Thread: Duncan Hunter to announce important message at 2:00 pm

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by Balboa

Originally Posted by MW

Bren wrote:

Romney made it clear that he does NOT support any form of amnesty!!

I don't know what debates you were watching-----but he made it clear---NO AMNESTY!!!!

He supported it before he was against it. Romney is a slick politician who is going to do and say whatever it takes to strengthen his chances for the White House. Personally, I think the man is lacking in the integrity department and I know his lacking on credibility. In other words, he just doesn't measure up. "No amnesty" are only words. Unfortunately most of the candidates seem to have a different definition of the words than we do. Honestly, I like what he's saying, but I just think supporting him is too risky. It all comes back to his history of flip-flopping and waffling. Thank you, but no thank you.

MW, Are you sure about this post? How long ago was he against amnesty or how long ago was he for amnesty?? (Romney)

AGAIN----he was NEVER for amnesty!!

Are the millions of Paul supporters going to show up in New Hampshire tomorrow like they did in Iowa??

Are you getting paid "per post"?

Remember that Iowans are NOT indicative of actual voters. Plus, they are overwhelmingly religious and vote on THAT, rather than policy. I mean, lets be real. Illegal immigration is HUGE in Iowa - yet they vote huckaberry, so lets not get into detail here.

Also, please consider that YOUR candidate is ONLY in the race because he is funding his own campaign. If he didn't, he'd be out. So, Romney IS NOT inspiring any passion else he'd have his money from the people, as it is... he is funding himself.. sorta pathetic if you ask me.

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by Balboa

Originally Posted by MW

Bren wrote:

Romney made it clear that he does NOT support any form of amnesty!!

I don't know what debates you were watching-----but he made it clear---NO AMNESTY!!!!

He supported it before he was against it. Romney is a slick politician who is going to do and say whatever it takes to strengthen his chances for the White House. Personally, I think the man is lacking in the integrity department and I know his lacking on credibility. In other words, he just doesn't measure up. "No amnesty" are only words. Unfortunately most of the candidates seem to have a different definition of the words than we do. Honestly, I like what he's saying, but I just think supporting him is too risky. It all comes back to his history of flip-flopping and waffling. Thank you, but no thank you.

MW, Are you sure about this post? How long ago was he against amnesty or how long ago was he for amnesty?? (Romney)

AGAIN----he was NEVER for amnesty!!

Are the millions of Paul supporters going to show up in New Hampshire tomorrow like they did in Iowa??

Are you getting paid "per post"?

Remember that Iowans are NOT indicative of actual voters. Plus, they are overwhelmingly religious and vote on THAT, rather than policy. I mean, lets be real. Illegal immigration is HUGE in Iowa - yet they vote huckaberry, so lets not get into detail here.

Also, please consider that YOUR candidate is ONLY in the race because he is funding his own campaign. If he didn't, he'd be out. So, Romney IS NOT inspiring any passion else he'd have his money from the people, as it is... he is funding himself.. sorta pathetic if you ask me.

Well, then I guess that Paul is going to clean house tomorrow in New Hampshire......right??

Also, Romney came in 2nd in Iowa-----won in Wyoming-----and will come in either 1st or 2nd in New Hampshire-------I would say that he has accomplished a lot in the past week!!

I eagerly await news of Ron Paul and Duncan Hunters
startling 1st and 2nd place finishes tomorrow

good luck with that

Originally Posted by usanevada

"Ron Paul will end welfare for illegals and will end birth right citizenship"


As president he would have no such powers

Only the supreme court or congress has these powers

I was wondering if anyone was ever going to say this .

Ron Paul will have one thing going for him, he will have a bunch of anti-war, blame America for ll the worlds evil liberals in the house and senate .

As far as the illegals go, Hunter is only hope to deport them .

Any of the rest get in there and you better prepare for a nation run by special interest, liberals and immigrats who seem to be joining one radical organization after the other .

Bren's point is a valid one. I think we all want the same thing, but by supporting candidates who have no or very little chance of winning, then indirectly the worst possible candidates such as McCain & Giuliani are being helped -- both of whom who still openly support massive amnesty. I'm already (and predictably) starting to hear some pundits say that Giuliani could come back.

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by Balboa

Originally Posted by MW

Bren wrote:

Romney made it clear that he does NOT support any form of amnesty!!

I don't know what debates you were watching-----but he made it clear---NO AMNESTY!!!!

He supported it before he was against it. Romney is a slick politician who is going to do and say whatever it takes to strengthen his chances for the White House. Personally, I think the man is lacking in the integrity department and I know his lacking on credibility. In other words, he just doesn't measure up. "No amnesty" are only words. Unfortunately most of the candidates seem to have a different definition of the words than we do. Honestly, I like what he's saying, but I just think supporting him is too risky. It all comes back to his history of flip-flopping and waffling. Thank you, but no thank you.

MW, Are you sure about this post? How long ago was he against amnesty or how long ago was he for amnesty?? (Romney)

AGAIN----he was NEVER for amnesty!!

Are the millions of Paul supporters going to show up in New Hampshire tomorrow like they did in Iowa??

Are you getting paid "per post"?

Remember that Iowans are NOT indicative of actual voters. Plus, they are overwhelmingly religious and vote on THAT, rather than policy. I mean, lets be real. Illegal immigration is HUGE in Iowa - yet they vote huckaberry, so lets not get into detail here.

Also, please consider that YOUR candidate is ONLY in the race because he is funding his own campaign. If he didn't, he'd be out. So, Romney IS NOT inspiring any passion else he'd have his money from the people, as it is... he is funding himself.. sorta pathetic if you ask me.

Well, then I guess that Paul is going to clean house tomorrow in New Hampshire......right??

Also, Romney came in 2nd in Iowa-----won in Wyoming-----and will come in either 1st or 2nd in New Hampshire-------I would say that he has accomplished a lot in the past week!!

HE WON WYOMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You do know that the Wyoming delegates are not voted by the people, and that the delegate selection process is virtually closed to new entrants.

How much do you really know Bren?

Originally Posted by Populist

Bren's point is a valid one. I think we all want the same thing, but by supporting candidates who have no or very little chance of winning, then indirectly the worst possible candidates such as McCain & Giuliani are being helped -- both of whom who still openly support massive amnesty. I'm already (and predictably) starting to hear some pundits say that Giuliani could come back.

That mentality is Precisely why we are in the mess we are..

Because you think it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils. You also forget who is telling you who can and cannot win. The media.

Why is MW supporting Duncan? Most people will tell you Hunter can't win.. SO, should MW sell out his vote? NO! Same with anyone else who is voting for an underdog. You vote for who you want, NOT hedge your bet and vote for the lesser of two evils.

I wonder how many votes 'our' "Can't Win Candidates" would get if everyone voted on who they want to win, rather than who the media tells us will win.

Think about it.

Listen, I am in total agreement with MW on this. ROMENY is a slick politican who waxes and wanes depending on what he feels is popular. He is CFR affiliated, he is big business and he is better than huckaberry and the Ghoul, but he is by NO MEANS "it"!

He is funding his own campaign for goodness sakes. Yeah, he has massive support.

Originally Posted by Populist

Bren's point is a valid one. I think we all want the same thing, but by supporting candidates who have no or very little chance of winning, then indirectly the worst possible candidates such as McCain & Giuliani are being helped -- both of whom who still openly support massive amnesty. I'm already (and predictably) starting to hear some pundits say that Giuliani could come back.

Of course msm is going to make Juli come back ,

Don't forget , these first couple states are small potatoes , wait until they get to the big states
I agree with you about candidates with no chance to win but I'm also sick of arguing points with those that would rather see a rudi or mccain in the white house , let them vote and support who they want to

Afterall , its a free country , let them make their choice , I've made mine

I can't wait to vote for Duncan. I am going to do it with a huge grin on my face

The idea of telling people to not support those 'who have no chance of winning' is exactly the way the media and the so-called two party system has controlled our elections for decades.

It is also a very clever way of trying to keep certain messages from getting out - like Paul and Hunter.