Posted on 11/13/2007 11:13:48 AM PST by pissant
Poor Betty Kevmo denied Fred’s Christianity but then could not admit it.
You made a statement.
If you had manned up and said “yes, that is what I said” I’d have a lot more respect.
This parsing and obfuscating dance you often do is tiring, and to be honest, since I have seen hints of good intellect in your work, it should be beneath you.
You’re wound up awfully tight.
And of course, Betty, that justifies you denying Fred’s religious faith.
Got it.
Don’t come on to me, Betty. I’m married.
I think McCain is already out of the race for all intents and purposes, and Hunter, to be realistic (unless he experiences a miracle), is equally out. I believe Huckabee is, too. That leaves Rudy and Romney as the Liberal Republicans to be avoided. Looking at his record, it seems pretty obvious to me that Romney is as risky as Rudy, and in a way, maybe even more risky in terms of increased nanny government he will charm the Ladies into embracing with his good looks, upstanding family "values," and Righteous Sugar Daddy persona. Hmmm .. I wonder ... if women didn't have the vote (and I'm female, folks) ... would Romney even stand a chance? (And what does that say about Hugh Hewitt!! *ooooh ... that was mean and catty! Meow! ... sorry Hugh!*)
Anyhoo, when I read posts that focus on Rudy as the worst-case Republican scenario, I find myself thinking ... Romney is EQUALLY worst-case. It's as important to beat Romney as it is to beat Rudy in the primaries. CLEARLY Fred Thompson, is the best bet for limited government, states' rights, and personal freedom, which is THE BEST WAY to achieve a moral society.
I’ve seen what Duncan Hunter supporters consider ‘polite’. No thanks.
You haven’t the courage of your own convictions, Betty. That makes you a coward. You gave an answer but you fear repeating it.
***My name ain’t Betty, and now I’ll probably need to correct for calling you Betty. Whatever. I gave an answer, and reinforced it, and I’m not afraid of repeating it. I just don’t want to go digging through this thread. You have your answer. Why aren’t you making a big deal out of the answer? Because when you examine it in context, it isn’t a big deal.
Pitiful.
***Yes you are. Round & round. Now it’s the insults. Boring.
I stood by my statement. You really should deal with this antichristian bigotry you tend to display, and your hatred of Dobson.
well a lot of people are looking at this as Rudy vs Romney and picking Romney. That’s what happens when people just look at polls instead of who they really want.
I have no anti-Christian bigotry. In fact, I love Christ so much, I even habitually capitalize the word Christian.
My issue is with those who denounce the religious faith of those they have never met based on petty narrow prejudice...like Dobson and apparently you too.
more like hatred of those who question people’s stated religious beliefs.
I don’t hate Dobson. I hate a few things he’s done in the name of Christ.
What you call "question" is really "judge."
Right, I don’t buy that for a second. I read what you wrote, you did not say “According to Dobson” or anything of that nature...
You made a statement.
***That’s fine, and I’ll stick by it. I probably should have said “according to Dobson” and in my mind it was certainly present but if I didn’t write it, that’s that. As you can see, I wasn’t making a big deal out of whether Fred is a christian or not, I was pointing out that Fred didn’t get Dobson’s endorsement.
If you had manned up and said “yes, that is what I said” I’d have a lot more respect.
***Oh, well. That’s the way things go. My read on this particular statement is that you’re just trying to get me started. Question the manlihood, that’ll work.
This parsing and obfuscating dance you often do is tiring,
***Nonsense. Read the posts. It is a simple point being made, and Petronski zeroed in on a single part of it. Fred followers are awfully jumpy.
and to be honest, since I have seen hints of good intellect in your work, it should be beneath you.
***Read through it again and you will see honesty and intellect in my responses. And also you’ll see someone whom I thought was named Betty making a mountain out of a molehill. We really should return to that Formula1 discussion, it was productive. Our latest discussions about street race results would prove interesting.
And of course, Betty, that justifies you denying Fred’s religious faith.
***Asked & answered. Out of context. Have you tried more bran in your diet?
In context. I asked you half a dozen times at least if I was misinterpreting you and you refused to answer.
I was willing to let the Fred supporters define what polite meant. No takers. Just like now. It seems to be a preferred plane of political discourse.
well it’s not really judging. it’s more like “I know who he is but I’m going to raise all these doubts in people’s heads so that they won’t vote for him.”
On the other hand it is pretty safe to say that Fred is not an Evangelical and I don’t think Fred would have a problem with that as he never claimed to be one.
My issue is with those who denounce the religious faith of those they have never met based on petty narrow prejudice...like Dobson and apparently you too.
***I think your issue is with the word “probably” and how easily you overlook it. I’m glad you’re a believer in Christ, we shall meet again in eternity and work this whole thing out, plenty of time, better moderators, and it’s all done to excellent music. No typos, cool.
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.