TXnMA '-)
Posted on 09/19/2020 9:02:52 AM PDT by MAGA2017
How do you change your user name or profile name here on Free Republic? I picked "Maga2017" back in 2016 but I want to update it to something that's not tied to a specific year. I can't seem to find the option in the My Profile or My Account links on FR. Thank you in advance.
You want to change it to Karen?
Im so old i remember reading tractor feed by the mile from the white water prodigy boards
Mine's in December. Joined during that Bush v. Gore debacle.
I thought that was bad but the coming months are going to make that look like child's play, I'm afraid.
What in Gods name is that
You beg Jim to let you set up a new account with a new name and start date, and then kill the old account.
You know, it’s the... Thing!
Here's a page I bookmarked some years back: Freeper Lingo Reference Thread. It may not have all the latest and greatest entries but it's a good start.
You don’t. Ever.
TXnMA '-)
Ping Jimrob. Around 2008 he got an email from a school system I wrote and article about threatening lawsuit.
We nuked rebelbase and I operated under another name for a year or so until the dogs got thrown off the scent then went back to the old name.
Suggest you change your screen name to "MagaTheCurrentYear."
Regards,
Top of homepage click on account!!
Same here. That’s what brought me here.
Great.
I don't know which is more impressive, the computation of .57 or the use of the Latin plural, "lustra".
But you know that the Duke, i.e. Rooster, wouldn't go to his English to Latin translator to get the correct plural of lustrum{s}.
Yeah, I looked forward to mine in February of last year - then when it came, I realized that the congratulations did not belong to me but to Jim Robinson and FR for being the go-to place for sanity in an insane political world.FR was my lifeline when I was minding my Mother who, fading away with Alzheimer’s, mostly just sat around.
Speaking of insanity, IMHO it always existed in politics but really received license from the government in 1964 when the Warren Court unanimously(!) held in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”That position is simultaneously both impossible to argue with, and indefensible.Who doesn’t love himself some freedom of the press??? Mark Steyn is an exemplar of a public figure who would defend Sullivan. Rush Limbaugh, ditto.And yet Sullivan is in fact directly in conflict with the
. . . which says that if the Constitution doesn’t explicitly "deny or disparage” a right which existed in 1788, all the handwaving in the world is insufficient to vindicate an argument against that right.
- Amendment 9
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And the right to sue for libel certainly did exist in 1788. a href="https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/2016/02/16/justice-scalia-the-45-words-and-original-meaning-of-the-first-amendment/">As Antonin Scalia put it, the Supreme Court, under Justice Earl Warren, “… simply decided, ‘Yes, it used to be that … George Washington could sue somebody that libeled him, but we don’t think that’s a good idea anymore.’”
Think what would happen to “the media” (which is IMHO terrible nomenclature) if Sullivan were overturned! Republican politicians (and Justice Kavanaugh, BTW), would positively own them.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exod 20: 16
~~~~~~~~~
<GRIN>
But -- I'm the real deal -- a physical chemist who knows the Latin plural of "lustrum".
Marion Morrison, OTOH, was a movie actor who -- unlike me -- had an ego... </SARCASM> '-)
<chuckle...>
TXnMA
"TXnTX" isn't much of a conversation starter...
Besides, I found I don't want to risk losing connection with my FR contributions on OKC, the Hunley, Epstein's underground -- and myriad other prime examples of erudition... </SARC> '-)
YMMV...
Good luck!
TXnMA
I looked forward to my 20th FREEPERversary in February of last year - then when it came, I realized that the congratulations did not belong to me but to Jim Robinson and FR for being the go-to place for sanity in an insane political world.FR was my lifeline when I was minding my Mother who, fading away with Alzheimer’s, mostly just sat around.
Speaking of insanity, IMHO it always existed in politics but really received license from the government in 1964 when the Warren Court unanimously(!) held in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”That position is simultaneously both impossible to argue with, and indefensible.Who doesn’t love himself some freedom of the press???Think what would happen to “the media” if Sullivan were overturned!
Mark Steyn is an exemplar of a public figure who would defend Sullivan.
Rush Limbaugh, ditto.And yet Sullivan is in fact directly in conflict with
. . . which says that if the Constitution doesn’t explicitly "deny or disparage” a right which existed in 1788, all the handwaving in the world cannot suffice to vindicate an argument against that right.
- Amendment 9
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And the right of people - “public figures” or no - to sue for libel certainly did exist in 1788. As Antonin Scalia put it in a 2016 speech,
the Supreme Court, under Justice Earl Warren, “… simply decided,‘Yes, it used to be that … George Washington could sue somebody that libeled him, but we don’t think that’s a good idea anymore.’”
Republican politicians (and Justice Kavanaugh, BTW), would positively own them.And
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exodus 20:16rightly so.
ASH! HILARIOUS!
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.