Posted on 07/02/2005 7:53:49 PM PDT by John Robertson
I just realized...I mean that.
It's going to come down to this.
I have often argued, as many here have, that when FReepers said they would sit home rather than vote for (McCain, usually, sometimes Guiliani), that such sitting out would put Hilary in the Whitehouse.
But I'm not moving on this.
No matter HOW smooth we are. ;^)
Now THAT is funny; but I rather doubt I have all that "smooth" a brain! LOL
The odds were against you then, as the socialists had already begun to raid the 'treasury'. Admit defeat. GW gets to nominate a candidate and if said nominee isn't solidly 'pro-constitution', we're screwed by more 5/4 decisions.
Americans, by nature, are a volatile lot. Imagine riots in the streets by white, middle-class, and blue-collar types protesting an elitist Supreme Court. Now, imagine many Blacks and Hispanics joining in the revolt against the centralization of power (and some of these dudes know how to riot)
We The People reign supreme over any and all forms of government, and when they fail to serve our purpose (protect our rights), we reserve the right to toss them. 2008 will be a critical test as to our survival as a republic.
Freedom and liberty aren't things you can sh*t-can in order to further the war against terrorists or the imposition of a socialist utopia. In this regard the two major parties suffer a serious deficit. Be it 'entangling alliances' in the Mid-east (that we'd been advised against), or placing the state ahead of the individual in the order of 'rights' derived, (democrat party, Hillary-care, etc.) neither side represents what it means to be American.(and don't get me started with repelling invasions-clearly a responsibility of the feds that they aren't interested in).
Recent Supreme Court decisions suggest that our 'rights' as individuals are now subject to interpretation as opposed to being fixed in stone by the constitution. This waywardness on their part ought to give conservatives the willies and by '08 we may see the outcome. Prediction: neither Democrat nor Republican shall win the office of president in 2008. The re-birth of freedom and liberty in America will subject these two parties to the dustbin, along with the power absconded by the Supreme Court.
Deny it all you want, you have all the indications of being a DU hippy.
All of you, knock of the personal attacks, suspensions will follow.
Look, there'll be NO "taking to the streets". Nobody did it during the 8 years of Clinton and they won't do it now.
Reagan nominated O'Connor. She's been all over the place. There's no guarantee, except when a damned Dem puts someone up, just what we'll get once any judge is in place. And that's that; no matter what you think.
And a strict constructionist, would, like it or not, uphold any and all laws passed previously.THAT'S WHAT A STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST MEANS.
The FFs thought that most of the populace were far too stupid to be allowed to actually vote for a president, wisely. That's one of the main reasons we have the system we have. And like it or not, fringe parties ( and no, the GOP really does NOT count, in that category !), have never made it here.
It's against my religion to gamble ( I'm a Methodist ), but since it really isn't a gamble, I'd gladly bet you all that I own, that either the candidate from the GOP or the damned Dem, WILL win the presidential election of '08.
You’re right. You folks talked me out of it. I don’t know what I was thinking.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.
That would be, as so many of you so unkindly put it…dumb (you actually said a lot more than that, which I’ll get to). I posted this thread last night, then a family emergency pulled me away before I could manage all the wildfires that flared up. Situation kept me up all night, into the morning…slept all day, into the night. Finally got back to things just a bit ago. Apologies to all, for sending the boat out without a captain—that was never my intention. I am no “hit and run” artist, as was suggested.
But I do have a few things to get off my chest (and I’ll give this same reply three or four times, so the hundreds of posters who responded might see it).
JohnRobertson is NOT JimRobinson. Never was, never intended to confuse. My name here is very close to my real name, and that’s simply what I registered with. Had I known how many people would be confused by it, I would have created a different one when I opened my account…almost four years ago.
Which leads me to the misuse of “troll” on this forum, and how long people have been registered here. Every person who disagrees with you is not always a troll. He might just be someone who has a different take on an issue with you. Next time out, you might be in agreement. Someone registered here less than a month had the nerve to call me a troll. Several of you pointed out that I’d been here going on four years.
A few people, most loudly PhiKapMom, posited that DUers and real trolls register years in advance here, just waiting for their chance to “disrupt” on an issue. This is absurd on its face: How would a “sleeper” troll know when to spring to action? What if his “control” triggered him to disrupt us on Issue A, but then Issue B, which was much bigger, broke three days later—why, that troll’s cover would be blown, and therefore he would be of no use. This does not make any sense to me, and if there’s any proof of it, I’d really be interested in it. (And please consider: someone the troll experts declare a troll might just be someone who happens to disagree with them on an issue, as stated above.)
(My wife took on PhiKapMom, on my behalf, and I see where PhiKapMom responded saying she would NOT apologize for what she said. If it’s worth anything, please understand that my wife was not asking for contrition on your opinions, but for what you said directly or suggested about me and my motives, especially the troll part. I think it’s obvious to many that I’m not a troll, long-planted or otherwise, and you might even reconsider an apology, on that basis. On a related matter, when I read your post to my wife, in which you led off by saying you were offering a prayer for our family situation, she smiled and said, Tell her I think she’s a classy lady. So there, I’ve told you.)
Why do some Freepers kept playing the same old song: I’ve been here five years…so the opinions of people who’ve been here three years simply don’t matter. May I suggest something? Just because some of you got to the party before the rest of us did, doesn’t mean it really got rockin’ till a whole bunch of the rest of us got here too. This forum is terrific because it grows and evolves and attracts (and converts!) new people. If the “old-timers” always go off in the corner like a bunch of snarky teenagers, acting superior to everyone who happened to register after the millennium, and discounting everything they have to say, it’s going to be a lot less fun and interesting. And from what I can glean of the people who post here, we’re all a bit too long in the tooth to be acting like spoiled suburban teenaged girls—doncha think?
A lot of people said I was “throwing a tantrum,” “acting like a [fill in the under-6 age]-year-old,” and “pouting.” To indicate the glaringly obvious: that judgement is highly subjective. And even though I’ve reversed completely on pledging my vote to Her Heinous (and there will be no re-reversal, I assure you), I still have to say that, making yourself heard by the party you have supported in so many ways for so long is not throwing a tantrum…it’s a political act.
Most of Sunday’s newspapers are calling for “another moderate,” like O’Conner. Same theme detected on Sunday talk shows. You see what’s happening? They’re framing the issue: We MUST have a moderate! Oh, and, what’s a moderate? They’ll tell us when we put up someone we approve of.
There was a recurrent sentiment on this thread, and though I didn’t do the math, I’d say 70+% of the people who responded endorsed this sentiment: Stay the course, we can’t win them all, look how we’re winning by increments, over time we’re selling our agenda, we can’t win them all, sometimes you have to compromise, live to fight another day, if we don’t get the nominee we want….
Not buying it. Not voting for…her, but I will not buy into the language of appeasement above, and I will not compromise on this: If a conservative nominee is not named, I am through with the Republican Party. A line in the sand. A political act.
Before everybody jumps on his or her keyboard, please consider this: If the Whitehouse was monitoring this forum last night (and they were, I can assure you), their people reading responses here could honestly report back that, Yes, the conservatives on FR want a conservative nominee, but they’re adopting a wait-and-see attitude, and if they don’t get the nominee they want, they won’t abandon us in droves…they might not like it, but they’ll hang in there with us, hoping for a better selection next time out.
I’m still hoping and praying for the right nominee. But I urge you to think about the signals you send when you indicate your willingness to accept a less-than-perfect nominee before one has even been named.
I thank OKIEDOC for this: “The next two appointments to the Supreme Court will tell Americans’ future for the next 20 plus years. It will be the telling tale of whether we continue down this road to destruction of our country as we used to know it. I cannot make the kind of comment that can impress on any one who cares about our country, that
this appointment is probably the biggest ever made to the court.”
That’s why it’s so important to me. I really don’t think we’ll get another chance, if we blow this.
I thank Dominic Harr for: “I hear your pain. I'm sorry for the flames, but that's how it goes, I guess. Politics is a 'team' sport, and you know how 'fans' can be. Not sure I agree with you regarding backing Hillary, but I respect the point you're trying to make.”
So many thoughtful people here. Thank you. Once I listened to your reactions, I realized the errors of my ways.
I’m going to close on someone not so thoughtful: nopardons.
I owe myself a big butt-kick for misspelling Hillary, and leaving the t off president in my headline, but man, your syntax is from hunger. Your punctuation is from Latvia. Your logic is from circus clowns. Where do you get off insulting so many people? This is perhaps one tenth of the abusive blather you put down last night (cut from several posts):
“If only you actually knew 1/1,000th of what you imagines you do, we might then, perhaps be able to have somewhat of a substantive debates; just barely. Sadly, your abject lack of factual knowledge, precludes that.….
“BTW, juvenile cynicism is a nice cover for being too afraid and too uneducated to understand what one should actually be afraid of and for…I am abjectly lacking in enough HTML to CCP replies to a reply, but I am not deficient in reading comprehension skill. I know exactly what and when you posted what you did….
”I am not "angry", nor am I "nasty". If you are having a problem with my stating easily proven facts, then perhaps it is you, who are angry. I don't know, as I don't usually ascribe "feelings" to others, after reading their replies….
“For the record ( and if you change, in way way, shape, or form, this answer, you'll be THE sorriest person on the face of the earth, when I find out! ), there are some elected Republican politicians, who yes, may espouse such things as a smaller government; however, their actions belie their words….
“You're fooling yourself a very great deal, by attempting to place me into a group I am not in. You are deluding yourself into imagining that you know whereof you speak….
“A substantive debate between us is impossible, not because of me and my positions ( none of which you know ), but because you haven't the knowledge not ability to refute me…You're out of your depth, you don't know how to debate, and you aren't even slightly clever, when it comes to throwing down the gauntlet, by insult. Pity that. Get back to me, when you've finally managed to drag yourself through American political history 101.”
Is this what your long tenure on FR has wrought—an incomprehensible, furious nut, who insists on acting like…an incrompehensible, furious nut?
If so, gimme one of them “trolls”! Wait, make it one of them sleeper trolls!
FR is supposed to be a piece of your life…not your whole life. When you start ranting at people that they know nothing of political campaigns, that you’ve worked many campaigns, national campaigns, etc., I find myself remembering a cardinal rule of human behavior that is almost always true: Those that can’t stop bragging about it couldn’t have had the time to have ever really done it. That goes for women, sports, hunting, fishing—and political campaigns.
And please don’t anyone consider THIS bragging, but I list it just as a reference point to indicate that nopardons must be full of crap: I’ve worked on more state campaigns than I can count; I have been a paid political campaign worker in New York City and Los Angeles, in national campaigns for Republicans. I have been to two Inaugurations, and a guest at the Whitehouse four times (no, not the tour). I’ve seen a lot, and gotten to know a lot of types. Nopardons, nothing serious or real is ever discussed in front of your type. No real responsibilities are ever given your type. Your type is tolerated, because we don’t want to be cruel, but your type is never really admired. Nopardons, you’re the type we let put up the yard signs.
You’re right. You folks talked me out of it. I don’t know what I was thinking.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.
That would be, as so many of you so unkindly put it…dumb (you actually said a lot more than that, which I’ll get to). I posted this thread last night, then a family emergency pulled me away before I could manage all the wildfires that flared up. Situation kept me up all night, into the morning…slept all day, into the night. Finally got back to things just a bit ago. Apologies to all, for sending the boat out without a captain—that was never my intention. I am no “hit and run” artist, as was suggested.
But I do have a few things to get off my chest (and I’ll give this same reply three or four times, so the hundreds of posters who responded might see it).
JohnRobertson is NOT JimRobinson. Never was, never intended to confuse. My name here is very close to my real name, and that’s simply what I registered with. Had I known how many people would be confused by it, I would have created a different one when I opened my account…almost four years ago.
Which leads me to the misuse of “troll” on this forum, and how long people have been registered here. Every person who disagrees with you is not always a troll. He might just be someone who has a different take on an issue with you. Next time out, you might be in agreement. Someone registered here less than a month had the nerve to call me a troll. Several of you pointed out that I’d been here going on four years.
A few people, most loudly PhiKapMom, posited that DUers and real trolls register years in advance here, just waiting for their chance to “disrupt” on an issue. This is absurd on its face: How would a “sleeper” troll know when to spring to action? What if his “control” triggered him to disrupt us on Issue A, but then Issue B, which was much bigger, broke three days later—why, that troll’s cover would be blown, and therefore he would be of no use. This does not make any sense to me, and if there’s any proof of it, I’d really be interested in it. (And please consider: someone the troll experts declare a troll might just be someone who happens to disagree with them on an issue, as stated above.)
(My wife took on PhiKapMom, on my behalf, and I see where PhiKapMom responded saying she would NOT apologize for what she said. If it’s worth anything, please understand that my wife was not asking for contrition on your opinions, but for what you said directly or suggested about me and my motives, especially the troll part. I think it’s obvious to many that I’m not a troll, long-planted or otherwise, and you might even reconsider an apology, on that basis. On a related matter, when I read your post to my wife, in which you led off by saying you were offering a prayer for our family situation, she smiled and said, Tell her I think she’s a classy lady. So there, I’ve told you.)
Why do some Freepers kept playing the same old song: I’ve been here five years…so the opinions of people who’ve been here three years simply don’t matter. May I suggest something? Just because some of you got to the party before the rest of us did, doesn’t mean it really got rockin’ till a whole bunch of the rest of us got here too. This forum is terrific because it grows and evolves and attracts (and converts!) new people. If the “old-timers” always go off in the corner like a bunch of snarky teenagers, acting superior to everyone who happened to register after the millennium, and discounting everything they have to say, it’s going to be a lot less fun and interesting. And from what I can glean of the people who post here, we’re all a bit too long in the tooth to be acting like spoiled suburban teenaged girls—doncha think?
A lot of people said I was “throwing a tantrum,” “acting like a [fill in the under-6 age]-year-old,” and “pouting.” To indicate the glaringly obvious: that judgement is highly subjective. And even though I’ve reversed completely on pledging my vote to Her Heinous (and there will be no re-reversal, I assure you), I still have to say that, making yourself heard by the party you have supported in so many ways for so long is not throwing a tantrum…it’s a political act.
Most of Sunday’s newspapers are calling for “another moderate,” like O’Conner. Same theme detected on Sunday talk shows. You see what’s happening? They’re framing the issue: We MUST have a moderate! Oh, and, what’s a moderate? They’ll tell us when we put up someone we approve of.
There was a recurrent sentiment on this thread, and though I didn’t do the math, I’d say 70+% of the people who responded endorsed this sentiment: Stay the course, we can’t win them all, look how we’re winning by increments, over time we’re selling our agenda, we can’t win them all, sometimes you have to compromise, live to fight another day, if we don’t get the nominee we want….
Not buying it. Not voting for…her, but I will not buy into the language of appeasement above, and I will not compromise on this: If a conservative nominee is not named, I am through with the Republican Party. A line in the sand. A political act.
Before everybody jumps on his or her keyboard, please consider this: If the Whitehouse was monitoring this forum last night (and they were, I can assure you), their people reading responses here could honestly report back that, Yes, the conservatives on FR want a conservative nominee, but they’re adopting a wait-and-see attitude, and if they don’t get the nominee they want, they won’t abandon us in droves…they might not like it, but they’ll hang in there with us, hoping for a better selection next time out.
I’m still hoping and praying for the right nominee. But I urge you to think about the signals you send when you indicate your willingness to accept a less-than-perfect nominee before one has even been named.
I thank OKIEDOC for this: “The next two appointments to the Supreme Court will tell Americans’ future for the next 20 plus years. It will be the telling tale of whether we continue down this road to destruction of our country as we used to know it. I cannot make the kind of comment that can impress on any one who cares about our country, that
this appointment is probably the biggest ever made to the court.”
That’s why it’s so important to me. I really don’t think we’ll get another chance, if we blow this.
I thank Dominic Harr for: “I hear your pain. I'm sorry for the flames, but that's how it goes, I guess. Politics is a 'team' sport, and you know how 'fans' can be. Not sure I agree with you regarding backing Hillary, but I respect the point you're trying to make.”
So many thoughtful people here. Thank you. Once I listened to your reactions, I realized the errors of my ways.
I’m going to close on someone not so thoughtful: nopardons.
I owe myself a big butt-kick for misspelling Hillary, and leaving the t off president in my headline, but man, your syntax is from hunger. Your punctuation is from Latvia. Your logic is from circus clowns. Where do you get off insulting so many people? This is perhaps one tenth of the abusive blather you put down last night (cut from several posts):
“If only you actually knew 1/1,000th of what you imagines you do, we might then, perhaps be able to have somewhat of a substantive debates; just barely. Sadly, your abject lack of factual knowledge, precludes that.….
“BTW, juvenile cynicism is a nice cover for being too afraid and too uneducated to understand what one should actually be afraid of and for…I am abjectly lacking in enough HTML to CCP replies to a reply, but I am not deficient in reading comprehension skill. I know exactly what and when you posted what you did….
”I am not "angry", nor am I "nasty". If you are having a problem with my stating easily proven facts, then perhaps it is you, who are angry. I don't know, as I don't usually ascribe "feelings" to others, after reading their replies….
“For the record ( and if you change, in way way, shape, or form, this answer, you'll be THE sorriest person on the face of the earth, when I find out! ), there are some elected Republican politicians, who yes, may espouse such things as a smaller government; however, their actions belie their words….
“You're fooling yourself a very great deal, by attempting to place me into a group I am not in. You are deluding yourself into imagining that you know whereof you speak….
“A substantive debate between us is impossible, not because of me and my positions ( none of which you know ), but because you haven't the knowledge not ability to refute me…You're out of your depth, you don't know how to debate, and you aren't even slightly clever, when it comes to throwing down the gauntlet, by insult. Pity that. Get back to me, when you've finally managed to drag yourself through American political history 101.”
Is this what your long tenure on FR has wrought—an incomprehensible, furious nut, who insists on acting like…an incrompehensible, furious nut?
If so, gimme one of them “trolls”! Wait, make it one of them sleeper trolls!
FR is supposed to be a piece of your life…not your whole life. When you start ranting at people that they know nothing of political campaigns, that you’ve worked many campaigns, national campaigns, etc., I find myself remembering a cardinal rule of human behavior that is almost always true: Those that can’t stop bragging about it couldn’t have had the time to have ever really done it. That goes for women, sports, hunting, fishing—and political campaigns.
And please don’t anyone consider THIS bragging, but I list it just as a reference point to indicate that nopardons must be full of crap: I’ve worked on more state campaigns than I can count; I have been a paid political campaign worker in New York City and Los Angeles, in national campaigns for Republicans. I have been to two Inaugurations, and a guest at the Whitehouse four times (no, not the tour). I’ve seen a lot, and gotten to know a lot of types. Nopardons, nothing serious or real is ever discussed in front of your type. No real responsibilities are ever given your type. Your type is tolerated, because we don’t want to be cruel, but your type is never really admired. Nopardons, you’re the type we let put up the yard signs.
You’re right. You folks talked me out of it. I don’t know what I was thinking.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.
That would be, as so many of you so unkindly put it…dumb (you actually said a lot more than that, which I’ll get to). I posted this thread last night, then a family emergency pulled me away before I could manage all the wildfires that flared up. Situation kept me up all night, into the morning…slept all day, into the night. Finally got back to things just a bit ago. Apologies to all, for sending the boat out without a captain—that was never my intention. I am no “hit and run” artist, as was suggested.
But I do have a few things to get off my chest (and I’ll give this same reply three or four times, so the hundreds of posters who responded might see it).
JohnRobertson is NOT JimRobinson. Never was, never intended to confuse. My name here is very close to my real name, and that’s simply what I registered with. Had I known how many people would be confused by it, I would have created a different one when I opened my account…almost four years ago.
Which leads me to the misuse of “troll” on this forum, and how long people have been registered here. Every person who disagrees with you is not always a troll. He might just be someone who has a different take on an issue with you. Next time out, you might be in agreement. Someone registered here less than a month had the nerve to call me a troll. Several of you pointed out that I’d been here going on four years.
A few people, most loudly PhiKapMom, posited that DUers and real trolls register years in advance here, just waiting for their chance to “disrupt” on an issue. This is absurd on its face: How would a “sleeper” troll know when to spring to action? What if his “control” triggered him to disrupt us on Issue A, but then Issue B, which was much bigger, broke three days later—why, that troll’s cover would be blown, and therefore he would be of no use. This does not make any sense to me, and if there’s any proof of it, I’d really be interested in it. (And please consider: someone the troll experts declare a troll might just be someone who happens to disagree with them on an issue, as stated above.)
(My wife took on PhiKapMom, on my behalf, and I see where PhiKapMom responded saying she would NOT apologize for what she said. If it’s worth anything, please understand that my wife was not asking for contrition on your opinions, but for what you said directly or suggested about me and my motives, especially the troll part. I think it’s obvious to many that I’m not a troll, long-planted or otherwise, and you might even reconsider an apology, on that basis. On a related matter, when I read your post to my wife, in which you led off by saying you were offering a prayer for our family situation, she smiled and said, Tell her I think she’s a classy lady. So there, I’ve told you.)
Why do some Freepers kept playing the same old song: I’ve been here five years…so the opinions of people who’ve been here three years simply don’t matter. May I suggest something? Just because some of you got to the party before the rest of us did, doesn’t mean it really got rockin’ till a whole bunch of the rest of us got here too. This forum is terrific because it grows and evolves and attracts (and converts!) new people. If the “old-timers” always go off in the corner like a bunch of snarky teenagers, acting superior to everyone who happened to register after the millennium, and discounting everything they have to say, it’s going to be a lot less fun and interesting. And from what I can glean of the people who post here, we’re all a bit too long in the tooth to be acting like spoiled suburban teenaged girls—doncha think?
A lot of people said I was “throwing a tantrum,” “acting like a [fill in the under-6 age]-year-old,” and “pouting.” To indicate the glaringly obvious: that judgement is highly subjective. And even though I’ve reversed completely on pledging my vote to Her Heinous (and there will be no re-reversal, I assure you), I still have to say that, making yourself heard by the party you have supported in so many ways for so long is not throwing a tantrum…it’s a political act.
Most of Sunday’s newspapers are calling for “another moderate,” like O’Conner. Same theme detected on Sunday talk shows. You see what’s happening? They’re framing the issue: We MUST have a moderate! Oh, and, what’s a moderate? They’ll tell us when we put up someone we approve of.
There was a recurrent sentiment on this thread, and though I didn’t do the math, I’d say 70+% of the people who responded endorsed this sentiment: Stay the course, we can’t win them all, look how we’re winning by increments, over time we’re selling our agenda, we can’t win them all, sometimes you have to compromise, live to fight another day, if we don’t get the nominee we want….
Not buying it. Not voting for…her, but I will not buy into the language of appeasement above, and I will not compromise on this: If a conservative nominee is not named, I am through with the Republican Party. A line in the sand. A political act.
Before everybody jumps on his or her keyboard, please consider this: If the Whitehouse was monitoring this forum last night (and they were, I can assure you), their people reading responses here could honestly report back that, Yes, the conservatives on FR want a conservative nominee, but they’re adopting a wait-and-see attitude, and if they don’t get the nominee they want, they won’t abandon us in droves…they might not like it, but they’ll hang in there with us, hoping for a better selection next time out.
I’m still hoping and praying for the right nominee. But I urge you to think about the signals you send when you indicate your willingness to accept a less-than-perfect nominee before one has even been named.
I thank OKIEDOC for this: “The next two appointments to the Supreme Court will tell Americans’ future for the next 20 plus years. It will be the telling tale of whether we continue down this road to destruction of our country as we used to know it. I cannot make the kind of comment that can impress on any one who cares about our country, that
this appointment is probably the biggest ever made to the court.”
That’s why it’s so important to me. I really don’t think we’ll get another chance, if we blow this.
I thank Dominic Harr for: “I hear your pain. I'm sorry for the flames, but that's how it goes, I guess. Politics is a 'team' sport, and you know how 'fans' can be. Not sure I agree with you regarding backing Hillary, but I respect the point you're trying to make.”
So many thoughtful people here. Thank you. Once I listened to your reactions, I realized the errors of my ways.
I’m going to close on someone not so thoughtful: nopardons.
I owe myself a big butt-kick for misspelling Hillary, and leaving the t off president in my headline, but man, your syntax is from hunger. Your punctuation is from Latvia. Your logic is from circus clowns. Where do you get off insulting so many people? This is perhaps one tenth of the abusive blather you put down last night (cut from several posts):
“If only you actually knew 1/1,000th of what you imagines you do, we might then, perhaps be able to have somewhat of a substantive debates; just barely. Sadly, your abject lack of factual knowledge, precludes that.….
“BTW, juvenile cynicism is a nice cover for being too afraid and too uneducated to understand what one should actually be afraid of and for…I am abjectly lacking in enough HTML to CCP replies to a reply, but I am not deficient in reading comprehension skill. I know exactly what and when you posted what you did….
”I am not "angry", nor am I "nasty". If you are having a problem with my stating easily proven facts, then perhaps it is you, who are angry. I don't know, as I don't usually ascribe "feelings" to others, after reading their replies….
“For the record ( and if you change, in way way, shape, or form, this answer, you'll be THE sorriest person on the face of the earth, when I find out! ), there are some elected Republican politicians, who yes, may espouse such things as a smaller government; however, their actions belie their words….
“You're fooling yourself a very great deal, by attempting to place me into a group I am not in. You are deluding yourself into imagining that you know whereof you speak….
“A substantive debate between us is impossible, not because of me and my positions ( none of which you know ), but because you haven't the knowledge not ability to refute me…You're out of your depth, you don't know how to debate, and you aren't even slightly clever, when it comes to throwing down the gauntlet, by insult. Pity that. Get back to me, when you've finally managed to drag yourself through American political history 101.”
Is this what your long tenure on FR has wrought—an incomprehensible, furious nut, who insists on acting like…an incrompehensible, furious nut?
If so, gimme one of them “trolls”! Wait, make it one of them sleeper trolls!
FR is supposed to be a piece of your life…not your whole life. When you start ranting at people that they know nothing of political campaigns, that you’ve worked many campaigns, national campaigns, etc., I find myself remembering a cardinal rule of human behavior that is almost always true: Those that can’t stop bragging about it couldn’t have had the time to have ever really done it. That goes for women, sports, hunting, fishing—and political campaigns.
And please don’t anyone consider THIS bragging, but I list it just as a reference point to indicate that nopardons must be full of crap: I’ve worked on more state campaigns than I can count; I have been a paid political campaign worker in New York City and Los Angeles, in national campaigns for Republicans. I have been to two Inaugurations, and a guest at the Whitehouse four times (no, not the tour). I’ve seen a lot, and gotten to know a lot of types. Nopardons, nothing serious or real is ever discussed in front of your type. No real responsibilities are ever given your type. Your type is tolerated, because we don’t want to be cruel, but your type is never really admired. Nopardons, you’re the type we let put up the yard signs.
You’re right. You folks talked me out of it. I don’t know what I was thinking.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.
That would be, as so many of you so unkindly put it…dumb (you actually said a lot more than that, which I’ll get to). I posted this thread last night, then a family emergency pulled me away before I could manage all the wildfires that flared up. Situation kept me up all night, into the morning…slept all day, into the night. Finally got back to things just a bit ago. Apologies to all, for sending the boat out without a captain—that was never my intention. I am no “hit and run” artist, as was suggested.
But I do have a few things to get off my chest (and I’ll give this same reply three or four times, so the hundreds of posters who responded might see it).
JohnRobertson is NOT JimRobinson. Never was, never intended to confuse. My name here is very close to my real name, and that’s simply what I registered with. Had I known how many people would be confused by it, I would have created a different one when I opened my account…almost four years ago.
Which leads me to the misuse of “troll” on this forum, and how long people have been registered here. Every person who disagrees with you is not always a troll. He might just be someone who has a different take on an issue with you. Next time out, you might be in agreement. Someone registered here less than a month had the nerve to call me a troll. Several of you pointed out that I’d been here going on four years.
A few people, most loudly PhiKapMom, posited that DUers and real trolls register years in advance here, just waiting for their chance to “disrupt” on an issue. This is absurd on its face: How would a “sleeper” troll know when to spring to action? What if his “control” triggered him to disrupt us on Issue A, but then Issue B, which was much bigger, broke three days later—why, that troll’s cover would be blown, and therefore he would be of no use. This does not make any sense to me, and if there’s any proof of it, I’d really be interested in it. (And please consider: someone the troll experts declare a troll might just be someone who happens to disagree with them on an issue, as stated above.)
(My wife took on PhiKapMom, on my behalf, and I see where PhiKapMom responded saying she would NOT apologize for what she said. If it’s worth anything, please understand that my wife was not asking for contrition on your opinions, but for what you said directly or suggested about me and my motives, especially the troll part. I think it’s obvious to many that I’m not a troll, long-planted or otherwise, and you might even reconsider an apology, on that basis. On a related matter, when I read your post to my wife, in which you led off by saying you were offering a prayer for our family situation, she smiled and said, Tell her I think she’s a classy lady. So there, I’ve told you.)
Why do some Freepers kept playing the same old song: I’ve been here five years…so the opinions of people who’ve been here three years simply don’t matter. May I suggest something? Just because some of you got to the party before the rest of us did, doesn’t mean it really got rockin’ till a whole bunch of the rest of us got here too. This forum is terrific because it grows and evolves and attracts (and converts!) new people. If the “old-timers” always go off in the corner like a bunch of snarky teenagers, acting superior to everyone who happened to register after the millennium, and discounting everything they have to say, it’s going to be a lot less fun and interesting. And from what I can glean of the people who post here, we’re all a bit too long in the tooth to be acting like spoiled suburban teenaged girls—doncha think?
A lot of people said I was “throwing a tantrum,” “acting like a [fill in the under-6 age]-year-old,” and “pouting.” To indicate the glaringly obvious: that judgement is highly subjective. And even though I’ve reversed completely on pledging my vote to Her Heinous (and there will be no re-reversal, I assure you), I still have to say that, making yourself heard by the party you have supported in so many ways for so long is not throwing a tantrum…it’s a political act.
Most of Sunday’s newspapers are calling for “another moderate,” like O’Conner. Same theme detected on Sunday talk shows. You see what’s happening? They’re framing the issue: We MUST have a moderate! Oh, and, what’s a moderate? They’ll tell us when we put up someone we approve of.
There was a recurrent sentiment on this thread, and though I didn’t do the math, I’d say 70+% of the people who responded endorsed this sentiment: Stay the course, we can’t win them all, look how we’re winning by increments, over time we’re selling our agenda, we can’t win them all, sometimes you have to compromise, live to fight another day, if we don’t get the nominee we want….
Not buying it. Not voting for…her, but I will not buy into the language of appeasement above, and I will not compromise on this: If a conservative nominee is not named, I am through with the Republican Party. A line in the sand. A political act.
Before everybody jumps on his or her keyboard, please consider this: If the Whitehouse was monitoring this forum last night (and they were, I can assure you), their people reading responses here could honestly report back that, Yes, the conservatives on FR want a conservative nominee, but they’re adopting a wait-and-see attitude, and if they don’t get the nominee they want, they won’t abandon us in droves…they might not like it, but they’ll hang in there with us, hoping for a better selection next time out.
I’m still hoping and praying for the right nominee. But I urge you to think about the signals you send when you indicate your willingness to accept a less-than-perfect nominee before one has even been named.
I thank OKIEDOC for this: “The next two appointments to the Supreme Court will tell Americans’ future for the next 20 plus years. It will be the telling tale of whether we continue down this road to destruction of our country as we used to know it. I cannot make the kind of comment that can impress on any one who cares about our country, that
this appointment is probably the biggest ever made to the court.”
That’s why it’s so important to me. I really don’t think we’ll get another chance, if we blow this.
I thank Dominic Harr for: “I hear your pain. I'm sorry for the flames, but that's how it goes, I guess. Politics is a 'team' sport, and you know how 'fans' can be. Not sure I agree with you regarding backing Hillary, but I respect the point you're trying to make.”
So many thoughtful people here. Thank you. Once I listened to your reactions, I realized the errors of my ways.
I’m going to close on someone not so thoughtful: nopardons.
I owe myself a big butt-kick for misspelling Hillary, and leaving the t off president in my headline, but man, your syntax is from hunger. Your punctuation is from Latvia. Your logic is from circus clowns. Where do you get off insulting so many people? This is perhaps one tenth of the abusive blather you put down last night (cut from several posts):
“If only you actually knew 1/1,000th of what you imagines you do, we might then, perhaps be able to have somewhat of a substantive debates; just barely. Sadly, your abject lack of factual knowledge, precludes that.….
“BTW, juvenile cynicism is a nice cover for being too afraid and too uneducated to understand what one should actually be afraid of and for…I am abjectly lacking in enough HTML to CCP replies to a reply, but I am not deficient in reading comprehension skill. I know exactly what and when you posted what you did….
”I am not "angry", nor am I "nasty". If you are having a problem with my stating easily proven facts, then perhaps it is you, who are angry. I don't know, as I don't usually ascribe "feelings" to others, after reading their replies….
“For the record ( and if you change, in way way, shape, or form, this answer, you'll be THE sorriest person on the face of the earth, when I find out! ), there are some elected Republican politicians, who yes, may espouse such things as a smaller government; however, their actions belie their words….
“You're fooling yourself a very great deal, by attempting to place me into a group I am not in. You are deluding yourself into imagining that you know whereof you speak….
“A substantive debate between us is impossible, not because of me and my positions ( none of which you know ), but because you haven't the knowledge not ability to refute me…You're out of your depth, you don't know how to debate, and you aren't even slightly clever, when it comes to throwing down the gauntlet, by insult. Pity that. Get back to me, when you've finally managed to drag yourself through American political history 101.”
Is this what your long tenure on FR has wrought—an incomprehensible, furious nut, who insists on acting like…an incrompehensible, furious nut?
If so, gimme one of them “trolls”! Wait, make it one of them sleeper trolls!
FR is supposed to be a piece of your life…not your whole life. When you start ranting at people that they know nothing of political campaigns, that you’ve worked many campaigns, national campaigns, etc., I find myself remembering a cardinal rule of human behavior that is almost always true: Those that can’t stop bragging about it couldn’t have had the time to have ever really done it. That goes for women, sports, hunting, fishing—and political campaigns.
And please don’t anyone consider THIS bragging, but I list it just as a reference point to indicate that nopardons must be full of crap: I’ve worked on more state campaigns than I can count; I have been a paid political campaign worker in New York City and Los Angeles, in national campaigns for Republicans. I have been to two Inaugurations, and a guest at the Whitehouse four times (no, not the tour). I’ve seen a lot, and gotten to know a lot of types. Nopardons, nothing serious or real is ever discussed in front of your type. No real responsibilities are ever given your type. Your type is tolerated, because we don’t want to be cruel, but your type is never really admired. Nopardons, you’re the type we let put up the yard signs.
You’re right. You folks talked me out of it. I don’t know what I was thinking.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.
That would be, as so many of you so unkindly put it…dumb (you actually said a lot more than that, which I’ll get to). I posted this thread last night, then a family emergency pulled me away before I could manage all the wildfires that flared up. Situation kept me up all night, into the morning…slept all day, into the night. Finally got back to things just a bit ago. Apologies to all, for sending the boat out without a captain—that was never my intention. I am no “hit and run” artist, as was suggested.
But I do have a few things to get off my chest (and I’ll give this same reply three or four times, so the hundreds of posters who responded might see it).
JohnRobertson is NOT JimRobinson. Never was, never intended to confuse. My name here is very close to my real name, and that’s simply what I registered with. Had I known how many people would be confused by it, I would have created a different one when I opened my account…almost four years ago.
Which leads me to the misuse of “troll” on this forum, and how long people have been registered here. Every person who disagrees with you is not always a troll. He might just be someone who has a different take on an issue with you. Next time out, you might be in agreement. Someone registered here less than a month had the nerve to call me a troll. Several of you pointed out that I’d been here going on four years.
A few people, most loudly PhiKapMom, posited that DUers and real trolls register years in advance here, just waiting for their chance to “disrupt” on an issue. This is absurd on its face: How would a “sleeper” troll know when to spring to action? What if his “control” triggered him to disrupt us on Issue A, but then Issue B, which was much bigger, broke three days later—why, that troll’s cover would be blown, and therefore he would be of no use. This does not make any sense to me, and if there’s any proof of it, I’d really be interested in it. (And please consider: someone the troll experts declare a troll might just be someone who happens to disagree with them on an issue, as stated above.)
(My wife took on PhiKapMom, on my behalf, and I see where PhiKapMom responded saying she would NOT apologize for what she said. If it’s worth anything, please understand that my wife was not asking for contrition on your opinions, but for what you said directly or suggested about me and my motives, especially the troll part. I think it’s obvious to many that I’m not a troll, long-planted or otherwise, and you might even reconsider an apology, on that basis. On a related matter, when I read your post to my wife, in which you led off by saying you were offering a prayer for our family situation, she smiled and said, Tell her I think she’s a classy lady. So there, I’ve told you.)
Why do some Freepers kept playing the same old song: I’ve been here five years…so the opinions of people who’ve been here three years simply don’t matter. May I suggest something? Just because some of you got to the party before the rest of us did, doesn’t mean it really got rockin’ till a whole bunch of the rest of us got here too. This forum is terrific because it grows and evolves and attracts (and converts!) new people. If the “old-timers” always go off in the corner like a bunch of snarky teenagers, acting superior to everyone who happened to register after the millennium, and discounting everything they have to say, it’s going to be a lot less fun and interesting. And from what I can glean of the people who post here, we’re all a bit too long in the tooth to be acting like spoiled suburban teenaged girls—doncha think?
A lot of people said I was “throwing a tantrum,” “acting like a [fill in the under-6 age]-year-old,” and “pouting.” To indicate the glaringly obvious: that judgement is highly subjective. And even though I’ve reversed completely on pledging my vote to Her Heinous (and there will be no re-reversal, I assure you), I still have to say that, making yourself heard by the party you have supported in so many ways for so long is not throwing a tantrum…it’s a political act.
Most of Sunday’s newspapers are calling for “another moderate,” like O’Conner. Same theme detected on Sunday talk shows. You see what’s happening? They’re framing the issue: We MUST have a moderate! Oh, and, what’s a moderate? They’ll tell us when we put up someone we approve of.
There was a recurrent sentiment on this thread, and though I didn’t do the math, I’d say 70+% of the people who responded endorsed this sentiment: Stay the course, we can’t win them all, look how we’re winning by increments, over time we’re selling our agenda, we can’t win them all, sometimes you have to compromise, live to fight another day, if we don’t get the nominee we want….
Not buying it. Not voting for…her, but I will not buy into the language of appeasement above, and I will not compromise on this: If a conservative nominee is not named, I am through with the Republican Party. A line in the sand. A political act.
Before everybody jumps on his or her keyboard, please consider this: If the Whitehouse was monitoring this forum last night (and they were, I can assure you), their people reading responses here could honestly report back that, Yes, the conservatives on FR want a conservative nominee, but they’re adopting a wait-and-see attitude, and if they don’t get the nominee they want, they won’t abandon us in droves…they might not like it, but they’ll hang in there with us, hoping for a better selection next time out.
I’m still hoping and praying for the right nominee. But I urge you to think about the signals you send when you indicate your willingness to accept a less-than-perfect nominee before one has even been named.
I thank OKIEDOC for this: “The next two appointments to the Supreme Court will tell Americans’ future for the next 20 plus years. It will be the telling tale of whether we continue down this road to destruction of our country as we used to know it. I cannot make the kind of comment that can impress on any one who cares about our country, that
this appointment is probably the biggest ever made to the court.”
That’s why it’s so important to me. I really don’t think we’ll get another chance, if we blow this.
I thank Dominic Harr for: “I hear your pain. I'm sorry for the flames, but that's how it goes, I guess. Politics is a 'team' sport, and you know how 'fans' can be. Not sure I agree with you regarding backing Hillary, but I respect the point you're trying to make.”
So many thoughtful people here. Thank you. Once I listened to your reactions, I realized the errors of my ways.
I’m going to close on someone not so thoughtful: nopardons.
I owe myself a big butt-kick for misspelling Hillary, and leaving the t off president in my headline, but man, your syntax is from hunger. Your punctuation is from Latvia. Your logic is from circus clowns. Where do you get off insulting so many people? This is perhaps one tenth of the abusive blather you put down last night (cut from several posts):
“If only you actually knew 1/1,000th of what you imagines you do, we might then, perhaps be able to have somewhat of a substantive debates; just barely. Sadly, your abject lack of factual knowledge, precludes that.….
“BTW, juvenile cynicism is a nice cover for being too afraid and too uneducated to understand what one should actually be afraid of and for…I am abjectly lacking in enough HTML to CCP replies to a reply, but I am not deficient in reading comprehension skill. I know exactly what and when you posted what you did….
”I am not "angry", nor am I "nasty". If you are having a problem with my stating easily proven facts, then perhaps it is you, who are angry. I don't know, as I don't usually ascribe "feelings" to others, after reading their replies….
“For the record ( and if you change, in way way, shape, or form, this answer, you'll be THE sorriest person on the face of the earth, when I find out! ), there are some elected Republican politicians, who yes, may espouse such things as a smaller government; however, their actions belie their words….
“You're fooling yourself a very great deal, by attempting to place me into a group I am not in. You are deluding yourself into imagining that you know whereof you speak….
“A substantive debate between us is impossible, not because of me and my positions ( none of which you know ), but because you haven't the knowledge not ability to refute me…You're out of your depth, you don't know how to debate, and you aren't even slightly clever, when it comes to throwing down the gauntlet, by insult. Pity that. Get back to me, when you've finally managed to drag yourself through American political history 101.”
Is this what your long tenure on FR has wrought—an incomprehensible, furious nut, who insists on acting like…an incrompehensible, furious nut?
If so, gimme one of them “trolls”! Wait, make it one of them sleeper trolls!
FR is supposed to be a piece of your life…not your whole life. When you start ranting at people that they know nothing of political campaigns, that you’ve worked many campaigns, national campaigns, etc., I find myself remembering a cardinal rule of human behavior that is almost always true: Those that can’t stop bragging about it couldn’t have had the time to have ever really done it. That goes for women, sports, hunting, fishing—and political campaigns.
And please don’t anyone consider THIS bragging, but I list it just as a reference point to indicate that nopardons must be full of crap: I’ve worked on more state campaigns than I can count; I have been a paid political campaign worker in New York City and Los Angeles, in national campaigns for Republicans. I have been to two Inaugurations, and a guest at the Whitehouse four times (no, not the tour). I’ve seen a lot, and gotten to know a lot of types. Nopardons, nothing serious or real is ever discussed in front of your type. No real responsibilities are ever given your type. Your type is tolerated, because we don’t want to be cruel, but your type is never really admired. Nopardons, you’re the type we let put up the yard signs.
You’re right. You folks talked me out of it. I don’t know what I was thinking.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.
That would be, as so many of you so unkindly put it…dumb (you actually said a lot more than that, which I’ll get to). I posted this thread last night, then a family emergency pulled me away before I could manage all the wildfires that flared up. Situation kept me up all night, into the morning…slept all day, into the night. Finally got back to things just a bit ago. Apologies to all, for sending the boat out without a captain—that was never my intention. I am no “hit and run” artist, as was suggested.
But I do have a few things to get off my chest (and I’ll give this same reply three or four times, so the hundreds of posters who responded might see it).
JohnRobertson is NOT JimRobinson. Never was, never intended to confuse. My name here is very close to my real name, and that’s simply what I registered with. Had I known how many people would be confused by it, I would have created a different one when I opened my account…almost four years ago.
Which leads me to the misuse of “troll” on this forum, and how long people have been registered here. Every person who disagrees with you is not always a troll. He might just be someone who has a different take on an issue with you. Next time out, you might be in agreement. Someone registered here less than a month had the nerve to call me a troll. Several of you pointed out that I’d been here going on four years.
A few people, most loudly PhiKapMom, posited that DUers and real trolls register years in advance here, just waiting for their chance to “disrupt” on an issue. This is absurd on its face: How would a “sleeper” troll know when to spring to action? What if his “control” triggered him to disrupt us on Issue A, but then Issue B, which was much bigger, broke three days later—why, that troll’s cover would be blown, and therefore he would be of no use. This does not make any sense to me, and if there’s any proof of it, I’d really be interested in it. (And please consider: someone the troll experts declare a troll might just be someone who happens to disagree with them on an issue, as stated above.)
(My wife took on PhiKapMom, on my behalf, and I see where PhiKapMom responded saying she would NOT apologize for what she said. If it’s worth anything, please understand that my wife was not asking for contrition on your opinions, but for what you said directly or suggested about me and my motives, especially the troll part. I think it’s obvious to many that I’m not a troll, long-planted or otherwise, and you might even reconsider an apology, on that basis. On a related matter, when I read your post to my wife, in which you led off by saying you were offering a prayer for our family situation, she smiled and said, Tell her I think she’s a classy lady. So there, I’ve told you.)
Why do some Freepers kept playing the same old song: I’ve been here five years…so the opinions of people who’ve been here three years simply don’t matter. May I suggest something? Just because some of you got to the party before the rest of us did, doesn’t mean it really got rockin’ till a whole bunch of the rest of us got here too. This forum is terrific because it grows and evolves and attracts (and converts!) new people. If the “old-timers” always go off in the corner like a bunch of snarky teenagers, acting superior to everyone who happened to register after the millennium, and discounting everything they have to say, it’s going to be a lot less fun and interesting. And from what I can glean of the people who post here, we’re all a bit too long in the tooth to be acting like spoiled suburban teenaged girls—doncha think?
A lot of people said I was “throwing a tantrum,” “acting like a [fill in the under-6 age]-year-old,” and “pouting.” To indicate the glaringly obvious: that judgement is highly subjective. And even though I’ve reversed completely on pledging my vote to Her Heinous (and there will be no re-reversal, I assure you), I still have to say that, making yourself heard by the party you have supported in so many ways for so long is not throwing a tantrum…it’s a political act.
Most of Sunday’s newspapers are calling for “another moderate,” like O’Conner. Same theme detected on Sunday talk shows. You see what’s happening? They’re framing the issue: We MUST have a moderate! Oh, and, what’s a moderate? They’ll tell us when we put up someone we approve of.
There was a recurrent sentiment on this thread, and though I didn’t do the math, I’d say 70+% of the people who responded endorsed this sentiment: Stay the course, we can’t win them all, look how we’re winning by increments, over time we’re selling our agenda, we can’t win them all, sometimes you have to compromise, live to fight another day, if we don’t get the nominee we want….
Not buying it. Not voting for…her, but I will not buy into the language of appeasement above, and I will not compromise on this: If a conservative nominee is not named, I am through with the Republican Party. A line in the sand. A political act.
Before everybody jumps on his or her keyboard, please consider this: If the Whitehouse was monitoring this forum last night (and they were, I can assure you), their people reading responses here could honestly report back that, Yes, the conservatives on FR want a conservative nominee, but they’re adopting a wait-and-see attitude, and if they don’t get the nominee they want, they won’t abandon us in droves…they might not like it, but they’ll hang in there with us, hoping for a better selection next time out.
I’m still hoping and praying for the right nominee. But I urge you to think about the signals you send when you indicate your willingness to accept a less-than-perfect nominee before one has even been named.
I thank OKIEDOC for this: “The next two appointments to the Supreme Court will tell Americans’ future for the next 20 plus years. It will be the telling tale of whether we continue down this road to destruction of our country as we used to know it. I cannot make the kind of comment that can impress on any one who cares about our country, that
this appointment is probably the biggest ever made to the court.”
That’s why it’s so important to me. I really don’t think we’ll get another chance, if we blow this.
I thank Dominic Harr for: “I hear your pain. I'm sorry for the flames, but that's how it goes, I guess. Politics is a 'team' sport, and you know how 'fans' can be. Not sure I agree with you regarding backing Hillary, but I respect the point you're trying to make.”
So many thoughtful people here. Thank you. Once I listened to your reactions, I realized the errors of my ways.
I’m going to close on someone not so thoughtful: nopardons.
I owe myself a big butt-kick for misspelling Hillary, and leaving the t off president in my headline, but man, your syntax is from hunger. Your punctuation is from Latvia. Your logic is from circus clowns. Where do you get off insulting so many people? This is perhaps one tenth of the abusive blather you put down last night (cut from several posts):
“If only you actually knew 1/1,000th of what you imagines you do, we might then, perhaps be able to have somewhat of a substantive debates; just barely. Sadly, your abject lack of factual knowledge, precludes that.….
“BTW, juvenile cynicism is a nice cover for being too afraid and too uneducated to understand what one should actually be afraid of and for…I am abjectly lacking in enough HTML to CCP replies to a reply, but I am not deficient in reading comprehension skill. I know exactly what and when you posted what you did….
”I am not "angry", nor am I "nasty". If you are having a problem with my stating easily proven facts, then perhaps it is you, who are angry. I don't know, as I don't usually ascribe "feelings" to others, after reading their replies….
“For the record ( and if you change, in way way, shape, or form, this answer, you'll be THE sorriest person on the face of the earth, when I find out! ), there are some elected Republican politicians, who yes, may espouse such things as a smaller government; however, their actions belie their words….
“You're fooling yourself a very great deal, by attempting to place me into a group I am not in. You are deluding yourself into imagining that you know whereof you speak….
“A substantive debate between us is impossible, not because of me and my positions ( none of which you know ), but because you haven't the knowledge not ability to refute me…You're out of your depth, you don't know how to debate, and you aren't even slightly clever, when it comes to throwing down the gauntlet, by insult. Pity that. Get back to me, when you've finally managed to drag yourself through American political history 101.”
Is this what your long tenure on FR has wrought—an incomprehensible, furious nut, who insists on acting like…an incrompehensible, furious nut?
If so, gimme one of them “trolls”! Wait, make it one of them sleeper trolls!
FR is supposed to be a piece of your life…not your whole life. When you start ranting at people that they know nothing of political campaigns, that you’ve worked many campaigns, national campaigns, etc., I find myself remembering a cardinal rule of human behavior that is almost always true: Those that can’t stop bragging about it couldn’t have had the time to have ever really done it. That goes for women, sports, hunting, fishing—and political campaigns.
And please don’t anyone consider THIS bragging, but I list it just as a reference point to indicate that nopardons must be full of crap: I’ve worked on more state campaigns than I can count; I have been a paid political campaign worker in New York City and Los Angeles, in national campaigns for Republicans. I have been to two Inaugurations, and a guest at the Whitehouse four times (no, not the tour). I’ve seen a lot, and gotten to know a lot of types. Nopardons, nothing serious or real is ever discussed in front of your type. No real responsibilities are ever given your type. Your type is tolerated, because we don’t want to be cruel, but your type is never really admired. Nopardons, you’re the type we let put up the yard signs.
You’re right. You folks talked me out of it. I don’t know what I was thinking.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.
That would be, as so many of you so unkindly put it…dumb (you actually said a lot more than that, which I’ll get to). I posted this thread last night, then a family emergency pulled me away before I could manage all the wildfires that flared up. Situation kept me up all night, into the morning…slept all day, into the night. Finally got back to things just a bit ago. Apologies to all, for sending the boat out without a captain—that was never my intention. I am no “hit and run” artist, as was suggested.
But I do have a few things to get off my chest (and I’ll give this same reply three or four times, so the hundreds of posters who responded might see it).
JohnRobertson is NOT JimRobinson. Never was, never intended to confuse. My name here is very close to my real name, and that’s simply what I registered with. Had I known how many people would be confused by it, I would have created a different one when I opened my account…almost four years ago.
Which leads me to the misuse of “troll” on this forum, and how long people have been registered here. Every person who disagrees with you is not always a troll. He might just be someone who has a different take on an issue with you. Next time out, you might be in agreement. Someone registered here less than a month had the nerve to call me a troll. Several of you pointed out that I’d been here going on four years.
A few people, most loudly PhiKapMom, posited that DUers and real trolls register years in advance here, just waiting for their chance to “disrupt” on an issue. This is absurd on its face: How would a “sleeper” troll know when to spring to action? What if his “control” triggered him to disrupt us on Issue A, but then Issue B, which was much bigger, broke three days later—why, that troll’s cover would be blown, and therefore he would be of no use. This does not make any sense to me, and if there’s any proof of it, I’d really be interested in it. (And please consider: someone the troll experts declare a troll might just be someone who happens to disagree with them on an issue, as stated above.)
(My wife took on PhiKapMom, on my behalf, and I see where PhiKapMom responded saying she would NOT apologize for what she said. If it’s worth anything, please understand that my wife was not asking for contrition on your opinions, but for what you said directly or suggested about me and my motives, especially the troll part. I think it’s obvious to many that I’m not a troll, long-planted or otherwise, and you might even reconsider an apology, on that basis. On a related matter, when I read your post to my wife, in which you led off by saying you were offering a prayer for our family situation, she smiled and said, Tell her I think she’s a classy lady. So there, I’ve told you.)
Why do some Freepers kept playing the same old song: I’ve been here five years…so the opinions of people who’ve been here three years simply don’t matter. May I suggest something? Just because some of you got to the party before the rest of us did, doesn’t mean it really got rockin’ till a whole bunch of the rest of us got here too. This forum is terrific because it grows and evolves and attracts (and converts!) new people. If the “old-timers” always go off in the corner like a bunch of snarky teenagers, acting superior to everyone who happened to register after the millennium, and discounting everything they have to say, it’s going to be a lot less fun and interesting. And from what I can glean of the people who post here, we’re all a bit too long in the tooth to be acting like spoiled suburban teenaged girls—doncha think?
A lot of people said I was “throwing a tantrum,” “acting like a [fill in the under-6 age]-year-old,” and “pouting.” To indicate the glaringly obvious: that judgement is highly subjective. And even though I’ve reversed completely on pledging my vote to Her Heinous (and there will be no re-reversal, I assure you), I still have to say that, making yourself heard by the party you have supported in so many ways for so long is not throwing a tantrum…it’s a political act.
Most of Sunday’s newspapers are calling for “another moderate,” like O’Conner. Same theme detected on Sunday talk shows. You see what’s happening? They’re framing the issue: We MUST have a moderate! Oh, and, what’s a moderate? They’ll tell us when we put up someone we approve of.
There was a recurrent sentiment on this thread, and though I didn’t do the math, I’d say 70+% of the people who responded endorsed this sentiment: Stay the course, we can’t win them all, look how we’re winning by increments, over time we’re selling our agenda, we can’t win them all, sometimes you have to compromise, live to fight another day, if we don’t get the nominee we want….
Not buying it. Not voting for…her, but I will not buy into the language of appeasement above, and I will not compromise on this: If a conservative nominee is not named, I am through with the Republican Party. A line in the sand. A political act.
Before everybody jumps on his or her keyboard, please consider this: If the Whitehouse was monitoring this forum last night (and they were, I can assure you), their people reading responses here could honestly report back that, Yes, the conservatives on FR want a conservative nominee, but they’re adopting a wait-and-see attitude, and if they don’t get the nominee they want, they won’t abandon us in droves…they might not like it, but they’ll hang in there with us, hoping for a better selection next time out.
I’m still hoping and praying for the right nominee. But I urge you to think about the signals you send when you indicate your willingness to accept a less-than-perfect nominee before one has even been named.
I thank OKIEDOC for this: “The next two appointments to the Supreme Court will tell Americans’ future for the next 20 plus years. It will be the telling tale of whether we continue down this road to destruction of our country as we used to know it. I cannot make the kind of comment that can impress on any one who cares about our country, that
this appointment is probably the biggest ever made to the court.”
That’s why it’s so important to me. I really don’t think we’ll get another chance, if we blow this.
I thank Dominic Harr for: “I hear your pain. I'm sorry for the flames, but that's how it goes, I guess. Politics is a 'team' sport, and you know how 'fans' can be. Not sure I agree with you regarding backing Hillary, but I respect the point you're trying to make.”
So many thoughtful people here. Thank you. Once I listened to your reactions, I realized the errors of my ways.
I’m going to close on someone not so thoughtful: nopardons.
I owe myself a big butt-kick for misspelling Hillary, and leaving the t off president in my headline, but man, your syntax is from hunger. Your punctuation is from Latvia. Your logic is from circus clowns. Where do you get off insulting so many people? This is perhaps one tenth of the abusive blather you put down last night (cut from several posts):
“If only you actually knew 1/1,000th of what you imagines you do, we might then, perhaps be able to have somewhat of a substantive debates; just barely. Sadly, your abject lack of factual knowledge, precludes that.….
“BTW, juvenile cynicism is a nice cover for being too afraid and too uneducated to understand what one should actually be afraid of and for…I am abjectly lacking in enough HTML to CCP replies to a reply, but I am not deficient in reading comprehension skill. I know exactly what and when you posted what you did….
”I am not "angry", nor am I "nasty". If you are having a problem with my stating easily proven facts, then perhaps it is you, who are angry. I don't know, as I don't usually ascribe "feelings" to others, after reading their replies….
“For the record ( and if you change, in way way, shape, or form, this answer, you'll be THE sorriest person on the face of the earth, when I find out! ), there are some elected Republican politicians, who yes, may espouse such things as a smaller government; however, their actions belie their words….
“You're fooling yourself a very great deal, by attempting to place me into a group I am not in. You are deluding yourself into imagining that you know whereof you speak….
“A substantive debate between us is impossible, not because of me and my positions ( none of which you know ), but because you haven't the knowledge not ability to refute me…You're out of your depth, you don't know how to debate, and you aren't even slightly clever, when it comes to throwing down the gauntlet, by insult. Pity that. Get back to me, when you've finally managed to drag yourself through American political history 101.”
Is this what your long tenure on FR has wrought—an incomprehensible, furious nut, who insists on acting like…an incrompehensible, furious nut?
If so, gimme one of them “trolls”! Wait, make it one of them sleeper trolls!
FR is supposed to be a piece of your life…not your whole life. When you start ranting at people that they know nothing of political campaigns, that you’ve worked many campaigns, national campaigns, etc., I find myself remembering a cardinal rule of human behavior that is almost always true: Those that can’t stop bragging about it couldn’t have had the time to have ever really done it. That goes for women, sports, hunting, fishing—and political campaigns.
And please don’t anyone consider THIS bragging, but I list it just as a reference point to indicate that nopardons must be full of crap: I’ve worked on more state campaigns than I can count; I have been a paid political campaign worker in New York City and Los Angeles, in national campaigns for Republicans. I have been to two Inaugurations, and a guest at the Whitehouse four times (no, not the tour). I’ve seen a lot, and gotten to know a lot of types. Nopardons, nothing serious or real is ever discussed in front of your type. No real responsibilities are ever given your type. Your type is tolerated, because we don’t want to be cruel, but your type is never really admired. Nopardons, you’re the type we let put up the yard signs.
You’re right. You folks talked me out of it. I don’t know what I was thinking.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.
That would be, as so many of you so unkindly put it…dumb (you actually said a lot more than that, which I’ll get to). I posted this thread last night, then a family emergency pulled me away before I could manage all the wildfires that flared up. Situation kept me up all night, into the morning…slept all day, into the night. Finally got back to things just a bit ago. Apologies to all, for sending the boat out without a captain—that was never my intention. I am no “hit and run” artist, as was suggested.
But I do have a few things to get off my chest (and I’ll give this same reply three or four times, so the hundreds of posters who responded might see it).
JohnRobertson is NOT JimRobinson. Never was, never intended to confuse. My name here is very close to my real name, and that’s simply what I registered with. Had I known how many people would be confused by it, I would have created a different one when I opened my account…almost four years ago.
Which leads me to the misuse of “troll” on this forum, and how long people have been registered here. Every person who disagrees with you is not always a troll. He might just be someone who has a different take on an issue with you. Next time out, you might be in agreement. Someone registered here less than a month had the nerve to call me a troll. Several of you pointed out that I’d been here going on four years.
A few people, most loudly PhiKapMom, posited that DUers and real trolls register years in advance here, just waiting for their chance to “disrupt” on an issue. This is absurd on its face: How would a “sleeper” troll know when to spring to action? What if his “control” triggered him to disrupt us on Issue A, but then Issue B, which was much bigger, broke three days later—why, that troll’s cover would be blown, and therefore he would be of no use. This does not make any sense to me, and if there’s any proof of it, I’d really be interested in it. (And please consider: someone the troll experts declare a troll might just be someone who happens to disagree with them on an issue, as stated above.)
(My wife took on PhiKapMom, on my behalf, and I see where PhiKapMom responded saying she would NOT apologize for what she said. If it’s worth anything, please understand that my wife was not asking for contrition on your opinions, but for what you said directly or suggested about me and my motives, especially the troll part. I think it’s obvious to many that I’m not a troll, long-planted or otherwise, and you might even reconsider an apology, on that basis. On a related matter, when I read your post to my wife, in which you led off by saying you were offering a prayer for our family situation, she smiled and said, Tell her I think she’s a classy lady. So there, I’ve told you.)
Why do some Freepers kept playing the same old song: I’ve been here five years…so the opinions of people who’ve been here three years simply don’t matter. May I suggest something? Just because some of you got to the party before the rest of us did, doesn’t mean it really got rockin’ till a whole bunch of the rest of us got here too. This forum is terrific because it grows and evolves and attracts (and converts!) new people. If the “old-timers” always go off in the corner like a bunch of snarky teenagers, acting superior to everyone who happened to register after the millennium, and discounting everything they have to say, it’s going to be a lot less fun and interesting. And from what I can glean of the people who post here, we’re all a bit too long in the tooth to be acting like spoiled suburban teenaged girls—doncha think?
A lot of people said I was “throwing a tantrum,” “acting like a [fill in the under-6 age]-year-old,” and “pouting.” To indicate the glaringly obvious: that judgement is highly subjective. And even though I’ve reversed completely on pledging my vote to Her Heinous (and there will be no re-reversal, I assure you), I still have to say that, making yourself heard by the party you have supported in so many ways for so long is not throwing a tantrum…it’s a political act.
Most of Sunday’s newspapers are calling for “another moderate,” like O’Conner. Same theme detected on Sunday talk shows. You see what’s happening? They’re framing the issue: We MUST have a moderate! Oh, and, what’s a moderate? They’ll tell us when we put up someone we approve of.
There was a recurrent sentiment on this thread, and though I didn’t do the math, I’d say 70+% of the people who responded endorsed this sentiment: Stay the course, we can’t win them all, look how we’re winning by increments, over time we’re selling our agenda, we can’t win them all, sometimes you have to compromise, live to fight another day, if we don’t get the nominee we want….
Not buying it. Not voting for…her, but I will not buy into the language of appeasement above, and I will not compromise on this: If a conservative nominee is not named, I am through with the Republican Party. A line in the sand. A political act.
Before everybody jumps on his or her keyboard, please consider this: If the Whitehouse was monitoring this forum last night (and they were, I can assure you), their people reading responses here could honestly report back that, Yes, the conservatives on FR want a conservative nominee, but they’re adopting a wait-and-see attitude, and if they don’t get the nominee they want, they won’t abandon us in droves…they might not like it, but they’ll hang in there with us, hoping for a better selection next time out.
I’m still hoping and praying for the right nominee. But I urge you to think about the signals you send when you indicate your willingness to accept a less-than-perfect nominee before one has even been named.
I thank OKIEDOC for this: “The next two appointments to the Supreme Court will tell Americans’ future for the next 20 plus years. It will be the telling tale of whether we continue down this road to destruction of our country as we used to know it. I cannot make the kind of comment that can impress on any one who cares about our country, that
this appointment is probably the biggest ever made to the court.”
That’s why it’s so important to me. I really don’t think we’ll get another chance, if we blow this.
I thank Dominic Harr for: “I hear your pain. I'm sorry for the flames, but that's how it goes, I guess. Politics is a 'team' sport, and you know how 'fans' can be. Not sure I agree with you regarding backing Hillary, but I respect the point you're trying to make.”
So many thoughtful people here. Thank you. Once I listened to your reactions, I realized the errors of my ways.
I’m going to close on someone not so thoughtful: nopardons.
I owe myself a big butt-kick for misspelling Hillary, and leaving the t off president in my headline, but man, your syntax is from hunger. Your punctuation is from Latvia. Your logic is from circus clowns. Where do you get off insulting so many people? This is perhaps one tenth of the abusive blather you put down last night (cut from several posts):
“If only you actually knew 1/1,000th of what you imagines you do, we might then, perhaps be able to have somewhat of a substantive debates; just barely. Sadly, your abject lack of factual knowledge, precludes that.….
“BTW, juvenile cynicism is a nice cover for being too afraid and too uneducated to understand what one should actually be afraid of and for…I am abjectly lacking in enough HTML to CCP replies to a reply, but I am not deficient in reading comprehension skill. I know exactly what and when you posted what you did….
”I am not "angry", nor am I "nasty". If you are having a problem with my stating easily proven facts, then perhaps it is you, who are angry. I don't know, as I don't usually ascribe "feelings" to others, after reading their replies….
“For the record ( and if you change, in way way, shape, or form, this answer, you'll be THE sorriest person on the face of the earth, when I find out! ), there are some elected Republican politicians, who yes, may espouse such things as a smaller government; however, their actions belie their words….
“You're fooling yourself a very great deal, by attempting to place me into a group I am not in. You are deluding yourself into imagining that you know whereof you speak….
“A substantive debate between us is impossible, not because of me and my positions ( none of which you know ), but because you haven't the knowledge not ability to refute me…You're out of your depth, you don't know how to debate, and you aren't even slightly clever, when it comes to throwing down the gauntlet, by insult. Pity that. Get back to me, when you've finally managed to drag yourself through American political history 101.”
Is this what your long tenure on FR has wrought—an incomprehensible, furious nut, who insists on acting like…an incrompehensible, furious nut?
If so, gimme one of them “trolls”! Wait, make it one of them sleeper trolls!
FR is supposed to be a piece of your life…not your whole life. When you start ranting at people that they know nothing of political campaigns, that you’ve worked many campaigns, national campaigns, etc., I find myself remembering a cardinal rule of human behavior that is almost always true: Those that can’t stop bragging about it couldn’t have had the time to have ever really done it. That goes for women, sports, hunting, fishing—and political campaigns.
And please don’t anyone consider THIS bragging, but I list it just as a reference point to indicate that nopardons must be full of crap: I’ve worked on more state campaigns than I can count; I have been a paid political campaign worker in New York City and Los Angeles, in national campaigns for Republicans. I have been to two Inaugurations, and a guest at the Whitehouse four times (no, not the tour). I’ve seen a lot, and gotten to know a lot of types. Nopardons, nothing serious or real is ever discussed in front of your type. No real responsibilities are ever given your type. Your type is tolerated, because we don’t want to be cruel, but your type is never really admired. Nopardons, you’re the type we let put up the yard signs.
You’re right. You folks talked me out of it. I don’t know what I was thinking.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.
That would be, as so many of you so unkindly put it…dumb (you actually said a lot more than that, which I’ll get to). I posted this thread last night, then a family emergency pulled me away before I could manage all the wildfires that flared up. Situation kept me up all night, into the morning…slept all day, into the night. Finally got back to things just a bit ago. Apologies to all, for sending the boat out without a captain—that was never my intention. I am no “hit and run” artist, as was suggested.
But I do have a few things to get off my chest (and I’ll give this same reply three or four times, so the hundreds of posters who responded might see it).
JohnRobertson is NOT JimRobinson. Never was, never intended to confuse. My name here is very close to my real name, and that’s simply what I registered with. Had I known how many people would be confused by it, I would have created a different one when I opened my account…almost four years ago.
Which leads me to the misuse of “troll” on this forum, and how long people have been registered here. Every person who disagrees with you is not always a troll. He might just be someone who has a different take on an issue with you. Next time out, you might be in agreement. Someone registered here less than a month had the nerve to call me a troll. Several of you pointed out that I’d been here going on four years.
A few people, most loudly PhiKapMom, posited that DUers and real trolls register years in advance here, just waiting for their chance to “disrupt” on an issue. This is absurd on its face: How would a “sleeper” troll know when to spring to action? What if his “control” triggered him to disrupt us on Issue A, but then Issue B, which was much bigger, broke three days later—why, that troll’s cover would be blown, and therefore he would be of no use. This does not make any sense to me, and if there’s any proof of it, I’d really be interested in it. (And please consider: someone the troll experts declare a troll might just be someone who happens to disagree with them on an issue, as stated above.)
(My wife took on PhiKapMom, on my behalf, and I see where PhiKapMom responded saying she would NOT apologize for what she said. If it’s worth anything, please understand that my wife was not asking for contrition on your opinions, but for what you said directly or suggested about me and my motives, especially the troll part. I think it’s obvious to many that I’m not a troll, long-planted or otherwise, and you might even reconsider an apology, on that basis. On a related matter, when I read your post to my wife, in which you led off by saying you were offering a prayer for our family situation, she smiled and said, Tell her I think she’s a classy lady. So there, I’ve told you.)
Why do some Freepers kept playing the same old song: I’ve been here five years…so the opinions of people who’ve been here three years simply don’t matter. May I suggest something? Just because some of you got to the party before the rest of us did, doesn’t mean it really got rockin’ till a whole bunch of the rest of us got here too. This forum is terrific because it grows and evolves and attracts (and converts!) new people. If the “old-timers” always go off in the corner like a bunch of snarky teenagers, acting superior to everyone who happened to register after the millennium, and discounting everything they have to say, it’s going to be a lot less fun and interesting. And from what I can glean of the people who post here, we’re all a bit too long in the tooth to be acting like spoiled suburban teenaged girls—doncha think?
A lot of people said I was “throwing a tantrum,” “acting like a [fill in the under-6 age]-year-old,” and “pouting.” To indicate the glaringly obvious: that judgement is highly subjective. And even though I’ve reversed completely on pledging my vote to Her Heinous (and there will be no re-reversal, I assure you), I still have to say that, making yourself heard by the party you have supported in so many ways for so long is not throwing a tantrum…it’s a political act.
Most of Sunday’s newspapers are calling for “another moderate,” like O’Conner. Same theme detected on Sunday talk shows. You see what’s happening? They’re framing the issue: We MUST have a moderate! Oh, and, what’s a moderate? They’ll tell us when we put up someone we approve of.
There was a recurrent sentiment on this thread, and though I didn’t do the math, I’d say 70+% of the people who responded endorsed this sentiment: Stay the course, we can’t win them all, look how we’re winning by increments, over time we’re selling our agenda, we can’t win them all, sometimes you have to compromise, live to fight another day, if we don’t get the nominee we want….
Not buying it. Not voting for…her, but I will not buy into the language of appeasement above, and I will not compromise on this: If a conservative nominee is not named, I am through with the Republican Party. A line in the sand. A political act.
Before everybody jumps on his or her keyboard, please consider this: If the Whitehouse was monitoring this forum last night (and they were, I can assure you), their people reading responses here could honestly report back that, Yes, the conservatives on FR want a conservative nominee, but they’re adopting a wait-and-see attitude, and if they don’t get the nominee they want, they won’t abandon us in droves…they might not like it, but they’ll hang in there with us, hoping for a better selection next time out.
I’m still hoping and praying for the right nominee. But I urge you to think about the signals you send when you indicate your willingness to accept a less-than-perfect nominee before one has even been named.
I thank OKIEDOC for this: “The next two appointments to the Supreme Court will tell Americans’ future for the next 20 plus years. It will be the telling tale of whether we continue down this road to destruction of our country as we used to know it. I cannot make the kind of comment that can impress on any one who cares about our country, that
this appointment is probably the biggest ever made to the court.”
That’s why it’s so important to me. I really don’t think we’ll get another chance, if we blow this.
I thank Dominic Harr for: “I hear your pain. I'm sorry for the flames, but that's how it goes, I guess. Politics is a 'team' sport, and you know how 'fans' can be. Not sure I agree with you regarding backing Hillary, but I respect the point you're trying to make.”
So many thoughtful people here. Thank you. Once I listened to your reactions, I realized the errors of my ways.
I’m going to close on someone not so thoughtful: nopardons.
I owe myself a big butt-kick for misspelling Hillary, and leaving the t off president in my headline, but man, your syntax is from hunger. Your punctuation is from Latvia. Your logic is from circus clowns. Where do you get off insulting so many people? This is perhaps one tenth of the abusive blather you put down last night (cut from several posts):
“If only you actually knew 1/1,000th of what you imagines you do, we might then, perhaps be able to have somewhat of a substantive debates; just barely. Sadly, your abject lack of factual knowledge, precludes that.….
“BTW, juvenile cynicism is a nice cover for being too afraid and too uneducated to understand what one should actually be afraid of and for…I am abjectly lacking in enough HTML to CCP replies to a reply, but I am not deficient in reading comprehension skill. I know exactly what and when you posted what you did….
”I am not "angry", nor am I "nasty". If you are having a problem with my stating easily proven facts, then perhaps it is you, who are angry. I don't know, as I don't usually ascribe "feelings" to others, after reading their replies….
“For the record ( and if you change, in way way, shape, or form, this answer, you'll be THE sorriest person on the face of the earth, when I find out! ), there are some elected Republican politicians, who yes, may espouse such things as a smaller government; however, their actions belie their words….
“You're fooling yourself a very great deal, by attempting to place me into a group I am not in. You are deluding yourself into imagining that you know whereof you speak….
“A substantive debate between us is impossible, not because of me and my positions ( none of which you know ), but because you haven't the knowledge not ability to refute me…You're out of your depth, you don't know how to debate, and you aren't even slightly clever, when it comes to throwing down the gauntlet, by insult. Pity that. Get back to me, when you've finally managed to drag yourself through American political history 101.”
Is this what your long tenure on FR has wrought—an incomprehensible, furious nut, who insists on acting like…an incrompehensible, furious nut?
If so, gimme one of them “trolls”! Wait, make it one of them sleeper trolls!
FR is supposed to be a piece of your life…not your whole life. When you start ranting at people that they know nothing of political campaigns, that you’ve worked many campaigns, national campaigns, etc., I find myself remembering a cardinal rule of human behavior that is almost always true: Those that can’t stop bragging about it couldn’t have had the time to have ever really done it. That goes for women, sports, hunting, fishing—and political campaigns.
And please don’t anyone consider THIS bragging, but I list it just as a reference point to indicate that nopardons must be full of crap: I’ve worked on more state campaigns than I can count; I have been a paid political campaign worker in New York City and Los Angeles, in national campaigns for Republicans. I have been to two Inaugurations, and a guest at the Whitehouse four times (no, not the tour). I’ve seen a lot, and gotten to know a lot of types. Nopardons, nothing serious or real is ever discussed in front of your type. No real responsibilities are ever given your type. Your type is tolerated, because we don’t want to be cruel, but your type is never really admired. Nopardons, you’re the type we let put up the yard signs.
Hey, you're still here! Glad of it. :-)
You’re right. You folks talked me out of it. I don’t know what I was thinking.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.
That would be, as so many of you so unkindly put it…dumb (you actually said a lot more than that, which I’ll get to). I posted this thread last night, then a family emergency pulled me away before I could manage all the wildfires that flared up. Situation kept me up all night, into the morning…slept all day, into the night. Finally got back to things just a bit ago. Apologies to all, for sending the boat out without a captain—that was never my intention. I am no “hit and run” artist, as was suggested.
But I do have a few things to get off my chest (and I’ll give this same reply three or four times, so the hundreds of posters who responded might see it).
JohnRobertson is NOT JimRobinson. Never was, never intended to confuse. My name here is very close to my real name, and that’s simply what I registered with. Had I known how many people would be confused by it, I would have created a different one when I opened my account…almost four years ago.
Which leads me to the misuse of “troll” on this forum, and how long people have been registered here. Every person who disagrees with you is not always a troll. He might just be someone who has a different take on an issue with you. Next time out, you might be in agreement. Someone registered here less than a month had the nerve to call me a troll. Several of you pointed out that I’d been here going on four years.
A few people, most loudly PhiKapMom, posited that DUers and real trolls register years in advance here, just waiting for their chance to “disrupt” on an issue. This is absurd on its face: How would a “sleeper” troll know when to spring to action? What if his “control” triggered him to disrupt us on Issue A, but then Issue B, which was much bigger, broke three days later—why, that troll’s cover would be blown, and therefore he would be of no use. This does not make any sense to me, and if there’s any proof of it, I’d really be interested in it. (And please consider: someone the troll experts declare a troll might just be someone who happens to disagree with them on an issue, as stated above.)
(My wife took on PhiKapMom, on my behalf, and I see where PhiKapMom responded saying she would NOT apologize for what she said. If it’s worth anything, please understand that my wife was not asking for contrition on your opinions, but for what you said directly or suggested about me and my motives, especially the troll part. I think it’s obvious to many that I’m not a troll, long-planted or otherwise, and you might even reconsider an apology, on that basis. On a related matter, when I read your post to my wife, in which you led off by saying you were offering a prayer for our family situation, she smiled and said, Tell her I think she’s a classy lady. So there, I’ve told you.)
Why do some Freepers kept playing the same old song: I’ve been here five years…so the opinions of people who’ve been here three years simply don’t matter. May I suggest something? Just because some of you got to the party before the rest of us did, doesn’t mean it really got rockin’ till a whole bunch of the rest of us got here too. This forum is terrific because it grows and evolves and attracts (and converts!) new people. If the “old-timers” always go off in the corner like a bunch of snarky teenagers, acting superior to everyone who happened to register after the millennium, and discounting everything they have to say, it’s going to be a lot less fun and interesting. And from what I can glean of the people who post here, we’re all a bit too long in the tooth to be acting like spoiled suburban teenaged girls—doncha think?
A lot of people said I was “throwing a tantrum,” “acting like a [fill in the under-6 age]-year-old,” and “pouting.” To indicate the glaringly obvious: that judgement is highly subjective. And even though I’ve reversed completely on pledging my vote to Her Heinous (and there will be no re-reversal, I assure you), I still have to say that, making yourself heard by the party you have supported in so many ways for so long is not throwing a tantrum…it’s a political act.
Most of Sunday’s newspapers are calling for “another moderate,” like O’Conner. Same theme detected on Sunday talk shows. You see what’s happening? They’re framing the issue: We MUST have a moderate! Oh, and, what’s a moderate? They’ll tell us when we put up someone we approve of.
There was a recurrent sentiment on this thread, and though I didn’t do the math, I’d say 70+% of the people who responded endorsed this sentiment: Stay the course, we can’t win them all, look how we’re winning by increments, over time we’re selling our agenda, we can’t win them all, sometimes you have to compromise, live to fight another day, if we don’t get the nominee we want….
Not buying it. Not voting for…her, but I will not buy into the language of appeasement above, and I will not compromise on this: If a conservative nominee is not named, I am through with the Republican Party. A line in the sand. A political act.
Before everybody jumps on his or her keyboard, please consider this: If the Whitehouse was monitoring this forum last night (and they were, I can assure you), their people reading responses here could honestly report back that, Yes, the conservatives on FR want a conservative nominee, but they’re adopting a wait-and-see attitude, and if they don’t get the nominee they want, they won’t abandon us in droves…they might not like it, but they’ll hang in there with us, hoping for a better selection next time out.
I’m still hoping and praying for the right nominee. But I urge you to think about the signals you send when you indicate your willingness to accept a less-than-perfect nominee before one has even been named.
I thank OKIEDOC for this: “The next two appointments to the Supreme Court will tell Americans’ future for the next 20 plus years. It will be the telling tale of whether we continue down this road to destruction of our country as we used to know it. I cannot make the kind of comment that can impress on any one who cares about our country, that
this appointment is probably the biggest ever made to the court.”
That’s why it’s so important to me. I really don’t think we’ll get another chance, if we blow this.
I thank Dominic Harr for: “I hear your pain. I'm sorry for the flames, but that's how it goes, I guess. Politics is a 'team' sport, and you know how 'fans' can be. Not sure I agree with you regarding backing Hillary, but I respect the point you're trying to make.”
So many thoughtful people here. Thank you. Once I listened to your reactions, I realized the errors of my ways.
I’m going to close on someone not so thoughtful: nopardons.
I owe myself a big butt-kick for misspelling Hillary, and leaving the t off president in my headline, but man, your syntax is from hunger. Your punctuation is from Latvia. Your logic is from circus clowns. Where do you get off insulting so many people? This is perhaps one tenth of the abusive blather you put down last night (cut from several posts):
“If only you actually knew 1/1,000th of what you imagines you do, we might then, perhaps be able to have somewhat of a substantive debates; just barely. Sadly, your abject lack of factual knowledge, precludes that.….
“BTW, juvenile cynicism is a nice cover for being too afraid and too uneducated to understand what one should actually be afraid of and for…I am abjectly lacking in enough HTML to CCP replies to a reply, but I am not deficient in reading comprehension skill. I know exactly what and when you posted what you did….
”I am not "angry", nor am I "nasty". If you are having a problem with my stating easily proven facts, then perhaps it is you, who are angry. I don't know, as I don't usually ascribe "feelings" to others, after reading their replies….
“For the record ( and if you change, in way way, shape, or form, this answer, you'll be THE sorriest person on the face of the earth, when I find out! ), there are some elected Republican politicians, who yes, may espouse such things as a smaller government; however, their actions belie their words….
“You're fooling yourself a very great deal, by attempting to place me into a group I am not in. You are deluding yourself into imagining that you know whereof you speak….
“A substantive debate between us is impossible, not because of me and my positions ( none of which you know ), but because you haven't the knowledge not ability to refute me…You're out of your depth, you don't know how to debate, and you aren't even slightly clever, when it comes to throwing down the gauntlet, by insult. Pity that. Get back to me, when you've finally managed to drag yourself through American political history 101.”
Is this what your long tenure on FR has wrought—an incomprehensible, furious nut, who insists on acting like…an incrompehensible, furious nut?
If so, gimme one of them “trolls”! Wait, make it one of them sleeper trolls!
FR is supposed to be a piece of your life…not your whole life. When you start ranting at people that they know nothing of political campaigns, that you’ve worked many campaigns, national campaigns, etc., I find myself remembering a cardinal rule of human behavior that is almost always true: Those that can’t stop bragging about it couldn’t have had the time to have ever really done it. That goes for women, sports, hunting, fishing—and political campaigns.
And please don’t anyone consider THIS bragging, but I list it just as a reference point to indicate that nopardons must be full of crap: I’ve worked on more state campaigns than I can count; I have been a paid political campaign worker in New York City and Los Angeles, in national campaigns for Republicans. I have been to two Inaugurations, and a guest at the Whitehouse four times (no, not the tour). I’ve seen a lot, and gotten to know a lot of types. Nopardons, nothing serious or real is ever discussed in front of your type. No real responsibilities are ever given your type. Your type is tolerated, because we don’t want to be cruel, but your type is never really admired. Nopardons, you’re the type we let put up the yard signs.
You’re right. You folks talked me out of it. I don’t know what I was thinking.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.
That would be, as so many of you so unkindly put it…dumb (you actually said a lot more than that, which I’ll get to). I posted this thread last night, then a family emergency pulled me away before I could manage all the wildfires that flared up. Situation kept me up all night, into the morning…slept all day, into the night. Finally got back to things just a bit ago. Apologies to all, for sending the boat out without a captain—that was never my intention. I am no “hit and run” artist, as was suggested.
But I do have a few things to get off my chest (and I’ll give this same reply three or four times, so the hundreds of posters who responded might see it).
JohnRobertson is NOT JimRobinson. Never was, never intended to confuse. My name here is very close to my real name, and that’s simply what I registered with. Had I known how many people would be confused by it, I would have created a different one when I opened my account…almost four years ago.
Which leads me to the misuse of “troll” on this forum, and how long people have been registered here. Every person who disagrees with you is not always a troll. He might just be someone who has a different take on an issue with you. Next time out, you might be in agreement. Someone registered here less than a month had the nerve to call me a troll. Several of you pointed out that I’d been here going on four years.
A few people, most loudly PhiKapMom, posited that DUers and real trolls register years in advance here, just waiting for their chance to “disrupt” on an issue. This is absurd on its face: How would a “sleeper” troll know when to spring to action? What if his “control” triggered him to disrupt us on Issue A, but then Issue B, which was much bigger, broke three days later—why, that troll’s cover would be blown, and therefore he would be of no use. This does not make any sense to me, and if there’s any proof of it, I’d really be interested in it. (And please consider: someone the troll experts declare a troll might just be someone who happens to disagree with them on an issue, as stated above.)
(My wife took on PhiKapMom, on my behalf, and I see where PhiKapMom responded saying she would NOT apologize for what she said. If it’s worth anything, please understand that my wife was not asking for contrition on your opinions, but for what you said directly or suggested about me and my motives, especially the troll part. I think it’s obvious to many that I’m not a troll, long-planted or otherwise, and you might even reconsider an apology, on that basis. On a related matter, when I read your post to my wife, in which you led off by saying you were offering a prayer for our family situation, she smiled and said, Tell her I think she’s a classy lady. So there, I’ve told you.)
Why do some Freepers kept playing the same old song: I’ve been here five years…so the opinions of people who’ve been here three years simply don’t matter. May I suggest something? Just because some of you got to the party before the rest of us did, doesn’t mean it really got rockin’ till a whole bunch of the rest of us got here too. This forum is terrific because it grows and evolves and attracts (and converts!) new people. If the “old-timers” always go off in the corner like a bunch of snarky teenagers, acting superior to everyone who happened to register after the millennium, and discounting everything they have to say, it’s going to be a lot less fun and interesting. And from what I can glean of the people who post here, we’re all a bit too long in the tooth to be acting like spoiled suburban teenaged girls—doncha think?
A lot of people said I was “throwing a tantrum,” “acting like a [fill in the under-6 age]-year-old,” and “pouting.” To indicate the glaringly obvious: that judgement is highly subjective. And even though I’ve reversed completely on pledging my vote to Her Heinous (and there will be no re-reversal, I assure you), I still have to say that, making yourself heard by the party you have supported in so many ways for so long is not throwing a tantrum…it’s a political act.
Most of Sunday’s newspapers are calling for “another moderate,” like O’Conner. Same theme detected on Sunday talk shows. You see what’s happening? They’re framing the issue: We MUST have a moderate! Oh, and, what’s a moderate? They’ll tell us when we put up someone we approve of.
There was a recurrent sentiment on this thread, and though I didn’t do the math, I’d say 70+% of the people who responded endorsed this sentiment: Stay the course, we can’t win them all, look how we’re winning by increments, over time we’re selling our agenda, we can’t win them all, sometimes you have to compromise, live to fight another day, if we don’t get the nominee we want….
