“I got to know Governor Huckabee well on the campaign trail,” Huckabee said in a statement.

Captain Scarlet on January 23, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Hahaha. I thought masturbation was considered a sin by evangelicals?

CABE on January 23, 2008 at 10:30 PM

CABE on January 23, 2008 at 10:30 PM

Classy

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:31 PM

On this subject you have lost your mind. You are ranting like a nut.

MB4 on January 23, 2008 at 10:06 PM

Just keep on smoking. It will all be fine.

Gregor on January 23, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Captain Scarlet on January 23, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Who knows? Could be just like today when McCain went on and on about “Putin, the President of Germany”.

Even I don’t think that McCain is that completely stupid; He is just tired and shooting from the lip as both He and Huckster do when they are getting above their level of competence.

LegendHasIt on January 23, 2008 at 10:33 PM

Why are you responding to your own comment? It’s no longer a secret you’re both the same person.

Gregor on January 23, 2008 at 8:39 PM

Everyone has the right to be stupid but you abuse the privilege.

apacalyps on January 23, 2008 at 10:36 PM

Just keep on smoking. It will all be fine.

Gregor on January 23, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Just keep on obsessing. It will all be fine.

They have pills for that now days.

MB4 on January 23, 2008 at 10:38 PM

LegendHasIt on January 23, 2008 at 10:33 PM

You left out when Huckabee incorrectly talked about martial law in Pakistan and then related it to immigration and said that there were “more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities, except those immediately south of the border.”

Huck and McCain are idiots.

CABE on January 23, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Do you realize that Willard Romney is selling America’s top secret anti hacking defense secrets to the chinese and terrorists?

Duncan Hunter on Willard Romney’s chinese connections

“Presidential candidate and current Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Duncan Hunter, today called on former Governor Mitt Romney to send a “clear statement” to the leadership of the company he founded, Bain Capital, to terminate a proposed business deal with a controversial Chinese corporation seeking to acquire U.S. defense contractor 3COM.

Bain Capital is attempting to form a business arrangement with Huawei Corporation, a Chinese corporation founded by an officer of the Peoples Liberation Army of Communist China, which faces allegations of assisting Saddam Hussein in the targeting of U.S. aircraft and in helping the Taliban develop surveillance equipment.

“I am extremely concerned that Governor Romney’s company would tout a highly suspect Chinese corporation as a strategic partner,” stated Hunter. “Forming a business partnership with a corporation known to have direct ties with terrorists and dictators while, at the same time, openly seeking to acquire a major U.S. corporation that performs vital cyber security work for the Department of Defense, can only be characterized as irresponsible.”

A resolution has been introduced in Congress, H.Res. 730, which states; “The preponderance of publicly available evidence clearly suggests that as currently structured, the proposed transaction involving Huawei threatens the national security of the United States and should not be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States .” A copy of this resolution is provided.

Hunter stated in his letter to Governor Romney, “…while it is true that you no longer control Bain Capital, the contributions you have received from its principals as its founding member indicate that your influence within the company remains strong.

“Further, while the Committee on Foreign Investment has yet to rule on the Huawei transaction, this corporation’s connection to Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and the Army of Communist China should clearly disqualify them from becoming, in the words of your former company, “a strategic partner” in acquiring a U.S. firm such as 3COM, which performs vital cyber-security work for the U.S. Department of Defense.

“This letter is a request that you immediately issue a statement of policy that this transaction should be terminated on the grounds of national security. Please let me know what you intend to do.”

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:43 PM

This nonsense is still on-going. I underestimated the 500 thread number.

I said this a few days ago, during a similarly nonsensical Huckabee-sycophants discussion - if (and he will NOT) Huckabee would be the nominee, this would be a daily, and repeated thread here. Should he, by the miracle of his Lord win, we’d have this going on for 4-8 years. “Good Lord” as some atheists like to say.

Entelechy on January 23, 2008 at 10:44 PM

Just read the Duncan Hunter article about Willard Romney over and over again and realize it is either him,Juan Mcamnesty,Hildebeast Clinton,Hussein Obama or Mike Huckabee who will be president!

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:51 PM

Just read the Duncan Hunter article about Willard Romney over and over again and realize it is either him,Juan Mcamnesty,Hildebeast Clinton,Hussein Obama or Mike Huckabee who will be president!

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:51 PM

Now, fight to also eliminate Juan Mcamnesty, as you say; then the two lefties later.

