Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rand Paul is a RINO
MensNewsDaily.com ^ | February 27, 2011 | Roger F. Gay

Posted on 02/27/2011 3:51:37 AM PST by RogerFGay

I can't help but notice that the new wave of Tea Party Republicans, said to be on probation until they've proven themselves, have quickly circled their wagons to defend the established RINO culture. To make the point, we might as well start with the extremely popular young senator Rand Paul. But if you're paying attention, you too will notice the “business as usual” talking point repeated by many others.

On February 24, 2011, Senator Paul was interviewed by David Letterman. Here is the excerpt that this article addresses.

Letterman: “In this day and age, what does it mean if you're a member of the Republican Party? What are the precepts? What do we stand for?”

Paul: “Well, we wanted to mean something. When I ran, I said the Republican Party is an empty vessel unless we imbue it with values. What I mean by that is kind of what the Tea Party says. You gotta believe in something. I think during many of the Bush years we became just like the Democrats. We could spend money just as fast as the Democrats could and we ran up the debt and that was a problem for me. I thought really that government needs to live within its means.”

Letterman: “Live within its means. So that's the headline for the Republican Party. If you're a Republican, you stand for fiscally responsible government, first and foremost. Is that right?”

Paul: “I think so, and I think that unifies a lot of people.”

Letterman: “And what about the Tea Party. Does that overlap with the Republican precept?”

Paul: “Yeah, and the difference is though the Tea Party … [will] tell you if you don't vote correctly or if you vote with the Republicans when they're voting to bankrupt the country, we'll bring you home too. They're not very shy about it.”

My question: Where's the Constitution – the one that enforces limited government and individual rights?

Let's review. There are three major kinds of conservatives competing to control US politics; social, political, and fiscal.

Social conservatives have proven just as politically dangerous as social liberals. Both favor arbitrary increases in government power and the use of force to intrude upon individual freedom. Both have contributed equally to the collapse of Constitutional rule.

American political conservatives are basically the modern version of classic liberals and the last actual defenders of Constitutional rule in the United States. There must be a structured relationship between government and the people that does not allow arbitrary government intrusion.

Fiscal conservatives are politically equivalent to fiscal liberals. There are no set rules that limit government involvement in anything and everything, just political preferences. They are also often just as much in favor of more government and more spending. If a pork-barrel scheme is promoted as an “investment” of public money that will eventually reduce spending, self-described fiscal conservatives are just as quick to jump on the band wagon as liberals, no matter how weak the argument that more spending equals savings. Over the past three decades, they have frequently voted in favor of arbitrary increases in government power to suit their agenda. They also tend to ally with social conservatives in order to win elections. In one major scam, they pretended arbitrary federal intrusion into marriage and family law would save taxpayer dollars by reducing poverty. Not only did the welfare budget skyrocket as a result, the institution of marriage was destroyed and took out fundamental individual rights with it.

Rand Paul is misleading when he equates fiscal conservative rhetoric with imbuing values in an empty vessel. Fiscal conservatism isn't values, it's a set of relative actions taken in context. We are once again being told to accept a government of people and not of laws. Paul and other new Republicans are not presenting a reformed Republican image. They're reselling the old one, and our experience already tells us that doesn't work and why. Fiscal conservatives do not imbue fundamental rules in the relationship between government and the people in their empty vessel.

Fiscal conservatism is a set of relative actions taken in context. It is not a set of values.

Video link - Rand Paul on Letterman, Feb. 24, 2011



TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: conservative; constitution; randpaul; republican; rinofreeamerica; teaparty; teapartyexpress; teapartyrebellion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-139 next last
To: dirtboy

No. I’m actually responding with a great deal of knowledge and experience. Republican Party “fiscal conservatism” hasn’t been real fiscal conservatism for a very long time - if ever. When the papers claim Republicans want to slash spending on something by $100M, it typically means that Republicans have offered a bill that increases spending on that something by $900M and it’s being compared to the Democratic Party’s offering of a $1B increase. Then when you follow it further down the road, you discover that agencies couldn’t figure out how to spend more than about a third of the increase - so it really didn’t matter. That’s “business as usual.”


