Posted on 06/17/2007 10:12:07 PM PDT by gpapa
And if you think you can have politics without compromised principles, you're crazy. I can't vote for any Democat or Republican without compromising principles.
I compromised in order to vote for the current occupant of the White House in 04 (I didn't vote for him in 00). I don't regret the decision, even though he's a complete nimrod. Because it obviously came down to GW or Kerry, and to me that was an easy choice. But had I and others not compromised, we'd have Prez Kerry now, and that would have been worse.
Tancredo et al are merely a waste of time. In the general, you'll compromise like the rest of us, or sit it out.
So send those dark horses some money for feed directly, or tell others who can about them.
Right now is when to walk out of the store and tell the manager why you’re not buying anything—and that you’ll be back to at least window-shop later.
It’s a year and a half until the general election.
And once McCain, who is in free-fall, has his hissy-fit and runs as a third-party candidate, the MSM will go back to fawning all over him and secure enough “independent” votes to make the general election a slam-dunk for Hillary.
You're joking, right? I don't pay politicians. I tolerate them.
Should Fred Thompson win the GOP nomination, I take it you’ll vote again for a man who would give 12 - 30 million illegal aliens “aspirations of citizenship”?
I’ll never settle for another Bush. You’ll let it happen.
So, answer my question; vote Democratic, sit this one out, vote for a write-in. Which is it?
Since when does effective border security, enforcement of our current immigration laws and no to amnesty equal shooting wetbacks?
It doesn’t.
But Fred supports all those things, and it’s not good enough for you and your ilk.
“Spread the word.”
I agree, but it is difficult at best when many have already passionately determined the winner [and loosers] this early in the game.
Thanks for the link. I read it, and see no difference between Thompson and Bush. Just like with the election of Calderone and Harper, perhaps the ‘powers that be’ are again determined to make certain that another pro-NAU candidate is elected for the sake of their globalist agenda.
Speaking of compromised principles, I wonder, if Bush were able to run again, against Hillary, how many Fred supporters would vote AGAIN for Bush? Might make for an interesting and telling Freeper Poll.
Why do refuse to accept that he does not?
Why refuse to accept that he does? He has said every damn thing you say you support and said he too supports that.
He’s against the amnesty bill. Says we must secure the borders. Says enforcing current laws is also important. Voted against illegal immigration and in favor of LEGAL immigration in the Senate.
So, as I said, it appears that unless someone screams “kill the wetbacks” you aren’t satisfied that a candidate (or potential one) is truly anti-illegal enough for you.
If it were Bush against Hillary, yeah, I’d vote for Bush. For all his faults, I can’t name one damn thing that he’d be worse than Hillary on.
But he’s not running again, so your pathetic argument is pointless.
I would NOT vote for Bush in a primary, I would and WILL vote for Fred, and gladly.
Any way just my thoughts on the modus operandi of how much of a mug slinging country we have become in our election process.
I will be able to vote in the GOP primary process here in Texas as a nonaligned voter and I will vote for Mr. Thompson. That said, should Mr. Hunter be the nominee I will both vote and contribute financially directly to his campaign, as I already have for Fred, and not through any GOP party apparatus. For my money there are only a select few Republicans in any national office that should be left in their current offices. But that is another topic all together.
So Fred's not 'late' at all! Everybody else just jumped the gun.
All immigrants want 'aspirations of citizenship" be they legal or illegal. Doesn't sound like Fred is talking about giving automatic citizenship to illegals, just trying to find a solution to the problem as we have it. He wants the borders enforced, so the flow of illegals will stop, and then enforce the existing laws. At the same time, he's talking about removing any incentives for staying for the ones who are already here. All these things can be done at the same time, you don't have to wait for one to happen before the next one does.
“So, as I said, it appears that unless someone screams “kill the wetbacks” you aren’t satisfied that a candidate (or potential one) is truly anti-illegal enough for you.”
Not true. I support Duncan Hunter. Never heard him once suggesting killing wetbacks.
Based on those quotations, he’s describing a policy of attrition. Which is what most of us want. Which is what most of the country wants, if I’ve read between the lines in enough of these polls correctly.
I can understand questioning his sincerity being this topic is red hot now, and he wasn’t on the front lines to my knowledge ten years ago. Though most weren’t.
I cannot understand taking those quotes from present and trying to twist them into support for massive amnesty. Not you, but others.
Partial amnesty....yes. After all, attrition at it’s heart does imply the most hardcore that do not pull up stakes and return home when denied employment would be allowed to stay. Though I think there would be an argument as to just what liberties they’d be granted for having broken the law to begin with. But the basic idea is to reduce it from 15-30 million, to between 1-5 million while cutting the flow of illegals off completely. Easier to assilimate these smaller numbers, and easier to stomach doing so, if it’s guarenteed never to happen again.
The main argument we’re having now is that our government wants to grant leniacy to numbers we could never assimilate, and let it continue indefinitely. Thats intolerable.
If Thompson’s position is to enforce the border first, penalize emloyers first, and then practice this philosophy of attrition I’m onboard with that. i think the country would be.
I’m still hesitant to trust on this issue though. If it was Hunter, it would be different. I’m following Thompson closely because he’s my most likely choice provided Hunter can’t increase his numbers. Unlikely but my loyalty is to him fist. :-) On pro-Life issues, I’m not nearly as hesitant about Thompson. A President with a Federalist approach to those issues is fine by me. He doesn’t have to be a pro-lifer in the sense that G.W.B. is, though that remains the one area I’m not disappointed in Bush about.
First let me say that I am NOT in the Thompson camp, not yet anyway. I am simply very anti Rudy, Romney, and McLib.
But I think you are missing the point of what some here are trying to tell you. Hunter is un-electable, period. Even just within the GOP he has ZERO chance of winning the nomination. Thompson on the other hand has IMHO a better than 50/50 chance of winning the GOP nomination and a real chance of being voted into the white house in november ‘08. Trying to compare Hunter to the serious candidates is a waste of time.
Meanwhile, I’ll support the guy who is almost as good as Hunter on immigration, and better on fiscal policy who actually has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.
If I'm reading Fred right, he is in exactly the same position as G.W.B., and with most folks in this country. Abortion ONLY in the first trimester and ONLY in the cases of REPORTED rape and incest or in the event the mother's LIFE is in danger.
If we were to actually get to that point, I'm guessing over 98% of babies would be spared, and frankly, after the last 34 years of babies being killed for any reason and no reason, I can accept that. At that point, we can begin to persuade those women who were raped, or became pregnant as a result of incest to give their babies up for adoption, and we'd probably be much more successful, because to get to that point, there would have been a real attitude shift in this country.
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.