Posted on 07/04/2012 1:16:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
:-)
That being said, enjoy yourself, I'll see you somewhere else on the forum as you try to make a fool of yourself. Someday you'll be as coherent as Quix. Enjoy the last word........today.........
You do that!
Your frothing FRiend,
Normie
Still amused
In regards to the last note I wrote - and specifically in connection with what I was saying about 9/11 Truthers, it’s been shown to me that it’s confusing as to what part I was relating to “9/11 Truthers” that I had come across personally in the past - versus - what Quix has said about this issue (i.e., what his position is).
Now, what I said about my experience with other 9/11 Truthers (and I’ve run into them in real life in some GOP meetings and gatherings, and they do show up there - mostly Ron Paulites, actually) - is true from what I’ve heard and talked with them about.
HOWEVER ... I had intended to SEPARATE that from what I had talked to Quix about - because I cannot say that this is his position, at all. He maintains that it is not his position - from what I was saying about others that I had run into in the past.
And that’s fine and I appreciate him clarifying that for me and indicating that he is NOT SAYING what I was indicating from those other 9/11 Truthers.
It’s obvious - then - that Quix has something different than that - so it would pay for anyone who is interested in that - to contact him directly and talk to him about it - as I’m simply not qualified to relay his position on the matter.
I say that simply because all I did was give my own perspective to him (and primarily from a Biblical standpoint, actually), in a note and left it at that - and did not go into it with him any more. And as I’ve indicated, I don’t intend to go into that subject any further. Therefore, I really don’t know what his detailed position is - and he will have to speak for himself on the matter.
My original intention was to set off Quix’s position - as separate - from those I had talked to before, because I knew I had no indication of what he thought (on this matter) and thus, I had not intended to make anyone think that I was actually relaying his position to anyone. But, I don’t think I made that clear enough.
I put this here, for the sake of accuracy and so to not put words into anyone else’s mouth (or writings). I hope that clears it up for anyone for whom my writing was not clear enough before.
OKAY ... I signed up over there - and for a couple of reasons. One reason was that I read that another poster here said that his name was “hi-jacked” over there — and that “hi-jacker” was pretending to be him - and saying things that he didn’t say.
***While you are over, why don’t you ask them to ban the hijacker. As long as that login has posting privileges, Rogue Yam’s story doesn’t pass the smell test. Indeed, the fact that Rouge Yam hasn’t already asked for such a thing is a leading indicator that he ain’t telling the truth.
OKAY ... I signed up over there - and for a couple of reasons. One reason was that I read that another poster here said that his name was “hi-jacked” over there — and that “hi-jacker” was pretending to be him - and saying things that he didn’t say.
***While you are over there, why don’t you ask them to ban the hijacker. As long as that login has posting privileges, Rogue Yam’s story doesn’t pass the smell test. Indeed, the fact that Rouge Yam hasn’t already asked for such a thing is a leading indicator that he ain’t telling the truth.
It’s so good to “see” you, too, my FRiend. ;o)
From what I remember reading over there, the administration of the site said that they would DO THAT VERY THING. So ... the perpetrator may already be banned!
Of course, I wouldn’t know because I’m not in the administration of the site. But, what I do know is that they are taking that “duplicitous identity” thing very seriously.
I just checked on the “Rogue Yam” name over there and I see that it was registered on 7/4/2012 and it had exactly six posts ... ranging from the registration time of around 12 PM until about 6 PM that day. And after that - NOTHING.
It just stopped and for all I know the account may be deactivated already. Perhaps it was done when it was spotted as a false account. But, I don’t know that - and all I’m looking at is the information that anyone can get, who is over there.
SO ... it was registered 7/4, had six posts total, ranging from 12 PM to 6 PM ... and then nothing.
SO ... it was registered 7/4, had six posts total, ranging from 12 PM to 6 PM ... and then nothing.
***That’s probably because the Yam started posting his diatribes and then realized that his comments were public and couldn’t be walked back. So he lied about someone posting under his pseudonym. I would put the likelihood at this allocation : 80% posted then lied about it; 10% that someone stole his pseudonym as a bizarre recruitment ploy; 15% some other explanation. Yes, I believe it is 8 times more likely that the Yam is a liar.
typo
80% / 10% / 10%
No, it is effectively very different from the U.S. Senate. It is an overwhelmingly Democrat body in an overwhelmingly Democrat state. In contrast, the Senate is split, and the GOP may have a majority, and voters likewise are split. Historically, the President tend to get most of their judicial nominees.
Well, if you believe that Romney is 100% absolutely certain to be just as bad as Obama on 100% of the issue, then I suppose your vote makes sense. I don't believe that, so I'm casting my vote differently.
Third parties won't total 5% in this election. To the extent people don't like either candidate, they simply won't vote, which won't affect either candidate's ability to get a majority of votes cast. You can certainly control your own vote, but I think your hope/expectation that a significant number of voters will emulate you is wrong.
That is an admission you were wrong and Romney could have nominated any judge he liked but refused to even fight for ones that were more moderate?
He showed no desire to even try to change the course of judiciary in Massachusetts. Thinking he is going to waste political capital on doing so as President is absolutely delusional.
No it isn't. Sure, he could have nominated any judge he'd liked, and the Board would just as surely have voted it down. And voters would have sided with the Board. And he'd have gotten blamed for there being backlogs because of not enough judges. He would have been starting a fight he could not win, and would have done nothing but expend political capital. That's particularly pointless because none of them were for the Supreme Court positions that really mattered.
The difference at the national level is that the prospect of winning such fights is real.
He showed no desire to even try to change the course of judiciary in Massachusetts. Thinking he is going to waste political capital on doing so as President is absolutely delusional.
That's inarguably false, and nobody remotely familiar with judicial appointments in Masschusetts can accuse him of not trying to change the process. The guy tried major reforms on a corrupt process, but eventually eliminated the reforms because the nomination screening body he'd created kept rejecting his candidates and was too slow. Eventually, he disbanded it and tried to push through more conservative candidates without them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-governor-mitt-romney-backtracked-on-promised-reforms-in-appointing-judges/2012/05/30/gJQARmWo1U_story.html
Thanks for the FReepmail linking this thread, LucyT. Thanks for the post, JimRob.
Belated Happy Independence Day to all posters.
Independence...
live - free - republic - (individuals)
quixo!
that’s his normal style of writing. He has his own fan-club on FR...
hmm... I've been debating with you, but if quix thinks you are an agent of the anti-Christ, then you've risen in my esteem -- anyone who is on the wrong side of that loony basket is a-ok in my book
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.