All that I did was ask you a series of questions. I made no "charges" about your district, much less false ones.
Posted on 06/06/2002 9:57:11 PM PDT by Big Guy and Rusty 99
Dear Mr. Robinson,
I have been a loyal member of the Free Republic since before the 2000 election. I have been a Conservative since the early days of Clinton. When I found this site, I thought "Thank God, people who think like me." I have continued to think this until the more recent days. Now, it seems that there are threads left and right bashing our President.
Why? There are things the President has done which I don't agree with but my loyality still lies with him. I am not sure if these "Bush-Bashers" fail to see the reality that with politics comes comprimise or it is something worse. I feel there is a cancer in the Free Republic. Some are eating their own.
I feel that some of these people are members of the dreaded democratic underground disguised as disgruntled conservatives. They are only here to stir up trouble. What's worse, they are doing just that. I am not sure what I think you should do.
As a conservative, I believe in our moral code but I also realize the reality of politics. I back our President but if he were doing something unsavory (like lying under oath,) I could not support him. This is unlike the left's clintonista dogma. What President Bush is doing is not betraying the conservative cause. He is using politics to confound the left. Those who do not understand this are either leftists themself or unable to separate themselves from their zealousness.
This is your show. You choose who gets to be a member and who does not. Those who break your rules are banished from the kingdom. I am not discouraging free speech, but this is free speech in your forum. These Bush-Bashers are brining us down. When this infighting happened in 1992, Bill Clinton got elected. let's not let that happen again.
Yours,
Big Guy and Rusty 99
I believe that Gore's campaign manager kept him updated of the progress of the fraud the whole election. Zogby serves the purpose of giving legitimacy to what would otherwise be so obvious an anomoly. If every poll in the nation was 5 million votes off, like every poll was, until Zogby's last minute adjustments the last few election cycles, then it would be more obvious what was going on. As it is, it's simple. Have the best pollers (supposedly) in the nation, Zogby, be your ally to fool the people that there will be a massive shift in opinion the last day of the campaign. Keep your poller informed of your progress in the fraud department so that he can continue to be accurate in his polls and drive the suspicion down thereby making the crime repeatable the next election.
Or are you suggesting he calls the Democratic party operatives who conduct the fraud, finds out how many fraudulent votes will be cast, and then adjust his polls accordingly?
You got it. Zogby's a Democrat. The Democratic Party has turned into a massive arm of organized crime. That black woman (I can't remember her name, I'm a numbers guy, not a names guy) was Gore's campaign manager. The reason why she was was because she is head of their inner city fraud activities. Chicago ran 100% for Gore for a while in the election. Blacks are 90% for Gore but not 100%. There was more votes cast in Philadelphia than there were voters if I remember right.
The most disturbing aspect of this debate about Bush is just that. Folks are "disappointed", "disturbed", "let-down", "upset" about his actions at the instance of one of THEIR pet issues being mauled, but "otherwise" he's a "Good Christian Man". The incompatability is obvious, except to those who WANT to be Decieved.
There's been much discussion on FR about Cults, but the two Cults I've seen are Democrats, and Republicans. Independent Thinking is nearly non-existant. And Woe to an Icon like Limbaugh to disagree or step out of the Cult on an issue! The Cult will Tear him Apart.
After all, there IS a pom pom page that tracks, in photos, every day of the Cult Icon's life.
Shoulda' been here when Zogby first came on the scene. It was during Clinton's Reign and he was putting out polls very negative to Slick. He was an "Honest Pollster", a "Hero that Calls it the Way It Is". Same goes for Larry Klayman.
Fast Forward and read what I just posted to Mancini, and consider Zogby now.
I didn't say that you " spit " on me. I used a metaphore, to say stop tryng to lie.
I've been on threads, that had absolutely NOTHING whatsoever, to do with immigration, where you have tried to change the topic to that. I have been on threads, and seen you post on them that was just BushBashing on your part, and again, had NOTHING to do with immigration.
When you post to another FREEPER, about me , and it's NOT anything at all to do wih my post, and the two ( or more ) of you banter, back and forth, insulting me personally ... that is " tag teaming ". Oh and you do this, without my having done that to you first, or ever.
Your denials are spurious; at best.
Zogby was building his reputation. A necessary step to be considered a pollster above reproach. Like Walter Cronkite tearing down the divide between responsible journalism and propaganda during the Vietnam War and getting away with it, Zogby said goodbye to his work ethics to further the socialist cause, I believe.
