Posted on 09/30/2004 7:19:03 AM PDT by Warden
Heard of the Constitution...heard of the party...together it doesn't make much sense in the 21st century.
What we need are more Scalias and Thomases in courts...at all levels.
Oh, no...Saddam doesn't have any WMDs.
Get this...Iraq doesn't have an Al Queda link? I dare anyone to argue who is cutting off heads in Iraq...There is a link.
... Binary Chemical Sarin artillery shell rigged as an IED ...
So, if the president used that as a specific example when pushing for an invasion, you and every other noble patriot would have still called for war? Come on. Even you have to admit that the implied threat was much greater than the actual threat.
I know.
But that was Galt's position as well as the position of his followers.
Isn't the rationale of 3rd Party advocates amazing? What a bunch of pathetic losers.
None but the two major parties, due to the media, mostly, have a "chance to win". You forever will be forced, if that is your criteria, to vote either democrat or republican.
You can take that to the bank. The only way another party will ever have a "chance to win" is if people vote for their candidates when same don't have a "chance to win". 
I'm this close to give up on him.
His "headupassitis" is incurable.
>Please, do so.
>You may watch the inauguration ceremony of President Hillary
>Rodham Clinton on TV, on January 20, 2009.
If that's what it takes, that's what it takes. If the GOP nominates Jeb Bush in 2008, that's what they'll get.
It's also a bit ironic how GOP partisans always try and stake out the high ground in this debate by saying "it's your fault, Mr. or Ms. Conservative, if you vote for the Constitution party and a liberal is elected" while never wishing to accept any of the blame for this due to their unwillingness to switch to a more ideologically compatible candidate.
Then again, maybe the problem is that the people who make these charges are more interested in hanging onto the reigns of power than actually electing someone with answers to problems.
What is the definition of 'Weapon of Mass Destruction'?
Will you answer that honestly?
Sarin falls under the definition.
The President said Weapons of Mass Destruction.
What part of that is so hard to understand.
And no, I don't have to admit the implied threat was greater than the actual trheat.
What access do YOU have to info that others don't?
NONE.
Saddam tried to have Bush the elder assassinated.
Did you know that?
Of course not.
It doesn't fit your agenda.
I know.
Check out sheltie's post 164 for more of that 'rationale'.
He's honestly implying tehre that Sarin is not a WMD..
Wow!!!
You're absolutely amazing.
So, let's have Hillary as president, so someone like Rudy Giuliani can't be elected as a GOP President...
DU awaits you!!!
"Have you ever heard of ZOT?"
Was he the gate keeper or the key master? I haven't seen the movie recently.
Didn't he say that not too long ago in another thread? I am pretty sure you and I ripped him a new one then too...
Yes.
But he at least has admitted in 164 that he doesn't know what a WMD is, if not saying it outright.
Tell me what happened when Ross Perot ran in the election.
OOo, OOOoo, I know, I know!!!!
That was his echo churchillbuff.
And yes, I could swear not too long before churchy was shelty.
LOL!
I know that you know, but I want to see if they know.
;-)
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.
