Don't you need these?
Posted on 08/07/2004 7:24:44 PM PDT by Graybeard58
A) Arnold had a conservative opponent that was infinitely more qualified for the office than he was.
B) Arnold is a liberal.
I'm surprised at your lack of ability to make distinctions.
I'm surprised at your utter dishonesty.
Why don't you just say "Because it was me."
You don't care about any mythical 'damage' to the GOP.
You just care about pursuing your little vendetta.
There are some who hold similar views and are held back solely by longstanding hatred of the Republican Party. But largely it's that most blacks tend to be even more liberal than the Democratic Party on economic issues. It's an understandable phenomenon -- when you feel like you're a victim, you want clear and direct ways to make up for it. That's why most blacks in this country support policies akin to the Democratic Socialists in Europe. The key is to change hearts and minds by convincing the black community that these policies don't work.
If any man can make that case to them, Alan can.
Ryan's a bafoon... Why should anyone be embarrassed for wanting to have sex with your own wife? Let alone if your wife is a hottie like his was... sheesh.
However, I do look forward to the Illinois debates, like I never would have had Ryan been the canidate.
You're beginning to sound like Captain Queeg.
By the way, for the purposes of this election, he only needs to convince a fraction of them to make victory almost certain...possibly only 5% more than would normally vote for a Republican.
Convincing a broader number of them is alot more of a long-term, lifetime project.
That's one of the things about Alan. He knows that the war is ongoing, and continues to educate people no matter the outcome of any given battle in that war.
We desperately need leaders in this country with that kind of committment.
You mean like this?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1187170/posts?page=632#632
Illinois dems still haven't passed a State budget a month past the deadline and all we hear is the "split in the Republican Party".
Are you, or are you not, actively working against a Republican candidate for the United States Senate?
Don't you need these?
Bob - Here's my take - and what I meant to communicate, and I hope you can appreciate the analogy. When I was with SAS, I would never answer my critics with charges that they were anti-gunners. When my detractors came after me, and yes, I had detractors and critics, and at times I felt like I was under attack, I would TRY to keep in mind that it wasn't personal, and that it would be best not to react openly that way.
Obviously, sometimes things were meant personally (and years later, I can laugh about it), but I would still not react in a personal manner. I know that this may not sound like constructive feedback to you, but I really believe that it appears that AFers are in every shadow to you. I have zero desire to get any more detailed, especially because I doubt that it will be taken as anything other than argumentative. So, take this as just my observation worth exactly what I paid for it.
Now, as to how I interpreted Jim's line, well, it was based upon my other experiences and observations, obviously. That's how we all interpret things.
As far as a double standard... I see that it can appear that way. My reasoning was as follows:
I defended the FRN on LP once. Mojo was all over me with questions about SAS in the same nature. Now, I viewed that then (and still do) as a retaliatory strike. The discussion had nothing to do with SAS, was serving to only muddy up the waters, and had no real point.
Likewise, SAS has nothing to do with this discussion, and I am viewing it as a retaliatory strike, which will serve only to muddy up the waters and has no real point.
In other words, a 'well, what about you' type argument. When I discuss things / argue points, I focus on the topic on hand. I don't toss in everything except the kitchen sink. However, unsyc managed to throw out smears and innuendoes against me at the same time on a different thread. Ironically, it was similar to mojo's approach long ago.
If you recall, I said I had no questions about FRN. I have no stake in it and could care less. FWIW, I am sure that there are things that could be questioned. The world is full of Monday Morning Quarterbacks, and I certainly can appreciate that you feel criticized, perhaps unfairly. I can appreciate that because it is more true than not. But, that goes with the territory unfortunately. I guess what I was really trying to get at to start with was that when you post, people interpret you as the voice of FRN, not just BobJ. So when you spar, it appears that all of FRN is coming after someone.
"You equated Buchanan with Keyes. I merely agreed. They are both self aggrandizing scumbags out to make a buck and get some free air time. The easiest way to get that free air time is to attack effective tax-cutting, abortion restricting, and military strengthening conservatives like Dubya. It is much harder to win election than to complain about the winner, and how "you would do it better if only the electorate didn't see right through your false image." They collude with the leftists well and you eat up the propaganda.
bleat on with your baa self"
From my side, this conversation, if you want to call it that, is coming to an end, as I fully realize I am not dealing with a rational person, but an illogical and hostile mind. Enjoy yourself.
Thanks for your explanation.
Missouri, I really like Alan Keyes. I even voted for him in the previous primary over Pres. Bush. I really wish he could win this seat, but I don`t think it will happen.
The media is already trying to rip him to shreds, the black churchs probably won`t let him in their doors, and he is very conservative ( not saying it is bad by any means, from my point of view ).
I hope I am wrong, I think Alan is great, but it will be the upset of the decade if he wins. I wish him well.
GO ALAN GO !!
It is too late to apologize!
You are correct. The St. Louis Post-Disgrace will no doubt be piling on.
He should make things interesting there across the Mississippi.
Gillespie is quoted in the two Union-Leader articles. His quots make it very clear that in his view there is no place for limited-government conservatism in the GOP.
One of my favorite Robert Frost poems of all time. Thanks for posting and reminding me of it. It does apply here.
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.