Posted on 03/29/2007 7:21:40 AM PDT by pissant
Yes, the consequences are much more serious. All the more reason to be playing for Team America rather than one's own idiosyncratic sense of moral certitude. The enemy is AQ, Euroweenies, the MSM and the usual leftie suspects.
If any of the Rep candidates win the nomination, I will vote for them. That includes McCain who I despise. That's teamwork.
But he was very nice to his mother :)
Fred is more conservative and has less baggage and therefore is more electable.
If Hunter even makes it to the debate stage, he'll be asked and I'll bet he thinks it's a good idea too. If he's really serious about the presidency, he'll say he's for it anyway. Nearly all the serious candidates move to the middle during their run for office.
"...if we're lucky, Guiliani will be our next President..."
You mean if YOU'RE lucky. Please don't include me in your desire to have a liberal RINO as POTUS.
I don't just 'play to win' as this is MUCH too important for such Pyhrric victories.
I can't find anything on the Brady Bill, but:
Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Rated A+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
From here:http://www.issues2002.org/CA/Duncan_Hunter.htm#Government_Reform
How does your husband feel about losing his right to possess a gun even if he doesn't have a criminal record? Does he feel it would be acceptable for him to provide justification to the government to possess a firearm? That's what happened in New York City and that's what the thread is about.
It's been hijacked into a Brady bill thread but it wasn't to start with.
"My husband is a lifetime member of the NRA and sees nothing wrong with a waiting period while a background check is performed on the prospective gun owner. It's common sense."
The background check takes one phone call, not three days.
"Yes, the consequences are much more serious. All the more reason to be playing for Team America rather than one's own idiosyncratic sense of moral certitude. The enemy is AQ, Euroweenies, the MSM and the usual leftie suspects."
If someone on "my team" is a usual leftie suspect, then I would not vote for them because they aren't really on my team.
"If any of the Rep candidates win the nomination, I will vote for them. That includes McCain who I despise. That's teamwork."
That's your right. I don't have an "idiosyncratic sense of moral certitude," I have values I won't compromise because when the inevitable happens, I won't have myself to blame.
I am very disappointed by the current crop.
Won't you please respond to the points in #198
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1808686/posts?page=198#198
As I posted in #144, Hunter (along with the majority of GOP congressmen at the time) voted against it.
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 564, HR 1025: BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT
Nope. See post 232.
If you do not vote for the Rep POTUS candidate, what's inevitable is Hillary. You will be partly to blame for that outcome.
Values are by their nature idiosyncratic. The choice to compromise one's values occurs on a daily basis. It's about where you draw the line in terms of priorities.
I agree with you about the current crop. At my age, I seem to remember that was more often the case than not. Don't despair. Our worst candidate is miles better than their best.
So, I say fight for the candidate who best represents your principles. If that person wins the nomination, I will vote for them. If that person doesn't win, I hope you will re-examine the situation and make the difficult choice to go with the team.
These threads are getting to me. Now I sound like a HS basketball coach telling kids, "There is no I in TEAM. Pass the ball". Enough already. Let's have the primaries and be done with it.
Godwin's Law does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda or other mainstays of the Nazi regime. Instead, it applies to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations to Hitler or Nazis. However, Godwin's Law can itself also be abused, as a distraction or diversion, to fallaciously miscast an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparison the argument made were actually appropriate.
Something to think about
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. .
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1938, Germany established gun control. .
From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1935, China established gun control. .
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. .
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1970, Uganda established gun control. .
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. .
From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
The number of defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: ABOUT 55 MILLION!
So, the next time someone tries to tell you that this country needs MORE gun control laws, ask them:
“Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?”
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.