Skip to comments.
Rudy and the Republican Nomination
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/News/DocumentPrint.aspx?DocumentID=19580 ^
| 2 Feb 2007
| Brent Seaborn, Strategy Director
Posted on 02/02/2007 4:47:11 PM PST by PhiKapMom
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 861-880, 881-900, 901-920 ... 1,541-1,545 next last
To: EternalVigilance
*cough*Did you turn your head while you did that?
881
posted on
02/02/2007 10:08:44 PM PST
by
Petronski
(Who am I and why am I here?)
To: Petronski
At least we're not riding in a van, down by the river. Why don't you explain what that means, since no one, including me, knows what you're talking about?
882
posted on
02/02/2007 10:08:50 PM PST
by
EternalVigilance
(With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?)
To: EternalVigilance
You certainly are if you're backing Rudy McRomney.That is just such a specious argument; people are NOT abandoning their morals.
You're disgusting.
883
posted on
02/02/2007 10:08:57 PM PST
by
Howlin
(Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
To: Howlin
That is just such a specious argument; people are NOT abandoning their morals. Well, you're right if they didn't have any to begin with.
884
posted on
02/02/2007 10:09:32 PM PST
by
EternalVigilance
(With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?)
To: dirtboy
Is it stopping partial-birth abortions though, is my point. The gruesome procedure continues, right? It wouldn't have mattered if Bush signed it or not. The only way to stop this and abortions in general is to
(A) Elect Republican Presidents who'll nominate strict constructionists to the bench and overturn Roe vs Wade * cough Rudy/Romney cough *
(B) Lobby Congress for a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion
Anything else is just grinding your tires in neutral.
To: Torie
It is a crime in many states and ought to be able to be legislated against, at the will of the people.
886
posted on
02/02/2007 10:10:00 PM PST
by
narses
(St Thomas says "lex injusta non obligat.")
To: dmw
887
posted on
02/02/2007 10:10:00 PM PST
by
Howlin
(Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
To: Admin Moderator
You are a very chatty Admin Moderator. I like it. Are you new? Most just delete from behind the curtain. Cheers.
888
posted on
02/02/2007 10:10:10 PM PST
by
Torie
(The real facts can sometimes be inconvenient things)
To: Howlin
You're disgusting. It's you repeating mythological personal attacks spawned by antifreepers.
889
posted on
02/02/2007 10:10:19 PM PST
by
EternalVigilance
(With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?)
To: narses
You didn't answer my my questions; instead, you asked something completely off base and off topic.
I am not a Catholic, so I personally don't care if a candidate is divorced.
DID YOU VOTE FOR THE DIVORCED RONALD REAGAN?
Rudy's first marriage was ANNULED, BTW.
Isn't bearing false witness a SIN? You have repeated committed that SIN. Perhaps you need to get shriven.
To: Torie
891
posted on
02/02/2007 10:10:48 PM PST
by
narses
(St Thomas says "lex injusta non obligat.")
To: EternalVigilance
Riiiight.
Feigned ignorance is so 20th century.
892
posted on
02/02/2007 10:11:05 PM PST
by
Petronski
(Who am I and why am I here?)
To: Petronski
It's their new buzzword, SoCons, for Social Conservatives; after somebody pointed out to them that the Contract with America wasn't about SOCIAL issues, they've found yet anotehr way to separte themselves from those they deem beneath them.
893
posted on
02/02/2007 10:11:20 PM PST
by
Howlin
(Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
To: nopardons
"Rudy's first marriage was ANNULED, BTW."
After 12 years he 'discovered' a defect. And then there was his second and now third try. What a RINO, what a CINO!
Was Reagan a Catholic?
894
posted on
02/02/2007 10:11:54 PM PST
by
narses
(St Thomas says "lex injusta non obligat.")
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
"Nobody on this here site is a liberal."
A few here on FR admitted to voting for Jim Webb, and now several here on FR are supporting liberal candidates for president, and you said, "nobody on this site is a liberal". Ha! Good one! That's really funny!!!
895
posted on
02/02/2007 10:12:04 PM PST
by
dmw
(Aren't you glad you use common sense, don't you wish everybody did?)
To: EternalVigilance
Is that supposed to mean something? Does it mean something to you?
896
posted on
02/02/2007 10:12:15 PM PST
by
Howlin
(Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
To: narses
Narses, I asked if in YOUR OPINION, it should be made a crime. I am well aware that many states have it as a crime on their books, all of which have now been ruled unconstitutional. I want to KNOW your opinion, because I CARE about your opinion. Best.
897
posted on
02/02/2007 10:12:17 PM PST
by
Torie
(The real facts can sometimes be inconvenient things)
To: dirtboy
Frankly, you are delusional, in the extreme and no, that isn't an opinion....it's a statement of fact based solely on your posts and your obsessive behavior.
To: Torie
Asked and answered. I assume english is a skill you have. Does the word "ought" not have sufficient clarity for you?
899
posted on
02/02/2007 10:13:44 PM PST
by
narses
(St Thomas says "lex injusta non obligat.")
To: Howlin
Does it mean something to you? It means antifreeper sewage is flowing down your pipes. That's about it. No meaning at all beyond that.
900
posted on
02/02/2007 10:13:47 PM PST
by
EternalVigilance
(With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 861-880, 881-900, 901-920 ... 1,541-1,545 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson