s important for American values even though he is considered to not have a chance to win by some.
I really wish he would consider running again.
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.