new Republican candidate poll

[avatar4321]

I figured since Tancredo dropped out and endorsed Romney it would be time to see if anythings changed. Quite frankly i doubt too much will but who knows? After all less choices means its easier to make one. atleast i think so.

[Pale Rider]

Gotta go with Hunter since my man Tancredo folded. But of the "top tier" candidates, I support Romney.

[avatar4321]

Gotta go with Hunter since my man Tancredo folded. But of the "top tier" candidates, I support Romney.

were you at all surprised by the endorsement? I was. I have been hearing all day that he would come out for Thompson.

Dont get me wrong I think Mitt has an excellent record and vision for Illegal immigration enforcement but i was still surprised.

[Pale Rider]

were you at all surprised by the endorsement? I was. I have been hearing all day that he would come out for Thompson.

Dont get me wrong I think Mitt has an excellent record and vision for Illegal immigration enforcement but i was still surprised.

A little surprised. But what would be very cool is for Mitt to pick Tancredo as his running mate.

[5stringJeff]

I'm still on board with Huckabee. I'd still consider any of the GOP candidates except Guiliani (gun control) and McCain (no free speech).

[Pale Rider]

After seven votes, (I thought we had more Republicans here than that), it's a tie between Hunter and Romney.

I'm hoping Giuliani will be the next one to drop out. We just don't need that liberal in our conservative party. Maybe he can see a speech therapist to get rid of that lisp after he drops out.

[avatar4321]

After seven votes, (I thought we had more Republicans here than that), it's a tie between Hunter and Romney.

I'm hoping Giuliani will be the next one to drop out. We just don't need that liberal in our conservative party. Maybe he can see a speech therapist to get rid of that lisp after he drops out.

actually, i think guiliani staying in alittle longer to take away from McCain is a good idea at the moment.

[typomaniac]

Romney hates atheists and puppies.

[hjmick]

Romney hates atheists and puppies.

LOL

Democrats hate America and Americans.

[JohnDoe]

I think Romney is a flip flopper on issues like abortion, and I am beginning to think he is a cronic liar, or "resume inflater" at best,

"I am endorsed by the NRA"- NOT TRUE

"I and my father marched with Martin Luther King"- NOT TRUE

"I am a life long hunter"-NOT TRUE
====================================
I think there is trouble for him in the mist....

jd

[Yurt]

undecided right now. i don't feel any of the candidates have truly embraced a platform yet. they are still putting the pieces of the puzzle together. IMHO

[typomaniac]

Democrats hate America and Americans.
So Democrats hate themselves? :poke:

[avatar4321]

I think Romney is a flip flopper on issues like abortion, and I am beginning to think he is a cronic liar, or "resume inflater" at best,

"I am endorsed by the NRA"- NOT TRUE

"I and my father marched with Martin Luther King"- NOT TRUE

"I am a life long hunter"-NOT TRUE
====================================
I think there is trouble for him in the mist....

jd

His father was a huge supporter of the civil rights movements. he gave several keynote addresses at rallies supporting MLK. MLK even praised his efforts on several occasions. Do you honestly think the Romney's have been perpetuating a lie for 40 years simply because they had the foresight to know that Mitt would one day run for President?

Come on now.

Mitt's already explained the other two issues long ago. Trying to bring them back up and attack His Father for his efforts in the civil rights movement is disingenous.

[avatar4321]

So Democrats hate themselves? :poke:

why is that so hard to believe? lots of people hate themselves.

[avatar4321]

I think Romney is a flip flopper on issues like abortion, and I am beginning to think he is a cronic liar, or "resume inflater" at best,

"I am endorsed by the NRA"- NOT TRUE

"I and my father marched with Martin Luther King"- NOT TRUE

"I am a life long hunter"-NOT TRUE
====================================
I think there is trouble for him in the mist....

jd

Witness recall Romney's march with MLK (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7524.html)

In fact, George Romney gave The Keynote Address At The Conference That Sparked The Martin Luther King "Freedom Marches" In Detroit in 1963.

News reports from 1963 including pictures. (http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Romney_King)

It disgusts me that not only would people lie about something so easy to refute but that others would believe it without verifying.

