Posted on 02/05/2010 8:10:31 PM PST by Bigtigermike
If the last paragraph I wrote in post #253 confuses you, all I can say it, it makes perfect sense to me in the context of the many posts we presumably have both been folloiwng on this thread. If you're NOT reading it in that context, then I can see how it wouldn't make sense.
Ezekial? Ecclesiastes.
Not bad. It’s all part of tearing down the foundation of truth. This Nation shall fight back.
Actually, if I had weeks of time to indulge in research and then the composing of posts that you would IGNORE, I'm sure I could find examples of nations whose governments did the same things our government is doing now.
I truly trust Ecclesiastes when it tells me: There is nothing new under the sun. It appears to me that you neither trust it nor believe it. You doom yourself to remaining ignorant of useful ways to accurately analyze today's problems by rationalizing that they're "new." You doom yourself to repeating the mistakes of the past.
I remember Bush Sr & the tobacco remarks, K was a rude, ignorant b!tch. (And hasn't changed a bit)But would we h ave so many of her kind if the libs weren't screaming for the last 4+ decades that women & men are absolutely equal? And would the MSM be so totally one-sided & radical?
Both GHW & his son let the moonbats throw sh!t at them constantly. Comes a time when even a gentleman has to take off the gloves!
Fight back? When we’re outnumbered, and overrun?
You are so right- actually it is my youngest daughter who has the bone marrow disease-
There was no choice because Thank God we had good (Private) health insurance and were able to take part in a new protocol experiment at Johns Hopkins. This would Never have happened if the gov/t thing were to play in. Wait we are not rich.
Before the industrial age they all worked- they worked as a family’ The children were in the plan - they were there with us -
Now???
Yes the stay at home mom is equipped and capable of raising very seriously screwed -up kids .......
I find when I am sharing work is when we bond_____
Things are rough!
Until recent times I would never have believed any government and especially ours would blind themselves from the truth and actually work for the enemy. Three thousand dead and acres of destruction in NY, but Pres Bush a few days later tells us that "Islam is a religion of peace". And that was just for starters. We now have dhimmis for leaders, including some in the military brass. There is only one answer--Satan at work, and only God will save us--if we deserve it.
Pot, kettle--you know the drill, I'm sure. Nice tactic, though.
One only has to look at my posts and then yours to figure out who's the irrational one.
I suppose it'd be pointless to send you to the post where I said of those who appear to be candidates as of now, I'd vote for Palin?
Nope, didn't think so.
Because I haven't bashed her. Please cut and paste all the "bashing" I've done. Then explain the difference between bashing and questioning and criticism--you know, those things we do to our elected politicians, because not thinking and questioning are bad things--and show why what I've done is bash.
*sigh* Like Rush says, I know you people too well.
No, you don't. You simply label someone who asks questions you don't like being asked, and then you don't have to think about the questions, or WHY someone would ask them.
Call me a Romney basher. Go ahead -- a whole lot of my FR posts bash Romney. I bash Romney frequently and do my best to convince people that he's a piss-poor "conservative." If you call me a Romney basher, I would be an idiot to take offense because the charge is accurate. I AM a Romney Basher.
Good for you. What that has to do with this discussion, I don't know, unless you think there are only two types of voter--a basher and an idolizer.
Sorry, I'm neither. I don't worship, nor do I hate. I also don't stop thinking about someone who might be president some day. I keep thinking, keep questioning.
So far on this thread, and on others, I've only ever seen you criticize and call into question Palin's conservatism. I'd call that being a Palin basher. What's your problem with the word "basher"?
Again, I've never bashed her.
How have I called her conservatism into question--by asking about specific conservative positions on issues that are important to me?
Was Ronald Reagan's signing of an amnesty a conservative position? Just by asking about that ONE issue, by your standard, I'm calling his conservatism into question. That's dumb.
Gee, excuse me for attempting to pinpoint your real opinion because you refuse to state it clearly.
I have stated it clearly. You don't like the answer, so you have to "reveal" the "truth" which you do not know.
You've said you don't believe it's "conservative" to have oil companies should pay Alaskan citizens directly for the use of state-owned land ...
Please cut and paste where I said this--not just a little bit of one or two sentences, cut and paste where I said what you claim I said. You can't--because I didn't say it.
I ASKED about this issue, which I don't know much about. That's why people ask questions.
so it appears that either you think a) the oil companies should drill for free or b) the oil companies should ONLY give money to state government entities and not individual citizens. IS THERE A THIRD POSSIBILTY I'm not seeing? If so, please elaborate.
This is where you get into trouble--you think you're like Rush and can figure out what people REALLY think. What you write above is some paranoid fantasy. All you have to do is ASK me the question you want answered, and wait until I answer it to know my answer.
You're too frightened by the idea that someone might not buy what you buy.
But somehow I think you won't -- I think you're too fuzzy-minded to say what you really mean, partly because it always keeps a detour open to the high road when people conclude what your opinion is from your non-statements of it; you can insult them by calling them liars or illiterates, as you did with me.
Because you are both a liar and, apparently, illiterate, based on the lies you've repeated about me here, and the fact that you can't understand what I'm writing.
As you know, I can read, and as you know, trying to pinpoint your opinion which you refuse to state yourself but only imply by asking hypothetical questions, is not lying.
No, lying is inventing things about someone. You've done that about me. You don't like being labelled a liar? Then stop lying.
As you know, YOU are being evasive and are either unable or unwilling to state your opinion clearly enough to help me and others understand WHAT you would have Alaska do -- let oil companies have the use of the land for free, or keep the money only for state coffers? WHICH, Darkwolf? It's a simple question. Can you answer it?
I can answer it. But you and others on this thread are too busy being frightened followers to allow that maybe, just maybe, someone who's still asking questions ISN'T someone to be frightened of.
Look carefully up the thread, and take note of the post where I thanked someone for giving a straight answer. Why would I do that if I were whatever it is you think I am? If I'm this "basher" shouldn't I have just ignored the straight answer to my simple question.
When I ask a question, a simple question, and get smug, insulting, or simply pointless responses, why should *I* change course and answer those pointless questions? I asked a simple question. I got the answer. I thanked the person. What's your problem? You can think I'm a basher; I couldn't give a damn.
What I give a damn about is conservatism and how it is needed by this nation. I don't give a damn about looks, about "style" over substance.
So I ask about substance, and your response is your snarky "I KNOW what you REALLY think!" silliness.
IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS POST and please answer this simple question: How would you have the oil companies compensate the State of Alaska for the use of state-owned land in drilling for oil?
Now that I know the facts, I would have them do as they have been doing, as they've done under Palin.
I expect several of us here are eagerly awaiting your answer to that simple question. Just FYI, not that you care, I will ONLY read whatever in your post answers that question; I'll ignore all your emotional huffiness
This from the person on the soap box. You are making a fool of yourself by criticizing me for those things you are doing in spades. Please, continue.
and charges of "lying," being "illiterate," etcetera. There's only ONE opinion of yours that I ask and the only asnwer I'm interested in, so response should be simple, cut, and dried for you: How would you have the oil companies compensate the State of Alaska for the use of state-owned land in drilling for oil?
For someone who laughably complains about "huffiness" you do go on! :)
As one of those who've mailed me off-thread says, people like you are fun to play around with.
But ultimately, the lack of intelligent questioning, the lack of civility which deserves nothing more than the same in return, becomes boring. So I return you to the anonymity from which you came to be rude and silly and complain about MY emotionalism. :D
I belatedly discovered your response.
Thank you, and I agree.
See, folks, this is what happens when someone asks a question and you are in the right--you give them the answer!
This place is really going to the dogs.
Great work Phil!
Those DEFINITELY are two NOT of a kind !!
No thanks to posters like you...
Hmm.Ok, I’ll take you at your word that your original post was a sincere question. Sorry I misunderstood you, it certainly wasn’t intentional.
Like Sarah says:
“Let us not get bogged down in the small squabbles. Let us get caught up in the big ideas,”
THANK YOU for a straightforward answer!
Glad to hear it. Surprised, but glad.
It IS horrible, isn't it? My husband needs to know history pretty well to make his living, and he has one of those brains that absorbs and retains info. Over the decades we've been married, he's helped me to understand how history makes it plain that Americans are no different than people in any nation past, present, or future, and should never ever be surprised at the directions their nation may take. People who say "It could never happen here" have a fatally, dangerously poor grasp of history.
The "religion of pieces" is an old enemy -- it's been the enemy of Christianity for 1400 years. The Crusades have been demonized over the centuries because the Crusaders were men, and far from perfect, and we know that historical hindsight tends to focus on the flaws of the victors rather than the faults of defeated -- look at history's assessment of the Viet Nam War and the U.S.'s bombing of Japan in WWII for examples. But the Crusaders are why Europe hasn't been under Sharia law for the past 800 years.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that we are engaged in a religious war. I think Western Civ's move away from declared Judeo-Christian values and toward an "all religions are equally good, including no religion" fallacy is behind the moral decay in the West, and that very moral decay has allowed Islam ONCE AGAIN to become a threat. On its own, Islam cannot prosper or thrive; it can only turn to other, more successful societies in order to improve its own standard of living. It is a parasite that will kill its own host if it takes hold.
I think followers of the Judeo-Christian ethic (they don't even necessarily have to be declared Jews or Christians, just people who embrace and commit to the Judeo-Christian ethic) are approaching a time (again!) when they must realize that what you say is true: "Only God will save us." I think it may very well be that He will only save us if we "save ourselves" with all the tools He's given us -- His word, His instructions, knowledge and confidence in His righteousness.
I hope and trust that things will go well with you and yours. God keep you.
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.