Posted on 05/26/2007 1:49:34 PM PDT by Eurotwit
Along with the intelligence test, apparently.
Nah, you had mean parents who named you T’wit so you would face a lifetime of ridicule!
Thanks.
I am pinging Jim out of politeness, so maybe he can clarify his position.
But let me ask you, are you, JS, of the opinion that only Rudy would be strong on defense? Because I’m not aware of anyone here who wants the ‘Rats to win the White House.
Gotta link?
I don’t get upset. Bye Bye Rooty, goodbye. Bye, bye Rooty don’t cry. Every time that he gets bolder one more RINO weenie is cryin’ on my shoulder!
So Bye, bye Rooty, Goodbye..........!
To what? The post where someone said the military was not a conservative issue? That would be:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1840286/posts?page=1098#1098
Or 1100, where this is said:
The fact that most liberals have chosen to oppose the war on terror and the military does not make it a conservative issue. You and many others have fallen into the trap of believing that anything that is opposed by the left is automatically a conservative position.
As someone said, I failed the intelligence test. I don't understand this.
Are you devoid of common courtesy or did you simply forget to ping me?
As I explained later, most of America’s greatest military successes (think WW2) were when the GOP and the Democrats agreed to unite for America’s good. It would be BEST in the WOT if that happened again, but unfortunately it isn’t. With the exception of Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, the ‘Rats have chosen to place petty politics and hatreds above America’s interests.
NONE OF THIS changes the fact that until Vietnam, politics was left out of foreign policy because national defense is above politics. The GOP did this with Clinton and it is despicable that the ‘Rats won’t do it now. Conservatives are for a strong defense, but principled liberals should be able to rise above it (like Lieberman and Miller).
Lieberman is right on the WOT, but I’m not sure how ‘principled’ he is; he did run with Gore in 2000.
Joe Lieberman is a die-hard leftist, but he has been rock-solid in his support of the war on terror and he risked his political future to support it. That actually makes him more principled that Roody, because Roody has never thought of anyone but himself and his future.
yeah...Lieberman is just liberal, he’s not out there on the moonbat fringe, which is why they hate him.
Of course, he didn't do that. But you know that.
I simply do not have the time to review just what happened that caused his/her departure, but I am quite sure that if I were to find myself banned from FR.com, I’d likely follow that person around the Internet if I could.
Even though I really do know almost everything already, that person clearly has boatloads of new stuff to teach me.
I’ll add to the collection. This is from a freepmail that *I sent* trying to inform one of those asking questions. I guess it didn’t help as this conversation continues.
FYI, I don’t know RadioAstronomer at all — I also don’t remember ever seeing any of his posts. But, relative to his zot.... There was a long thread going at darwincentral at the same time as the FR thread. Posters were coming from Darwin, getting zotted, and then going back and celebrating.
http://www.forum.darwincentral.org/viewtopic.php?t=4083&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=700
RadioAstronomer: Whoohoo! Add me to the list. I am finally out of that place.
CFC_VRWC: They finally got you, huh?
RadioAstronomer: Thank God! That place is a cesspool
- - -
http://www.forum.darwincentral.org/viewtopic.php?t=4083&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=725
RadioAstronomer: FYI to all - I pretty much asked to be zotted.
You've made several allegations of this on this thread. I suggest you either address it on that thread or file an abuse complaint. If you choose to continue it on this thread, can you provide direct quotes and links to your allegations, please? As you describe it, I find it hard to believe.
I haven't seen a single poster support such nonsense.
When I think of presidential incompetence, I think of peanuts and killer rabbits.
I don't understand "asking to be zotted" or for writing an "opus" either. If I ever get so offended or disgusted with this place or feel that my input is not welcome, I would simply change my home page from F.R. to Cartoon Central and never look back.
There are two things in my back ground that a majority of members probably do not like. I am a 30 plus year retired union member and I am against the death penalty. I don't argue either issue. Nothing can change either of those facts about me. Why debate them? What is,is.
It depends on what your definition....oh, never mind.
The main problem is that the loudest (specifically the Young Earth) creationists are expressing their views in the name of past generations, when, in reality, even past generations of anti-evolutionists weren’t as fanatical as some of the modern Young Earth creationists. When Darwin first announced his theory in the 1800s, it was not the basic idea of evolution that got his opponents outraged. They had no specific problem with the idea that reptiles evolved into birds. What they had a problem with was the idea that human beings (who they believed were the only creatures given souls by God and are therefore special and different from every other form of life) evolved from a lower order of animals. The modern-day fanatics have taken things further than even the old-fashioned people of generations past.
This is also true for other issues besides creationism/evolution. One that comes to mind is gender roles - certain ultra-traditionalists believe that the stereotype of the 1950s housewife or the Victorian-era lady was the norm for thousands of years of human history, for all cultures, many of which didn’t even have contact with one another. This is simply not true. For example, in medieval Europe it was considered “woman’s work” to go out to the barn, kill a pig, and proceed with turning it into dinner. In 1800s America, pioneer women knew how to hunt and would stand and fight alongside the men if the settlement was attacked by bandits or Indians. The ultra-traditionalists, however, continue to stubbornly believe that killing an animal for food (or, for that matter, killing a person in self-defense), is “un-feminine” because their stereotypical ‘50s lady (which is an inaccurate stereotype even for the ‘50s) would squeal at the thought of doing it. They inspired my tagline.
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.