Skip to comments.
Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?
vanity
| April 21, 2007
| Jim Robinson
Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 15,401-15,420, 15,421-15,440, 15,441-15,460 ... 18,461-18,471 next last
To: Dog Gone
If you're willing to lie about my position in the Schiavo matter, what else are you willing to lie about? Could you show me a post of yours that objected to starving her to death?
To: BykrBayb
Perhaps I didn’t say anything because I didn’t see it, which is the truth. I don’t condone that either.
15,422
posted on
04/29/2007 6:04:20 PM PDT
by
Miss Marple
(Prayers for Jemian's son,: Lord, please keep him safe and bring him home .)
To: Miss Marple
WOW! Are you saying that there was or was alleged to be a lesbian relationship between any of the women that we have been discussing? I am totally disgusted by your attempt to insert such a vile element into this discussion.
No matter what disagreements I have had with the ladies in question, I do consider them to be ladies, and I resist your insinuation that they are lesbians or accused of being lesbians.
15,423
posted on
04/29/2007 6:04:53 PM PDT
by
Iwo Jima
("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
To: RexTheRunt; Jim Robinson
Do you think its possible to be a conservative and an atheist?Nat Hentoff is not a conservative.
However, his pro-life essays converted me to a pro-life mindset.
Wisdom is where you find it.
And wisdom is sorely lacking in the Rudy Guiliani campaign. Heck, Rudy is shilling his wife as some kind of bioterror expert because she was in pharma sales for a few years.
15,424
posted on
04/29/2007 6:05:37 PM PDT
by
dirtboy
(JimRob's 12th Commandment: Thou shall not trash actual pubbies on FR to pimp false pubbies)
To: wagglebee
Imagine if the court interpretation was consistent...
Freedom of speech work require the government to suppress speech on public property.
Freedom of the press would forbid the press to report from public property.
The absurdity of such rulings would be seen by all but somehow the Court misses the irony of using the freedom of religion amendment to restrict religious freedom in public.
I apologize for thread diversion and I’ll stop now - its just that this topic is beyond a pet peeve of mine.
15,425
posted on
04/29/2007 6:08:23 PM PDT
by
gondramB
(God only has ten rules, uncle Hank, and he has a much bigger house.)
To: Iwo Jima
Oh, please. That's too much codswallop for anyone to swallow. I just explained why it sounded like that is what mkjessup was saying.
Now if you want to pretend that saying "hot troll on troll action" wan't a sexual inference, go right ahead. It will sound like "the meaning of is" but if that's how you want to sound, by all means go for it!
15,426
posted on
04/29/2007 6:09:04 PM PDT
by
Miss Marple
(Prayers for Jemian's son,: Lord, please keep him safe and bring him home .)
To: Miss Marple
Disingenuousness doesnt become you. Hot-troll-on-troll action referring to two women is not innocuous, and you know it.
The comment in question could only titillate someone in the troll community, and could only offend someone looking for a reason to be offended.
15,427
posted on
04/29/2007 6:09:23 PM PDT
by
mkjessup
(Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
To: FreeReign
Typical troll tactic. Is Howlin writing your script too?
You asked me in Post #15,380:
If WA was started before this thread, then why would you call it an anti-Freeper site?
I answered you in
Post #15,389:
Because its an anti-freeper site, not an anti-this-thread site. There were other anti-freeper sites before this thread too. LOL
You replied to
a completely unrelated post, to make it difficult to track back, in the hopes that lurkers would just give up, and believe your lie. But the truth is, I answered your question.
WA has been proven, over and over, to be an anti-freeper site. I don't wish to debate whether planets revolve around the sun, whether The Bill of Rights is a real document, or whether WA is an anti-freeper site. None of those things are a matter of opinion, or up for debate.
If you wish to continue defending an anti-freeper site, go ahead. I look forward to seeing how that goes for you.
15,428
posted on
04/29/2007 6:10:28 PM PDT
by
BykrBayb
(I've had a howlingly good week, and I'm feeling just peachy. Þ)
To: Mo1
Answer the question, troll.
Are the Minuteman "vigilantes," or are they not?
When President Bush called them "vigilantes," did you agree or disagree?
15,429
posted on
04/29/2007 6:11:09 PM PDT
by
Iwo Jima
("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
To: wagglebee
Are you referring to the fact that the WTC was a KNOWN TERRORIST TARGET and that the biggest danger would be the lack of a viable evacuation program...You still haven't backed up your claim that there was no viable evacuation program.
What is your source on that? Is it PBS, the NY Times...what?
