Replies

You're responses on the Ramos and Compean issue are pathetic. You sound like a liberal stretching the law, as a means to an end.

When the federal government starts prosecuting Border Patrol agents for taking actions consistent with their job description, its another victory for political correctness over traditional commonsense. When the federal government uses a drug smuggler as the primary witness in the prosecution of Border Patrol agents that were carrying out their duties, its another victory for political correctness over traditional commonsense.

In this case, Johnny Sutton and his chief prosecutor chose to ramrod this case through the system, with an eye on enhancing their political futures. Period.

>>>>>I didn't "agree", I corrected your error, in which you claimed most of the 66 threads were about Romney.

You agreed.

Here's what I said: "Maybe we should look at one of the 66 threads you posted in a little over 4-years as a member of FR, mostly having to do with Mitt Romney." ---- and here's what you said: "I'm pretty sure the 13 Romney-related topics were the most I did on any specific topic." Sounds like you're confused.

The word "mostly" doesn't mean majority. Its means, "for the most part". Words have meaning. This is why I suggested you get a dictionary add-on for your browser.

>>>>>Winning elections and governing as conservatives are not issues. And typing the acronym "CWA" is not a discussion.

LOL Ridiculous. Winning elections, governing as conservatives and creating a second Contract With America could be labeled "processes" and "events". Their also big issues, or subjects of concern in the minds of most Republicans.

Just like "24" is a big issue for you. Just like "Hobbit hole" is a big issue for you. Just like "South Park is a big issue for you. Still waiting for you to tell me why you think "24", "Hobbit hole" and "South Park" are such important issues for this conservative forum.

Btw, "gun control, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, card check, protecting the unborn, cutting taxes", etc etc etc, are specific issues. And no, I'm interested in hearing you pissing and moaning, as you nuance your way through this forum. I've had about enough of your BS.

I understand what the "lesser of two evils" is all about. Aside from Reagan, I've been supporting the lesser of two evils for potus since 1968.

I never heard Rush call Romney a conservative. If you have that quote, post it.

The idea that Romney wasn't your #1 candidate during the GOP primary process is a flat out lie. I remember you giving Fred kudos, but Willard was you main man.

So, you have a dictionary that tells you that "mostly" means "a small minority of the total", or that 13 out of 66 would be "for the most part"?

You should probably load up a better dictionary.

When the federal government starts prosecuting Border Patrol agents for taking actions consistent with their job description,

You assume facts not in evidence. If the smuggler was armed and pointed a gun at them, their actions were consistent with their job description. If the smuggler was unarmed, then their actions were illegal, and trying to give them a pass because you like the idea of shooting illegal immigrants makes you the one who is "stretching the law".

And it is a simple fact that suspects are often criminals, and therefore most of the time when police overstep their bounds, the testimony that puts them away will be the testimony of criminals.

But conservatives respect the rule of law, and want police to act within the bounds of the law, not to take the law into their own hands.

BTW, my comment that the 13 Romney threads were "the most I did on any specific topic" was a correction of your statement that I had 14 threads on a specific topic OTHER than Romney. You still haven't told me what specific topic you thought I created 14 threads about.

Their also big issues, or subjects of concern in the minds of most Republicans.

You should get a better dictionary. "big issues" does not equal "subjects of concern". Issue

You will note that none of the 35 definitons is "subjects of concern".

More to the point, you can't discuss "winning the election". You could discuss "how to win the election". We can discuss how to govern in a conservative manner. There is no debate that we should govern in a conservative manner.