Replies

You should go back and read your original comment I responded to and then read my one paragraph. You “credit” me for writing much more than than I wrote and you stated things I never said, which is very much like lying if not an out right lie. You leave an impression with others I’ve made derogorotory comments that I’ve never made. I made one comment that though I regret I stand by, the “OVER ZEALOUS HALL MONITOR” comment. I believe that comment to be an accurate, descriptive comment in the context I used it. I don’t believe any rational person would take that comment in the context I used it and conclude it was an attack on Santorum’s character or religeon or religeous beliefs.

The information piece I included with my original post was one I had recently written to go to my e-mail list with an invition to Newt event in Southaven Mississippi, I stand by that information as I stand with Newt. I included that to show you can support a candidate without the personal attacks and snide remarks, the overzealous comment will haunt me, such as yours against fellow Conservatives who do not support Santorum.

I take your attack as personal because you attacked me for saying things I never said. You accuse me of doing what you did in the comment I responded to. You have no credibility as far as I’m concerned. I have not challenged your Conservative credentials, I am challenging other things, I don’t really want to say veracity, I’m not sure that quite applies to you stating what I must be thinking and then reply to it. If some of this sounds convoluted that comes from your convoluted thought process.

I regret this Republican primary has deginerated into what it has become. I blame the Romney and Paul campaigns to great degree for this. I was very content to just post positive comments for Newt and save hostility and negatism for obama and the democrats.

I’ve spent far more time on this than it was worth. Our primary is Tuesday and I am trying to replace my Congressman, Alan Nunnelee (R) who truly is agood Christian man with family values and a very Socially Conservative voting record but he signed a pledge he would not increase spendig and then he voted for the debt ceiling and the F35 jet engine. I am working to replace him with a good Christian with greay family and family values and a FISCAL Conservative, Henry Ross, Republican, I am also doing some work for Newt. How do you find the time for such a lengthy exchange not only to what someone says but to what they may be thinking.

Rather than bury you with massive posts, which hasn't been my intent, I'm going to break your posts down into paragraphs and respond to them in multiple posts. That will allow you to respond much easier. I appologize for the size of the first two posts. I want to fully flesh out my thoughts, but I don't want to post those masive sized posts.

You should go back and read your original comment I responded to and then read my one paragraph.

Not only did I go back and re-read my comments, I actually copied them and posted them after your complaints, so that I could address them right there where the complaints were made. You may disagree with my responses, but I have tried to be as forthright as was humanly possible.

You “credit” me for writing much more than than I wrote and you stated things I never said, which is very much like lying if not an out right lie.

This is how I see it. You say something like, my favorite color is blue mixed with yellow. I respond with the idea that you have stated you like green, and you get upset because you never said that. No, you never actually said that you liked green. You just stated it in such a manor that you could deny that you said you like green. Okay, you never said you like green. You just like blue mixed with yellow. Please forgive me. Sheesh!

You leave an impression with others I’ve made derogorotory comments that I’ve never made.

Do you have any idea why I brought your original comments and my original responses over, then responed to your complaints? It was so people could read them right by your complaint, read my response, and come to their own conclusion. I didn't leave anyone with an impression. Any impressions they took away from their reading of the information, was based on your original comments, my original reponse, your complaint, and my reaction to it. You tell me if there is any way whatsoever to offer up a more reasoned transparent process. You think I have been extremely unfair to you. I think I have gone way out of my way to be extremely fair to you. If your complaints are valid, folks will come away thinking I'm not being fair. If your complaints aren't valid, folks will come away thinking you're unreasoned.

Folks will make their own determinations, and that is exactly how it should be. How can you possibly object to this?

I made one comment that though I regret I stand by, the “OVER ZEALOUS HALL MONITOR” comment. I believe that comment to be an accurate, descriptive comment in the context I used it. I don’t believe any rational person would take that comment in the context I used it and conclude it was an attack on Santorum’s character or religeon or religeous beliefs.

I did not make the case that you had made an attack on Santorum's character, religion, or religious beliefs. I did make some reasoned comments about you buying into the idea that his public comments based on his moral views made him an "over zealous hall monitor". I then equated that with you and others determining he was not a viable candidate based on that alone.

I likened it to assessing him to be a "goody-goody two shoes". Once again, it's my take that you stated you like green. We'll have to agree to disagree here.

Your assertions again about that I attacked his position Socially Conservative issues are absolutly false and no rational person woud come to that conclusion from MY words, I can see how they would from the words you used when you were incorrectly READING MY MIND.

You made a determination that you wanted to address the aspects of Santorum's Socially and Fiscally Conservative actions, and down play his positives, or marginalize him. I never stated you attacked his Socially Conservative positions, so who is it that is actually saying something about the other guy that isn't true? I merely observed that you praised Newt's Socially Conservative positions, then downplayed Santorum's, even though you described Santorum as maybe being as strong on Socially Conservative issues as Newt was.

You described Santorm in this manner, with regard to Socially Conservative issues. "Rick Santorum’s voting record on Socially Conservative issues is at best no better than Newt’s..." This downplays his solid stand on Socially Conservative issues. It would have been far more reasoned to state that Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are both good on Socially Conservative issues. You chose to present his credentials in this area in a minimalist negative marginalistic manner and I called you on it. Nothing more..., nothing less.

It’s as if you were pretending someone made these comments and you were responding to them.

I posted your words and my responses, then your complaints, and my responses. I provided each of our orignal comments so folks could judge for themselves.