51 posted on 02/27/2011 5:24:03 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
And your point in this column is lame as well:

I can't help but notice that the new wave of Tea Party Republicans, said to be on probation until they've proven themselves, have quickly circled their wagons to defend the established RINO culture.

And you cite:

Letterman: “And what about the Tea Party. Does that overlap with the Republican precept?”

Paul: “Yeah, and the difference is though the Tea Party … [will] tell you if you don't vote correctly or if you vote with the Republicans when they're voting to bankrupt the country, we'll bring you home too. They're not very shy about it.”

That doesn't sound like circling the wagon around RINOs. Sounds more to me like Rand Paul is putting them on notice that they face getting primaried if they don't adhere to Tea Party fiscal conservatism.

Your column is a joke, and a bad one at that.

52 posted on 02/27/2011 5:26:53 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

That’s a very odd presumption - to think that everything I know is in the article. It gives the impression that you want to object to the content but don’t have a real argument.


53 posted on 02/27/2011 5:27:08 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

Hey get pissy if you want, you wrote the stupid article basing it on the Letterman interview.

What a condescending little man you appear to be. At least I now know better than to read any other bit of nonsense that dribbles from your elitist little brain.

The Mens News Daily part should have been a red flag.


54 posted on 02/27/2011 5:27:08 AM PST by txlurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

I do mention in the article that if you’re paying attention, you’ll have noticed the talking point on many occasions. Don’t wait for me to do all your living and observation and thinking for you.


55 posted on 02/27/2011 5:29:11 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

The interviewer was David Letterman. The audience was people who like watching David Letterman.

Rand Paul was distilling part of the message suitable for the audience at hand. You don’t give infants filet mignon, you give them easily digested pureed applesauce.

If you saw the interview, David Letterman demonstrated either that he is a simpleton, or he thinks he audience is composed mainly of simpletons.


56 posted on 02/27/2011 5:29:14 AM PST by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Republican Party “fiscal conservatism” hasn’t been real fiscal conservatism for a very long time - if ever.

And I don't disagree with that point. Republicans largely abandoned fiscal conservatism during the Bush years. But once again, tell us how Rand Paul is giving spendthrift RINOs a pass. Using the very quotes from Letterman in your column:

Paul: “Yeah, and the difference is though the Tea Party … [will] tell you if you don't vote correctly or if you vote with the Republicans when they're voting to bankrupt the country, we'll bring you home too. They're not very shy about it.”

You contradict your own claim about Rand Paul with what you cite.

Which is what makes your column so lame.

57 posted on 02/27/2011 5:29:15 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

Yeah, that must be it. LOL!


58 posted on 02/27/2011 5:31:11 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
I do mention in the article that if you’re paying attention, you’ll have noticed the talking point on many occasions. Don’t wait for me to do all your living and observation and thinking for you.

Stuff it, jerk. You're apparently too dense and too full of yourself to notice your own contradictions. I've afforded you the opportunity to make a sufficient fool of yourself on your own thread, and you are so defensive of your precious column that you cannot take reasoned criticism of such, so any further exchanges are a waste of time. You may have the last word, or insult if you so choose.

59 posted on 02/27/2011 5:32:25 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Social conservatives have proven just as politically dangerous as social liberals

Defending children in the womb on the principle of their being endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, specifically to life, is as dangerous saying that there is a moral equivalence between homosex and heterosex? You need to look at the red words at the top of the page on FR to see that you've lost your way this AM.

60 posted on 02/27/2011 5:33:40 AM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Now come on! You’ve got nothin’ but repeating the talking points. It’s Bush’s fault? Maybe you’re in the wrong forum. By the time Bush became president, there was no more Constitution and no restraint on government. The New World Order thing was in full swing. It took some time to get to that point. Now you’re arguing with the RINOs to stay on the same road.


61 posted on 02/27/2011 5:34:00 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56
McCain isn't a RINO. He's always been a registered Republican ~ and that takes you right out of that category. However, he's still dealing with the legislative agenda set by LBJ ~ he probably doesn't know that since, for most of that time, he was held in a Vietnamese prison and tortured ~ but LBJ did happen, and John just can't get beyond that time.

But I think this thread is going off the road when it starts identifying Fiscal Conservatives as RINOs, and Social Conservatives as RINOs, and Political Conservatives as RINOs, and Libertarians as RINOs, ..........

We really gotta' watch it ~ and get back to some basics here.

First off RINO meant a Democrat we latched onto and ran in districts where we couldn't gain a victory using a regular Republican.

RINO never had an ideological cachet ~ just a political purpose ~ called WINNING.

And as I've said many times we have too many Republicans around who don't know how to win, and who, when they win anyway, do not feel comfortable with winning.

To be a winner you must first accept the fact that YOU WON, and take that victory and get everything you possibly can ~ just reach out and take all the political power, do the social legislation, and save the country by getting it fiscally under control.

Sitting around calling each other and everyone a RINO is stupid!

62 posted on 02/27/2011 5:35:23 AM PST by muawiyah (Make America Safe For Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Now you’re arguing with the RINOs to stay on the same road.

One last point. Please show where I have said that.

Hint: you can't.

You are a legend in your own mind.

63 posted on 02/27/2011 5:35:30 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Rand isnt a RINO....he’s a radical libertarian who pals around with traitors.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/04/rand-paul-and-adam-kokesh-discuss-their-movement.html


64 posted on 02/27/2011 5:36:44 AM PST by Crim (The Obama Doctrine : A doctrine based on complete ignorance,applied with extreme incompetence..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3
I think I summarized it nicely in 'Scared' of Same-Sex Marriage, or Better Informed?
I am as capable of becoming irritated by social and even fiscal conservatives as anyone, for, like progressives, they are easily led from the path of freedom by their causes.

65 posted on 02/27/2011 5:40:12 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Reareed the article.

Your argument is backward. I would have to assume more than what is written to reach the conclusion that you are basing it on more than the Letterman exchange.

As I said I make no comment on the content, you may well be right, I have not followed Paul.

66 posted on 02/27/2011 5:41:39 AM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Argument already presented: Rand Paul defines the same road. You’re in favor. It’s just that simple.


67 posted on 02/27/2011 5:42:14 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

**First off RINO meant a Democrat we latched onto **

funny, I’ve never heard that definition before. But Ok..
Yes McLAME is a RINO in that he’s a registered Republican that acts like a Democrat. He’s a poor brainless SOP that unfortunately left his brains in N. Vietnam.

As for the rest of your little tantrum

POTT MEET MR. KETTLE


68 posted on 02/27/2011 5:42:47 AM PST by gwilhelm56 (Egypt 2011 = Iran 1979)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
I call bullshit!

"Social conservatives have proven just as politically dangerous as social liberals. Both favor arbitrary increases in government power and the use of force to intrude upon individual freedom."

Where is this true? This is a tired libertarian talking point w/o any touch point to actual conservative positions.

What drives libertarians to drive a wedge through a conservative coalition that is gaining momentum? If it is the agnostism/atheism of Randian Objectivism, which I suspect, then it needs to be held up and exposed for what it is.

Our republic is built upon a profound appreciation for Divine Providence, without that we have no rights that cannot be taken away. All of the revolutions since our own that have ignored God have ended in dismal tyrany .

Those who are too PC to read history accurately will be of no help to us.

69 posted on 02/27/2011 5:44:14 AM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

I frequently blog at a very Paul (Ron and Rand) intense blog site. This article was actually a response to some of the Paul worship going on there. Worshiping a politician - any politician - (and yes, I mean Ronald Reagan too) - is just plain wrong.


70 posted on 02/27/2011 5:45:01 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Argument already presented: Rand Paul defines the same road.

And you have failed to defend that argument. To the contray, I have pointed out that what you have presented to defend that argument actually does the opposite. Rand Paul said that if the RINOs keep spending, the Tea Party will primary them next opportunity. That does not sound like a defense of RINOs to anyone with two functioning neurons to rub together.

You are so arrogant that you think that just because you have made the claim, it is therefore true. You're a joke, and a bad one at that.

71 posted on 02/27/2011 5:45:27 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

Why post here, the site has values not congruent with yours, do you make your arguments on Kos also ?


72 posted on 02/27/2011 5:45:30 AM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Pietro

WOW! What drives you to twist such a straight-forward and relatively obvious point into such obtuse metaphysical theory?


73 posted on 02/27/2011 5:47:03 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

LOL! That wasn’t even a nice try.


74 posted on 02/27/2011 5:48:10 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

It’s a really simple argument - just a proper logical statement of obvious fact. There is no need for further defense. When I comment further, I’m just trying to help you to get it.


75 posted on 02/27/2011 5:50:18 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
It’s a really simple argument - just a proper logical statement of obvious fact. There is no need for further defense.

You're too dumb to realize that your argument is not simple, it is contradictory. Later, moron.

76 posted on 02/27/2011 5:51:35 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Our problem is the opposition and their MSM allies are trying hard to split Republican/Tea party with pettiness. Going on Dave Letterman to get the message out or have it shredded? Newt is an expert in lining up the strategy. Paul and the like need to unite NOW....
77 posted on 02/27/2011 5:54:03 AM PST by ONEBYEONE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

The writer is misleading his readers and he knows it. Posting it here to see if he can pimp hits to his article. The writer is no friend to conservatives. My guess is at best he’s a Bush, McCain, Rove republican.


78 posted on 02/27/2011 5:55:07 AM PST by stockpirate (U-6 Total unemployed for January 2011 16.1 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #79 Removed by Moderator

To: RogerFGay
Let's review. There are three major kinds of conservatives competing to control US politics; social, political, and fiscal.

A lie from Hell.

Social conservatives have proven just as politically dangerous as social liberals. Both favor arbitrary increases in government power and the use of force to intrude upon individual freedom. Both have contributed equally to the collapse of Constitutional rule.

For this fool: "individual freedom" and "Constitutional rule" = child sacrifice.

Jeremiah 2:34
Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search, but upon all these.

Jeremiah 2:8
The priests said not, Where is the LORD? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.

80 posted on 02/27/2011 6:05:19 AM PST by Theophilus (Not merely prolife, but prolific!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txlurker
I'm not even that much of a fan of Rand Paul - as another poster noted, he has cozied up to some questionable types, and he has yet to prove he is truly that different from his old man in areas such as foreign policy.

But the evidence presented here to back up the claims that he is coddling establishment RINOs is asinine. As is the claim that fiscal conservatism runs against the Constitution. The author of this screed appears incapable of basic logic, and is just running around saying "Because I SAID so!"

That is the hallmark of some liberal MSM pinhead, not a conservative. A conservative should be able to defend his arguments coherently.

81 posted on 02/27/2011 6:05:25 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: ONEBYEONE
And you've helped put your finger directly on the inner core of the problem. Uniting with Newt! It's the perfect current slogan for the RINO movement. You got it just right - except that's exactly what we don't need. The way things are going, Obama's going to get four more years and control of the House will swing back to the Democrats.

I'm wondering if you missed the whole Tea Party thing??? Or just focused on the RINOs who positioned themselves in it for control? The masses of people involved don't want business as usual. They aren't interested in lesser-of-two-evils politics. It doesn't benefit them to have bad government under the Republican Party label any more than it benefits them to have it under the Democratic Party label.

The bad news is - their effort to reform the Republican Party has failed.
82 posted on 02/27/2011 6:08:28 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

LOL! Sheesh - Desperate RINO alert!


83 posted on 02/27/2011 6:09:44 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

Everyone’s a RINO except for me and thee - and I’m not too sure about thee.


84 posted on 02/27/2011 6:10:20 AM PST by Jim Noble (House GOP: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus

Aaah-huh! Tell a big lie and then back it up with quotes from the Bible ... you know where you’re going when you die.


85 posted on 02/27/2011 6:11:21 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
this:

"Social conservatives have proven just as politically dangerous as social liberals"

Really? Are you saying that the systemic destruction of marriage, the wholesale slaughter of abortion, and the complete invalidation of any and all sexual inhibitions have created the same political damage as what...the Salem Witch trials?

Sewing giant red "A's on all adultresses

....stoning heretics?

My simple, unobtuse point is that w/o a moral foundation our society, regardless of economics, will founder and that creating a dichotomy w/i the conservative movement based upon boogeymen is a disservice to our shared goal of a limited republic.

86 posted on 02/27/2011 6:13:41 AM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
You gotta believe...

Hmmm...Rand is channeling Tug McGraw? ;-)

87 posted on 02/27/2011 6:14:05 AM PST by Allegra (Hey! Stop looking at my tagline like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

That’s the spirit! Those who don’t question, know nothing and never will. I defended the Tea Party movement, but now the sheeple are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. What they thought were their people are quickly being corrupted (whether or not they were to begin with - wouldn’t be the first time people misrepresented themselves to get elected) .. but they just want to believe that the job is done and everything is perfect now.


88 posted on 02/27/2011 6:15:13 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Pietro

You might want to review the previous posts for responses I’ve given to this question already. Social conservatives did more to destroy marriage than anyone else - it’s a fact. Now they’re working to make sure it doesn’t get fixed.


89 posted on 02/27/2011 6:17:46 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
I don't have a problem with the excepts you posted. My problem with Ron and now it looks like Rand Paul is foreign policy. Ron Paul is a surrender monkey and the apple may not have fallen far from the tree.
90 posted on 02/27/2011 6:23:30 AM PST by McGruff (Is it time to Drill Baby Drill yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
You might want to review the previous posts for responses I’ve given to this question already

So yet again, because you claim it, it must be so.

I can't recall the last time I've seen this level of arrogance on FR, other than from short-lived liberal trolls.

You apparently feel no obligation to support your opinions with facts and citations.

91 posted on 02/27/2011 6:25:24 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

No really. I’m sure I responded to the question - more than once. It’s a fact.


92 posted on 02/27/2011 6:29:52 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

Fiscal conservatism is a way to use the word “conservative” without saying what you mean. Foreign policy is an example. He could be against war because it costs money, or for it because it’s a necessary investment. He could be nationalistic to keep jobs in the country or a New World Order fanatic to promote trade. Like I say in the article, fiscal conservatism is a set of actions taken in context - not a set of values.


93 posted on 02/27/2011 6:33:05 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
No really. I’m sure I responded to the question - more than once. It’s a fact.

You respond by saying it's a fact. That does not therefore make it a fact. I could say you are a Martian, and that's a fact. Does that mean you are a Martian? No.

But I guess that's lost on you.

BTW, me claiming you to be a Martian would only be slightly less absurd than some of the stuff you have claimed on this thread.

94 posted on 02/27/2011 6:33:32 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

If you’re going to question your own existence and whether people are actually posting comments or it’s just your imagination; I’d prefer you choose another place to do it.


95 posted on 02/27/2011 6:41:16 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

If you are just going to babble incoherently, I’d prefer you find another place to do it.


96 posted on 02/27/2011 6:42:10 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I'm not even that much of a fan of Rand Paul - as another poster noted, he has cozied up to some questionable types, and he has yet to prove he is truly that different from his old man in areas such as foreign policy.

At this point I am willing to give him a chance. He isn't a career politician like his dad (so far) owns his own business and seems to be supportive of the Tea Party movement. He is a newbie and having been under the MSM glare, has made some mistakes. Like Sarah Palin, McDonnell etc.

But the evidence presented here to back up the claims that he is coddling establishment RINOs is asinine. As is the claim that fiscal conservatism runs against the Constitution. The author of this screed appears incapable of basic logic, and is just running around saying "Because I SAID so!"

Totally agree. You made specific points, using his own language and his condescending arrogance won't allow him to admit his logic is flawed. Not only your posts but several others.

I am not as well spoken as you but you make a lot of sense to me!

97 posted on 02/27/2011 6:42:48 AM PST by txlurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: txlurker
At this point I am willing to give him a chance

I am too. He did distance himself somewhat from his dad during the campaign on key issues such as foreign and national security policy - but the proof is what he does in office. So far, he hasn't done anything to give himself a black mark - so far, so good.

I am not as well spoken as you but you make a lot of sense to me!

Thanks for the kind words, but you did just fine yourself in that regard.

98 posted on 02/27/2011 6:48:06 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

I see my post was removed. Strike a nerve?


99 posted on 02/27/2011 6:50:01 AM PST by txlurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Uh oh....I think he took his ball and went home.


100 posted on 02/27/2011 6:53:14 AM PST by txlurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-139 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson