Free Republic

Thank you for your remembrance of them. Take care.

21. Quitters.

Thanks for so quickly proving my point. But since I am and always have been pro-life, I actually am a member of the “fetus wing”. Of course I’ve never used that term, but nice try. Nor have I ever type that last ‘quote’, though if I haven’t used the term ‘extremist’ in regards to some of the out of control nutters lately then consider that an oversight. Yes, I post on other websites, because I can actually discuss with people who don’t agree with me on every single issue. Is that somehow bad now? Wow, a whole whopping 38 posts in almost 2 months, were you disappointed that you couldn’t dig up any dirt? Are you aware that I also post on other websites about politics, sports, business, and the weather? And what’s the point in snooping around like that? Is that supposed to be intimidating, or a purity test, or are you going to ask me to wear a yellow star now, or what? Used to be FR spoke out against Pellicano-esque tactics, now the recent goon squad employs them. I found it particularly disgusting the way that little video was frothingly posted repeatedly on the purge thread, ya know, the video of a guy pummeling over and over someone on the ground. Reminded me of what the Dem union goons did to Don Adams. Sad irony, how some have become what they fought so hard against.

And why exactly did you go to my homepage just now? Looking for a reason to whip the bloodthirsty mob into another purge because someone posted something you didn’t like? How brave. So you’ve probably also scanned my recent posts and can easily see a vast dropoff.

Say, didn’t you use to attend or teach at HBU?

The Houston Chronicle is a biased joke, but you've committed the same sloppiness, misrepresentation, and dishonesty that the media regularly employs. There are only two students quoted. The first did not specifically state her position on abortion, but her statement suggest that she may indeed be pro-abortion. However the second interviewed clearly said that he is pro-life: "Andrew Miller, 19, said he opposes a woman's right to choose abortion..."

Not that facts matter to the goon squad these days.

That is an odd conclusion, since each flows downhill.

Really? And yet he allowed Judas to remain with the apostles even though he knew that Judas would eventually betray him.

Not that Jesus wouldn't draw a line at some point, and it is up to our interpretation of scriptural guidance and judgment as to where we also should draw that line. He did throw the moneychangers out of the Temple, and Paul shook the dust from his shoes at times. But he also told the story of the Prodigal Son, where the father never gave up hope during the son's time of sin. Jesus also said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and dined with the tax collector, and allowed the harlot to wash his feet, suggesting that he was not completely rebellious and withdrawn from flawed human institutions and slow to wall off or reject anyone still in their imperfections. "Go and sin no more" was the advice and goal, but he did have Peter as the rock, despite his thrice betrayal on just a single day. Ananias and Sapphira illustrated that we never know when patience will run out or an example will be made of our sins, so clearly continuing in sin is risking grave peril, including eternal damnation. But yet Paul continued to advise and work with rather than reject various churches involved in some pretty bad problems. In fact Paul used a pagan holy site to make a point in one of his sermons, the alter to an unknown god. So perhaps God can use the imperfect to advance his cause, and doing so doesn't have to mean condoning the imperfections/sinful side? Rahab was a harlot, why was her story of how she aided the Israelites included in the bible?

Hmm, I support a Giuliani-F.Thompson ticket, so that make me a "Rudy Rooter", yes? You use that term as if it is an evil thing.

Why don't you go to my homepage and peruse the links section, where I've collected more than 1000 articles in the last 6 years. Articles critical of human-caused global warming theory, race victimization mindsets, racial tribalism, abortion, helicopter parents undermining what's left of discipline in schools, antiwar groups' treason, gay groups' historical revisionism, the politicization of science and medical research, the lies of the 'green' crowd, antisemitism, the double standard against Christians, hate crimes legislation, CFR, China, Putin, CIA treason, the Plame Nonsense, Wesley Clarke, and the scams that funnel public dollars to the networks of liberal groups. Articles defending capitalism, gun rights, President Bush, the WOT, tax cuts, entitlement reform, welfare reform, cultural conservatism, conceal carry and refuting lie by lie the claims of the gun control crowd. And that's just through "C", plus links to articles by Coulter, Steyn, and hundreds of articles chronicling liberal media bias, Democrat corruption, and cases of Democrat vote fraud.

Collecting those links are only useful for two things: Using them later as facts and sources to refute specific lies and to provide historical documentation/accumulated evidence. If I am a leftist, why on earth would I accumulate so many sources and examples that refute leftist claims, lies, and ideology? Why would I preserve so many examples of media bias or Democrat corruption or voter fraud? If I were a liberal, wouldn't I be trying to let it fade away or at least be indifferent, instead of proactively chronicling all the flaws, lies, crimes, and treason of the left?

Given my 6 years of efforts to defend conservatism, as witnessed in one form by that collecting of documentation for use against liberal arguments, how on earth can anyone logically call me anything but a conservative, unless they are on a witch hunt?

Pragmatism in the face of imperfect choices is not a sellout that defines and overrides all other factors. All the car companies donate to gay and other leftist groups, does that mean that I and others can only remain a social conservative if we no longer buys cars? I can find a bicycle or tricycle maker that doesn't subsidize leftists, but those just aren't going to get the job done for what I must accomplish. Do I stick with principle, go without a car, and lose my job? Every conservative makes pragmatic compromises every day, whether they admit it or not.

The New Testament tells us the life of Jesus, in part to give us examples of how to live and make choices. Jesus went among sinners, saying that they are who he came to help. He didn't shun and withdraw from them, but rather conversed and reached out to them, while refraining from engaging or endorsing the sinful behavior. That doesn't mean that "Jesus endorses Rudy" (I won't speak for Jesus in this election) or that political decisions are always clear-cut either way for a Christian, but it does suggest that an "Isolation from the Unclean" mindset may not always be wise. Jesus took a lot of criticism from the Pharisees for dining with the unclean, because some thought such compromising and pragmatic action amounted to condoning the behavior of the immoral. But it was necessary for him to gather with the sinners to accomplish his goals. YMMV.

Politics is the art of compromise, and the conservative that gets some or most of what he is trying to accomplish is more effective than the purist who accomplishes nothing. That doesn't mean that supporting someone other than Rudy is taking a defeatist purist position, in fact it may turn out that supporting someone other than Rudy will be the best choice a conservative can make. Or not. That is what healthy debate is for, but it is both ridiculous and dishonest to have some of the long-time conservatives here with a proven track record suddenly historically revised into liberals simply because of a single pragmatic judgment they have made, especially since no votes have been cast yet.

Oregon is as likely as PA, perhaps even more likely. Oregon and maybe WI are the only shots that anyone (considered so far) beside Rudy has at flipping to the GOP, while the risk of losing states we previously held is much higher.

Complete and total bullshit pulled from your paranoid ass, but that seems to be all that is posted around here these days. Who needs facts and truth when we can all just rant about conspiracy dreams and plug-n-play boogieman. Yeah, its all a communist plot by that evil George W. Bush, the Buildaburgers, Masons, and Mexicans. Yep, every politician is corrupt and wants to record your every thought and keystroke. And of course the tollways are being built so that the Chinese Mexicans can round up your guns and then drive all conservatives to the concentration camps Rudy Giuliani is going to set up at the behest of his secret boss Hillary.

This place has been overrun by the kooks. Congrats, you won.

That is a lie, no existing roads were converted to tolls. It was only new construction (such as adding mainlanes in between existing frontage roads or completely new roads) that were tolled.

They aren't proposing a new tax, they are proposing building new roads and using congestion pricing to finance those new roads, instead of using taxes to build the roads.

It is a way to get more roads without increasing taxes.

And yet your jumps to conclusions were wrong about the coal plants, wrong about what the former Harvard Dean Summers had said, and wrong about the TTC. Maybe trite rules of thumb aren't always right, and each issue should be examined separately by researching the facts. Just a thought.

Or long enough to beat up a former Border Patrol agent, right?

While there is some truth in what you wrote, there are far too many poorly run prisons where officials do look the other way and/or are understaffed. There is no excuse for bribery and prisoners getting a hold of contraband, but it still happens a lot.

These days our prison system as a whole is probably America's greatest shame. Lots of reasons, from both the left and right, that led up to where we are, but it is inexcusable and we need reforms.

The part in bold may be one of the dumber things I've ever seen posted here.

Then you must not read your own posts. Ever heard of the Texas Three?

OK, then what exactly was that statement supposed to have implied?

With all due respect, individual ignorance on a topic is not indicative of a gov't conspiracy.

A Google News search of "Texas" "TXU" "coal" and "plants" produces 585 articles in just the past month. These plants and the approval process have been in the news for more than a year. A Google search of those 4 terms produces 170,000 results. Narrow it down by adding the terms "Perry" still produces 40,000 results.

I dunno, maybe some simple research might be wise before slandering with charges of "conspiracy, coverup, corruption?"

I'm not a fan of TXU, and believe that they should be investigated for price fixing, but these plants are needed and are a good thing. They will produce 50% more needed energy (Texas is growing by more than 500,000 a year, a new Austin and San Antonio area every 7 years) while producing 20% LESS total harmful emmissions because the new plants will be cleaner, older plants will be shut down or have cleaner technology installed, and a switch to cleaner Wyoming coal (Powder River Basin) instead of Texas lignite. (Plenty of keywords there to do more research with.) And TXU isn't the only company proposing new coal plants in Texas.

The enviro/media-activists are saying that these coal plants should use the cleaner coal gasification technology, but what they don't mention is that what they propose is so new that there isn't yet an operating plant. In fact Texas has done a good job in competing for fed funds for the demonstration gasification project and is one of the favorites to win the project. Another is being proposed for Corpus Christi, but hasn't been built. You see, what these groups are doing is opposing whatever is being considered and throwing out a nice sounding but not yet obtainable alternative to mute criticism that all they do is oppose. Just like the Dems do with foreign policy to fight the label that they are weak on defense, they criticize Iraq and say that the real problem is Iran. But when we propose dealing with Iran, they say, no you can't do that, N. Korea is the real threat. Or when we propose something on N. Korea it is called the wrong approach, everyone knows that Iran is more of a concern.

Coal is cheap, the US has centuries of reserves, and the current proposed plants would result in more power with cleaner air than we currently have. These plants should be approved ASAP.

I swear that it looks like a bear is in the lower left corner.

Yes. The other night our local Fox station had a clip from her interior decorator talking about this crap. He/she/it was dressed in heavy lipstick and a full-blown Fruit of the Loom costume while imitiating the SNL character 'Mango.'