How did you know about my grammar?
Posted on 06/20/2013 11:24:23 PM PDT by quesney
Certainly is the case with the county highway department, but are you telling me your letter carrier is corrupt to the core?
I don’t trust ANY of them. My letter carrier may be reading my mail for all I know.
Are you telling me Cruz is no better than that?
My word ~ that would be horrible.
I think you still need to narrow it down ~
It would explain an awful lot.
It would certainly explain the sudden "left turn" that many promising Republicans make, so soon after making it to D.C. While the trend seems older than NSA's pattern of intrusion, I'd point out that it has intensified in a last decade or so.
Yep, that's probably no coincidence.
Slavery was in America jus’ all over the place for a long time. After Independence we began the long, slow work of getting rid of it. In the meantime I don’t think the slaveowners in New York and New England were known as ‘kraker’ or even ‘yankee’.
If they don’t know about the corruption, they should. If you chose to ignore it, there’s a term for that... it’s called willful ignorance. There is a massive swath of the populace that lives this way - willfully, blissfully ignorant.
That is an explanation, not an excuse, because there is no excuse for intellectual laziness. The fact that those who do know say nothing or do nothing is what adds insult to injury.
Heck, people on this very thread are being lazy claiming this guy coming out now after Snowden is convenient. Freepers can’t even read a title now? This guy tried to follow the right method of whistleblowing during the Bush era against the same tactics that were occurring then and before.
The problem is what the Obama Administration and the Democrat Party have been doing with the information.
And that’s the part that doesn’t get discussed.
Not only Jooos but McCain, Graham and most of the tools that advised GWB and others qualify as NEOCONS aka not Conservative! http://www.freedomvrights.com/classicalvneo.html:
“Neo-conservatives and classical conservatives may very well share positions on some issues. Perhaps this is why neo-conservatives frequently regard themselves as simply “conservative.” But the formal assumptions from which they begin are logically incompatible with one another. That neo-conservatism and classical conservatism are as distinct from each other as the utilitarian and natural law traditions can be seen from their respective answers to questions concerning the basic character of reason/knowledge, morality, and the State.
Reason/knowledge. Neo-conservatives, whether they explicitly admit as much, endorse a trans-cultural, trans-historical conception of Reason. Reason, on this score, while influenced by tradition, is ultimately capable of rising over and against it. When neo-conservatives (and others, for that matter) approvingly cite Jefferson’s affirmation of “self-evident” truths, this is the model of Reason on which they rely.
Classical conservatives, in contrast, from at least the time of Burke in the eighteenth century, have repeatedly rejected this notion of Reason as a rationalist’s dream. The individual has reason, it is true, but his reason is the product of centuries of tradition. Knowledge consists not in the abstract intellectual apprehension of “self-evident truths,” but in unarticulated feelings, habits, and customs that have become “second nature.”
Morality. Inseparable from the neo-conservative’s abstract, universalistic, tradition-neutral notion of Reason is an equally abstract, universalistic, tradition-neutral conception of morality. Morality is comprised essentially of “principles,” specifically, principles of “natural” or “human right.” Neo-conservatives are as given to the language of “human rights” as are their ideological opponents on the Left. These principles are uniquely accessible to all rational beings.
Classical conservatives, on the other hand, have tended to eschew all talk of “natural rights” and/or “human rights.” Morality is local, tradition-constituted. Whatever principles there may be, they are the offspring of a historically specific, shared way of life, and not its parent: principle stands in relation to practice the way cliff notes relate to the text that they summarize, not the other way around.
The State. Neo-conservatives, like ideologues of various left and right wing persuasions, conceive the State as an “enterprise association.” This is the term that the twentieth century conservative British philosopher Michael Oakeshott used to describe a model of the State on which it is said to exist for the sake of bringing to fruition some premeditated ideal or end, like Freedom, Equality, Virtue, Security, Prosperity, or Democracy. The ideal is held to transcend society, but it is the goal toward the accomplishment of which the resources of citizens must be deployed. At no time is a State more like an enterprise association than during times of war, for it is when a state is at war that government must have every available quantum of power at its disposal in order to insure victory. Also, it is in war that citizens are expected to make a concerted effort to bring about the telos, the purpose, for the sake of which the association exists. This explains why even when a nation is not literally at war, ideologues on both the Right and Left avail themselves of the language of war in order to unify support behind their favored causes (“The War on Poverty,” “The War on Drugs,” “The Cultural Wars,” etc.).....”
I once posted that I thought Obama could have made it to the Presidency on his own merits. I TOTALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY repudiate that now. There is NO WAY he could have made it on his own. He had to have massive help to get there. And once in power, he had to appoint a LOT of people who were intelligent but cunning and ruthless to carry out an agenda anathema to America.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks people have been threatened to keep them in line.
Tom DeLorenzo’s (Misean libertarian) current views of NeoCons:
“The neocons are becoming unglued and freaked out because they no longer control the culture of ideas among “conservatives” as they did when the former CIA employee William F. Buckley, Jr. was at the helm of their flagship magazine. No longer can the ideas of a Frank Meyer, one of the founders of National Review who was a harsh critic of Lincoln, be thrown down the memory hole. There are too many independent scholars who are more interested in pursuing the truth than in “spinning” 150-year-old political rhetoric to “justify” the scheming plans of the military/industrial/congressional complex. Young people especially are concerned about the erosion of civil liberties and have become highly suspicious of tired old, belligerent neocons like Harry Jaffa and his followers (like Rich Lowry) who assure them that NSA spying, warrantless wiretaps, state snooping on all financial transactions, censorship of the internet, and intimidation of the media is all kosher because, after all, “Father Abraham” suspended Habeas Corpus, censored telegraph communications, and shut down opposition newspapers.
A prerequisite for the final collapse of the Soviet Union was the widespread disbelief in all the lies, myths and superstitions about socialism that the people of the Soviet empire had been brainwashed into accepting. Once no one any longer believed in socialism, the system was doomed despite all of its military might and all of the willingness of communist politicians to brutalize their own people.
As Rothbard said, all state power ultimately rests on a body of ideas that occupy the minds of the citizens. That is what so terrifies the neocons like Rich Lowry: They know how absurd it sounds to America’s youth to hear Obama invoke THEIR rhetoric about the Declaration, government of the people, by the people, etc., and “American exceptionalism” to make his case for yet another war in yet another Middle East country that poses no threat whatsoever to them. More and more young Americans have come to understand that it is the warfare state, propped up by the neocon propaganda apparatus, that is the biggest threat to themselves and their futures.”
Yeh, like Jeff Flake....that pathetic sac that signed on to the Gang of Tr8ors?
This is another reason I agree with Glenn Beck, when he says we need to be GOOD, HONEST, DECENT people and make sure there is NOTHING in our past (or present) that can be used against us. If you live a good Godly life, and follow the rule of HIS laws, then there isn’t anything the left can do truly, to hurt you politically.
But of course, it seems if you are on the left, things that would seriously hurt a Republian, are often appreciated and are welcomed (i.e. Wiener, Kennedy, Rangel, etc).
Then they were/are:
1) Dumb enough to get themselves into trouble
2) Lacked the fortitude to stand up to their black-mailers and take the heat of punishment
3) Loved the $$ and power enough NOT to get out of office
[[Here is your garble after using spell check. Don’t be so lazy, use spell check, because you can’t type.]]
Excuse me your higness- I’ll post any damn way I pelase- You sdon’t wish to read them? Whatever- I coudl care less- I won’t lose an iota of sleep over it- You wanna spend your hours obsessing over spelling, that’s your busienss- I don’t care- that’s your problem
Well.... their you go.
you’re grammar is abdominable
How did you know about my grammar?
my great grammar told me
"He had to have massive help to get there. And once in power, he had to appoint a LOT of people who were intelligent but cunning and ruthless to carry out an agenda anathema to America."
D
n't need n
bl
"Behind the Violence, Says Jane Alpert, Was Sex"--November 09, 1981--
"The leaders of the Weather Underground, she believes, followed a similar pattern of constantly shifting sexual alliances..."http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20080637,00.html
"He [Bill Ayers] also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to 'smash monogamy.' The Weathermen were 'an army of lovers,' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend."
Source: New York Times, September 11, 2001: "No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1"...the Weathermen, when not engaged in group sex, committed such revolutionary acts as parading with a Viet Cong flag through a local park on Independence Day and spray-painting the walls of a high school with the slogans, "Off the Pigs," "Viet Cong Will Win," and "F#$k U.S. Imperialism."..."
Campus Wars: The Peace Movement At American State Universities in the Vietnam Era
"What happens next bears watching closely, as does the response of the president, ex-Speaker Pelosi, and others on the left. Encouraged by leftists in the Democratic Party and funded by left-leaning nonprofit organizations and celebrity contributors, Occupy Wall Street may in time morph into something resembling the radical factions of the late 1960s and 1970s."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/predicting_the_weatherman.html
Yep
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.
