Posted on 02/25/2005 9:31:30 AM PST by Marguerite
Edited on 02/25/2005 9:36:36 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I haven't argued that. I've just pointed out that the man has voiced hateful opinions about Christianity. When somebody does that, it shouldn't be allowed to go down the memory hole -- . If somebody posted a column by David Duke about how to make cherry pie - - i.e., something having nothing to do with Duke's racist views -- it would still be appropriate for me to come on the thread and remind people that this guy's a racist, and he doesn't deserve respect.
Please go away from this thread, and stay away.
Why is that not okay, but it's okay for you to attack "my" United States military day in and day out on this very forum?
Man, your comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
If you really feel you are doing the work of Christ, why does it have to be conservative reporters you go after? Why wouldn't you go after any columnist who condemned Christianity?
In your own words, you said you were going after Krauthammer because Freepers like him so much. You NEVER go after liberal columnists. NEVER.
It's because you're a disruptor. And nearly everyone who has read your posts knows it. It only bother with you so the lurkers and the naive don't fall for your crap.
Exactly so. He spams every thread and makes it about HIM.
He's not a conservative or he'd be going after liberal columnists who have attacked Christianity.
Or he'd be on the threads right now worrying about how the Supreme Court will rule today regarding the Ten Commandments. I don't even think he's a Christian but a member of the press sent here to stir up dissent.
Thank you so very much.
Remind? You've argued your opinion beyond the point of exhaustion. You have an agenda about Krauthammer that is apparent. Others feel just as strongly about pointing that out about you as you feel about airing your opinion of Krauthammer.
Because you overdo it to this extent your objectivity and credibility become questionable.
So now we can go back to discussing the brillian Krauthammer's article.
"Sharon is no dreamer like Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, who bargained away land for a piece of paper. Sharon, like any good general -- and he was a great general -- is giving up land for a stable defensive line.
Everyone wants peace, but Sharon's real obsession is terror. From his days as a young commando in the 1950s, he has been a fanatic about fighting terrorism. Take away the terror weapon and everything else follows: safety, stability and the conditions for a final peace. A peace based not on the good will of a Sharon or a Mahmoud Abbas but on the new reality on the ground: separate nations delineated by a temporary barrier to produce a temporary peace -- and the possibility of a final one."
And aren't we seeing just that happening in Iraq and Lebanon with other countries making beginning concessions to democracy like Egypt, and Saudi.
The left must be having caniption fits that the face of the ME is changing, ever so slowly. And the neocons and wonderful advisors to the president helped make it so.
And don't I remember reading that Krauthammer reviewed the president's inaugural speech although he says he didn't help write it?
In no way does not liking the movie make someone ipso facto anti-Christian, just as liking the movie does not make one an anti-semite.
I believe Mel Gibson also cynically exploited religious tensions to garner interest in his movie. And it worked.
The attacks at FR on Jewish conservatives who did not like the movie were appalling, but transparent.
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.