Posted on 03/09/2007 6:44:43 PM PST by LdSentinal
You might want to Google Duncan Hunter and Randy Cunningham some time. You'll find all kinds of interesting information regarding the money he accepted from defense contractors from a whole lot of sources.
I know...they were all lying because they knew he would run for president one day.
If your city was up against the Mexican border and you had tens of thousands of illegals in your city costing the tax payers tens of millions of dollars you wouldn't make such a stupid comment.
Why don't you leave you doors open at night so others can come into your home and eat your food, use your credit cards or money, etc.
I had heard that Hunter was a "protectionist" which picqued my interest, but this voting record pretty much negates any "America First" qualities.
I would not even worry about the trade aspect if I were you. Some people hear that he's opposed to unfair trade practices in China and wrongly conclude he is protectionist. If we don't get the China problem under control, we may as well cede financial control of the U.S. to them.
Rep. Duncan Hunter's official Presidential website doesn't have a way to contact his Presidential campaign by e-mail, and his Congressional website e-mail address only involves his constituents from his California Congressional District. He needs to seriously read some feedback from conservatives from all over the U.S. Hunter also needs to seriously explain to a majority of conservatives about his positions on spending issues and on supporting the present, "screwy" campaign finance reform system. At this point, he's my first choice for '08 President, but I'm also seriously keeping an eye on Rep. Tom Tancredo, former Rep. Newt Gingrich, former Senator Fred Thompson, John Cox, and Rep. Ron Paul to see what happens with all of them and Rep. Duncan Hunter v.s. the present first tier GOP Presidential candidates. We still have a way to go in the '08 Presidential race. I'm hoping that the final GOP Presidential candidate, whoever that may be, is seriously ready for victory when the time comes. Any present Democratic Presidential candidate would truly be much worse as President than any of the present GOP Presidential candidates, and this even includes Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Senator John McCain. Voting for the "lesser of two evils" may become necessary yet again, and I seriously don't want a Democratic President again!
The only reason to debate Hunter's campaign is for the fun of it, because I guarantee you that he'll never become a contender in this election. He'll be lucky to reach Dennis Kucinich status.
You can google and find sites that say the earth is flat and we never went to the moon
Grow up
I gave up on HTML years ago when we lost so many italians. There's a capslock key on the keyboard and it works. When I copy & paste from some HTML doc into & out of other things like MSWord, it doesn't work. You can read some posts that once had ITALICS but when they get copied, it loses the italics and much of the meaning. So until that gets straightened out, I'm sticking with the things that survive the process.
"I had heard that Hunter was a "protectionist" which picqued my interest, but this voting record pretty much negates any "America First" qualities."
Exactly, he's a DC insider like the rest of them. We need a governor/mayor ;) with an outsider perspective. BTW, love the sig.
He should be, during the 2000 Election cycle he accepted $191,473 in donations from defense industries.
Yes, that would also explain his receiving $191,473 in donations from defense industries in the 2000 election cycle. It will be interesting to compare the list of donors/donations with his record on the committee.
In a word, yes. If a young jihadi in, say, Saudi Arabia or Iran wants to go fight the Great Satan today, where does he go? Well, clearly, he goes to Iraq, because the media is telling him that the US is losing to his buddies. He thinks he can go to Iraq and kill the soldiers of the Great Satan. In reality, our soldiers are mostly killing the terrorists, not the other way around. The basic answer to your question is, yes, this is a smart strategy. We attract terrorists from around the world to Iraq precisely because they *think* they can hurt us there. The truth is, they mostly end up getting killed. If we don't provide that battleground then the terrorists come over here, and *we* mostly end up getting killed. On September 11, a mere 19 terrorists killed around 3,000 Americans. In Iraq, any given 3,000 terrorists are probably lucky to kill 19 Americans. I like those numbers quite a bit better, although any American deaths are regrettable. So yes, I'd much prefer that the young jihadi go up against our soldiers rather than spend his time looking for our women and children at home and around the world.
Is it perfect? Definitely not. Is it better than your strategy of hiding in a hole and hoping the terrorist world forgets about us? Yep.
What is your point here?
Of course not...it was only his buddy Cunningham who was convicted.
Great post, and we thank you!!
Top right on his site where it says contact us.
It gives you several options how to contact him
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.