The UNTHINKABLE -- "Chat session - with Jim Robinson (FR)" -- at Liberty Post?

LP | March 18th, 2004 | Jim Robinson

[Sabertooth]

Title: Chat session - with Jim Robinson (FR)
Source: JimRobinson-FreeRepublic LIVE
URL Source: None
Published: Mar 18, 2004
Author: Jim Robinson
Post Date: 2004-03-18 19:37:34 by jimrobfr

Link

[Howlin]

Well, I can understand why people are obsessed with me, especially the girly men (you KNOW who I mean); but I have just NEVER seen JustAmy say an unkind word to anybody.

Just checking.

[Victoria Delsoul]

but I have just NEVER seen JustAmy say an unkind word to anybody.

You're absolutely right about that, but hate has no limits. Gotta go to bed.

My spring brake stars on Monday so, maybe I'll see you around during the day next week. Night Howlin, and good to see ya!

[Mama_Bear]

Thanks for the pings you two.

Yes, so much for courage. LOL! So very predictable.

[Lead Moderator]

About what?

[ST.LOUIE1]

LOL!! Not much more I can add....so I won't. : )

[NittanyLion]

That was an interesting thread. I hate to use a trite phrase, but hopefully it'll provide some "closure" for folks on both sites. It seems obvious to me that the differences of opinion between site posters are not about to be resolved.

Perhaps that thread will allow the more vocal FR-bashers at the BB to discontinue their semi-obsession with FR, and put a stop to folks here who troll LP and try to get dual posters banned.

[headsonpikes]

...what IS the deal with her?

It would appear that YOUR name comes up in that very same query at TOS.

It's not that hard to see why.

An excess of partisanship, faction, is what destroyed the Roman Republic - it's not that hard to figure out why that would be.

[Howlin]

It would appear that YOUR name comes up in that very same query at TOS.

Yes, it sure does; some people just cannot seem to take responsibility for their own actions, so they try to find somebody to blame; I'm an easy target because I won't back down.

Franky, I consider it a badge of honor to be disliked by the obsessive-compulsives over there.

And whether my support of Bush is "excessive" certainly won't be judged by the likes of you, thank God.

[Billie]

LOL!! Not much more I can add....so I won't. : )

Oh, yeah, you could. LOL!

I will just say that even though all her id's here have been banned and/or nuked, I wonder if she's aware that all her quite ugly FR mails were left intact. Everyone who got at least one, raise your hand. LOL

[headsonpikes]

And whether my support of Bush is "excessive" certainly won't be judged by the likes of you, thank God.

No, it's the historical retrospective view that you ought to be concerned with, if you love your country. The 'likes of me' will think what we wish, in any event.

[Howlin]

Well, I'm perfectly capable of taking the historical view; for instance, I know exactly what liberals/Democrats have done to this country in the past.

I have no intentions whatsoever of allowing that to happen again, if it is within my power to do so. You may characterize that as partisanship; I consider it doing the intelligent thing for my country.

There is an A choice and a B choice; there is no C choice.

[gcruse]

Could only read about the first thirty posts on the LP thread. What an embarrassing bunch of cretins. Doubt I'll ever post there again.

[NittanyLion]

I have no intentions whatsoever of allowing that to happen again, if it is within my power to do so.

I sincerely doubt anyone here does. Of course, the devil's in the details; we must determine how best to achieve that end. Are we better served to use vitriol and insults to shut down debate, or to allow all sides to be presented and the best argument to carry the day?

Each of us must make that determination, and posters on all sides have done so (to varying degrees). The Bush Administration itself must make these same decisions: How explicitly must it extend an olive branch to conservatives? What about moderates?

Ultimately it's difficult to know what methods work best. Personally, I believe that reasoned debate is the best way to win others to my cause. Others may disagree (and vehemently have).

[headsonpikes]

I can't blame you for supporting Bush - I do as well. It's that 'excessive partisanship' that gives me a problem. The purpose of this site is the 'restoration' of Constitutional government; presumably, the Republican Party is merely a means to that end.

I know, it's hard to remember that your objective was to drain the swamp when you're up to your *ss in alligators, but nevertheless, one ought not to set the means above the objective, as it were.

[NittanyLion]

I know, it's hard to remember that your objective was to drain the swamp when you're up to your *ss in alligators, but nevertheless, one ought not to set the means above the objective, as it were.

Well stated. You're exactly right.

[Howlin]

I don't know what you mean by "excessive partisanship" in this situation; there are two candidates, period.

Can you describe what level of partisanship would be acceptable to you? I mean, should those of us who support Bush "think" about voting for Kerry?

[Dane]

Of course, the devil's in the details; we must determine how best to achieve that end. Are we better served to use vitriol and insults to shut down debate, or to allow all sides to be presented and the best argument to carry the day

I read the whole thread and JMO, the posters over there have their own debate, which is vitriol and insults.

The have more animus towards Jim Robinson than John Kerry.

But what the hey, if you think that people whose main beef is against the Pubbies rather than liberal demos are conservative, that's your right to have. No one is shouting you down or throwing insults at you, I'm questioning your point that these people actually advance conservatism in the real world.

[Ben Bolt]

Yeah it starts out a 'Lil rough . Just now getting to it . Thanks Saber .

[Dane]

I can't blame you for supporting Bush - I do as well. It's that 'excessive partisanship' that gives me a problem.

You would agree that the main adversaries in the political arena are the demos. They are partisan also, even more so.

It's all fine and dandy that you wish to triangulate yourself and set a new tone, but there is the real world out there and in the US, two parties have a chance of winning, the demos or Pubbies. I'm on the side of the Pubbies.

That's reality and no one said that reality would be a bed of roses.

[Howlin]

Well, that's what I'm so confused about; the "excessive" part.

If "excessive partisanship" is so bad, am I just suppose to vote for Bush and not say anything about it?

Or is it "excessive" because it's Bush?