Posted on 02/12/2007 9:43:49 PM PST by RWR8189
You'll have to show me how I've painted the opposition as shrill. tick tock
I still have not seen the qote, or a link to it, that you say exists where Rudy says good things about Roe v Wade.
I wouldn't like to think that you were trusting NARAL on that.
Sorry, still not what you are claiming Rudy said.
Nowhere does the quote you have claimed (Roe v Wade is good law) appear.
Let me pose my own question - Is the difference I am drawing just semantic? No. It goes to the heart of the issue of strict construction of the Constitution, the issue I and others are focused on.
No problem.
You're right with regard to the weenie men who go running to mommy crying "Mommy, mommy, help. They're supporting a Republican I don't like."
I've never seen anything like it before. Ever.
When I post those links, I'm posting for the lurkers knowing full well that the crybabies minds are made up.
368 posted on 02/13/2007 7:38:07 PM PST by Peach
There you go!
You think I've painted the opposition as shrill when I've posted that they should call their mommy for help? Gee, and here I thought I was painting them as cowards and weenies.
You asked and I provided; and it wasn't difficult. So, when busted you fling a string. Such hypocrisy befits the liberalism to which you apparently aspire.
You think I've painted the opposition as shrill. No, I've painted them as momma's boys afraid of their own shadows.
They've called on Jim repeatedly because, gasp, I support and like a Republican they don't like. I've called them cowards, basically.
If you don't know the difference between painting the opposition as shrill or painting them as weenies, then I can't help you. But maybe a dictionary could help you. Try it.
A distinction without a difference.
You have two choices in supporting Rudy: either you really believe in the policies he prefers, or you think that he's the best that can get elected. In the first case you repudiate the bulk of the policies upon which conservatism stands; while in the latter you fear Hillary so much that you'll accept something less even though that social liberalism breeds the dependency upon which the Democrats construct their indentured constituencies. Frankly, I think it the latter, which is coincident with your artless projection.
They've called on Jim repeatedly because, gasp, I support and like a Republican they don't like. I've called them cowards, basically.
Sic semper miserere. You were the one who questioned why the owner of the forum tolerated those who would have preferred Rudy prove that he can win in New York before he proffered himself as presidential material.
If you don't know the difference between painting the opposition as shrill or painting them as weenies, then I can't help you. But maybe a dictionary could help you. Try it.
Yours is a truly pathetic attempted display of intellect.
If you'd said my post was shrill, that's open to interpretation.
But you said that calling men weenies was the same as calling them shrill. I can see that even a dictionary didn't help. Pity that.
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.