Fast Forward and read what I just posted to Mancini, and consider Zogby now.
I'm a Christian also, so I guess you would say I'm in at least two cults, according to your philosophy. If Republicans are cultists, and Democrats are cultists, then it would have to be said that those who worship the cult of complaining are no better. I see it now as a struggle between good and evil, especially considering the actions of Daschle, Clinton, McCauliff, and the rest of the Dem liars. If you want to call me a cultist, go ahead, truth is truth.
Boy, do you have psychological problems ; do get help.
You also haven't any ability, at all, in sizing up people, whose posts you reply to. You're oh sooooooo confused. LOL
What a useful idiot you and your type are.
All that I did was ask you a series of questions. I made no "charges" about your district, much less false ones.
Liberal control of media and education has been a well coordinated plan to control the opinions of the (sheeple) voters and consequently, government. The fact they have such control yet haven't been able to achieve total victory means trouble for them and opportuniy for us. There still is time but we need to get cracking.
No! No such thing. I think you need to reread the original post. This clown is saying he is all for free speech, but telling Jim that he should remove anyone who bashes Bush. I happen to like W. but don't think this guy should tell Jim to censor people when he professes to be all for free speech.
Coming up with a bizarre theory about why Bobby Rush is my congressman without knowing any of the facts is a charge. How you feel if I started posting random implications like "Southack, could it be Don Siegelman is your governor because you might have voted in the Democrat primary?"
You missed the point entirely. Those whose obvious purpose is to bash conservative politicians are being shown the door already, in spite of whether Big Guy and Rusty 99 advocates it or not. And guess what? Being shown the door is perfectly Constitutional.
The New York Times supports the 1st Amendment, but that Amendment does not give anyone the right to be read on the pages of the New York Times. The local radio station supports the 1st Amendment, but that doesn't entitle you or anyone else to a free hour of air time. Anyone is free to start their own rag or radio station or web server.
You claim that Big Guy and Rusty 99 should not be telling Jim to censor people, as if Big Guy and Rusty 99 has no 1st Amendment right to advocate what he believes either. How convoluted and cloudy can the ideologue's thinking get? Sheesh.
You seem to be saying that Democrat party operatives, over several elections, consistently pre-planned some amount of voter fraud. And to obscure this voter fraud (at least obscure it statistically), they would feed the anticipated fraudulent vote count to Zogby, who would factor it into his polls towards election day, thereby making his polls more accurately reflect the outcome (so Zogby benefits), and because at least one pollster (zogby) has an accurate forecast of the 'vote', there is less appearance of vote fraud (so the operatives benefit).
i.e. instead of people wondering, 'how is it all the pollsters always get the Democrat turnout wrong - where does the extra democrat vote come from?' people just assume Zogby is a much better pollster and there is nothing to question in the Democrat turnout.
Did I paraphrase that correctly? Might you have any other sources for this theory? If true, it would implicate Zogby in voter fraud, I think.
...and you're telling me I have no right to my opinion. Should we all just walk in lock-step like liberals?
Yes that's my theory.
Did I paraphrase that correctly? Might you have any other sources for this theory? If true, it would implicate Zogby in voter fraud, I think.
You have to have public support to go after this. The Democrats protect themselves by having the media convince the public that Republicans "turn people from the voting stations" when Republicans try to install accountability. Well yes people would be turned from the voting stations because the same people are voting at multiple stations. That's how Philly had more than 100% turnout. As far as Zogby being implicated, look at everything that Clinton and his fellow Dems got away with. That many associates don't just die of unnatural causes during a person's lifetime at opportune moments, and he had to have help. When you're a part of organized crime, you can get away with a lot. Inside information on vote fraud is small compared to the treason and murder of the Clinton gang, not to mention his individual crimes like rape.
Chicago ran 100% for Gore for a time last election, Philly had more than 100% turnout, and in the last few election cycles, Zogby makes his "election day adjustments", after running with every other poll all campaign long, making him "right" on election day and everyone else "wrong". Add to that that the three main states that Gore needed to win, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, were the most "off" with most pollsters. Add to that that Dems are against better voter ID systems and the theory makes a lot of sense. And don't forget the things they did out in the open, such as throw away military ballots and demand multiple recounts in only counties that would help them and attempted blocks in counties that may hurt them and it's easy to see that there is nothing that is beneath their ethics or morality. Vote fraud is nothing to them.
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.