Not buying it. Not voting for…her, but I will not buy into the language of appeasement above, and I will not compromise on this: If a conservative nominee is not named, I am through with the Republican Party. A line in the sand. A political act.
Before everybody jumps on his or her keyboard, please consider this: If the Whitehouse was monitoring this forum last night (and they were, I can assure you), their people reading responses here could honestly report back that, Yes, the conservatives on FR want a conservative nominee, but they’re adopting a wait-and-see attitude, and if they don’t get the nominee they want, they won’t abandon us in droves…they might not like it, but they’ll hang in there with us, hoping for a better selection next time out.
I’m still hoping and praying for the right nominee. But I urge you to think about the signals you send when you indicate your willingness to accept a less-than-perfect nominee before one has even been named.
I thank OKIEDOC for this: “The next two appointments to the Supreme Court will tell Americans’ future for the next 20 plus years. It will be the telling tale of whether we continue down this road to destruction of our country as we used to know it. I cannot make the kind of comment that can impress on any one who cares about our country, that
this appointment is probably the biggest ever made to the court.”
That’s why it’s so important to me. I really don’t think we’ll get another chance, if we blow this.
I thank Dominic Harr for: “I hear your pain. I'm sorry for the flames, but that's how it goes, I guess. Politics is a 'team' sport, and you know how 'fans' can be. Not sure I agree with you regarding backing Hillary, but I respect the point you're trying to make.”
So many thoughtful people here. Thank you. Once I listened to your reactions, I realized the errors of my ways.
I’m going to close on someone not so thoughtful: nopardons.
I owe myself a big butt-kick for misspelling Hillary, and leaving the t off president in my headline, but man, your syntax is from hunger. Your punctuation is from Latvia. Your logic is from circus clowns. Where do you get off insulting so many people? This is perhaps one tenth of the abusive blather you put down last night (cut from several posts):
“If only you actually knew 1/1,000th of what you imagines you do, we might then, perhaps be able to have somewhat of a substantive debates; just barely. Sadly, your abject lack of factual knowledge, precludes that.….
“BTW, juvenile cynicism is a nice cover for being too afraid and too uneducated to understand what one should actually be afraid of and for…I am abjectly lacking in enough HTML to CCP replies to a reply, but I am not deficient in reading comprehension skill. I know exactly what and when you posted what you did….
”I am not "angry", nor am I "nasty". If you are having a problem with my stating easily proven facts, then perhaps it is you, who are angry. I don't know, as I don't usually ascribe "feelings" to others, after reading their replies….
“For the record ( and if you change, in way way, shape, or form, this answer, you'll be THE sorriest person on the face of the earth, when I find out! ), there are some elected Republican politicians, who yes, may espouse such things as a smaller government; however, their actions belie their words….
“You're fooling yourself a very great deal, by attempting to place me into a group I am not in. You are deluding yourself into imagining that you know whereof you speak….
“A substantive debate between us is impossible, not because of me and my positions ( none of which you know ), but because you haven't the knowledge not ability to refute me…You're out of your depth, you don't know how to debate, and you aren't even slightly clever, when it comes to throwing down the gauntlet, by insult. Pity that. Get back to me, when you've finally managed to drag yourself through American political history 101.”
Is this what your long tenure on FR has wrought—an incomprehensible, furious nut, who insists on acting like…an incrompehensible, furious nut?
If so, gimme one of them “trolls”! Wait, make it one of them sleeper trolls!
FR is supposed to be a piece of your life…not your whole life. When you start ranting at people that they know nothing of political campaigns, that you’ve worked many campaigns, national campaigns, etc., I find myself remembering a cardinal rule of human behavior that is almost always true: Those that can’t stop bragging about it couldn’t have had the time to have ever really done it. That goes for women, sports, hunting, fishing—and political campaigns.
And please don’t anyone consider THIS bragging, but I list it just as a reference point to indicate that nopardons must be full of crap: I’ve worked on more state campaigns than I can count; I have been a paid political campaign worker in New York City and Los Angeles, in national campaigns for Republicans. I have been to two Inaugurations, and a guest at the Whitehouse four times (no, not the tour). I’ve seen a lot, and gotten to know a lot of types. Nopardons, nothing serious or real is ever discussed in front of your type. No real responsibilities are ever given your type. Your type is tolerated, because we don’t want to be cruel, but your type is never really admired. Nopardons, you’re the type we let put up the yard signs.
You’re right. You folks talked me out of it. I don’t know what I was thinking.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.
That would be, as so many of you so unkindly put it…dumb (you actually said a lot more than that, which I’ll get to). I posted this thread last night, then a family emergency pulled me away before I could manage all the wildfires that flared up. Situation kept me up all night, into the morning…slept all day, into the night. Finally got back to things just a bit ago. Apologies to all, for sending the boat out without a captain—that was never my intention. I am no “hit and run” artist, as was suggested.
But I do have a few things to get off my chest (and I’ll give this same reply three or four times, so the hundreds of posters who responded might see it).
JohnRobertson is NOT JimRobinson. Never was, never intended to confuse. My name here is very close to my real name, and that’s simply what I registered with. Had I known how many people would be confused by it, I would have created a different one when I opened my account…almost four years ago.
Which leads me to the misuse of “troll” on this forum, and how long people have been registered here. Every person who disagrees with you is not always a troll. He might just be someone who has a different take on an issue with you. Next time out, you might be in agreement. Someone registered here less than a month had the nerve to call me a troll. Several of you pointed out that I’d been here going on four years.
A few people, most loudly PhiKapMom, posited that DUers and real trolls register years in advance here, just waiting for their chance to “disrupt” on an issue. This is absurd on its face: How would a “sleeper” troll know when to spring to action? What if his “control” triggered him to disrupt us on Issue A, but then Issue B, which was much bigger, broke three days later—why, that troll’s cover would be blown, and therefore he would be of no use. This does not make any sense to me, and if there’s any proof of it, I’d really be interested in it. (And please consider: someone the troll experts declare a troll might just be someone who happens to disagree with them on an issue, as stated above.)
(My wife took on PhiKapMom, on my behalf, and I see where PhiKapMom responded saying she would NOT apologize for what she said. If it’s worth anything, please understand that my wife was not asking for contrition on your opinions, but for what you said directly or suggested about me and my motives, especially the troll part. I think it’s obvious to many that I’m not a troll, long-planted or otherwise, and you might even reconsider an apology, on that basis. On a related matter, when I read your post to my wife, in which you led off by saying you were offering a prayer for our family situation, she smiled and said, Tell her I think she’s a classy lady. So there, I’ve told you.)
Why do some Freepers kept playing the same old song: I’ve been here five years…so the opinions of people who’ve been here three years simply don’t matter. May I suggest something? Just because some of you got to the party before the rest of us did, doesn’t mean it really got rockin’ till a whole bunch of the rest of us got here too. This forum is terrific because it grows and evolves and attracts (and converts!) new people. If the “old-timers” always go off in the corner like a bunch of snarky teenagers, acting superior to everyone who happened to register after the millennium, and discounting everything they have to say, it’s going to be a lot less fun and interesting. And from what I can glean of the people who post here, we’re all a bit too long in the tooth to be acting like spoiled suburban teenaged girls—doncha think?
A lot of people said I was “throwing a tantrum,” “acting like a [fill in the under-6 age]-year-old,” and “pouting.” To indicate the glaringly obvious: that judgement is highly subjective. And even though I’ve reversed completely on pledging my vote to Her Heinous (and there will be no re-reversal, I assure you), I still have to say that, making yourself heard by the party you have supported in so many ways for so long is not throwing a tantrum…it’s a political act.
Most of Sunday’s newspapers are calling for “another moderate,” like O’Conner. Same theme detected on Sunday talk shows. You see what’s happening? They’re framing the issue: We MUST have a moderate! Oh, and, what’s a moderate? They’ll tell us when we put up someone we approve of.
There was a recurrent sentiment on this thread, and though I didn’t do the math, I’d say 70+% of the people who responded endorsed this sentiment: Stay the course, we can’t win them all, look how we’re winning by increments, over time we’re selling our agenda, we can’t win them all, sometimes you have to compromise, live to fight another day, if we don’t get the nominee we want….
Not buying it. Not voting for…her, but I will not buy into the language of appeasement above, and I will not compromise on this: If a conservative nominee is not named, I am through with the Republican Party. A line in the sand. A political act.
Before everybody jumps on his or her keyboard, please consider this: If the Whitehouse was monitoring this forum last night (and they were, I can assure you), their people reading responses here could honestly report back that, Yes, the conservatives on FR want a conservative nominee, but they’re adopting a wait-and-see attitude, and if they don’t get the nominee they want, they won’t abandon us in droves…they might not like it, but they’ll hang in there with us, hoping for a better selection next time out.
I’m still hoping and praying for the right nominee. But I urge you to think about the signals you send when you indicate your willingness to accept a less-than-perfect nominee before one has even been named.
I thank OKIEDOC for this: “The next two appointments to the Supreme Court will tell Americans’ future for the next 20 plus years. It will be the telling tale of whether we continue down this road to destruction of our country as we used to know it. I cannot make the kind of comment that can impress on any one who cares about our country, that
this appointment is probably the biggest ever made to the court.”
That’s why it’s so important to me. I really don’t think we’ll get another chance, if we blow this.
I thank Dominic Harr for: “I hear your pain. I'm sorry for the flames, but that's how it goes, I guess. Politics is a 'team' sport, and you know how 'fans' can be. Not sure I agree with you regarding backing Hillary, but I respect the point you're trying to make.”
So many thoughtful people here. Thank you. Once I listened to your reactions, I realized the errors of my ways.
I’m going to close on someone not so thoughtful: nopardons.
I owe myself a big butt-kick for misspelling Hillary, and leaving the t off president in my headline, but man, your syntax is from hunger. Your punctuation is from Latvia. Your logic is from circus clowns. Where do you get off insulting so many people? This is perhaps one tenth of the abusive blather you put down last night (cut from several posts):
“If only you actually knew 1/1,000th of what you imagines you do, we might then, perhaps be able to have somewhat of a substantive debates; just barely. Sadly, your abject lack of factual knowledge, precludes that.….
“BTW, juvenile cynicism is a nice cover for being too afraid and too uneducated to understand what one should actually be afraid of and for…I am abjectly lacking in enough HTML to CCP replies to a reply, but I am not deficient in reading comprehension skill. I know exactly what and when you posted what you did….
”I am not "angry", nor am I "nasty". If you are having a problem with my stating easily proven facts, then perhaps it is you, who are angry. I don't know, as I don't usually ascribe "feelings" to others, after reading their replies….
“For the record ( and if you change, in way way, shape, or form, this answer, you'll be THE sorriest person on the face of the earth, when I find out! ), there are some elected Republican politicians, who yes, may espouse such things as a smaller government; however, their actions belie their words….
“You're fooling yourself a very great deal, by attempting to place me into a group I am not in. You are deluding yourself into imagining that you know whereof you speak….
“A substantive debate between us is impossible, not because of me and my positions ( none of which you know ), but because you haven't the knowledge not ability to refute me…You're out of your depth, you don't know how to debate, and you aren't even slightly clever, when it comes to throwing down the gauntlet, by insult. Pity that. Get back to me, when you've finally managed to drag yourself through American political history 101.”
Is this what your long tenure on FR has wrought—an incomprehensible, furious nut, who insists on acting like…an incrompehensible, furious nut?
If so, gimme one of them “trolls”! Wait, make it one of them sleeper trolls!
FR is supposed to be a piece of your life…not your whole life. When you start ranting at people that they know nothing of political campaigns, that you’ve worked many campaigns, national campaigns, etc., I find myself remembering a cardinal rule of human behavior that is almost always true: Those that can’t stop bragging about it couldn’t have had the time to have ever really done it. That goes for women, sports, hunting, fishing—and political campaigns.
And please don’t anyone consider THIS bragging, but I list it just as a reference point to indicate that nopardons must be full of crap: I’ve worked on more state campaigns than I can count; I have been a paid political campaign worker in New York City and Los Angeles, in national campaigns for Republicans. I have been to two Inaugurations, and a guest at the Whitehouse four times (no, not the tour). I’ve seen a lot, and gotten to know a lot of types. Nopardons, nothing serious or real is ever discussed in front of your type. No real responsibilities are ever given your type. Your type is tolerated, because we don’t want to be cruel, but your type is never really admired. Nopardons, you’re the type we let put up the yard signs.
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.