Replies

The third surgeon said he preferred operating on Democrats. "Democrats only have two moving parts, their mouths and their a$$ holes. And they are interchangeable."

I don't get it--I'm supposed to change my mind based on a joke that makes a point that has nothing to do with the poster(s) who have come up with this nutso idea, or the idea itself?

Freaking pie in the sky lunatics.

It's not really nutso, Newt tried it with GOPAC and Steve Moore at Club for Growth, both had success and failures. Dems have been doing it for decades, Emily's List, etc. Pacs are a dime a dozen.

But all these people started with recognized and respected names, connections and the financial seed money to get it off the ground. I see none of that here. It maybe a great idea from sincere people, but until more details are offered no one is going to pledge their life, fortune and sacred honor.

Lord, give me a break.

In his reply to your comment,"Whoever you all are, you're charlatans.", Hopeful Patriot suggested that you were leaping to conclusions that were not based on fact, were not based on critical thinking or analysis, and that if you bothered to actually try to understand what you had read, that you might change your mind and implied that even if you didn't change your mind that you might have some constructive comment to add toward achieving FreeRepublic's announced mission. For whatever reason, you seem determined to attack the messengers rather than try to advance the stated goals and objectives of FreeRepublic, the stated reason that this forum exists.

You continue your attack on the messenger, but this time add your "critical analysis" of the message in a subsequent reply.
"Bull. Sheer, unadulterated bull."

Had you actually bothered to read the material regarding the financing, you would have seen that it was based on considerable data and a large body of critical analysis. You cited no faults in the data base and cited no errors in the analysis. You simply pronounced it, "Bull. Sheer, unadulterated bull" without any clue as to content or analysis. This was precisely the same type of analysis that allowed people to believe the earth was flat.

"I'm supposed to change my mind based on a joke that makes a point.."

The point of the joke was that shooting your mouth off when you haven't thought through and analyzed the material you are critiquing is rash and could be embarrassing to you.
"I don't get it--" You will not get any argument from me.

I'm going to ask that you give us the benefit of the doubt. If you find that unreasonable, perhaps you will be willing to give us enough rope to hang ourselves? I am going to invite you to follow our series. We want you to pick apart the data that we are going to present. Forming a plan requires that the data that forms the foundation of the plan be accurate. Please point out our errors.

Next, I am going to tell you that we have analyzed the data and drawn some conclusions base on our analysis. Again, any good plan requires that the analysis on which it is based, be accurate. Find and point out to us our analytical errors.

We have done some 'what if' scenarios. If this has happened, what will come next or if we do this, what will they do. The goal is to restore the Constitution. If that is the goal, then our 'what if' scenarios must to the greatest extent possible correctly anticipate the reactions that are going to occur, "if this happens." Please do all that you can to improve our scenario analysis.

And lastly, please try to remain focused on the goal and objective. This effort is directed purely at restoring the Constitution. Everything is fair game that advances the ball. We are going to make some stupid statements. We may make some ad hominum attacks; anger has a way of clouding judgment. We expect you to correct our stupid statements and our inadvertent errors. You have our collective apologies if we become angry and revert to bad behavior.

I want to close by reminding everyone who reads these threads that we are attempting to do something that has not been done in almost one hundred years. We want to role back government and force it to live within the constraints of the Constitution as it was written and intended to be interpreted by the people who wrote and ratified it. If Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich or the Republican Party had solved this problem, there would be no need for this discussion. If we had every piece of the puzzle solved, we would not need this discussion because we would be out there, doing that. We are going to show you some ideas that are absolutely novel, that you have never seen before. We think that an important piece of the puzzle to understand is the significance of an event that has not occurred, but we believe logic dictates that this event should have happened. Understanding why it didn't happen will be an important part of understanding how to advance the ball toward restoring the Constitution. If you have an interest in restoring the Constitution, whether you take The Pledge or not, please let us add you to our ping list and follow our discussion. We invite your comments and your critical analysis of our data or our conclusions. FreeRepublic played a critical role in impeaching a President. That will pale in significance if FreeRepublic can complete its remaining mission.

Please try to stay focused on the mission and the message. The messengers are completely irrelevant in formulation the plan to achieve the mission. And if We are right, a major focus of our planning should be focused on finding and recruiting the messengers who will be responsible for actually achieving the mission. Please bear with us.