Surely you are not proposing a bad interview is the moral equivalent to supporting abortion?
My custom Palin sign...sans McCainiac...
Posted on 12/02/2009 9:21:09 AM PST by pissant
Surely you are not proposing a bad interview is the moral equivalent to supporting abortion?
My custom Palin sign...sans McCainiac...
I told you (post 240) JR is doing his best to drive Mitt-bots away.
You see this?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2398653/posts?page=65#65
Yes, favorable to Romney.
I don’t rule that out but isn’t that what the torches and pitchfork crowd here demand and what the Tea Partyeers have been saying?
“CAN YOU HEAR US NOW!”
The premise of people who demand their pols listen to them and bend to the will of the people is that politicians should and must modify previous positions if in fact that is the desire of the people they are supposed to represent.
Then the next day they demand the representatives they support have “unbending principles”. Unbending means unchanging.
You can’t have it both ways. Demanding pols have unbending principles then demanding they change their positions to reflect the mobs positions is a contradiction.
Well, that is encouraging.
I’ll be honest, I have have heard many times how FR will ban people who don’t march in lockstep. Heard that several times on TH and AoSHQ both.
The(now)lurker who convinced me to visit this site warned me not even to warn others of the zot or face it myself. He said he was banned for warning some guy not to be critical of FR and both of them got tossed. Said this place was ban-happy, but if I kept my fingers off the keys, it was a cool site. Course, who knows what he really said.
Like I say, I don’t know, and I don’t care. I’m a TH junkie anyway, and unless someone attacks me outright I’m pretty tame. Not worth it. Appreciate the info. Thanx.
I’d like to see some reliable figures on that — not the stuff posted by anti-Romney people. The higher costs may be because of the higher benefits mandated, again, by the legislature.
Is it possible that it could be tweaked, and be effective?
Again, there is a serious problem with free-riders. Forcing them into the risk pool, so that they pay their own bills, seems like a good idea to me, if the hospitals are forced to treat them, and we pay for it anyway.
You would think, if there were dozens of posters that supposedly got zapped merely for disagreeing, they could come up with one or two names, eh?
Please!
Buy a clue would ya?
*ping*
Isn't that kind of like screwing for virginity?
Hey Bob, the man was and is a lifelong liberal abortionist creep. EFF Romney! He’s done!! You can take your socialist RINO creep and shove him up your butt!!
Am I getting through to you????
So if I can show you one recent incident of someone “disagreeing” and getting banned, you’ll agree that there can be, even if unevenly applied, a litmus test for posters at FR?
If you want a lesion in Hillery (Mitt) care FReepmail our Brothers and Sisters in Tenn. Their posts on this subject, in Tenn, opened my eyes and Tenn is marginally less corrupt than Mass.
I remember during that time period that some people chose suicide by cop by becoming abusive, but I don't recall anybody getting "zotted for not being in lock-step", let alone dozens. Can you come up with a couple of names to back up your claim?
“I don’t exect anyone to compromise their principles to vote for the lesser of evils”
Please explain that statement, I keep seeing it and it seems, at least to me, to be nonsensical. You can choose only from those who decide to run, or run yourself, I see no other choice... but to write in or not vote.
I have no problem with voting third party if one feels that is the best choice but be careful about protest votes, you may wind up with a Jesse Ventura.
A haughty altitude doesn’t produce a better candidate.
I think you need to see this:
In 2002, Romney responded to the National Abortion Rights Action League's candidate survey: ''I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's.
If by libertarian position you mean that Romney believed it should be up to the state to decide, you don't have any idea of what Romney believed. See the quote above.
If by libertarian position you mean that Romney believed that women had the absolute right to expel their children from their bodies by murder, then yes that is precisely what he believed. But contrary to your statement, he was in favor of abortion and unfortunately for the aborted children, no one asked them if they wanted to live.
Remember, in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, the first unalienable right is the right to life.
Personally, I think our current priorities ought to be making sure President Obama and his leftist pals don’t force their health care plan down our throats, and defeating as many moonbats as possible in next year’s congressional and gubernatorial elections, especially Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd and Slobbering Barney Frank. Then in 2011 or 2012 we can fight over who we want for the presidency.Thanks pissant.
Sure man. He said he only got 4 people to agree with him. Then someone else said that FR doesn’t tolerate dissent. I suggested that perhaps more people would publicly agree if they were on different turf.
I meant the other dude, but pissant came to mind. Mistake. At any rate, you have certainly demonstrated that you have no tolerance for opposing views, and you certainly have a big mouth.
So maybe it wasn’t pissant, but the other dude sure had YOU pegged correctly. Happy now, sparky?
“Isn’t that kind of like screwing for virginity?”
Just the tip, just for a second, just to see how it feels, OK?
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.