Posted on 08/26/2005 4:21:59 PM PDT by jscottdavis_for_48th_district
"Minuteman" Jim Gilchrist is my prospective opponent for California's 48th District U.S. House Rep. special election. Does anyone know what his stance is on the Iraq War? I for one firmly support the President and our operations in Iraq. What is Gilchrist's position on the war?
Thank you, J. Scott Davis
You might prepare a FAQ list, and post it on the Gilchrist website. Just a thought.
This guy isn't really conservative enough for your theory to be totally correct.
I think he's just a naive guy who doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
Or maybe he just wants a job with Campbell.
A pattern seems to be developing here. Now I'm beginning to get it, I think. Hmmm. Very clever. Not clever enough, but clever nonetheless.
Again, why do you become so outraged with the thought of my running? Why are you so defensive? My bid for the election has until September 20 to file. That is not phoney! Read my homepage.
You stated that Gilchrist opposed the war, but supports the troops. That's a "Howard Dean" liberal viewpoint. That's the same as saying you support firemen except when they put out fires. Does not make sense. Gilchrist and his liberal stance representating a minor party will NOT win in the conservative majority 48th District! He will NOT win!
~Scott~
What I meant "to the right" of Gilchrist is, I mean, pick a particular issue, such as Iraq War and Troops, to try to triangulate, and otherwise lessen the effect of a Gilchrist candidacy by attacking from the right. Just a theory here at this point. It will all come out. Follow the money. Follow the motivation. Follow the connections. It true, it's classic Sun-Tzu.
Now you're starting to twist facts. There is a vast difference. Sad that you don't have enough discernment to see that.
He opposed going in. Once we went in, he has remained steadfast in supporting the troops and their mission. He opposes pulling out until the mission is complete.
He will NOT win!
Somehow I think his chances are quite a bit better than yours.
In the horrific circumstance (very rare these days) when there is nothing left but a choice as to whether the mother or the baby dies...then in that case, principally the mother and father have a decision to make with their doctor, and IMHO, with God's guidance.
For me, this is the pivotal moral issue of our age. Irrespective of all else that we enjoy in this nation, I believe our ultimate fate as a people and as a nation under God hangs on such issues.
Thanks for being upfront and honest on this thread in your positions and statements. As I said...if you intend to run and are filing, I will take your word for it and recoignize you as a candidate.
Having said that, and being just as honest, despite significant agreement in other areas, for the reasons I have given, short of alteration in your position on abortion, I would be unable to support you in your candidacy.
Which of the three major Immigration Reform bills before the U.S. Congress do you consider the best, and would offer your support? McCain/Kennedy? Cornine/Kyl? Tancredo?
I hear ya.
Have you ever backed/worked for a candidate who actually won?
The Minuteman Project and similar groups are nothing more than the hysterical and racist representation of a xenophobic minority. The cause they seek isn’t just, or noble, or patriotic. They aren’t even Zorro or the Lone Ranger. They are merely and simply lawbreakers. Common felons. Criminals.
Read about the rape trees here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1471676/posts?page=1
For any decent, law-abiding American, to see a rape tree is to gaze upon the face of the enemy of civilization. To see the blood-stained ground beneath them is to behold the faces of their victims. Never forget that. When the proponents of illegal immigration and the liberal news media decry the Minutemen as "racists" and "vigilantes" ask them, "What about the rape trees?" Who besides the Minutemen are doing anything about the rape trees? And now that you know, if you do nothing, what does that say about you?
Sure. Lots of em. How about you?
At any rate...I do not believe the AIP out of Utah with several state parties is rasist at all.
Here's a listing from their national site of their platforms and beliefs.
Just curious, because none of the ones you claim to be helping here ever win. (Kind of like the football teams I bet on. *grin*)
Heh...
It is the same party in California (it was formed for Wallace), but Wallace is long dead, and became unracist at the end, sort of. You didn't hear that word out of me on this matter, and won't absent something that causes me to change my mind. That just isn't my style. Never has been, never will. But the AIP might be protectionist and isolationist and a bit Pat Buchananish on the Middle East and environs. I don't know. Obviously following fringe parties is not something I spend much time on.
yea, well give credit to "Eternal Vigilance"
because EV exposed the fact that Mr. J. Scott Davis is not a candidate after all...
Money and Banking
We affirm that the Federal Reserve is a private business, owned primarily by international bankers, operating under the deception of a government entity, which annually extorts, for their personal use, hundreds of billions of dollars in interest on the national debt from the American public with government cooperation.
We believe the power to issue money should be taken from the Federal Reserve (and its banks) and restored to Congress and the people to whom that power rightfully belongs. We favor a total reform of the banking and credit card industry which currently exploits from us an average of 26% of our lifetime earnings in usury or interest.
We favor the repeal of the National Bank Act (Federal Reserve Act), and favor the seizure and audit of the Federal Reserve System, the outlawing of fractional reserve banking, and disavowal of Federal Reserve claims upon us and our properties for the national debt.
We favor investigation into and prosecution of all American banks, corporations, and their owners, etc., who participate in unconstitutional and treasonous activities via a global economic system.
The last half of the penultimate paragraph is kookish and incendiary too. I don't anyone to interpret my remarks as suggesting I believe otherwise.
Apparently both align with the Constitution Party.
What I have read of Gilchrist and his activities and his beliefs makes nme belive he is a true consevative and interested in upholding and defending the constitution. I will wait to hear more of his specific positions on the issues.
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.