Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 08/15/2006 8:40:12 AM PDT by supa consrvative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last
To: supa consrvative

Thats why he is a rat but still go joe and beat lamont(sanford and son)


2 posted on 08/15/2006 8:47:58 AM PDT by italianquaker (Democrats and media can't win elections at least they can win their phony polls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative

Yeah, but with the Republican candidate for Senate in CT polling at 6%, what can you do?


3 posted on 08/15/2006 8:48:54 AM PDT by D-Chivas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative

Good post. It would be a plus for the Republican candidate to WIN.


4 posted on 08/15/2006 8:48:58 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative

How can old Joe be a conservative Jew and still vote in favor of abortion?


5 posted on 08/15/2006 8:49:14 AM PDT by RexBeach ("There is no substitute for victory." - Douglas MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative

Welcome to Free Republic!


6 posted on 08/15/2006 8:49:42 AM PDT by TChris (Banning DDT wasn't about birds. It was about power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative

This is a moral dilemna for Conservatives:

For the sake of the greater good, Joe should get the nod over Ned; however, Ned winning the race only causes more people to run to our side. Should we stand up for the citizens of CT, or let the Liberals further implode?


7 posted on 08/15/2006 8:49:52 AM PDT by dynamite98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz
Amazing, isn't it? How Republicans will discard any core values they may have for the sake of expediency.
8 posted on 08/15/2006 8:50:13 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative

LOL. You are correct of course, but I have a question. You a Lamont supporter?

Welcome to Free Republic.


11 posted on 08/15/2006 8:57:22 AM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative

Liebermann is a liberal on everything but the war on terror.

His Democrat opponent is a liberal on EVERYTHING INCLUDING the war.

The Republican hasn't got a prayer due to "persoanl problems" (Sean Hannity).

So from a prgamatic perspecitve, is there any choice here?

I think not.

Vote for America. Vote for Liebermann.


12 posted on 08/15/2006 8:59:13 AM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative

Hiya Ned.


19 posted on 08/15/2006 9:04:17 AM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)

Okay, I feel a rant coming on. Because I've been thinking about adolescence and sexual pressure of late.

How about all parents tell their teenagers the following: "DON'T DO IT"?

Now I can hear the rebuttals. "Man, you can't tell teenagers not to do it. That's just not practical."

So okay, let's take a poll. How many adults, and by "adults" I mean well past the lust of adolescence, would actually agree that teenage sex- and by "teenage sex" I'll stipulate during high school-is a good thing?

Would any adult with two IQ cells shake their head positive and say..."sure, teenagers in high school have sexual needs; why shouldn't they expand their lust just so long as they avoid pregnancy?"

Well I'm thinking not many adults would take that position, correct me if I'm wrong.

Why on earth can't teenagers just not have sex until they are out of high school? Nobody's freaking died of such a thing?

But I'm not done yet. I know they get in the back seats of cars (I was a teenager once) and get all hot and bothered and things get out of hand. In this event, well better to use a condom than not.

Sheesh, anybody can buy a condom anywhere, heck they give them out free everywhere. I don't see why parents should have to warn their teenagers to use condoms. I think that to do so is to implicitly give permission for teenage sex. I DO think a parent could, after a warning to JUST NOT DO IT, warn a teenage child that there are plenty of condoms everywhere, perhaps as an aside. "Because to do it without using birth control is way worse than doing it WITH birth control, but in either case, don't do it at all and if I find out that you did I'm going to be mad."

The above is a mythical conversation and it's been many years since I myself had a teenager so maybe I'm out of touch.

But doesn't it seem that every facet of society anymore is practically BEGGING teenagers to have sex; some kind of sex? I get frustrated and think what happened to good old fashioned morals? Why can't we tell teenagers NOT to do it, especially if that's the way we feel?

Notice please, I am not espousing parental advice to not have sex until marriage. Although, hey, no one ever died of being a virgin on their wedding night either. But getting an education, courtships, dreams and goals, sometimes postpone marriage until late in the twenties or early thirties. I am not so stupid to think that sexual contact would likely be postponed for thirty years or whatever.

But a teenager in high school? Tell them NO. And if they do it anyway, and I know a lot of them do, then so be it. At least as parents good advice would have been handed out.

21 posted on 08/15/2006 9:05:49 AM PDT by Fishtalk (http://patfish.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative
You first post, after joining today, and you are busy trying to get Lamont elected, by trashing Lieberman huh?
Not gonna work.
22 posted on 08/15/2006 9:06:30 AM PDT by Jameison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative

Encourage Orchulli or a popular state senator to enter the race. We CAN win this race with a good candidate. A choice between Lieberman and Lamont is not a choice. Supporting Lieberman may piss off the Dems, but it keeps a winnable seat liberal.


27 posted on 08/15/2006 9:08:54 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative

Welcome to FR. it is considered polite to comment on what you post. Do you agree, dis-agree, with what you posted? Or are you as suggested, a LeMount supporter?


30 posted on 08/15/2006 9:10:53 AM PDT by dynachrome ("Where am I? Where am I going? Why am I in a handbasket?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative

First Day here at FR I see. Welcome!


32 posted on 08/15/2006 9:11:46 AM PDT by Halls (One Proud Texas Momma!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative

The Republican candidate is pro-choice also, and in any case has no chance to win unless Lamont and Lieberman are BOTH caught with either a live boy or a dead girl.

Any candidate running statewide in Connecticut on a pro-life platform would get creamed about as badly as Box-O-Rox if she ran for Senator from Alabama.

So your worthless vanity is a tranparent attack on Joe Lieberman which amount to pro-Lamont. That makes you a troll and Zot-bait.

IBTZ!!


33 posted on 08/15/2006 9:14:26 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (I Love Free Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative

Ned! Is this really you - or one of your comrades?


36 posted on 08/15/2006 9:16:13 AM PDT by SelmaLee (Woof!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative
Shows you just how stupid the Democrats of Connecticut are for supporting Lamont.

Lieberman is a SOLID and RELIABLE Liberal and nobody has any idea if Lamont is even really a man (I have my suspicions.)
37 posted on 08/15/2006 9:16:55 AM PDT by msnimje ("Beware the F/A - 22 Raptor with open doors" -- Unknown US NAVY Raptor Pilot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative; jla

Lieberman's biggest scam was getting into the Senate seat on the backs of the unborn. This craven individual, Lieberman, ruthlessly used the unborn to get into office.

As a 1988 Senate candidate, Lieberman made many, many pro-life pledges to Connecticut Catholic leaders as Atty General running for pro-abort Sen Weicker's seat.

Based on an internal Lieberman poll indicating pro-life votes were there for the taking, Lieberman assiduously courted Catholics, and made pro-life promises that he had no intention of keeping. Lieberman got into the Senate----with pro-life votes.

Lieberman musta laughed all the way to Washington thinking of the con job he pulled off.

Once in office, Lieberman turned tail and became an unwavering abortion rights supporter----as your list suggests----voting consistently pro-abortion, and even voting to uphold partial-birth abortion on six separate occasions.


40 posted on 08/15/2006 9:21:10 AM PDT by Liz (The US Constitution is intended to protect the people from the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: supa consrvative

A choice between the Devil or his helper.


48 posted on 08/15/2006 10:18:28 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson