| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 07/01/2002 5:27:45 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
Look, we will probably never agree on JW, so I still don't understand why you insist on coming to these threads, putting in your 2 cents worth. At least I am respectful enough to ignore A Day in the Life and Pray For President Bush Threads.
By the way, I don't spend 24/7 (Howlin, you are picking up some Ghetto Fabulous terms here) on this website. I am a normal 20 year old and if you were to ever meet me, you would probably agree with that statement.
Why does your being older make it more legitimate and "normal" for you to be on this website posting?
Good point Fred, he could be paying himself much more than that.
That is because Klayman is a unique public interest attorney, not your average corporate or trial attorney.
I have never considered those who legitimately asked questions of JW's budget, to be personal attacks. I think that you are well aware of which posts on this thread I consider to be personal attacks. The non-sensical pictures, name-calling, and snide remarks, are what I consider to be personal attacks against Larry Klayman's person and the diligent staff at Judicial Watch.
Kindly name another attorney or organization that is trying to go after the big fish, like Larry Klayman is currently doing. I haven't seen anyone else with the bravery and guts that has gone after the Clintons and corrupt politicians like Judicial Watch has. Judicial Watch has had some tremendous odds against them and they have been plugging along quite well given the evil people they were and are up against.
God himself probably doesn't know how many "corporations" Klayman has set up for himself.
We'll soon see when the audit is done.
Excluding Family Court, of course. ;-)
Clara Lou posted a very polite comment to another FReeper, attempting to explain some of the animosity on these LK/JW threads:
"For the Freepers that I see posting on this thread, including myself, those who take issue with Larry Klayman mostly see him as an object of derision, not anger. Tempers flare between LK supporters and non-supporters, but that's not anger at LK.
856 posted on 7/2/02 7:15 PM Central by Clara Lou"
Your response to a very polite, non-attacking post was, at best, whiney:
"If you guys would stop your personal attacks on Larry Klayman and JW, we wouldn't have so much of a problem with you.
859 posted on 7/2/02 8:15 PM Central by FreedominJesusChrist"
So tell me, have you changed your mind? It's been less than a month since you defended your actions on another thread by taking this position:
"If having a different opinion than you on Bush's proposal for a Homeland Security Agency is rude to you, you are mistakenly confusing healthy debate with "being rude". You have started this thread under the issue of political activism, and I was well aware of that before. But is political debate a part of political activism or not? Seems to me that it is and is a practice that has been tantamount to keeping our Republic a viable entity.
Do you honestly expect people to blindly support this proposed great expansion of government power and bureaucracy without any question or healthy debate? If you believe in Bush's proposal so powerfully, then you should be vigorously prepared to debate the merits of Bush's proposal on this thread--you are afterall, asking for people to become politically active and support this recent proposal from President Bush. This is perhaps, the very least you could do as the author of this thread and as an individual political activist.
We had some healthy debate going on here and it seems to me that political debate is a practice and freedom that our Founders cherished very much.
In calling for people to support Bush's proposal, you should be prepared to answer critical questions, suggestions, and have some healthy debate. This is a forum and not a fiefdom if I recall.
520 posted on 6/9/02 9:42 PM Central by FreedominJesusChrist"
Now let's just clean that up a bit shall we?
If having a different opinion than you on Bush's proposal for a Homeland Security Agency Larry Klayman is rude to you, you are mistakenly confusing healthy debate with "being rude".
You have started this thread under the issue of political activism, government and I was well aware of that before. But is political debate a part of political activism government or not? Seems to me that it is and is a practice that has been tantamount to keeping our Republic a viable entity.
Do you honestly expect people to blindly support this proposed great expansion of government power and bureaucracy Larry Klayman without any question or healthy debate? If you believe in Bush's proposal Klayman's mission so powerfully, then you should be vigorously prepared to debate the merits of Bush's proposal Klayman's mission on this thread--you are afterall, asking advocating for people to become politically active and support this recent proposal from President Bush. cause called Judicial Watch. This is perhaps, the very least you could do as the author of this thread and as an individual political activist LK/JW supporter/advocate.
We had some healthy debate going on here and it seems to me that political debate is a practice and freedom that our Founders cherished very much.
In calling for people to support Bush's proposal, Klayman's mission, you should be prepared to answer critical questions, suggestions, and have some healthy debate. This is a forum and not a fiefdom if I recall.
Oh, and don't bother with any I'm-going-to-be-a-lawyer-and-I'm-going-to-practice-my-defense-twisting-of-words here. I have daughters your age and it never worked when they tried it either.
Oh, and for the record, I don't have gray or blue hair. I had my kids early on in life.
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.