Replies

"But, they are."

No, they are NOT.

You also see fit to ignore the REST of the post. Not surprising, you have done it before. You see, I have to pay a penalty, too. I have NO influence over John Warner now that he has won re-election - he owes me... nothing, as Poohbah has said elsewhere on this thread and others. You might belittle that, but it is something I have to live with.

Looking at Jim Robinson's posts, I can only assume that he came to the same conclusion I pretty much came to after that 1994 debacle: Our best shot is the Republican party, and I will call out those who make any efforts that risk putting Democrats in power.

If he feels my stance vis-a-vis John Warner is incompatible with the goals of this forum as he has expressed them in his posts, then he certainly is capable of letting me know, either through a warning or by stronger action. But that is for him to decide, not you.

You also see fit to ignore the REST of the post. Not surprising, you have done it before. You see, I have to pay a penalty, too. I have NO influence over John Warner now that he has won re-election - he owes me... nothing, as Poohbah has said elsewhere on this thread and others. You might belittle that, but it is something I have to live with.

I ignored the impertinent part of your post, and focused on your double-standard: by your logic not voting for a GOP nominee is an indirect vote for a Democrat.
When you do it, though, it's ok. In fact it's a burden you happily bear.

Looking at Jim Robinson's posts, I can only assume that he came to the same conclusion I pretty much came to after that 1994 debacle: Our best shot is the Republican party, and I will call out those who make any efforts that risk putting Democrats in power.

Except when those efforts are yours.
1994 was not a debacle btw, it was a smashing success that resulted from the high turnout a highly-motived conservative base.

If he feels my stance vis-a-vis John Warner is incompatible with the goals of this forum as he has expressed them in his posts, then he certainly is capable of letting me know, either through a warning or by stronger action. But that is for him to decide, not you.

How melodramatic. I don't advocate any action against you.
I don't mind debate or disagreement, and don't need any heavy-handed assist in that regard.
You voted your conscience against Warner, and that's your prerogative.
Don't others have the same prerogative?

"If he feels my stance vis-a-vis John Warner is incompatible with the goals of this forum as he has expressed them in his posts, then he certainly is capable of letting me
know, either through a warning or by stronger action. But that is for him to decide, not you."

Where did Sabertooth ever say that it was up to him to decide if you should be here?

And what is it with you and fabricating statements that people never made or better yet pinging others to your defense when you're getting creamed in an honest debate?

Are you so unable to debate that you need to make up comments or call on others to get you out of the verbal messes of your own making?

For crying out loud I thought this kind of garbage was left behind in middle school.