Posted on 09/17/2005 9:43:37 AM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
No, if you actually read what I wrote in #41, you see that I am telling the truth:
If I had the time to go back to the Shaivo threads, I strongly suspect I could find an instance or two where you did both to me.
But on this thread, in my post #30, I was anticipating the reactions of "moderates" to #30. You have to read the whole post - when I referred to "you" caling names, it was a reference to "moderates", not just you personally.
As you can see, the second paragraph begins with a "but", meaning that even though I could probably find instances where you did those things if I took the time to search back that far, my response to your charges was that I was anticipating the responses of moderates to my first post to you. "Anticipating responses" means those responses would likely be happening in the future.
So, in immediate response to your factless charge and demand, I explained that my comment about the name-calling and such was future-looking, not past-looking.
So, again the actual words I wrote in this thread from the beginning support the characterization I have been putting on them in these past few posts. That is contrary to the characterization you have been slyly trying to create out of thin air, "hon".
BTW, you might have noticed that you are now calling me a liar. I have proven in this post that I did not lie, so you're just name calling, Peach. Hmmmm . . . seems I was right after all.
The point is, I've never read you make any criticism of President Bush. Conservatives have at least two criticisms of his political and administrative actions. You apparently have no criticism.
Therefore, either you are not a conservative, or I've missed the part where you posted agreement with conservatives. So, if you point me to a couple of times where you made substantial (and I assume conservative) criticism of the President, you would be proving that you are conservative, or at least not a moderate.
That's why I posted that. Why are you all in a dither about all this? You're way over-reacting, "hon". You have the power to end this by just sucking it up and point me to those instances where you showed you're a conservative. I haven't seen them. But, it seems you just want to post nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah posts. That's so adult of you.
Hon, you're the one who made accusations. It's up to you to back them up. That's just the way it works around here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1471551/posts
But even before you an TAdams8591 got into it, you posted this to Crackingham:
To: Crackingham
And yet we had freepers on this very forum who were all upset at Judge Roberts providing a few hours pro bono work for a gay rights matter.
Some day a certain segment of the conservative party is going to "get it" and understand they don't speak for all conservatives and that Republicans are the big tent party.
6 posted on 08/26/2005 5:46:51 PM CDT by Peach
So you apparently are saying you are a fiscal conservative, but not a social conservative. That's where you and I are finding our disagreement. I categorize those who are not social conservatives as moderates. A conservative is one who is conservative through and through, without distinguishing fiscal from social.
But it gave me a good laugh to read your discussion with TAdams8591 on that thread. You made false charges and refused to answer specific questions there, too. It seems to be your MO. Attack and refuse to answer questions.
They've got to keep an open mind. Not every case is a case that is appropriate to use as a vehicle to overrule Roe.
To be more clear, my post #84 was in response to your post #83 where you said:
"Hon, you're the one who made accusations. It's up to you to back them up."
Post #84 was the backup material you demanded, at least a small part of it. I only went back a few weeks to find that thread.
If you're not a conservative both fiscally and socially, you're a moderate. You, "hon", are a moderate. HON.
So I've been here since 1998 and you went back a few weeks and didn't find any criticism by me of the president and assume I'm a moderate?
Oh, please keep posting because you're looking sillier and sillier with every post you make. ROFL
You keep changing definitions and demands, you misrepresent what I've written so you can draw factless conclusions out of thin air, and you think I look silly? I laugh you to scorn. You have no credibility in this discussion whatsoever.
You've been tagged, lady. Buh bye.
Oh, this is getting better and better. More false and nutty assumptions on your part. LOL
So because I defended Judge Roberts doing pro bono work for a gay rights group, which he explained during the hearings that he has NEVER, ever once refused anyone pro bono work, you ASSUME I am a social conservative? LOLOL
You sound like a homophobe. How's that for an assumption? See how that works?
As far as your other comment about an interaction I had with someone and I didn't answer a question, if you honestly think I'm going to wade through 200 and more posts on one thread looking for what you are referring to, you're out of your mind.
And hon, you are the one who made false charges and can't back them up and now pretend you were talking about the future. Hah!
Asta lavista, liar.
Well read it again. sources CLOSE to the WH. Could be a DUMocrat standing on the sidewalk in front of the WH giving the reporter some propaganda.
We will have to wait and see. I hope it is not a long wait.
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.