Posted on 09/30/2010 7:01:01 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
For the record, Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell did not take classes at England’s Oxford University. But the tea party-backed Republican, who has hit snag after snag since defeating Rep. Mike Castle in this month’s GOP primary, faced questions for the third consecutive day about her education credentials posted on Internet resume sites.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
I knew it; you’re against plural marriages ~ one of those “two fer” bigots.
“Is that what you really want? Do you want me to throw up my hands and say, “fine! I’m not a conservative” and then vote for the other side?”
-
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’d settle for you simply, not actively sabotaging candidates on our side.
“actively sabotaging”???? Is she hiding in the bushes outside O’Donnell’s window? (oh wait, that was someone else)
Before going very far down that road if the Claremont institute, or whoever, has had a piece of paper in its hands for the last 8 years we need fingerprints, typewriter or printer analysis, examination to verify fonts, etc.
That there was a firing and a lawsuit in between the date the alleged piece of paper came to them and today really should be weighed heavy against the idea that the paper is legitimate.
We must hold our own accountable to the same standards we held Dan Rather and CBS to.
Oh really????? Well I’m glad we’re on the same page. Does that mean we hold O’Donnell accountable too?
Really, it’s not. I voted for GWB twice — not exactly Mr. Gay Marriage, you know? — I just find O’Donnell to be flaky and untruthful.
I do get angry on this site when I see all the talk about “homos” and “faggots” as if they were less than human. Because of my career, I work with and am friends with very many gay folks, and I have no beef with them. They come in good, bad, and indifferent forms, just like us straight folks. Sure, I want them to keep their bedroom activities out of my face, but I want my straight friends to do the same!
In any event, you asked about capital punishment. It’s a difficult issue for me because it’s a sentence you can’t take back once it’s carried out, and there are a number of cases where we’ve said “oops, we were wrong about that one...” but I do believe that there are some limited circumstances in which capital punishment is appropriate (Terrorism, Felony Murder, Killing a Law Enforcement Official). I think those guys who killed the Doctor’s family in Connecticut after robbing his home and raping his wife should fry at the earliest possible date. But it’s so damn expensive to carry out capital punishment that it goes against my desire to keep taxes down — so I think there is something to be said for life imprisonment in solitary, so that we don’t foot the endless and costly appeals...
Let’s see... “I was a grad student at Princeton; I went to Oxford; I went to Claremont Graduate University; I’ve never had an IRS lien filed against me; I never had my house go into foreclosure; I only made $5,800 but I have other income I don’t need to disclose; people follow me and hide in the bushes at my house; I haven’t used campaign funds to live on; I won two out of three counties in Delaware; I tied two out of three counties in Delaware, I’ve never had a IRS tax lien filed against me; I didn’t try to steal my employer’s internal e-mail list; I was the victim of gender discrimination by my employer...” Need I go on? Please, the woman is charlatan and a grifter.
I’m not sure how I’m actively sabotaging a conservative candidate when I’m talking about it on a conservative website. This would appear to be the appropriate place for conservatives who hold differing opinions about a candidate to be able to air their opinions WITHOUT sabotaging that candidate.
The correct assumption in a Democratic Society is that the candidate selected by the people is presumptively the correct candidate for the coming election for representatives/senators.
The burden of proof is on them just like the burden of proof was on the Democrats to come up with some substance to back up their claim that "W" had been AWOL.
CBS' documents were forged; I presume, just for the sake of comity, that Claremont's documents, if such exist, were also forged.
There are people who don't want Coons' gerbil pictures showing up on the net ~ and some of those people claim to be Conservatives.
TIme for the great "outing" eh!
That's been the law for a very, very long time.
Is someone making a claim that it's wrong for candidate's to do this lawful act?
If so they should be horsewhipped within an inch of their lives, and then flensed.
I’ve only heard “plural marriage” used as a synonym for polygamy so please define how you are using it.
Thoughtful answer, thanks.
Equal time, my own view is one cannot be consistent in a pro-life position, while at the same time supporting capital punishment.
Seems to me, you either support life, or you don’t.
National security of course, trumps.
More than 2
The baby is innocent. The abortionist is not.
Now, why not hang the mother? Well, the answer is that it's demonstrable that the newborn thrive better with a good stiff shot of mother's milk for several months.
So she gets off the hook for a period of time ~ but I bet she doesn't go back to the abortionist if he's out there hanging from a lampost.
Remember, part of the practice of justice is to minimize the cost of maintaining a just system. If you hang everybody who violates the codes you run out of people. It only takes a few good examples to get the others to fall into line.
I respect that position. I know my position on pro-life and “accepting” the death penalty is at least somewhat inconsistent...the only defense, I suppose, I have of the inconsistency is that in cases of the death penalty, a horrific crime has been committed. There is some form of “guilt” that justifies “severe punishment” whereas in the case of abortion, some baby did nothing to merit loss of their nascent life. I do think your position is the most logically consistent position; one could REALLY only consider themselves pro-life if they are anti-death penalty as well. You must have found yourself in trouble with many here at FR for that opinion as well! :-)
Then I’m sorry, I think I lost the plot on what you were calling me a bigot about?
Signing off.
Carry on. :)
I’m signing off too. I’m sure I’ll find some other thread to get in trouble on tomorrow. :-)
I have homosexual friends also, but I am strongly against the gay power agenda, and they know it, I'm proud, and I say it loud, and they accept it. I don't have any "friends" that I have to conceal my mainstream, conservative, political views from, nor do you.
Nobody is interested in any one's private, bedroom behavior either, so you can drop that little anti-conservative lie.
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.