[JohnDoe]

Witness recall Romney's march with MLK (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7524.html)

In fact, George Romney gave The Keynote Address At The Conference That Sparked The Martin Luther King "Freedom Marches" In Detroit in 1963.

News reports from 1963 including pictures. (http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Romney_King)

It disgusts me that not only would people lie about something so easy to refute but that others would believe it without verifying.

Me thinks you are the one being fooled.

Romney, nor his father, walked/marched with Martin Luther King, which is what was said, AND mitt romney came out today and said such in a press conference.

When confronted on it, he gave an explanation similar to Bill's comment regarding..... ''it depends on what the definition of is, is.''

Romney admitted that his father did not march with martin luther king side by side but he ''marched'' with him in ''spirit'', so to say....he supported the movement..

Turn on the 24/7 news and watch it once in a while avatar, before you start calling people liars.....and maybe it is you that should be verifying your sources for truth verses lies, in this case.

jd

[JohnDoe]

here ya go avatar....


Romney fields questions on King
Campaign says claim not literal
December 20, 2007

BY TODD SPANGLER

FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he watched his father, the late Michigan Gov. George Romney, in a 1960s civil rights march in Michigan with Martin Luther King Jr.

On Wednesday, Romney's campaign said his recollections of watching his father, an ardent civil rights supporter, march with King were meant to be figurative.


"He was speaking figuratively, not literally," Eric Fehrnstrom, spokesman for the Romney campaign, said of the candidate.

The campaign was responding to questions raised by the Free Press and other media after a Boston publication challenged the accuracy of Mitt Romney's account.

In a major speech on faith and politics earlier this month in Texas, Mitt Romney said: "I saw my father march with Martin Luther King."

He made a similar statement Sunday during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." He said, "You can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at our lives. My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mom was a tireless crusader for civil rights."

Romney's campaign cited various historical articles, as well as a 1967 book written by Stephen Hess and Washington Post political columnist David Broder, as confirmation that George Romney marched with King in Grosse Pointe in 1963.

"He has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb," Hess and Broder wrote in "The Republican Establishment: The Present and Future of the GOP."

Free Press archives, however, showed no record of King marching in Grosse Pointe in 1963 or of then-Gov. Romney taking part in King's historic march down Woodward Avenue in June of that year.

George Romney told the Free Press at the time that he didn't take part because it was on a Sunday and he avoided public appearances on the Sabbath because of his religion.

Romney did participate in a civil rights march protesting housing bias in Grosse Pointe just six days after the King march. According to the Free Press account, however, King was not there.

Broder could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.

The Boston Phoenix reported Wednesday it could find no evidence that Romney and King ever marched together....

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS07/712200442

[avatar4321]

Me thinks you are the one being fooled.

Romney, nor his father, walked/marched with Martin Luther King, which is what was said, AND mitt romney came out today and said such in a press conference.

When confronted on it, he gave an explanation similar to Bill's comment regarding..... ''it depends on what the definition of is, is.''

Romney admitted that his father did not march with martin luther king side by side but he ''marched'' with him in ''spirit'', so to say....he supported the movement..

Turn on the 24/7 news and watch it once in a while avatar, before you start calling people liars.....and maybe it is you that should be verifying your sources for truth verses lies, in this case.

jd

obviously you aren't reading the news articles, looking at the pictures or listening to the eyewitnesses. You'd rather take Romney out of context to claim that he has lied when there is absolutely no doubt that his father did it.

[JohnDoe]

obviously you aren't reading the news articles, looking at the pictures or listening to the eyewitnesses. You'd rather take Romney out of context to claim that he has lied when there is absolutely no doubt that his father did it.


I would surmise that the two old eyewitnesses were wrong based on all newpaper accounts at the time, because George Romney and King were never in the same march together, and as a presidential candidate that had just dropped out of the presidential race, would have been covered for this event, IF it had happened Avatar.

Now, George Romney was a great supporter of civil rights and had a strong record of such, and I am in no way denying this at all.

What I am saying is that Romney had exagerated or fibbed or lied about a few accounts on this subject and is dancing now because of these "exagerations" regarding his statement saying that he SAW his father march with MLK.

First off, Mitt was in France at the time going to school, when he said he "saw" his father "march" with martin luther king, and secondly i find it very hard to believe that if Gov.George Romney marched hand in hand with martin luther king, that there would not be some sort of record of it, while there is a record by the press that states when MLK marched in Detroit, George Romney declined to attend and his reasoning for such was that it was the Sabbath, a Sunday.

Now Mitt Romney is stating that he did not physically "see" his father march with MLK but that this was a "figure of speech".....his dancing around an exageration that he made, to deny this is being blinded imo.

I honestly do not care, other than pointing out that he is a flip flopper and he is an exagerator and slimey when it comes to trying to make himself "look" better for political gain.... as he did with his statements regarding being a LIFELONG HUNTER....

Review Mitt's admission to NOT seeing his father march with MLK here-
REVIEW THE VIDEO OF ROMNEY'S EXPLANATION:
http://reasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2007/12/romneys-mlk-problem.html

Also, here is a timeline of the events in question:


Timeline: Romney's MLK Confusion
December 21, 2007 01:32 PM



It's becoming increasingly hard to follow the various explanations and accounts of Mitt Romney's father, George, "marching" (so it is claimed) alongside Martin Luther King Jr. At first the former Massachusetts governor said that he saw the two walk together through the streets of Michigan. Now? Well, it depends what your definition of "saw" is. Here is a timeline of this confusing political saga.

June 23, 1963 - Then Michigan Gov. George Romney issues a proclamation in support of Martin Luther King Jr.'s march in Detroit but declines to attend, according to Susan Englander, assistant editor of the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University. A New York Times story from that time confirms the account, noting that Romney skipped the event because it fell on a Sunday.

June 1963 - Days after the march in Detroit, George Romney does attend a civil rights march in the upscale suburb, Grosse Pointe. But, according to records, King is not in attendance.

1967 - Stephen Hess and David Broder author the book "The Republican Establishment: The Present and Future of the GOP," in which they write that George Romney, "has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb of Detroit."

March 14, 1968 - Martin Luther King makes an appearance in Grosse Pointe weeks before his assassination. There is no civil rights march and George Romney is not in attendance.

1978 - Mitt Romney, in an interview with the Boston Herald about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, puts himself into the narrative. "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit," he is quoted as saying.

1987 - Joe T. Darden writes the book "Detroit, Race and Uneven Development," which describes "freedom marches" around and in Detroit. The marches were sponsored by the NAACP, the book notes, and George Romney did attend one of the events. But there is no note of King also being in attendance.

April 16, 2002 - The Boston Globe reports: "As the son proudly recalls, Governor Romney was a civil rights supporter who walked the streets of Detroit with Martin Luther King Jr. "He was a social moderate . . . but on the fiscal side he was very tough. Of course, he was also the governor who proposed the first state income tax in Michigan. But don't write that," says Romney."

October 31, 2002 - Accord to the Bay State Banner: "Taking the stage, Romney opened up by invoking the memory of his father, who marched in civil rights demonstrations with Martin Luther King, Jr., and pledged to carry on that legacy."

December 6, 2007 - Romney, in a speech about his Mormon faith in Texas, declares: "I was taught in my home to honor god and love thy neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King."

December 16, 2007 - Appearing on Meet the Press, Mitt Romney declares: "You can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at our lives. My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mom was a tireless crusader for civil rights."

December 19, 2007 - The Boston Phoenix reports that it could find no evidence that George Romney and King ever marched together. "While the late George W. Romney, a four-term governor of Michigan, can lay claim to a strong record on civil rights," the paper notes, "the Phoenix can find no evidence that the senior Romney actually marched with King, nor anything in the public record suggesting that he ever claimed to do so."

Later that day - Eric Fehrnstron, a spokesman for the Romney presidential campaign, writes the Phoenix that Romney and King marched together, although possibly not on the same day or in the same city. "The record is convincing and clear," Fehrnstron writes, "George Romney marched with Martin Luther King and other civil rights demonstrators.

December 20, 2007 - The Detroit Free Press reports that, it too, cannot turn up records of Romney and King marching together. Fehrnstron tells the paper that Romney was "speaking figuratively, not literally."

Later in the day - Romney is asked about the discrepancies in accounts. "Did you actually see -- with your own eyes -- your father marching with Martin Luther King?," CBS News wanted to know.

Romney: "My own eyes? You know, I speak in the sense of I saw my dad become president of American Motors. I wasn't actually there when he became president of American Motors, but I saw him in the figurative sense of he marched with Martin Luther King. My brother also remembers him marching with Martin Luther King and so in that sense I saw him march with Martin Luther King." He added, "You know, I'm an English literature major as well. When we say, 'I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn't necessarily mean you were there -- excuse me, the Super Bowl. I saw my dad become president of American Motors. Did that mean you were there for the ceremony? No, it's a figure of speech."

Later in the day - Speaking to reporters in Iowa, Romney tries again to explain the historical record. "If you look at the literature," he says, "if you look at the dictionary, the term 'saw' includes being aware of in the sense I've described. It's a figure of speech and very familiar, and it's very common. And I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes, but I saw him in the sense of being aware o his participation in that great effort."

December 21, 2007 - Stephen Hess, author of "The Republican Establishment," tells the Boston Herald, "The point we were making was that the issue of Mormonism had to do with its civil rights record. Did he walk with Martin Luther King? [I]Today, I have no idea."

[red states rule]

I still like Rudy

But Mitt is also looking good to me right now

[avatar4321]

I would surmise that the two old eyewitnesses were wrong based on all newpaper accounts at the time, because George Romney and King were never in the same march together, and as a presidential candidate that had just dropped out of the presidential race, would have been covered for this event, IF it had happened Avatar.

Now, George Romney was a great supporter of civil rights and had a strong record of such, and I am in no way denying this at all.

What I am saying is that Romney had exagerated or fibbed or lied about a few accounts on this subject and is dancing now because of these "exagerations" regarding his statement saying that he SAW his father march with MLK.

First off, Mitt was in France at the time going to school, when he said he "saw" his father "march" with martin luther king, and secondly i find it very hard to believe that if Gov.George Romney marched hand in hand with martin luther king, that there would not be some sort of record of it, while there is a record by the press that states when MLK marched in Detroit, George Romney declined to attend and his reasoning for such was that it was the Sabbath, a Sunday.

Now Mitt Romney is stating that he did not physically "see" his father march with MLK but that this was a "figure of speech".....his dancing around an exageration that he made, to deny this is being blinded imo.

I honestly do not care, other than pointing out that he is a flip flopper and he is an exagerator and slimey when it comes to trying to make himself "look" better for political gain.... as he did with his statements regarding being a LIFELONG HUNTER....

Review Mitt's admission to NOT seeing his father march with MLK here-
REVIEW THE VIDEO OF ROMNEY'S EXPLANATION:
http://reasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2007/12/romneys-mlk-problem.html

Also, here is a timeline of the events in question:

thank you for citing the context and demonstrating that youve taken him out of context.

You still are ignoring the witnesses who did see it happen. You are ignoring the fact that all the news papers have been citing the event back in the 1960s. You are ignoring the fact that George Romney was a freaking Keynote speaker at one of the said events. that MLK complimented him on his outrageous civil rights actions. Ignoring the picture of Romney's mother with MLK on the website (And I am confident to find a picture with his father).

I wasnt there, but even I can see that Romney's father was highly involved in the civil rights movement and that he marched with King for equal rights. Nor does it take a linguistics genius to realize Romney was completely being honest when he said he saw his parents doing these things. There are 9 definitions of "see" in the dictionary. You want to narrow the word down to the one strictest, most literal definition in order to claim Romney is lying when he is the context does not demand that strict definition.

The tactic is disengenous. it demonstrates a lack of substances against Romney.

[avatar4321]

Figured I'd add even more information demonstrating that Romney is not lying about his father marching with MLK. (Even though I think the witnesses and numerous press articles are quite enough).

http://occidentalvalues.blogspot.com/2007/12/george-romney-and-martin-luther-king.html

Detroit: City of Race and Class Violence (http://books.google.com/books?id=UhL3mJvqQfQC&pg=PA157&dq=%22Governor+George+Romney%22+%26+King&lr=&sig=kSUxhv9C5cYDHtETwhVwl-v76l8)

Detroit Perspectives: Crossroads and Turning Points (http://books.google.com/books?id=Fa_f3oz0Q2kC&pg=PA487&dq=%22Governor+George+Romney%22+%26+King&lr=&sig=GWo5eaPFVy1dyIMgA4eVSPCrQ14)

A Nation Divided:The 1968 Presidential Campaign (http://books.google.com/books?id=584-3unXLocC&pg=PA205&dq=%22Martin+Luther+King%22+%26+Romney&lr=&sig=ubMMjjX1JGOS8MnjZDVUQfj0whY)

I have no doubt more information will come forth demonstrating Romney correct about his father. With the evidence for it, why should I believe one article that provides no evidence claiming Romney lied about it?

[nevadamedic]

I think Romney is a flip flopper on issues like abortion, and I am beginning to think he is a cronic liar, or "resume inflater" at best,

"I am endorsed by the NRA"- NOT TRUE

"I and my father marched with Martin Luther King"- NOT TRUE

"I am a life long hunter"-NOT TRUE
====================================
I think there is trouble for him in the mist....

jd

"I oppose sanctuary cities"-Not True

[red states rule]

thank you for citing the context and demonstrating that youve taken him out of context.

You still are ignoring the witnesses who did see it happen. You are ignoring the fact that all the news papers have been citing the event back in the 1960s. You are ignoring the fact that George Romney was a freaking Keynote speaker at one of the said events. that MLK complimented him on his outrageous civil rights actions. Ignoring the picture of Romney's mother with MLK on the website (And I am confident to find a picture with his father).

I wasnt there, but even I can see that Romney's father was highly involved in the civil rights movement and that he marched with King for equal rights. Nor does it take a linguistics genius to realize Romney was completely being honest when he said he saw his parents doing these things. There are 9 definitions of "see" in the dictionary. You want to narrow the word down to the one strictest, most literal definition in order to claim Romney is lying when he is the context does not demand that strict definition.

The tactic is disengenous. it demonstrates a lack of substances against Romney.

Liberals never, ever allow facts to getr in the way of their arguments. I find it funny JD is going after a Republican on this - after all the lies the Clintons have been caught in

Being a supporter of the Clintons demands honesty is at the bottom of your list of priorities for the candidate (if it is on the list at all)

[nevadamedic]

Liberals never, ever allow facts to getr in the way of their arguments. I find it funny JD is going after a Republican on this - after all the lies the Clintons have been caught in

Being a supporter of the Clintons demands honesty is at the bottom of your list of priorities for the candidate (if it is on the list at all)

In this case a Liberal is right. Multiple Choice Mitt is a complete liar. He is now tripping over himself as people are starting to expose his lies.

[red states rule]

In this case a Liberal is right. Multiple Choice Mitt is a complete liar. He is now tripping over himself as people are starting to expose his lies.

There seems to be some selective outrage here. Where was the outrage when Bil Clinton said he remembered black churches being burned when he was a kid?

The only problem is, no chuches were burned when he was a kid

I do not know all the details over this issue with Mitt, but when libs are this upset - there has to be another side of the story

[pegwinn]

undecided right now. i don't feel any of the candidates have truly embraced a platform yet. they are still putting the pieces of the puzzle together. IMHO

I am with you on this one. No single candidate yet speaks for me. I like Pauls constitutionalism but think he's nuts by blaming America. I simply don't trust the top three (Huck, Giuliani, Romney) to keep thier promises.

In the voter pme thread I tried to write out my process for figuring out all this but it still in the end is a gut decision.

[Abbey Marie]

With Tancredo gone, Hunter has the most votes. :clap:

[typomaniac]

It disgusts me that not only would people lie about something so easy to refute but that others would believe it without verifying.
So why didn't the not-so-swift boat veterans disgust you? Or the people who believed them without verifying?

[Kathianne]

So why didn't the not-so-swift boat veterans disgust you? Or the people who believed them without verifying?

They were refuted in the main? Where?

[red states rule]

So why didn't the not-so-swift boat veterans disgust you? Or the people who believed them without verifying?

Swift boats vets pointed out the lies and distrotions - and the charges stood

[avatar4321]

So why didn't the not-so-swift boat veterans disgust you? Or the people who believed them without verifying?

because they weren't lying. They were actually there.

[red states rule]

because they weren't lying. They were actually there.

Kerry never did answer the charges and hid from debating the Swift Boat Vets

Very telling

[actsnoblemartin]

could u imagine al gore in vietnam in that naggy voice

we have to worry about global warming

just makes me chuckle

[red states rule]

could u imagine al gore in vietnam in that naggy voice

we have to worry about global warming

just makes me chuckle

Kerry was a poor candidate and so will whoever the Dems put up in 08

[typomaniac]

because they weren't lying. They were actually there.

That's such a blatant load of crap that you obviously weren't even trying.

[red states rule]

That's such a blatant load of crap that you obviously weren't even trying.

You are the resident expert on loads of crap

[JohnDoe]

because they weren't lying. They were actually there.
They were actually WHERE Avatar? Serving by his side? NOT! They did not know him from Adam when they served in Vietnam.... only one of them actually served with him and he was vetted to be a liar....from all that I have read on it.

And here is what I responded on this subject about Romney that you commented on another thread that you did not go back to:

Merry Christmas Avatar,

The point I was trying to make is that Romney sways like a palm tree in the wind, depending on who he is trying to get votes from.

In 1993 he was prolife, but in 1994 when running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate seat in Massachusetts he came out and said he changed his mind and was now pro choice because his niece died from an illegal abortion. He attended prochoice events with his wife and even donated $150 bucks to planned parenthood while at one of them, from a joint checking account that he and his wife had together.

He now claims that this was his wife that donated the money and "does not know when her donation actually took place", but there are pictures of him with his wife at the planned parenthood rally where his wife signed the check.

Then in 2002 when he was running for Governor of massachusetts he conveniently kept his prolife stance, so that he could win the governorship. And in 2002 he checked a form and said he agreed to ru486 being legalized.

And when he decided to run for the republican nominee for President, he again conveniently changed his stance on abortion and said that he was now prolife again because of some other reason....that made him change his mind.

It is amazing to me that you and others can not see that he changes his stance on this DEPENDING on who's vote he is trying to get. His newly found revelations on this issue does not happen at any other time, than a time where political pandering is necessary for him to win the votes of the particular people he is focusing on.

Then, he also exagerates or lies about other things too, to make himself look better. And maybe this is where his English Major from college comes in to play, where he uses words to imply one thing, but has an "out" if called on it. Like him saying that he saw his father march with Martin Luther King. When no such thing happened, under the "normal" understanding of what "saw" and "march" mean.

His father did support the civil rights causes and supported MLK, BUT DID not "MARCH" WITH HIM IN THE RALLY, nor did Mitt "see" his father march with MLK because Mitt was going to school in France during these rallys. But then after this exageration, mitt was called on it and had an answer similar to Bill Clinton's "it depends on what the definition of is, is."

also, mitt made claims that he got the endorsement of the NAACP, which he did not get and later gave another song and a dance on what he meant by it.

And in addition to this he claimed to be a "life long hunter" only later to be called on it and laughed at for saying that he shot a vermit or two his entire life of "lifelong hunting".

All of this Avatar, does not sit well with me and shows his lack of sincerity and honesty and does not meet the standard that I would like to have for the President of the United States. It shows his pandering plain as day and his willingness to sway, depending on whose votes he is trying to get. It makes me wonder if he will change every stance that he now says he stands for, once he became president.

And I am not saying that other candidates have not done the same, just that Romney isn't as "perfect" a candidate that you and others supporting him, may think.

jd

[JohnDoe]

They were refuted in the main? Where?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/washington/28kerry.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460

although not a main stream media outlet, it was used by vp cheney as a source for something else and is most certainly a nonpartisan source:
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html

[red states rule]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/washington/28kerry.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460

although not a main stream media outlet, it was used by vp cheney as a source for something else and is most certainly a nonpartisan source:
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html

Merry Christmas JD

In the 04 election was their an anchor attached to John Kerry's ass? He never took the Swift Boat Vets on, did not release his records, and dismissed them out of hand

Many holes and outright lies were proven as he told us about his war record

But I do remember how John and I served together in Cambodia on that Christmas day. It is forever burned into my memory :lol:

[actsnoblemartin]

I want duncan hunter to win


Merry Christmas JD

In the 04 election was their an anchor attached to John Kerry's ass? He never took the Swift Boat Vets on, did not release his records, and dismissed them out of hand

Many holes and outright lies were proven as he told us about his war record

But I do remember how John and I served together in Cambodia on that Christmas day. It is forever burned into my memory :lol:

[red states rule]

I want duncan hunter to win

Rudy or Mitt for me

It would be a great ticket either way

[actsnoblemartin]

so u want mitt or rudy?


Rudy or Mitt for me

It would be a great ticket either way

[red states rule]

so u want mitt or rudy?

It can be Rudy/Mitt

or Mitt/Rudy

[actsnoblemartin]

ok

what about mccain?


It can be Rudy/Mitt

or Mitt/Rudy

[red states rule]

ok

what about mccain?

I do not like Sen McDone. His support for illegals and his opposition to the Buish tax cuts sunk him with me and alot of other conservatives

[actsnoblemartin]

can we overcome that?


I do not like Sen McDone. His support for illegals and his opposition to the Buish tax cuts sunk him with me and alot of other conservatives

[red states rule]

can we overcome that?

Sure, by not voting for Den McDone

[actsnoblemartin]

i meant can he overcome that?


Sure, by not voting for Den McDone

[red states rule]

i meant can he overcome that?

Not a chance. The other Republicans can run his statements in ads

[actsnoblemartin]

the tax cuts dont piss me off as much, he wants caps on spending he is right there.

but the illegals, very wrong


Not a chance. The other Republicans can run his statements in ads

[red states rule]

the tax cuts dont piss me off as much, he wants caps on spending he is right there.

but the illegals, very wrong

McCain is done

He should pack up and go home

[avatar4321]

McCain is done

He should pack up and go home

no one is done till the election happens. anything can change within the next week.

[red states rule]

no one is done till the election happens. anything can change within the next week.

True. In politics, a week is more like a year for the rest of us

I do not see him going very far when ads repeating his comments on illegals and the tax cuts hit the airwaves

[5stringJeff]

I'm changing my vote (because I can) from Huckabee to Ron Paul. After reading through his positions, he is much closer to me than Huckabee is, and has the voting record to support his positions.

[avatar4321]

I'm changing my vote (because I can) from Huckabee to Ron Paul. After reading through his positions, he is much closer to me than Huckabee is, and has the voting record to support his positions.

I wasnt a huge paul fan at the beginning. but I definitely have to respect the guy for the campaign he has been waging.

Just dont be one of those condescending arrogant paulites who thinks voting for anyone else means the person is stupid or evil. those guys drive me nuts.

[Hagbard Celine]

I wasnt a huge paul fan at the beginning. but I definitely have to respect the guy for the campaign he has been waging.

Just dont be one of those condescending arrogant paulites who thinks voting for anyone else means the person is stupid or evil. those guys drive me nuts.

Paul is the best candidate running.

[avatar4321]

Paul is the best candidate running.


I disagree. I simply dont think he is the worst.

[5stringJeff]

Just dont be one of those condescending arrogant paulites who thinks voting for anyone else means the person is stupid or evil. those guys drive me nuts.

That's not me at all. In fact, I have a couple of issues where I disagree with Ron Paul, and I'm pretty sure he's not the Second Coming of Christ, like some of his supporters seem to think.

[Pale Rider]

That's not me at all. In fact, I have a couple of issues where I disagree with Ron Paul, and I'm pretty sure he's not the Second Coming of Christ, like some of his supporters seem to think.

If it came down to Paul and Hillary, I'd vote for Paul with glee. He may not be my favorite, (I still like Hunter, who was just in town yesterday and I missed him), he's still a far better person to run the country than Hillary. Clinton is just a huge mistake, on too many levels.

[Yurt]

If it came down to Paul and Hillary, I'd vote for Paul with glee. He may not be my favorite, (I still like Hunter, who was just in town yesterday and I missed him), he's still a far better person to run the country than Hillary. Clinton is just a huge mistake, on too many levels.

you're wrong man, way wrong. hillary rocks solid gold bro.

yours truly,

NM