Entelechy on January 23, 2008 at 10:54 PM

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:43 PM

Romney left Bain Capital in 1998. The deal with Bain Capital and China’s Huawei Technology was in 2007.

CABE on January 23, 2008 at 10:55 PM

CABE on January 23, 2008 at 10:55 PM

The vast majority of Willard’s billion dollar plus fortune is in Bain capital.

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:58 PM

Well, we’ve made progress. Many of you are switching to Mike Huckabee following Duncan Hunter’s endorsement. As Laura Ingraham noted many of the elites missed the boat on Huckabee. You weren’t listening to the people. But, now thankfully, this all changed starting today, and you’re going to make wrong right again.

Welcome aboard! You are now formally a Huckabee Ranger!!

Are you a Huckabee Ranger yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcyDrYsqoC4&NR=1

JOIN WITH US!!!

apacalyps on January 23, 2008 at 10:58 PM

If there were a thread on McCain, we could be bashing him, to split the effort of nothingness, to this point

Nunca tantos han dedicado tanto tiempo la consecucion de tan poco.

Oh, I am so sorry, I forget that most of you here are slow learners.

What i said was, “Never have so many spent so much time accomplishing so little.”

Maybe something gets accomplished - it sours the HAheads on Huckabee, the exact reverse of what HH, apacalyps, and the 3rd, 4th, etc. Doppelgängers, or similarly inclined nuts want to achieve. Good job boys/girls. Your man is proud of you.

Entelechy on January 23, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Thompson was used by the GOP establishment, which is aligning behind Romney. But before they could really push Mitt, they needed the evangelicals in the fold. So, to force the evangelicals (or at least a large enough number of them) to back Mitt, they needed to get Huck out of the way.

So guys like Rush Limbaugh spent days on the air talking up Thompson like he was a viable candidate, persuading just enough gullible Christians in S.C. to back Thompson instead of Huckabee.

The result? Huck loses S.C. narrowly, allowing them to pronounce Huck’s campaign dead, drying up his fundraising, while simultaneously claiming that McCain didn’t actually win S.C. This allows them to turn the rest of the primary season into a two-man race: Mitt vs. McCain.

Don’t let them decide for us.

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 11:03 PM

Mcguyver on January 23, 2008 at 10:53 PM

Five years ago I would have been right there with you on supporting Alan Keyes; He was a great man. I voted for him in the ‘96 & ‘00 primaries.

Notice the WAS: He went a little nutty around the time he packed his carpetbag (admittedly at the request of Party leaders) and headed for Illinois.

Since then, I have heard and read too many things that he has said that will not allow me to put any hope in him again.

And as to your nice little sign-off on that post: Right Back At You, Pal.
(Nothing personal; I think we are all grasping at straws now.)

LegendHasIt on January 23, 2008 at 11:08 PM

I never said anything was wrong with making money…but you think that Romney doesn’t have the ability to stop them??

He has almost his entire forune with them and founded the firm.

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 11:10 PM

Think about that for a second. If true, that would mean he smokes cigars because why? It looks good? It makes him feel powerful? Why exactly? If you’re not going to inhale it, why do you smoke it? But that’s not what’s important. What’s important is that he makes the choice to “not inhale” but then FORCES others to inhale it instead. Well now wonder he’s so healthy. It’s too bad he doesn’t have the same consideration for others.

How obnoxious is THAT?!

Gregor on January 23, 2008 at 8:35 PM

Retard. Yes, you.

Cigar smokers rarely inhale. That’s not the point.

Try a little research, son. Or ask any cigar smoker.

Here’s your sign.

Professor Blather on January 23, 2008 at 11:21 PM

I’m going to say it again:

I just got back from an Alan Keyes event.

The more I listen to him the less I understand why Dr. Dobson, et al, don’t get behind him.

It just absolutely boggles my mind!

I mean this is not the first time Keyes has been in the political picture!

He is accredited as bringing so many of the conservative issues to the forefront in debates because of his vast knowledge of the issues that our country was founded on, including the sanctity of life, etc. etc.

Sure, I’ve heard about him before. But it usually came with a bit of scorn or some kind of negativity tagged on to it, so I didn’t pay much attention to him.

Now, I’m getting really pissed that he has had so much scorn poured onto him, for whatever reason.

But James Dobson is older, much older than me, and has by all accounts been paying more close attention to politics, for much longer than me.

So I just don’t understand why Dobson wouldn’t support Keyes instead of Huckabee!

It seriously boggles my mind!

Does anybody have an answer?

You social conservatives surely don’t mind a little persecution for voting your convictions do you now?

Or, are you just another brand of wimps?

What gives?

Mcguyver on January 23, 2008 at 11:25 PM

In the case of you two, it’s more like “sick minds go under together” - you’re delusional.

Entelechy on January 23, 2008 at 11:08 PM

Those are the kinds of Gringo minds that I like best. Juan and Miguel both have them too. I can manipulate and control a sick unstable Gringo mind much better than a healthy one. That is why I will be successful and you Gringos will all have to learn to speak Spanish or be deported to Alaska and then to New Orleans when things heat up because of Al Gore’s Global Warming.

VinyFoxy on January 23, 2008 at 11:27 PM

And in case you’ve missed the other multiple times it’s been pointed out … the discussion is about smoking IN PUBLIC and not on your own private property.

Gregor on January 23, 2008 at 11:27 PM

No, no, no!!!

Look at your comments on smoking your holy war.

A jihad for sure. Very clearly one.

Again, I hope that you are not psychologically abusing your children with your obsessive fear of every little particle of smoke or pianos. It is not healthy for them to scare them about life so much and if they think that their father is some kind of jihadi, well not good either.

Think of your children.

And please don’t make them wear gas mask when they leave your hermetically sealed house.

MB4 on January 23, 2008 at 11:35 PM

As far as I’m concerned this Duncan Hunter story about Willard Romney’s company buying the leading top secret anti hacking software company should disqualify him from the race…and Juan Mccain is not a possibility let alone a republican.

See the connection. Duncan Hunter exposes Romney’s complete lack of ability to protect this country and Duncan Hunter doesn’t pick Mcamnesty.

Duncan Hunter made the best choice for president, Mike Huckabee!

Wake up conservatives!

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 11:40 PM

MB4, there’s a new thread, on the right side, bashing McCain. Your effort is sought.

Entelechy on January 23, 2008 at 11:43 PM

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:57 PM

You’re the problem, like Dr. Dobson, not voting your conscience.

You should be so embarrassed of yourself, going from a losing campaigner to a loser for a candidate, all because you are not voting your conscience and you don’t want to stand up to be counted.

You are some very special kind of losers there you Huckabee supporters, and that includes you, Dr. Dobson.

You are some very special kind of wimps is what you are!

You’re embarrassing me, in that, I have to be counted with you, standing for the real conservatives that you say you do, but, you don’t want to be counted in when the going gets really tough.

So screw you! Screw you for not really supporting real conservative issues!

Screw you for being such damn wimps!

Screw you for being political hacks!

Screw you for doing things only for political expediency and supporting someone only because you think he can beat Hillary!

And just generally all around, screw you!

Get a backbone and then come debate me!

Until then, SCREW YOU!

And just to be clear, SCREW YOU!

AND IN CASE YOU DON’T THINK I MEAN IT, SCREW YOU!!!!!

Mcguyver on January 23, 2008 at 11:50 PM

Alan Keyes on Economics:

What’s the root of economics? “Economics” comes from the Greek “oikonomos.” The word oiko meant household, and nomos meant the rules or regulations governing the household.
Economics was the study of that which was required in order successfully to manage a household.

Economics is founded upon the family.

When somebody’s telling you they’re going to take care of economics, while they stand by and let your family be destroyed at its very heart, in its very principle, they couldn’t possibly be telling you the truth.

But we don’t get it. We think economics is about money. No, it’s not. If you really understood it, you’d realize money is not economics.

It’s about whether or not you have sustained the strength and integrity of your household, of your family relations, of all the strengths that can come when that network works the way it’s supposed to.

Have you noticed how people prosper when that’s true, and how hard life gets for them when it’s not? There’s a reason for that.

People say, “Well, Alan, you’re always talking about how we need to respect the marriage-based family, how we need to do what’s necessary so we’ll maintain the moral discipline to commit ourselves to the future, to raise our children up decently, to put aside our own gratification so we can educate them in the way that they should go.

You’re always talking about how we must instill in their hearts that faith in God that is the true foundation of self-respect.

Why are you always talking about morality?”

Well, I’ll tell you why: because without that moral integrity, we can’t have strong families, and without strong families, we will not have a strong economy.

