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.
You would win that bet. I still see you as someone who argues like a liberal -- but I'm going to let it pass. Have a great week and enjoy that flashy car...
Anything and everything is likable to come before SCOTUS, as we have all seen, through our lives. There is absolutely NO way of knowing,exactly, prior to each case, how any of those sitting judges will vote. Oh, we all have "hunches", gut feelings, which are usually correct, but many times, there are surprises. As far as nominees are concerned, their past records, when they have been chosen by a GOP president, have been mostly UNHAPPY surprises, once they've been confirmed.
Oh, I read the Constitution many time over and even had to pass an exam on it, many decades ago. So please refrain from attempting to "educate" me on what it says. I suggest that you ho reread it. LOL
Many thanks for your post and unlike John, I think that you used the word "puffery" correctly.
so lets see youll vote for:
Tax increases
Renewed AWB
Brady Bill 2
Making home schooling illegal
Turning the ATF, FBI and US Military into arms of teh DEM party, kinds like the SS.
Gay Marriage
UN taxes imposed on the US
yup, youre a moron alright. BTW how can Bush make sure that so-so conservative judge remain as such in say 10-15 years. Wasnt that the problem with O'connor. Wasnt she a good judge back in the 1980s and 1990s?
This is your logic, if I dont get someone who agrees with me 100%, I am gonna support someone who oppose me 100%. People like this should be taken away in a padded truck.
""Too bad Dubya never said "no more borrowing!"""
Are you aware that there was a recession and 9-11. Federal tax revenue in 2002 fell to 16.5% of GDP down from 20.8% in 2000. Even without the spening, some of whihc was necesssary, there would have been deficits. Oh, also GW Bush's deficits are about 50% the size of Reagans in 1982-84.
what is amazing is how conservatives expect to be disappointed before anyone has been nominated.
Some people can never be happy
I predict that no matter who Bush appoints, there will be a contingent here who will scream "NEVER AGAIN!!!"
Today someone called Rush to say that nominting Bill Pryor would be "terrifying" because he is too liberal.
But here's a wee quibble...you're incorrect about GOPJ's use of the word "puffery". And you really are quite heavy-handed; not to mention overtly long winded, when trying to thwack at others' post, you take umbrage with.
We need to have a private talk about trolls....:-)
Does the term "useful idiot" not apply here?
If a good guy like Mark Sanford or Mike Pence is the nominee, I certainly won't punish him if Bush screws up.
Someone who argues like a liberal? Please, don't explain. And have a good week yourself. Taking the Volvo to the car wash on Friday, probably.
I'm pretty sure you misread everything I said. Calling me a moron?I leave it to others, here, after they read your incoherent ramble, to weigh in on that. I had to take a Tylenol when I got to the end of it, it was so disjointed.
And let me close by thanking you for all the wisdom you've gained after being registered here on this forum for three ... whole... weeks.
Classy. Thanks.
"Many thanks for your post and unlike John, I think that you used the word "puffery" correctly."
Hey, I thought we made up!
Wait, it might just be a syntactical misstep.
Kidding.
Should have read further down, and had just one response...
"Yes, we've come to an amicable cessation and I hope that we are able to maintain it."
"But here's a wee quibble..."
This is just like being married.
"you're incorrect about GOPJ's use of the word "puffery"."
I will defend to the death your and GOPJ's right to use a completely different dictionary than I do. (These are the jokes, folks, I hope you're laughing.)
"And you really are quite heavy-handed; not to mention overtly long winded, when trying to thwack at others' post, you take umbrage with."
Overly long-winded, but I digress....
As for taking umbrage...and that thwacking stuff...take a look at a few things you put up on this thread (and not to me)...you was tough. Some of my hair actually fell off when you were grinding that one guy's brain down. I felt like a scared onlooker at a serious ass-kicking.
Hey, not meaning to stir things up. The peace was hard to attain...let us guard it vigilantly.
"We need to have a private talk about trolls....:-)"
Happily.
How about just "idiot."
If you're going to read the thread, and what I and others have said throughout, and then muster an intelligent response, welcome aboard. If you're just going to glance at a headline and throw potshots, piss off.
Ah yes.
rational, reasoned, debate.
The sign of someone who is confident in their position and able to back it up, logically, and with facts.
I believe this is ample evidence that "piss off" is the extent of your intellectual acumen.
Therefore, descending to your level:
"FO"
how's that for an equally intellectual rejoinder?
I read the opening post and sufficient of the resulting posts to determine to my satisfaction that this was not sarcasm. Given that, I make a reasoned response and your reply is "piss off?"
Yep. You have a basis for complaint.
Twit.
- 30 -
(for those who are too ignorant to know that means I am writing off this argument because I don't "joust" with those incapable of assembling a cogent response)
Frankly, I would have used a different word than "puffery"; however, since almost all of your, ahem, accomplishments and political CV was posted by your wife, and the definition of puffery is : "undue or exaggerated praise or acclaim", it fits. Her effusive praise of you went over the top. But she loves you and was defending you.
I usually use WEBSTER'S ENCYCLOPEDIC UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, but I have other dictionaries, which I can and could use...if you'd rather. :-)
Oh, I'm one of those nuclear blasts, when it comes to tongue lashings and have never denied it. I do not suffer fools lightly and never have done. But I don't ballistic, when a flyswatter will do. And to think, you haven't even seen me at my peak. What'll you do, should you swerve into one of those posts...gouge your eyes out? hehehehe
I'll drop you a note about trolls. I think that you need a quick history of trolls/sleeper cells/disruptors here.
"The sign of someone who is confident in their position and able to back it up, logically, and with facts. I believe this is ample evidence that "piss off" is the extent of your intellectual acumen."
Note to Phsstpok: the word "acumen" is for amateurs; when coupled with "intellectual," it's for intellectual amateurs.
"I read the opening post and sufficient of the resulting posts to determine...."
No, you didn't. I published a considered and considerable response, along about post #455,, and I've included it below.
"Twit."
Name calling. Just so everybody knows: You did it first.
"- 30 -
(for those who are too ignorant to know that means I am writing off this argument because I don't "joust" with those incapable of assembling a cogent response)"
So, you go back to the hard copy days, hmm, maybe on a newspaper? Must have been a local, low circ., because who else would put up with the tortured syntax of your explanation for -30- (which, by the way, you have misused). Your editor must have been the proverbial drunk.
And I see you've added others here, beyond me--"for all those too ignorant." Come on, man, get cheesed off at me if you want, but give these other folks a break. I think, when you hand out blankets like that, you're saying a lot more about yourself than you are about me.
Phsstpok, I didn't find your response "reasoned" in the least, which is why I have cut loose on you. If you had read my response, which has been up over 24 hours, you probably would have responded differently.
Now that we've crapped all over each other, what say we knock it off? You hit very hard. I hit very hard back. I think we're at the point where we can't really tell who has spilled more blood, because there's so much of it, and it's all mixed together on the sidewalk. We're not going to be friends, but I'd like us not to be enemies.
Please read this, okay?:
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 agree with you. If we get a pro-abort, anti-gun justice out of this, I am done with voting.
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.