[RandallFlagg]

There ARE a few others there who aren't completely blinded by the left's rage. I used to do this at another board but it was sooo time consuming that I finally had to stop. It is extremely addicting to look up links, news, quotes and historical references to use against them -NUKING them with words. They're usually left to babble profanities and remark on my sexual preferences.

So, if any of you reading this have the urge, and have a strong stomach for really bad language and insults being tossed at you, take a peek at my work. Even join in the fun. Watch the lefties squirm and squeal like the sore losers that they are.

Enjoy!

[Darksheare]

Bad man, stealing their lunch like that.
*snicker*
Good job!

[kimmie7]

You, my friend, ROCK.

[FourtySeven]

Good work, I admire your fortitude, however I cannot stand to be on a board where conservatives are outnumbered. This isn't because of a desire to shut liberals up (or suppress their free speech, or anything dramatic like that), it's simply because most boards are under the same design as DU, technologically speaking. That is, one cannot respond to multiple people with one post. One is left spamming a thread with the same reply to different people, (which is summarily flamed), or, as a rule, one is swamped by flames from the other side. IOW, flame wars seem to be much more prevalent on boards like that, boards that don't have FR's "pinging" technology (not that there aren't flame wars here, but at least here, the flaming can be done with one post!)

I simply can't function on the common discussion boards of today. I'm too addicted to FR's ease and convenience. Keep up the good work though!

[383rr]

Right -on Randall!
I'll check it out.

[RandallFlagg]

I'm taking another one on. I'll post the thing here in a few. It'll make them squeal a little bit, so I want to make it good and painfull....

[RandallFlagg]

Here's the latest nuking of a lefty. It can be seen on the link at Craig's List provided below:
______________________________________________________________You posted this as your evidence:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

To justify this statement:

Of course the troops think that. They need justification for putting their lives on the line everyday.

Now, let's look at who conducted this Zogby poll:

The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies

This should have been a warning sign to you about their partisan leanings, but I went on anyway.
Seems that Zogby changed their story about this particular poll citing, "First, the sponsor that funded Zogby's poll was not Le Moyne University but, according to a story in yesterday's Syracuse Post Standard, "a wealthy war opponent who [Zogby] would not name." In our conversation, Zogby said that an "anti-war" sponsor paid for the survey but played no role in conducting interviews or gathering the data."

Really? Let's dig further...

one conservative blogger sees partisan leanings
Which seems to be on the Le Moyne University's center's members. For example:

There's The Associate Director, Keith D. Watenpaugh:
"Let me begin by putting my cards on the table and explain why I titled this talk the way I did. This artificially generated crisis has never been about the disarming of Saddam, there is no credible evidence of a link between Baghdad and international Islamist terrorism, and Iraq poses no appreciable threat to America or American citizens."
--Keith D. Watenpaugh, Syracuse Thursday Morning Roundtable, March 12, 2003

Yeah. No partisan leanings there.
The guy sounds like Michael Moore.
I'd say he was full of it considering that when he made this speech, Zarqawi was in Iraq, healing from wounds inflicted on him by coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Now, let's look at the poll questions:

----“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,”
----For, "68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein."
----Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World"
----Securing oil supplies (11%)
----provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).
----More than 80% said they did not hold a negative view of Iraqis because of those attacks.
(How could they get this number if all of these attacks originate from what the media calls, "Insurgents?")
Insurgent:
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
If they originate from another country, they're NOT insurgents.

----About two in five see the insurgency as being comprised of discontented Sunnis with very few non-Iraqi helpers. “There appears to be confusion on this,” Zogby said. But, he noted, less than a third think that if non-Iraqi terrorists could be prevented from crossing the border into Iraq, the insurgency would end.
(Wait! All we've been hearing from the press is that these attacks are the result of Iraqi citizens defending their country from the American invaders. How could THAT be?!)
----A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency.

The rest of these questions are standard questions, but there's something strangely missing in this list....
How many of the troops were asked if they believed that they were there to stop terrorism?
NONE!

The partisan leanings seem to have shown through in this poll. This old poll, I might add (conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006).

One final question about the Zogby polls..
Who did Zogby predict to win the last presidential election based on his polls?

I eagerly await your reply.....

Gyaos

______________________________________________________________

This one's gonna cause a LOT of personal attacks upon me. I wouldn't have it any other way, though. Enjoy!

[RandallFlagg]

I don't know if you've seen this thread, but since you folks are the main FReepers I know, I thought I'd shoot y'all a ping to it. Enjoy.

[RandallFlagg]

I forgot to ping you to this little project I've got going. Hope ya like.

[RandallFlagg]

Crosslinking Geneva points at post #56

[RandallFlagg]

I hate to ping you all for this selfishly, but I have a problem.

At the top of this thread, I stated that I'm in the vast minority on Denver's R&R boards. Well, the lefties seem to have used this to their advantage and massed together to boot out almost all of the conservative posts on that site. It's called, "Flagging," which means that if enough of the users click on a post for removal for reasons of miscategorization, prohibited reasons, or spam, the post is gone. No appeals, no reason given.

Apparently, they feel that they are, "Sick of seeing boring politics all over the boards," and want me to, "Take it to the political forum," (which is worse than empty all the time).
But they seem to have no problem posting pics making fun of Iraq, the military or President Bush -THEY seem to stay posted -at a rate of about one an hour.

So much for the party of tolerance.

I tried to flag ALL of the political posts with, "Miscategorized," because they, "Want their board back.". Attempting to even the field, and get ALL of the political stuff sent to the, "Politics," board and debate against me. The cowards seem to be afraid of debate, and I'm only one person.

Does anyone have any suggestions? I don't want to give up on this. I'm attempting to defend and challenge these people when they attack and insult what I believe in, but they have the numbers against me.

I could continuously post a response to all of the insulting political commentary and force them to flag me every time, then repost again and again. But I think that's the only option I have.

Just an FYI for you folks. I'm NOT giving this up. I'll, for the time being, consider this a challenging setback to be remedied soon.

But, I'll take any advice you folks might have.

Thanks.
-R.F.

[Calpernia]

You are too funny Randall!

[RandallFlagg]

You folks'll like what I just posted:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________


That's seven less democrats going to the polls.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

They're gonna go NUTS!

[RandallFlagg]

My latest work:

____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

The Taliban Wants a CEASE-FIRE?!

___________________
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!






Not everyone's happy about this news, though.....

____________________________________________________________
Just kickin' that beehive again and again....

[RandallFlagg]

I enjoyed this one thouroughly!!!

---

When Taliban fought Russians they were heros and Rambo movies were made. Now, they are considered terrorists. F**k you and ann both.

You just proved my point.
The Taliban were formed in '94 and took over Kabul in '96.
The Soviet Union caved in '91.
Try again, DUMBASS!!! BWAAAHAHAHAAA!!!!

---

These idiots just make for great comedy, don't they?

[paulcissa]

You go man,....sic `em!

[Jaded]

mark