Posted on 12/20/2007 11:26:24 PM PST by Route66
Thank you for making it abundantly clear that you've no idea what you are talking about.
It makes it much easier to scroll over the dross from now on.
DH believes in globull warming, and said so in a televised debate. DH supports free trade with Muslim countries. DH supports the fair tax - which would require a 34% sales tax to even equal current revenues from income tax alone.
Duncan Hunter isn't as conservative as he wants us to believe.
Classy and he is definately supporting the right guy. Strategic Vision has a new poll out with Fred climbing to 16 percent in Iowa.
Go FRed Go!
Excellent...
Ditto. But please, God, not Ron.
Fred's record is not as strong.
Read below from a Washington Times story:
CBN NEWS: Thompson Now Officially Seeking Presidency: Some votes are likely to draw scrutiny, particularly a series of votes in the 1990s against cracking down on illegal aliens. Those include a 1995 vote against limiting services other than emergency care and public education to illegal aliens - he was one of just six senators to oppose that proposal - and a 1996 vote against creating an employer verification system to help businesses filter out illegal aliens who apply for jobs....
But on immigration, Mr. Thompson had several votes where he bucked the pack - and seemed to favor illegal aliens.
The most stark example was his 1995 vote on the welfare overhaul, when he voted to preserve illegal aliens' ability to receive federal benefits. He was one of just six senators to vote that way, joining four other Republicans and one Democrat.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/225944.aspx
These are the Fred votes that Tancredo is talking about. He reviewed this record and chose Mitt.
Can you provide a link or two for this B—these statements?
Hey, did you know that your candidate Tommy Thompson endorsed Rudy?
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/article/pr/895
Tommy was just another Liberal.
Poor quality supporters - maybe that's why Tancredo went nowhere? If you trust a man to have the judgment to be President, but then question his judgment on who to endorse - even throwing around rumors that he was bought off - what does that say about both the candidate and his supporters? Hah!
It also says:
“An adviser to the campaign on immigration matters, who asked not to be named, said Mr. Thompson had concerns about how broadly the public-benefits provision was drawn. As for the employer verification system, the adviser said Mr. Thompson joined a majority of Republicans in the chamber in opposing it, with many of them thinking the new system would lead to a national ID card.”
I remember the uproar on the National ID here on FR. It would be kinda stupid to pass a law to check illegal immigration and have the unintended consequences of a national ID. That would be like one step forward, two steps back. Remember, we we’re in the Clinton admin at the time, and they were doing everything they could to get a national ID implemented.
There isn’t enough in the article about the welfare overhaul, so I’ll withhold judgement, but again it points to unintended consequences of a bad law to solve a legitimate problem.
Agree with the opinion on Hunter, but i dont agree that Tancredo should have endorsed Thompson over Romney, I think Tancredo would have thought about it before his endorsement.
You are entitled to your opinion and it was Tancredo’s decision to make.
However, Bill Salier, Tancredo’s former Iowa state campaign manager, endorsed Fred Thompson today.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1942811/posts
“I’ve put my head and my heart and my efforts behind Fred Thompson because he is the one who will define what amnesty is not what amnesty isn’t.”
Oh really? Well, we already KNOW what amnesty is and isn’t. We don’t need ANYONE, including Fred Thompson, to RE-define it for us.
“Fred WAS THE ONLY MAN THAT REFUSED TO RAISE HIS HAND...he was the only Conservative on that stage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Not true. Duncan Hunter IS a Conservative and did not raise his hand. The difference is...Hunter WAS answering the question and Fred Thompson was protesting in order to dodge it.
I stand corrected... and for the record... I like Duncan quite a bit. Your remark about Fred was uncalled for... but so much of what you post is.
LLS
What is this, slow-pitch softball?
Notice that I didn't say that Hunter voted for Kyoto. I said he believes in global warming. IIRC, he was among the ones who raised his hand in a recent televised debate, incidating he believed in the phenomenon.
And also, to make a nitpicky point, Hunter has never voted NO on implementing Kyoto. This is for two reasons: 1) Kyoto has never been brought before the US Senate, and 2) Hunter has never been in the US Senate. Senators vote on treaties, not Representatives. I think what you meant to say was that Hunter voted against implementing portions of the treaty which would already be legal under US law. And for that, he was correct to do so.
The only free trade agreement he supports is with Australia. Duncan Hunter On Free Trade
That is demonstrably untrue. Let's add a couple more votes to your list:
Voted YES on implementing US-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement(7 Dec 2005)
Voted YES on implementing US-Oman Free Trade Agreement (20 July 2006)
This latter bill was criticised by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL3) for providing a backdoor for China and India to still flood the US with cheap goods, something that Rep. Hunter says he opposes.
And in general, I consider government interference in the free trade of goods and commerce to be patently unconservative.
The basis of this claim is patently false. The Fair Tax Rate is not 34%.
Ahem, read what I wrote again. I didn't say that the rate proposed for the Fair Tax was 34%, I said that to be revenue-neutral, it would have to be set at 34% - the difference in numbers being due to the fact that Fair Tax proponents are not very good at math. And this is only if we consider the Fair Tax an alternative to income taxes. If it is to revenue-neutral so as to allow the elimination of ALL federal taxes, the rate would have to be even higher. The non-partisan group Factcheck.org points out that much of the rhetoric in support of the Fair Tax is hot air - even the President's Advisory Council Panel on Tax Reform says the numbers won't work as Fair Tax Proponents say they will. FWIW, Factcheck.org also points out why the "embedded tax" argument is bogus. The Fair Tax can't be considered a "conservative" idea, no matter how its proponents spin it. It taxes everything - doctor bills, home sale, interest on mortgages and credit cards - everything. the Fair Tax would be detrimental to me. If we had a Fair Tax when I bought my first house three and a half years ago, I would have paid slightly less than $30,000 more for that house - not including the jump in monthly mortgage payments on interest. This $30,000 would NOT have been anywhere near made up for in the elimination of my corporate payroll income tax. Besides, Fair Tax proponents tout it as being "revenue neutral", which means Fair Tax proponents STILL want the US taxpayers to be shelling out trillions of dollars each year to support Federal largesse, which certainly is not conservative. No thanks. Let's just keep the present system (for the time being), and lower its rates immensely, while concurrently eliminating much of what the Federal government does.
So, like I said, while I LIKE Duncan Hunter, and he is a close second for me to Fred, Duncan still has some issues as well.
Are you sure about that? I thought Duncan raised his hand on that.
Besides, real men don't jump through hoops for smarmy, liberal MSM moderators! (j/k)
Yes. See #78.
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.