Posted on 04/11/2007 1:01:11 PM PDT by pissant
A DEFINITION OF THE RICH (House of Representatives - February 17, 1993)
[Page: H649](Mr . HUNTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr . HUNTER . Mr. Speaker, for over a year President Clinton, then candidate Clinton, and now President Clinton, has been saying that he is going to tax the rich. He now tells us who the rich are: The rich include anyone who heats their home or drives a car in America.
-------------------------------------------
IT'S CALLED PORKBUSTING, NOT GRIDLOCK (House of Representatives - April 02, 1993)
[Page: H1862](Mr . HUNTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr . HUNTER . Mr. Speaker, I rise to answer the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] a member of the Democrat leadership who just took this well to criticize Republicans for standing firm against pork barrel spending.
This great economic stimulus package that you have touted includes bike paths in Puerto Rico, cemeteries, and fish atlases. It is pure pork, and the Republicans who are fighting this are porkbusters.
Our duty to the American people as Republicans is to stand firm against shams, and the Democrat economic package is a sham.
-------------------------------------------
DO NOT SURRENDER OUR SOVEREIGNTY (House of Representatives - September 29, 1994)
[Page: H10255](Mr . HUNTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr . HUNTER . Mr. Speaker, the President in sending GATT down in an attempt at the last minute to get it through is really doing a disservice to our country. He is doing a disservice particularly to the sovereignty of this country. Eighty-three of the nations that will be members of the WTO, the World Trade Organization, and that will be about two-thirds of the membership, have a record in the United Nations of voting more than 50 percent of the time against America.
What President Clinton is doing is giving away our strong right to bilateral negotiations in trade. He is surrendering that to a committee that does not like us very much. This President is sending our Government to the United Nations, our troops to Haiti, and our jobs to Japan.
------------------------------------------
THE D-DAY CELEBRATION--A REMINDER THAT PEACE IS PRESERVED THROUGH STRENGTH (House of Representatives - June 10, 1994)
[Page: H4299](Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr . Hunter ].
Mr . HUNTER . Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to respond to the distinguished gentleman who just talked about the visit to the D-day celebration by Democrats and Republicans, and let me just say as one Republican that I concur in his statement that it is important to those who celebrate D-day to remember that this country needs to be strong, to remember that we preserve peace through strength, and from my perspective, I would like to see every single American go to Normandy and understand that the few dollars we save by cutting the defense budget may be paid for ultimately in American blood when we are found to be weak by an adversary or a potential adversary and that weakness is exploited.
I think D-day is a reminder to all of us that America needs to stay strong, and I am reminded that after World War II, after D-day, after we had the mightiest military in the world and we started to demobilize, General Marshall was asked one day, `How is the demobilization going?' He said, `This isn't a demobilization; this is a rout.'
I would suggest that what we are doing in slashing the defense budget, as we did yesterday, is exactly the same thing we did after World War II, and we are not going to be prepared for what happens in the Korean Peninsula and we are not going to be prepared for what happens in the Balkans, and it is going to accrue to the detriment of the American people.
I would like to see everybody in the White House, everybody in the administration, and every American have a chance to set foot in Normandy and understand what occurred and why it occurred.
------------------------------------------
AMERICA NEEDS MORE CRIME FIGHTERS, NOT MORE SOCIAL PROGRAMS (House of Representatives - August 18, 1994)
[Page: H8605](Mr . HUNTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr . HUNTER . Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], has just blamed Charlton Heston for the failure of this pork barrel boondoggle that we humorously refer to as the crime bill. He even criticized Mr. Heston's role as Moses in the Ten Commandments.
Coming from his big government district in New York, Mr. Schumer probably would have preferred a movie entitled `Pharoah Knows Best.' Charlton Heston did not kill the crime bill. The American people looked at the promise of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] to make the rest of the country as safe as New York City, and the American people said `that is what we are afraid of.'
If pouring social programs into New York City solved crime, there would not be a single pickpocket left. Hug-a-thug does not work. We need more Ben Hurs, more Will Pennys, more Andrew Jacksons, and more Moseses.
_------------------------------------------
COMMEMORATING THE SERVICEMEN KILLED IN SOMALIA (House of Representatives - October 03, 1994)
[Page: H10675]Mr . HUNTER . Mr. Speaker, since I have that time, before I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] I want to answer perhaps part of the question for that father whose son was killed in Somalia.
Mr. DORNAN. Or the son lying near death in the last few hours----
Mr . HUNTER . Or the young man who has been shot in Haiti, and I think the answer has to do with priorities, and I think we can look back at liberal administrations since Vietnam, during Vietnam and since, and we have seen a situation in which typically politics has prevailed over the safety of American service people, and let me just say that in Vietnam many times our political leaders had a chance to end that war early, to do tough things with North Vietnam, to do things that were not diplomatically acceptable to them, and because of that there was only one currency that they were willing to expend in South Vietnam, and that currency was American soldiers, and because of that many times soft bodies of American G.I.'s ended up taking the hits when American bombing, and strategic positions and places, while it would have been done to the criticism of the world, it would have been attended by the criticism of world diplomats, nonetheless would have saved Americans from dying.
In Somalia we had basically the same thing where the American commander on the ground asked for armor. He asked for armor because he knew you had to have armor to get through the streets in Somalia in the urban areas because the other side has RPG's, rocket propelled grenades, and the thin-skinned vehicles that we had could not stand up to that----
Mr. DORNAN. And the big specter gunships were not overhead.
Mr . HUNTER . And central command approved the request for armor, and it was briefed by Colin Powell to President Clinton's Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, and it was turned down, and I am paraphrasing Mr. Aspin, `for political reasons.' It is because it would have made our military look `too militaristic.'
[TIME: 2100] Mr. DORNAN. Too offensive.
Mr . HUNTER . So once again American soft bodies were sacrificed because the prevailing sentiment in Washington, DC, in a liberal administration, and the overwhelming sentiment was in favor of diplomacy, in favor of world image, in favor of politics, and not in the best interests of our fighting people.
Sweet!
LOL!!
Show me someone who’s running who isn’t a ‘career’ politician?
Good grief!
At least Duncan Hunter has gotten his hands dirty doing real HONEST work. The dirtiest Rudy’s hands have gotten is handling Karik.
Hunter and Keyes are not even remotely alike, as you well know.
That OUGHT to tell you something. Time to change that loser formula.
“What do we do : D HUNTER / F TOMSON ????”
“Doesn’t matter whose name is first. They would make a good team.”
I agree. I would love that ticket, either way! However, Fred Thompson said today that if he runs, he will be running for President and not interested in being VP. So, my hope is that Duncan Hunter would take the VP spot, and then run for President when Thompson’s term is up. Hunter would be a great VP if it turns out that way. I do love Duncan Hunter and will continue to support him. If Thompson does enter the race I would have to see where he and Hunter differ on issues before I decide on further support.
..classic DH
“The swing voters won’t vote for a true conservative, and there are about 30 million of them. Fred Thompson is about as close to a conservative as you’re going to get.”
You have no way of knowing what they will do one way or the other. That is unless God has blessed you with some kind of seer ability he didn’t give the rest of us.
“You Hunter Freaks remind me of the Keyes supporters from 2000. Like da hood’s going to elect a conservative oreo like him.”
You Liberals in Republican suits remind me of Rudy.
Mitt Romney actually had a job and a life before poitical office. He has run for office twice -- eight years apart -- and was elected once. Thompson, if he runs, ran for office once and served one full term in the Senate. During the 27 years that Hunter has been in Congress, Giuliani ran for elected office twice and served a total of eight years. Hunter, in contrast, has been running for something for more than a quarter century.
At least Duncan Hunter has gotten his hands dirty doing real HONEST work.
You mean like steering millions of pork dollars to campaign contributers for the purchase of computer imaging software for the military that the Department of Defense did not ask for, did not want, and did not need?
Followed by being Gov of NY.
Yes. If Thompson enters, I still want to see Hunter on the ascendency.
Knowing Thompson fairly well already, I will be much happier to see him as the front runner than any of the “big three”. That said, I will support Hunter all the way. If it becomes obvious by primary time that he has picked up no traction, I will consider my options. But under no circumstances will it be supporting a liberal.
If Hunter had a snowball's chance of being elected, I'd support him. Face it, he doesn't. I suffered miserably under Carter and Clinton's military policies and would hate to see them return.
Fred Thompson is the only Republican I could support, but I'd much rather see Rudy or Mitt in the White House than Hillary or Obama, wouldn't you?
Yeah, you keep harping on that one small contract. Why don’t you look where else Hunter steered money, to things the Pentagon needed, but the Clinton admin opposed. There are alot of Defense contractors big and small that like this man. Has there been a more stalwart supporter of SDI/Missile defense than Hunter. How about support for more ships, tanks, artillery, smart bombs?
“Fred Thompson is the only Republican I could support, but I’d much rather see Rudy or Mitt in the White House than Hillary or Obama, wouldn’t you?”
I could support Thompson if he were nominated.
I won’t support Rudy or Mitt under any circumstances. Neither of them do I agree with on anything other than the War. For one I don’t know where they really stand. Their past support of liberal policies leaves me to believe that is where they will go after they are elected. 32 years of having Moderate/Liberals in the RNC piss on my head and tell me to support thier guy has made me finally say enough is enough.
Plus, IMO, Rudy’s support of the War is countermanded by his support of Amnesty and open borders. That to me is national suicide.
I won’t vote for a Liberal no matter what party they are from. This is not about R’s Vs D’s anymore. This is about Conservative Vs Republicans.
Hunter would have a chance to get elected btw if people got behind him and voted and worked for his candidacy.
But then I guess the RNC has let the national news elect it’s reps for so long that they are now too lazy to do it themselves.
Fred Thompson is having some health issues.
Hunter/Thompson: good for America.
Thompson/Hunter: a good second choice.
Yep. Both Fred and Rudy have battled cancer and it could rear its ugly head. That would be the oddest thing to see the nominee get cancer and have to deal with bringing forth a replacement presidential candidate. I’m not sure that the VP nominee would be an automatic stepin. It would probably lead to a brokered convention of some sort. Maybe there’s some freepers who know the procedures well enough to comment on what would happen in such a case.
At any rate, bump to the top for Hunter.
“I’d much rather see Rudy ... in the White House than Hillary or Obama, wouldn’t you?
No.
I would rather see Hillary in the White House than Rudy.
Giuliani’s election by the Republicans would destroy the pro-life movement in the GOP for good.
The only chance he or anyone has is if people like you support him, Joe, for being the best candidate.
And, not one vote has been cast yet, not one debate engaged, not one 'suprise' in world events that can change everything.
You obviously have every right to support whoever you like, but why a good proven conservative such as yourself would call him a "loser" and declare him DOA just doesn't make sense.
One thing the Dems are doing better than us is building up all of their candidates...meanwile we are in 'self-destruction' mode, if we're not careful.
I would love to see people like you actively supporting the credentials of conservative candidates here on FR, even if you don't plan to vote for him.
Thompson, Hunter, Gingrich are all good, proven conservatives. They deserve our (FR's) best work, at the expense of any and all liberals.
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.