Posted on 05/09/2010 8:59:35 PM PDT by Syncro
That’s “huevos”. And I’m not backing anyone yet.
Check these out.
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/spanish_to_english/other/9438-chupame_los_juevos.html
http://www.l2guru.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-16499-p-14.html
Check out the third post. We South Texas boys know our Tex-Mex.
Regardless, you avoided the question.
“Regardless, you avoided the question.”
What part of “ And I’m not backing anyone yet” do you fail to understand?
Your post(s) indicate you have an anger management problem with Sarah, typical of those with PDS so obviously, she is NOT your choice. So, I was just wondering who you were leaning toward. I certainly hope you are not a typical flaming lefty lurker trying to poison the well against Ms. Palin. If you’re not, then surely you could tell us who you are leaning toward.
“Your post(s) indicate you have an anger management problem with Sarah,”
Got crazy?
I’d forgotten how nutcases can exaggerate things. I harbor no anger towards Sarah Palin. At most I’m indifferent to her. I noted that she has backed two RINOs in the primaries. That’s certainly her choice. It’s what I would expect from a GOP loyalist. It’s not what I’m looking for in a conservative. Your mileage may vary.
I will try to answer you. At a disadvantage here, since I didn’t read your deleted posts.
However, it appears your post had a racial component to it, since “Hostage” mentioned to you that blacks aren’t the scapegoat.
You can find the rules of Free Republic on the home page, near the bottom; it discourages several types of posts including profanity, vulgarity, personal attacks, threats of violence, and racial/religious bigotry. Free Republic reserves the right to judge posts as to whether they fall under those guidelines.
If you see a post that you think violates the rule, but it isn’t deleted, it could be the Moderators aren’t aware of it and need to be by a poster clicking on “abuse” and informing them. Apparently your posts were deemed not in accord with the content guidelines.
You say you think all should be discussed and debated. I’m saying, those who own and operate Free Republic have the final say about what appears here. If you ran a website of this nature, you would have the final say there.
I don’t disagree with FR owners’ right to do whatever they want with this site. It seems, as I said, however, more in line with the rationality of conservative thought that the truth will either be found or otherwise survive the debate of differing points of view in the forum of ideas. That’s why true (Christian) conservatism will always have the intellectual upper hand because it overcomes leftist irrationality (like political correctness) and is not afraid of the debate because it has the winning argument.
I should add that I think discussion of these topics is coming (maybe not here) in the form of resentlful backlash. I think it would do those of us well who are able, to openly and frankly discuss these issues so among other things, instead of hiding our heads in the sand, we’re able and prepared to discern the fairy tale from the truth.
I don’t ascribe political correctness to the owners of Free Republic. I don’t ascribe being afraid to them.
If that were true of them, they would not have founded Free Republic. It is very politically incorrect.
There are comments taken out of context and bandied about in the news media from time to time. What we do here is not done in a vacuum. My take is that Free Republic does not want just anything and everything somebody might post here to be fired around the world for people to abuse this site over. Therefore they have drawn some lines in order to have a degree of control over what is attributed to Free Republic or its members.
I don’t blame them one whit. You cannot trust people. Some posters have signed up on here just to post racism or whatever, in order to discredit Free Republic.
I support the site’s judgement to have a standard and a delete button. I might not always agree with the outcome, but more often than not, I do.
If I’m unwilling to abide what they do here, my option is to leave.
Neither does my post. It explains why allowing opposing viewpoints like PC does not threaten the conservative position because the truth will always stand the test of reason (and historical fact).
I support the site’s judgement to have a standard and a delete button. I might not always agree with the outcome, but more often than not, I do
I general, I agree. I guess I’m expressing disagreement in this particular case, at least in the sense of having no access of appeal to this invisible “eye in the sky.”
“Fine, but I gave you an accurate breakdown of TP political affiliations. Given that 15 of 33 registered republicans are TP supporters, that means about half of the GOP is in the TP camp, and you can start from there.
But there are 8 of 36 dems and 23 of 31 independents that claim to support the TP movement. To ask them to change affiliation is a harder sell than to ask them to continue supporting the TP movement.”
8 of 36 dems - you and I both know the chances that a RAT is not lying and is actually a TP supporter is close to zero. Now the independents are another matter - those folks we need to really reach out to, and your approach may be a good one. Who knows, there may be a time coming with a RAT will actually be called a Democrat TP - but that day is not today, imho. For today, all RATs I’m aware of are either overtly lying, or they are lying to themselves (perhaps that makes them nuerotic or psychotic - but is that any better?)
“It would be analogous to organizing a union within both parties”
I take it that each candidate would ID themselves as TP affiliated - because for the time being, I can’t see those kinds of designations actually on ballots or voter’s guides - but private voter’s guides and TP websites could have them.
Again, there are a couple exceptions where TPs have endorsed Democrats (I think one is in ID), but by and large the chances of the RATS currently supporting TP are about nuthin’.
So Indies would basically have a choice of R-TP and R and perhaps I-TP - like Doug Hoffman out in NY-23.
Best.
“who is your candidate for prez.”
I don’t mock Sarah - I, like you don’t like her every last move and there a couple of moves I certainly don’t like.
I’d like to see Jim DeMint run for POTUS.
Yes it would not appear on ballots but it would be a membership and candidates would have to be invited or apply, not merely claim. Otherwise popularity of the TP among the electorate would attract a lot of fair weather members.
And yes, it is the independents that are crucial. The I-TP members together with R-TP/D-TP members should be a force that checks the 2-parties from colluding, and may possibly start changing the culture inside the beltway that is at present a “what’s in it for me?” environment for both parties.
The next step would be to find a good law firm to represent the TP as a political union for organizing and managing members and dues. The TP fund could among other things provide support to TP members who are ignored by their party leadership, for example DeVore in California who has been dissed by the NRSC.
I know it borders on 3rd party but I think it is a safe bet that a few successful outcomes to challenges from the 2-party establishment will make those leaders see things the TP way. But I do expect challenges and dirty tricks, the idea of a quasi-3rd party with popular support and funds will shake them up and cause them to circle the wagons.
One insider I met a few years back described the 2-party system as 2 mafia families that negotiate their racketeering territories periodically, but when any external force threatens their hold on the purse strings they band together as if they were one mafia family. At the time of that description i didn’t like the characterization ‘mafia’ very much but it seems to fit in the present times. I think many of the lawmakers are themselves criminals.
Fiorino = Scott Brown. Best we can do this round. Chuck has made some bad boo boos recently.
Fiorino = Scott Brown. Best we can do this round. Chuck has made some bad boo boos recently.
“But I do expect challenges and dirty tricks, the idea of a quasi-3rd party with popular support and funds will shake them up and cause them to circle the wagons.”
This is already starting to happen. I think Tea Partiers are raising pretty substantial sums for basically Conservative candidates (almost always Republicans) and the GOP establishment is basically fighting that. I think they are threatened right now more than the RATS leadership, because these battles are happening in the primaries. That siad, Stupak and others have been targeted by the TPs too - and so that is placing some fear (already!) into the RAT leaders.
I like your ideas, because they’re fresh thoughts and do-able and don’t ply the same - we must throw every last R out path.
“but when any external force threatens their hold on the purse strings they band together as if they were one mafia family.”
Well, we still have the capability to upend and reform the R party, but that window is fast fading. This is probably one of the most important elections upcoming in the history of our nation. From its results we’ll know what condition we’re in and what we need to do next.
I like your thoughts and hope they catch on, along with what DeMint and the grass roots tea parties - like Tea Party Express and others are up to. We’re definitely having an impact (Bob Bennett, Scott Brown, NJ, VA, et al)
Thanks for the plug. FR has a lot of intelligent interesting posters; it’s a good place to gauge sentiments.
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/execteam/speeches/fiorina/minnesota01.html
CARLY FIORINA
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
“TECHNOLOGY, BUSINESS AND OUR WAY OF LIFE: WHAT’S NEXT”
excerpt:
As business leaders, as we are faced with questions of life and death rather than how much our stock is worth, the significance of our business contribution to the world may be increased. And that is a good thing.
I’ll end by telling a story.
There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world.
It was able to create a continental super-state that stretched from ocean to ocean, and from northern climes to tropics and deserts. Within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins.
One of its languages became the universal language of much of the world, the bridge between the peoples of a hundred lands. Its armies were made up of people of many nationalities, and its military protection allowed a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known. The reach of this civilization’s commerce extended from Latin America to China, and everywhere in between.
And this civilization was driven more than anything, by invention. Its architects designed buildings that defied gravity. Its mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers, and the creation of encryption. Its doctors examined the human body, and found new cures for disease. Its astronomers looked into the heavens, named the stars, and paved the way for space travel and exploration.
Its writers created thousands of stories. Stories of courage, romance and magic. Its poets wrote of love, when others before them were too steeped in fear to think of such things.
When other nations were afraid of ideas, this civilization thrived on them, and kept them alive. When censors threatened to wipe out knowledge from past civilizations, this civilization kept the knowledge alive, and passed it on to others.
While modern Western civilization shares many of these traits, the civilization I’m talking about was the Islamic world from the year 800 to 1600, which included the Ottoman Empire and the courts of Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, and enlightened rulers like Suleiman the Magnificent.
Although we are often unaware of our indebtedness to this other civilization, its gifts are very much a part of our heritage. The technology industry would not exist without the contributions of Arab mathematicians. Sufi poet-philosophers like Rumi challenged our notions of self and truth. Leaders like Suleiman contributed to our notions of tolerance and civic leadership.
And perhaps we can learn a lesson from his example: It was leadership based on meritocracy, not inheritance. It was leadership that harnessed the full capabilities of a very diverse population–that included Christianity, Islamic, and Jewish traditions.
This kind of enlightened leadership — leadership that nurtured culture, sustainability, diversity and courage — led to 800 years of invention and prosperity.
In dark and serious times like this, we must affirm our commitment to building societies and institutions that aspire to this kind of greatness. More than ever, we must focus on the importance of leadership– bold acts of leadership and decidedly personal acts of leadership.
With that, I’d like to open up the conversation and see what we, collectively, believe about the role of leadership.
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.