Free Republic

It's extremely fortunate that American liberals with Tony Blair's character are never nominated for the presidency.

Yasser Arafat and the rest of the Islamo-Nazis owe their continued existence to the UN and, sad to say, American reporters and politicians. The end does NOT justify the means and Arafat killed and stole his way into power. I guess crime pays.

The important point is that Arafat will never make another decision that leads to the deaths of innocent civilians. The MSM wouldn't call Ohio for the president until Kerry conceded. Why do you think they'll be honest about this?

There's nothing ambiguous about it. Until it can be conclusively stated that an abortion can be performed without a human life, in whatever form, being extinguished, then each abortion must be preceded by a trial, in which a jury finds the cellular mass/embryo/fetus guilty of violating the civil rights of the mother. Until that happens, any abortion that occurs without a trial is simply murder, like lynch mob justice.

Someone needs to tell President Bush about this immediately, before anyone dies. I wish she had made her wishes known earlier, so we could have avoided going to war. I wonder if Saddam Hussein wants his old job back. I hope he doesn't ask for too much. We might have to raise taxes. Oh, well...whatever it takes to make her happy, I suppose we have to make it happen.

So, we voted for George W. Bush to stick it to Democrats? We threw a tantrum? This misses the point that Bush is a superb strategist. Terrorists are pouring into Iraq from Iran and, to a lesser degree, Syria to "stop the bleeding" and it isn't working. Democracy is taking hold in Iraq and Afghanistan and neighboring citizens are taking notice. George W. Bush is playing chess and John Kerry was playing Go Fish and a lot of Americans noticed. Also, we noticed that, after innumerable words, we never really knew what John Kerry just said and, when pressed, he always said something like "it's very clear." Well, if it was so clear, the reporters wouldn't have to keep asking the same questions, would they? We noticed. With Bush, we noticed he was very, dangerously, willing to share his views with the rest of us. As he stated, we know where he stands, to the extent that some of his supporters wished he would keep some of it to himself, like his views about illegal immigrants doing jobs "nobody else wants." Some of us know where he's going with this, and the scope of it could be a touch ambicious. So, we're hicks? I'm okay with that.

Done. Interesting website here: http://www.utdallas.edu/~loizou/cimplants/tutorial/

"...Ronald Reagan twice sought the Republican nomination for president before winning it in 1980."

A better analogy would be Richard Nixon, who actually won the nomination in 1960 and the presidency in 1968. I thought the name "Nixon" was seared...seared in Kerry's memory.

"Thanks in part to hundreds of our phone calls to our Representatives, the House voted to save 300,000 acres of old growth forest from clearcutting. If the Senate follows suit, the trees will live."

I'm not familiar with this legislation, but I would hope this doesn't become the source of another massive forest fire.

"She was decently raised as a Christian, and married that pig, knowing full well what he was. Or do you think she married him for love?"

That's my point...I don't know the woman and I'm not prepared to cast the first stone or join the mob that throws the stones. She is what we referred to in the old days as a "non-combatant."

Aren't we supposed to be above this sort of behavior? I would dearly love to have the honor of pulling the plug on her husband, but what has she done to deserve our scorn? We must ensure that we don't descend to the level of Democrats in our criticism.

The War on Terror is not a war of choice and, if we are to win, then the war must be fought in Iran, too. Or...we can declare victory, get out and let our children and grandchildren deal with it, possibly here.

It's interesting how they always seem to be lacking in specifics. Help us how, by rising up against those who pay most of the taxes and provide most of the jobs? How does the village idiot, who wrote this drivel, propose to drive the economy of this Blue-State Utopia, of which he speaks, and how does he propose to feed it or defend it against foreign aggression? The targets of terrorism exist in the Blue states. Islamo-Nazis, in order to gain the blessings of Allah, are more likely to attack in the areas of least resistance to violence and greatest resistance to morality. If they want to secede, fine; let them fight their own battles.

Shuster has overlooked what could be a significant point: God didn't write the Bible. The King James version was completed in the year 1611, much closer to now than to the Resurrection. Nobody is saying that we should own slaves or stone people to death because of their choice of whether or how to observe the Sabbath; that's more in keeping with Wahabbi Islam, like the Taliban. What we are saying, at least some of us, is that we don't appreciate the idea that the government of our nation, which was founded upon the principle that God granted us freedom, shouldn't pretend He doesn't exist. If God doesn't exist, our liberty has no basis and, if He does exist, it probably isn't a good idea to slap Him in the face with our depravity and our perversions.

To Mr. Keith Olbermann:

Okay, I get it; you think John Kerry got a raw deal. Don't worry, Mr. Olbermann, I won't tell anyone you aren't really a member of the VRWC.

"...a lot gets left out of newspapers, radio, and tv..."?! Sir, I understand your distrust of blogs and bloggers, but a forum is a different animal. You're pretty good and highly entertaining, but you don't have tens or hundreds of onlookers observing you as you craft your thoughts into incisive zingers; responsible contributors to a conservative, internet-based forum research their subjects copiously.

It would have been very good for the entire news industry, had Mr. Kerry won. According to the U. S. Constitution, those who engage in treason or sedition are prohibited from holding elected office.

Article III
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Wait, Mr. Olbermann, it gets better. By John Kerry's own admission, he engaged in activity prohibited under the Uniform Code of Military Justice while a member of the United States Navy.

904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

Sir, I can understand how you and others in the media would feel robbed of a great opportunity, now that Kerry has lost. The Constitutional crisis would have made for great subject matter for news and commentary in every media outlet in the world. Somewhere, Richard Nixon would have been smiling.

As for the "ascertainable, reasonably neutral, fact" standards, at which the newspapers are allegedly superior, I disagree with your premise that facts must be reasonably neutral. If I'm not getting the unvarnished facts from the news, then it isn't the news; it's drama.

"We need to destroy his name and memory!!"

No, I disagree; those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. We want this to be remembered and studied. We want posterity to understand the difference between dissent and treason. It doesn't help when a sitting U. S. president says "We honor your service." No, it's never a good idea to "honor" the service of a traitor and voluntarily approaching and meeting with the enemy while still a member of the U. S. armed forces, without orders, is treason.

All in due time.

This is based on the results of exit polls. Some people hear about vandalism and assaults at GOP Headquarters, and then some stranger asks them "Who did you vote for?" An exit poll is not an actual vote. Nobody has been placed under oath prior to being asked that question. This year, the exit polls were cherry-picked to suppress Republican turn-out, just as it was in 2000. When we reach the point where Liberal Democrats, formerly known as Communists, are defining "truth" for the rest of us, then we will no longer be worthy of the blessings of God, the Existence of Whom is the foundation upon which our rights and national existence is based. Don't let these people frame the argument on their terms, because there's always a lie in there, somewhere.

Okay, FReepers, there's nothing we can do about some of these folks, but we have to learn to communicate at least as well as the Communists who taught them to think as they do. We must have the patience to teach logical thought to youngsters and younger voters who have been taught that Liberal approaches are symptomatic of maturity and Conservative approaches or beliefs are regressive. Nobody likes to believe that they haven't really reached the finish line, but some of these Liberals simply haven't grown up yet. The short version is that we want our grandchildren to work and play well with those of the people we are killing and who are killing us today. We want the grandchildren of those distrustful Mexicans hiding behind the Stop'N'Go to run, and win, as Republic statesmen and -women. We want to teach these youngsters the meaning of the Golden Rule, and then laterally transfer that logic to a copy of the U. S. Constitution. We need to ask these up-and-coming voters how Article 4 of the Constitution allows for the usurpation of our rights in one state while letting them stand in another state.

If some of these Liberals want to leave the country, that's too bad, but they HAVE been indoctrinated to the Marxist view and it is a jealous view.

"I think the saddest Kerry supporter of all must be Christopher Reeve."

If I were in a situation described as hopeless by my doctors, I can see myself grasping at straws. The problem is the belief, promoted by charlatans such as John Edwards, that government funding of medical research can somehow guarantee success. If Christopher Reeve supported Kerry, I can understand it; he felt he HAD to believe in embryonic stem cell research because it was his last hope.