The family is the basis of our economic success.
….more…

Mcguyver on January 23, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Alan Keyes on:

Campaign finance reform

Any acceptable proposal for reforming the way that American political campaigns are financed must be based on the premise of the constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of association.

The right of free association includes the right to associate our money with the causes we believe in, and to do so in any amount that we think is necessary to get the job done.

For government to dictate what we can do under the rubric of “campaign finance reform” is a total violation of our constitutional rights, and we should force our politicians to abandon it.

Campaign finance reform typically turns out to be incumbency protection, anyway.

Professional politicians are unlikely to devise a system that isn’t in their own interest.

We need to devise instead a system for financing our political contests in the interest of our freedom.

The premises that should govern such a system are simple.

The first principle is that there will be no “dollar” vote without a ballot vote.

Only people who can walk into the voting booth and cast a vote for a candidate should be able to make a contribution to his campaign.

There must be no financial contributions whatsoever from any entities that are not actual, breathing voters.

The whole world should know who is giving how much, and to whom, so that the voters can enforce the result.

If we have this simple system of liberty based on our constitutional rights, then we will be able to police the system effectively without the help of ambitious politicians.

The people at the voting booth will decide what special interest should be driven out of politics, by driving out the politicians who represent them.

We should not try to have bureaucrats and politicians enforcing this kind of political discipline.

At the end of the day, it’s up to us, the voters, to discipline the political system.

But we can’t do so if we don’t have the information we need, of which the money trail is a principal component.

Rich people who choose to give large sums to candidates and causes they believe in should be forced right out into the open political arena, into the heat and dust of the political fray.

They should not be permitted to hide behind PACs and camouflage, but must rather stand publicly behind the support they are giving, If they are willing to bear that kind of heat, then let them make their contributions.

Many of the less scrupulous contributors who are manipulating the system today would not be willing to stand this kind of public scrutiny.

And that will itself regulate participation of money in our politics.

Ultimately, publicity tied with informed voting is the best way to regulate this system.

It is the only regulation truly consistent with our rights and duties as free citizens, and happens also to be the only kind of proposal that will pass the constitutional test.

I therefore absolutely oppose the McCain-Feingold Law, and I urge all grassroots Americans to lobby tenaciously for its repeal.
…more…

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:01 AM

Alan Keyes on Religious freedom:

The “separation of church and state” doctrine is a misinterpretation of the Constitution. The First Amendment prohibition of established religion aims at forbidding all government-sponsored coercion of religious conscience. It does not forbid all religious influence upon politics or society.

The free exercise of religion means nothing if, in connection with the ordinary events and circumstances of life, individuals are forbidden to act upon their religious faith.

I would do everything in my power, through public discourse and persuasion, by proposing legislation, and by careful scrutiny of the candidates for judicial appointments, to turn the tide against constitutional rulings that undermine religious freedom.

I oppose any efforts to use government power to impose views that contravene religious conscience on matters such as abortion and homosexuality.
…more..

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:05 AM

Alan Keyes on Taxation / government spending:

Tyrannical taxation, and excessive government spending and borrowing, are not only threats to our economy — they erode the resource base of our freedom and our moral responsibility.

The income tax is a twentieth-century socialist experiment that has failed. Before the income tax was imposed on us just 85 years ago, government had no claim to our income.

Only sales, excise, and tariff taxes were allowed.

We need to return to the Constitution of economic liberty that our Founders intended to be a permanent bulwark of our political liberty.

The income tax in effect makes us vassals of the government — the politicians decide how much income we can keep. No mere “reform” of this slave tax, such as flattening the rate, can correct its fundamental denial of control over our own money.

Only the abolition of the income tax will restore the basic American principle that our income is both our own money and our own private business — not the government’s.

Replacing the income tax with a national sales tax would rejuvenate independence and responsibility in our citizens. True economic liberty and moral revival go hand in hand.

A national sales tax would also put the American citizen back in control of fiscal policy. The best way to curtail government spending is to cut taxes, because they can’t spend what they don’t get. With a sales tax, we could deny funds to a spendthrift government — and give ourselves a tax cut — whenever we make the private choice to alter our spending and saving habits.

But we must also take away the government’s credit card.

With limits on both tax revenue and borrowing, the Federal government would finally be forced to get serious about spending cuts.

That’s why a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, with barriers to both borrowing and spending, is the best way to secure budget discipline.
...more…

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:14 AM

Alan Keyes on Immigration:

Our country’s immigration policy should encourage legal immigration to be maintained, and illegal immigration to be curtailed.

The policy should be enforced through existing laws.

It’s a travesty when those who have abided by the law and become citizens through the proper means are considered no different than those who have not.

If we start extending all the privileges of life and citizenship to people who are not citizens and who are not here legally, then we’re breaking down our own laws.

And in breaking down those laws, we’re creating a situation that will eventually damage our economy, damage our ability to deliver social services, damage our ability to maintain schools on an equitable basis, and so forth.

It doesn’t make sense.

That’s why I believe that we have to enforce our immigration laws, and that we shouldn’t be putting laws on the books that will extend to non-citizens the privileges of citizenship, because I think you are actually inviting people to violate the law when you’re doing that, you’re decreasing the respect for the law.

Let me stress that I believe that immigration in the true sense is good for America.

This would mean policies aimed at assuring that, by and large, the people who come to America come with the intention of becoming full and responsible citizens of the republic.

It also means discouraging any who think they have the right to establish foreign enclaves in our midst, so to speak, in order to gain economic advantages for themselves without fully committing to help us build this free society.

Immigration, yes; colonization, no.

The first prerequisite, therefore, of any effective immigration policy is to regain full control of the borders of the United States.

Proposed legislation in Congress falls far short of what is needed to achieve this goal.

Until our political leaders put in place the tools and forces needed to control our borders, responsible and moral Americans should oppose any measures that would signal our acceptance of the de facto colonization of our country.

President Bush’s guest-worker proposal and the Senate’s amnesty bill are such measures.

They may serve short-sighted business interests intent on cheapening the cost of labor in our economy, and they may serve the corrupt interests of Mexican and other foreign elites seeking to relieve the pressure created by their own policies of greedy exploitation, but they do not serve the common good.

Serving the common good demands policies that give preference in immigration not just to workers seeking jobs and money, but to those who seek liberty and the responsibilities of citizenship.

Let me add that it is incongruous that in the midst of the struggle we are now waging against the international terror network–a struggle that has taken various forms, including, we are told, the effort we are making on behalf of self-government and liberty in Iraq–

I think it’s incongruous that we should be putting forth such a maximal effort of sending our men and women over there to risk their lives and spill their blood, and meanwhile we are being told that we don’t have the right to defend the integrity of the identity and the borders and the self-government of our own people.

You can’t have freedom in principle if you won’t defend it in fact! And if we let our borders collapse, the facts that support our freedom will be gone, and you know it!
...more…

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:22 AM

Alan Keyes on Judicial supremacy:

You have the Constitution — or you have the judiciary.
Which is supreme?

Which is superior?

The Constitution.

Now, some people will assert, “But it has been accepted as law in our country that the judiciary has the ultimate say on the Constitution.”

No, it hasn’t, by the way. It’s merely an argument, not a law.

I have no problem at all accepting a correct understanding of constitutional review.

You know where I have a problem?

I have a problem with the notion that somehow or another this is the exclusive prerogative of the judiciary —

since, the last time I looked, those who compose the legislature take the same oath to uphold the Constitution,

and the president or the governor takes the same oath.

If the argument holds for the judiciary — and we say it does — then it also holds for the other branches, when it comes to the fulfillment of the oath they have with respect to the power they exclusively control under our constitutions.

We have a system of checks and balances. The word “check” means literally “to stop, to hinder, to put an obstacle in the way of, so that action cannot be taken.”

And that means, to put it in simple language, the power to say, “No.”

So, a judge — let’s say — issues an order.

The executive looks at that order and says, “This is incompatible with my oath, because it’s contrary to the Constitution” (or with the law, too, by the way).

And so he looks at the judiciary and says, “No, I will not carry out your unlawful, unconstitutional order.”

Of course, somebody’s going to object and say, “Well, if the governor says that or if the president says that, that’s disrespect for law.”

No, it’s not! That’s respect for law.

Last time I looked, respect for law meant that if the law says it, you respect that.

Now, is there something the judiciary can do when the executive refuses to enforce a court order?

Well, the judiciary can appeal to the legislature for help, if it’s a judicial order that’s not being executed.

But what if the governor and the legislature agree? Well, if the governor and legislature agree, then the judiciary can have whatever opinion it likes, but it is not the law.

I take this rationale directly from the reasoning whereby the judges themselves claim the power of judicial review — because, if you do not have the right on the basis of a conscientious view of constitutional authority to say “no” when you’re the governor or the legislature, where on earth would the judges get it?

Last time I looked, the legislature, with the concurrence of the executive, makes the law.

If a judge refuses to carry out the provisions of that law, why isn’t the judge the lawbreaker?

Either the logic of constitutional review applies to all the branches, or it cannot apply to any of the branches.

I would argue that it’s meant to apply to all of them — so that we will have a system in which all three branches feel responsible to the Constitution, and will express their sense in the pursuance of their particular duty of what the Constitution requires.
…more….

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:33 AM

Yeah see what the resident deity is doing already?

he’s to chicken to address me here so he goes over here and leaves me this:

Allah Pundit said…

You went to one Alan Keyes event? YOU ARE EASILY PERSUADED / gullible. For shame.

P.S> Alan Keyes is a homosexual.

Spreading lies already.

And who cares about his sexuality, Jack? I thought we’re supposed to be tolerant!?

Screen cap on the way…

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:40 AM

O.K. now back to the issues.

Alan Keyes on Homosexual rights:

In terms of civil rights discrimination, it is wrong to treat sexual orientation like race, for race is a condition beyond the individual’s control.

Sexual orientation, however, involves behavior, especially in response to passion.

If we equate sexual orientation and race, we are saying that sexual behavior is beyond the individual’s control and moral will.

We cannot embrace such an understanding of civil rights without denying the human moral capacity, and with it the fitness of human beings for life in a free society.

The effort to equate homosexual and lesbian relations with legal marriage represents a destructive assault on the heterosexual, marriage-based family.
….more….

Doesn’t exactly sound like Alan has homosexual rights in mind does he? Regardless of what his sexual orientation might be.

Go to bed, you wimps… there’s always tomorrow.

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:45 AM

Good grief Mcguyver - why the manifesto?

Bradky on January 24, 2008 at 1:05 AM

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:45 AM

Well…there it is.

Jaibones on January 24, 2008 at 1:33 AM

I mean would prefer a Huckabee/Keyes ticket!

HaraldHardrada on January 24, 2008 at 1:41 AM

Hey, Mcguyver can you repeat that?

countywolf on January 24, 2008 at 1:52 AM

I smell the dirty feet of sock puppets in this thread

As for Alan Keyes. He is a brilliant man, but not a good strategist thus making him unfit to be a politician.

His 9-27-2000 debate with Alan Dershowitz about religion is one of the great debates I have listened to and he leaves Dershowitz in a puddle on the floor.

I would say Keyes opened the door for people to be publically religious again after years of self censorship

Even without the patter of little puppet feet, the election grows curiouser and curiouser

In this election I would ask: who is real?

I would ask the same question of this thread

entagor on January 24, 2008 at 2:49 AM

We need to get together and defeat McShame and Willard.

They would each be a disaster in the general election!

Mike Huckabee/Duncan Hunter is the only ticket that can defeat Hildebeast Clinton/Wes Clark!

HaraldHardrada on January 24, 2008 at 3:02 AM

Willard Romney is a DISASTER!!!!

Do you realize that Willard Romney is selling America’s top secret anti hacking defense secrets to the chinese and terrorists?

Duncan Hunter on Willard Romney’s chinese connections

“Presidential candidate and current Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Duncan Hunter, today called on former Governor Mitt Romney to send a “clear statement” to the leadership of the company he founded, Bain Capital, to terminate a proposed business deal with a controversial Chinese corporation seeking to acquire U.S. defense contractor 3COM.

Bain Capital is attempting to form a business arrangement with Huawei Corporation, a Chinese corporation founded by an officer of the Peoples Liberation Army of Communist China, which faces allegations of assisting Saddam Hussein in the targeting of U.S. aircraft and in helping the Taliban develop surveillance equipment.

“I am extremely concerned that Governor Romney’s company would tout a highly suspect Chinese corporation as a strategic partner,” stated Hunter. “Forming a business partnership with a corporation known to have direct ties with terrorists and dictators while, at the same time, openly seeking to acquire a major U.S. corporation that performs vital cyber security work for the Department of Defense, can only be characterized as irresponsible.”

A resolution has been introduced in Congress, H.Res. 730, which states; “The preponderance of publicly available evidence clearly suggests that as currently structured, the proposed transaction involving Huawei threatens the national security of the United States and should not be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States .” A copy of this resolution is provided.

Hunter stated in his letter to Governor Romney, “…while it is true that you no longer control Bain Capital, the contributions you have received from its principals as its founding member indicate that your influence within the company remains strong.

“Further, while the Committee on Foreign Investment has yet to rule on the Huawei transaction, this corporation’s connection to Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and the Army of Communist China should clearly disqualify them from becoming, in the words of your former company, “a strategic partner” in acquiring a U.S. firm such as 3COM, which performs vital cyber-security work for the U.S. Department of Defense.

“This letter is a request that you immediately issue a statement of policy that this transaction should be terminated on the grounds of national security. Please let me know what you intend to do.”

HaraldHardrada on January 24, 2008 at 3:21 AM

EVERYBODY NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THIS….THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!!

The chinese have been attempting (and successfully at times i might add) to hack into U.S. defense dept. systems for years.

According to CIA there are now the same amount of spies (both Russian/Chinese and islamist) in the U.S. as there was during cold war and WW2!!!

Don’t forget the soviet commies had spies in every level of gov’t practically…they even had spies in the manhattan project team!! That’s how they developed nuclear weapons.

Romney’s company is purchasing the company that developed THE DEFENSE DEPT.’s anti hacking systems in a joint venture with the Chinese communists and taliban allies!!!!

Wake up people!!!! This is the message Duncan Hunter has been trying to get across for months! He tried to bring it up at the end of a debate(iowa I believe)but they cut him off!

AP or Bryan this is a message that deserves a story!

We can’t let the traitor Romney (or McShame)win!!

HaraldHardrada on January 24, 2008 at 3:33 AM

HaraldHardrada on January 24, 2008 at 3:36 AM

He left the damn company 10 years ago. He has no control over it.

That’s like saying you’re responsible for your sons speeding ticket 10 years after he left the home.

CABE on January 24, 2008 at 3:45 AM

A true patriot would stop this from happening without a second thought!!

Romney is not a true patriot!!

HaraldHardrada on January 24, 2008 at 3:51 AM

Duncan Whatshisname endorses Huck The Schmuck? Just one nobody endorsing another for all I care.

pilamaye on January 24, 2008 at 7:50 AM

He left the damn company 10 years ago. He has no control over it.
CABE on January 24, 2008 at 3:45 AM

HH is a vile disgusting gibot. His rant about Mitt started with his gibotry towards any differing faith.

His money grubbing narcissistic pastor has him brainwashed into thinking that only he holds the key to all truth. And consequently, in order for HH the gibot to access those “truths”, he must give the pastor money. So, this so-called “pastor” has to spew the giboted bile that his giboted congregation wants to hear. And then through the grapevine, more of these gibots disguised as “Christians” find their way to HH’s giboted pastor.

HH’s entire community of “Christians” are vile disgusting gibots. He has no more clue what it is to be a true disciple of Christ than he does to be a rational person.

csdeven on January 24, 2008 at 9:00 AM

Ahh, making friends & influencing people….
Security Mom on January 24, 2008 at 1:52 AM

Luckily I don’t have the burden of making friends here.

Rather I have the burden of standing on conservative principles, which the Huckabee shills and many others, refuse to do.

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 9:53 AM

Who would Ronald Reagan support you ask?

Let’s see if the great communicator can speak to us from the grave, in these critical times, shall we?

“I have never known a more stout-hearted defender of a strong America than Alan Keyes. - Ronald Reagan

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 9:58 AM

See, I have come to the conclusion that all of you who do not support a true statesman, patriot and defender of true conservative American values, like Alan Keyes, is because you are just pretenders.

The reason you are pretenders is because you are afraid of what others might think of you.

You, who do not support Alan Keyes are afraid that if you support a true conservative you will be persecuted for your beliefs.

And of course everybody knows that your little feelings are more important than what’s good for the country.

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 10:10 AM

How dare you wimpy conservatives, who do not support Alan Keyes, claim to revoke, remember, quote, or even mention the name of Ronald Reagan!

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 10:19 AM

Hunter is a Fair Tax supporter. This is not a one issue race. The tax issue for many is a big issue. It may never get off the ground, but to even be discussed on a national level is huge.

tommuck on January 24, 2008 at 10:28 AM