Here's a link that says that there was an evacuation plan.
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/magazine/41/evacuat.htm
To: mkjessup
Give it up, mkjessup. I can’t believe you are trying to make me believe such silliness.
15,431
posted on
04/29/2007 6:12:48 PM PDT
by
Miss Marple
(Prayers for Jemian's son,: Lord, please keep him safe and bring him home .)
To: DGray
As far as I can see, the religious right joins with the conservative movement in general and the Republican party in particular (it’s in the GOP platform) in its efforts to overturn the liberal activist Roe vs Wade decision and restore to the states and the people their constitutional right to legislate or reinstate their own moral standards at the state level when it comes to abortion, murder, etc. The religious right also joins with the GOP in objecting to extra-constitutional gay rights and unconstitutional first amendment violating “thought crimes,” etc. Same goes for the general objections to the atheist effort to remove all mention of God, prayer, religious symbols, sayings, quotes, verses, etc from our public life. Again, just conserving our American heritage and traditional family values and constitutional freedoms. Other than that, I don’t see any great push to legislate Christianity or any other religion.
To: Miss Marple; Iwo Jima
Oh, please. That's too much codswallop for anyone to swallow. I just explained why it sounded like that is what mkjessup was saying.
It only sounded like that because you were apparently looking for some sort of sordid meaning that wasn't there in the first place.
Now if you want to pretend that saying "hot troll on troll action" wan't a sexual inference, go right ahead. It will sound like "the meaning of is" but if that's how you want to sound, by all means go for it!
What do YOU think trolls do when they get together?
Hint: take a look at the debris tray in the FR Bug Zapper in this thread, there is no sexual innuendo except for those desperately seeking one.
True or False:
Is 'innuendo' an Italian suppository? ;)
PS - thanks for the ping.
15,433
posted on
04/29/2007 6:13:15 PM PDT
by
mkjessup
(Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
To: mkjessup
Well, I know who sounds silly on this thread, and I don’t believe it’s me. Good night.
15,434
posted on
04/29/2007 6:15:04 PM PDT
by
Miss Marple
(Prayers for Jemian's son,: Lord, please keep him safe and bring him home .)
To: Miss Marple
Give it up, mkjessup.
I don't know you that well yet Miss M.
I cant believe you are trying to make me believe such silliness.
Ahhh, so you are beginning to acknowledge that it is all silliness?
Exactly. And NO reason to be offended.
15,435
posted on
04/29/2007 6:15:13 PM PDT
by
mkjessup
(Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
To: DGray
As a religious person, or a non-religious person, you are then free to live your life as you wish as long as you do not violate any laws. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HOW `BOUT A "SPESHUUL" Law For the Head-Huntin'Cannibals from New Guinea ?!?!?!?!...;0)
15,436
posted on
04/29/2007 6:16:17 PM PDT
by
1COUNTER-MORTER-68
(THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
To: Miss Marple
Well, I know who sounds silly on this thread, and I dont believe its me. Good night.
Will you return my 'Trolls Gone Wild' tape in the morning?
Please? ;)
15,437
posted on
04/29/2007 6:16:46 PM PDT
by
mkjessup
(Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
To: Knitting A Conundrum
Im going to work for other folks. Ill cross that bridge of what if when and if the time gets hereExactly what I expected you to say. And take it as a compliment please?
15,438
posted on
04/29/2007 6:17:11 PM PDT
by
DCPatriot
("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon))
To: Iwo Jima
Answer the question, troll Or what??
15,439
posted on
04/29/2007 6:17:16 PM PDT
by
Mo1
( http://www.gohunter08.com)
To: michigander
Yes indeed, and I don't think it's hijacking the thread (impossible at this point anyway) and actually somewhat pertinent - that was a perfect example of what happens when principle is sacrificed on the altar of practical politics. You end up paying dearly later. But if it hadn't been, mightn't the War of Independence have failed and things have worked out less well for all concerned?
There is no good answer to that, which is precisely why the current controversy and this thread exist. Can we in good conscience sacrifice the principles in question which conservatives hold dear and Giuliani does not, in favor of the overall practical objective of avoiding another Clinton presidency? And if we do, what price will we pay for it? And if we don't, what price will we pay for that?
Broadly speaking, when in doubt, go with principle, because that's what principles are for. I think what bothers a lot of people is the prospect of a general election wherein those principles are already lost no matter which way we vote. That's what this ruckus is all about. IMHO, of course.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 15,401-15,420, 15,421-15,440, 15,441-15,460 ... 18,461-18,471 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson