Bush has played no role.
"Don't make me pull up my posts to prove it.".....
Posted on 02/08/2008 6:53:23 PM PST by NoGrayZone
Fred Thompson, the one-time Republican presidential candidate, endorsed Sen. John McCain Friday, calling on the party to "close ranks" behind the presumed nominee
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.washingtonpost.com ...
Help me understand your concern.I take it your asperger's doesn't let you understand sarcasm.
You believe that John McCain is going to rally Congress to sign over California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to Mexico, get Boxer and Cornyn and all the Congresscritters in between to voluntarily step down, and the other half of congress to cut their budgets from the trillions in tax revenues from these states, and that the US Military will just stand around and hand over the keys to the bases, etc etc etc.
I'll try whatever you're smoking maybe on a Saturday night...but tomorrow's a workday, so no thanks.
Well, considering that it is impossible to discern a post which says "Aztlan is going to take the southwest back" from the many posters on FR who actually believe that, then, yeah, it's hard to identify your post as sarcasm without a "[/sarcasm]" tag.
Based on you slinging mental disorders as insults, perhaps you should just use "[/ass****]" as a tag on your posts instead.
Well, considering that it is impossible to discern a post which says "Aztlan is going to take the southwest back" from the many posters on FR who actually believe that, then, yeah, it's hard to identify your post as sarcasm without a "[/sarcasm]" tag.Listen it's not your fault you're dumb. You're a McCain shill. If you really need it spelled out for you, here's the skinny. McCain *cannot* protect America because he's already 100% dedicated to its destruction through liberal policies and amnesty. When are you win at all costs morons going to get it?
Based on you slinging mental disorders as insults, perhaps you should just use "[/ass****]" as a tag on your posts instead.
Souter is not a moderate. He is one of the USSC’s liberals. You probably meant to say Kennedy instead. But to the crux of your statement:
Of course! Who said I “counted on” O’Connor. I was always in fear of her vote, just as I am with Kennedy! However, at least at times, possibly even a majority of the time, she voted with the conservatives of the USSC. Notably late in her term, in the Kelo case. Ginsberg and Stevens did not EVER vote on the Right side of any issue. If there was a 7-2 decision in favor of the conservative side of an issue, I don’t even have to look at the vote to know that those 2 were Ginsberg&Stevens (example: the 2000 Florida election SCOTUS decision.) If it was 5-4 either way, I KNOW Ginsberg&Stevens are together on the wrong side. Those two are GOING to be retiring (or dying). The whole point of my statement is that given the choice of:
-A. Two O’Connor clones nominated by McCain to replace superliberals Ginsberg and Stevens and who may sometimes vote on the Right side, or,
-B. Two 45-50 year old Ginsberg clones (of which there are an endless supply in in the ACLU and other Demodog organizations) appointed by Hitlery or O’Dumbo, who will NEVER vote on the Right side,
I will take -A- so we at least have a chance. So will any conservative who has an IQ above moronic.
Not even close.
Go to the bottom of my homepage for the clip about McPain which has been there since the quote.
In fact, I've been worried about McCain being a POTUS candidate longer than you've even been a member of FR. Look it up.
This tactic of noobs to brand people who voted for Reagan, GHW, Dole and GWB a "traitor" or a "shill" without even being able to comprehend what's being discussed is taking FR to new DU lows.
After taking a day to digest Fred’s decision I see a couple of things. First he did NOT do it before Super Tuesday- when it would might have done some real good- second- he waited til Romney dropped out.
I think it’s also telling that he didn’t hold a big press conference announcing his support- nor did he show up at CPAC as part of McCain’s entourage.
It seems to me Fred came to this reluctantly, but in the long run- he’s looking at the larger view of the Dems in the White House and what that would mean- what the impact will be.
I see many FReepers think Fred sold out by taking this step. IF he’d taken it a week or so back- I’d be inclined to agree. I think in reality that Fred and McCain have parted ways in many areas since Fred left Washington and has had the chance to live out here in the real world. IF he and McCain were so close on principle and policy- Fred wouldn’t have run.
While I sympathize with sentiments that would rather 4-8 years of Obama or Hillary than 4 years of the impossible candidate we seem to have gotten stuck with- I simply cannot support that idea right now. I’m not ready to say I will or won’t vote for McCain- 8 months is a long time..much can happen.
Fred loves our country. Given that- I think his statement is more of an indictment of Clinton and Obama than it is an endorsement of McCain.
I agree, SE Mom. Not the big deal I initally thought.
I'm not so sure about that. I might be better for us to be an opposition party for a while. But I certainly respect your viewpoint (and Thompson's). I have nothing against anyone who now wants to rally behind the inevitable GOP nominee, as distasteful as he may be.
I don't personally feel like rallying behind him, but I can certainly understand and respect those who do.
On Fox News Sunday —
“Bush said some of the criticism of the Arizona senator was the result of “probably, some personal animosity toward me. You can’t please all the people all the time.””
Bush has played no role.
"Don't make me pull up my posts to prove it.".....
Yes but could she get her marxist one passed? With the repubs opposing her? Maybe some independents may be forced to say no to an ‘outright marxist’ if they are that extreme.
I love it when headlines back me up. Like how they just realized Mitt’s religion cost him the Presidency. Duh. And how come no one thought it through that the Dems would attack Mitt for being in cult? Short sighted. But let’s just say I totally agree with the President that a backlash of feeling betrayed by him on various positions fuels a fear of McCain.
That may have been true for some but that's not why I objected to Romney. He was too slick and too pretty for my taste. That may be a bad reason but it was my reason, he reminded me too much of Edwards. Rich and willing to pander.
Welcome to Free Republic. I have enjoyed reading your comments.
“I love it when headlines back me up. “
You have just rendered yourself a useless tool, toodles!!!!
It figures. Just another Hollywierdo backing a liberal.
Unless Mitt’s religion caused him to be a liberal his whole life and caused him to promote $50 abortions-for-all, Mitt’s religion had nothing to do with him losing the nomination.
(Hint: the reason Mitt lost is everyone knew he was fake as a three dollar bill.)
Thanks for the reply/explanation. Who is slick willie? And what exactly is a partisan republican? I started reading here last winter, January or so, and posted in Spring, sometime in April. When all the election stuff started, I’d only known about McCain and Guiliani (and Hillary). I learned tons here and Hunter and Thompson became the two I was interested in and supported. I wouldn’t have known anything about them if I relied on other sources. They were gone by Tuesday when my state voted so I chose Romney.
I probably wouldn’t have known about the Amnesty debacle had it not been for this site, although I do read Michelle Malkin’s site as often as I can, since we don’t watch much news or TV in general other than what the kids watch.
I did read on here about Guiliani and a mass exodus of his supporters but still don’t know what happened or why. And I liked what he did for NYC while he was Mayor and also how he handled 9-11 and the aftermath. I certainly didn’t consider him a conservative in every way and not in the way I’m a conservative, but I did respect his record in certain areas as Mayor and of course during and after 9-11. As I learned more about him, I didn’t think he’d be my choice for POTUS. Same with McCain. I respect his military service and I do believe he’d support the troops and their mission but I don’t trust him at all and haven’t since my father, a WWII vet couldn’t stand him back in the early 90s. And after his part in Amnesty and open borders, I’m concerned. However, I do think he’d be better for our soldiers than Hillary or Obama. But he won’t win the general anyway, imo, and I still don’t know how I’ll vote other than it won’t be for Hillary or Obama.
I’m new here, compared to most if not all who post here. I’m a pro life, pro 2nd A, pro Constitution(and it isn’t a living document to be changed whenever or however to suit certain needs), small government, fiscal conservative, strong military and their mission, closed borders, etc. I don’t give a damn what other countries think of Americans and I don’t think our government/people should either. My grandparents came here legally from Italy and Ireland but I was born and grew up as an American with no hyphen as did both my parents. They kept their culture, and passed it on to us, in how we cook, what we cook and our Faith (Catholics). My parents didn’t vote for and couldn’t stand JFK or any of the Kennedy clan. They could have had a R after their name and my parents still wouldn’t have voted for JFK. My father was pro union, he was a firefighter, but came to the realization in the early to mid 80’s that the unions were more corrupt than what they first tried to fix. He was a decorated WWII Vet and a fireman, blue collar all the way and never voted for a Democrat, regardless of their religious affilitiation. Same for my Mom. And they couldn’t stand Arlen Specter even though he was a Republican. They respected and worked hard for Santorum.
Those are my values and how I learned them.
Partisans are folks who work within political parties to accomplish their aims. They are loyal to their party and subservient to its needs. They vote for the party, not the candidate.
While many US citizens accept the responsibilities of a democratic process, allowing someone else to limit your franchise preference is a poor method to practice or protect individual freedom.
There is no aspect of political pursuit that is genital, courteous or fair. Political adversaries aren't just folks with a different point of view. They are the enemy who, if allowed, will limit your freedom and compromise your pursuits.
Thanks. I thought it was him but wasn’t sure.
I do agree with what you posted. Just not sure yet on how to fix it. If that makes sense.
I’m appalled that my chosen party chose McCain without any consideration for what I know many think within the party. I never thought he’d be the nom until the last few weeks. I’m still working through all of this and appreciate your reply/info.
As I think about it now, I might tend to agree that Fred’s trying to save the party rather than support McCain. Timing and all of that seem to indicate it.
Had Romney stayed in, I doubt seriously he would have said anything.
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.