Other than the “overzealous” comment the only criticism I had for Santorum is that his “FISCAL” voting record, and you agreed to that.

Yes I did, and then I followed up by saying the other candidates have their problems too, and so I'll have to weigh Santorum's negatives against the negatives of the others.

You know, for a guy that said this, "I could go on and on but I really try to promote Newt instead of denigrating others...", LINK it doesn't look like you're trying all that hard.

I will add now that I question his “National Right to Work”. His answer that he was from Pa. a union state is not good enough, he should elaborate from a national prospective and on his relationship with BIG Unions.

You know, I think I'm beginning to see why Gingrich supporters think their own guy is treated so unfairly. When they unload on others, it's important. No big deal. Forget about it. When others reveal truths about Newt, they are attack by a flock of pooping Gingrich seaguls. "Why we're not supposed to be attacking Newt or Santorum. Romney is the enemy!"

I've seen very little evidence that you are able to address Newt's positives in an accurate realistic manner. That could be the reason why you dwell on attacking Santorum against your better judgment.

The information piece I included with my original post was one I had recently written to go to my e-mail list with an invition to Newt event in Southaven Mississippi, I stand by that information as I stand with Newt.

I would encourage you to modify that blurb. Newt does have positive aspects, and I think they should be addressed favorably. I support you doing this. I think it's great you're contacting others and trying to move them in the direction you want them to go too. That's admirable. I do not happen to think writing a note of support that exaggerates Newt's positives to the point of absurdity, is particularly ingratiating to those you are going to want to influence.

I included that to show you can support a candidate without the personal attacks and snide remarks, the overzealous comment will haunt me, such as yours against fellow Conservatives who do not support Santorum.

Since I am not attacking people who are merely supporting Gingrich, I'll dismiss this attempt to infer something untruthful.

Please link me to one post where I have attacked someone for stating they support Gingrich when they were merely addressing his record in a truthful accurate manner.

Insert Jeopardy theme music here...

I take your attack as personal because you attacked me for saying things I never said.

I would encourage you to stick with that, because that's your only denfense for clearly inferring things you didn't want to say outright.

You accuse me of doing what you did in the comment I responded to.

Tell you what, I provded the details for other folks to judge for themselves. I am comfortable with them being of sound enough mind, to be able to determine if your complaints are valid.

You have no credibility as far as I’m concerned.

You have two choices. You can read my original response to you and address it for what it truly was. You can dig in your heels and determine that your over the top comments about Newt were truly based on facts, and went no farther than the facts would justify.

I'm not entirely surprised you selected option two here.

I stick with my responses to you. Others can come down on this as they see fit. I'm not perfect. Perhaps folks will judge you to have been the most close to the truth here.

I have expressed my views, defended my positions, and provide as much information as I could to justify my perceptions. I think that's what we're supposed to do here.

I have not challenged your Conservative credentials, I am challenging other things, I don’t really want to say veracity, I’m not sure that quite applies to you stating what I must be thinking and then reply to it.

Every once in a while I run into folks who do what you're doing, but I have seldom seen seen folks who are so intent on running from the implications of their own comments.

If some of this sounds convoluted that comes from your convoluted thought process.

Why of course it does.

I regret this Republican primary has deginerated into what it has become. I blame the Romney and Paul campaigns to great degree for this.

Yes, I agree. I haven't seen any of Gingrich's people causing problems. /s Some of your assertions take my breath away, with their avoidance of what is taking place on this forum.

I was very content to just post positive comments for Newt and save hostility and negativism for Obama and the Democrats.

I am a conservative. Your comments about Newt were so over the top that I was compelled to respond.

Once people start challenging some of the things you posted, your document starts to deflate. Once folks start addressing some of the things you implied, you're in trouble.

I don't dislike you. I have no interest in this exchange other than an academic exchange of thoughts.

Yes I did call you on your Santorm/Hall Monitor comments. I didn't think you realized what you were implying, and I called you on it.

I didn't then, and I don't now think that you're a bad guy. I just wish you'd be more realistic about what others might gleen from your comments.

I’ve spent far more time on this than it was worth.

Why is that? Have you asked yourself? Could it be that you posted something that someone could reasonably object to, that covered enough territory that it would involve you in a lot off focused objections?

Could it be that your over the top praise of Newt resulted in being challenged based on it's veracity?

Could it be that your refusal to acknowledge reasoned objections caused you to have to defend your views when some of them were indefensable?

Could it be that you took some of this to be personal attacks, rather than reasoned attempts to address your take on things?

Our primary is Tuesday and I am trying to replace my Congressman, Alan Nunnelee (R) who truly is agood Christian man with family values and a very Socially Conservative voting record but he signed a pledge he would not increase spending and then he voted for the debt ceiling and the F35 jet engine.

Okay, I think you've got a point where it comes to voting for increasing the debt ceiling. When it comes to the engine for the F-35, I'm questioning why you don't think we need to upgrade our aging fleet of military aircraft. It's my personal belief you're over the top there.

I am working to replace him with a good Christian with great family and family values and a FISCAL Conservative, Henry Ross, Republican,...

Okay great. I'm not going to object to this. Good for you.

I am also doing some work for Newt.

I don't necessarily have a problem with this either, other than the issues I addressed here. Keep it to what Newt has actually done, and I respect what you're trying to do, and how you're going about it.

How do you find the time for such a lengthy exchange not only to what someone says but to what they may be thinking.

How do you find the time to write such detailed posts, that either infer things you don't really believe, or continue to support the language that infers you believe things you actually don't?