WELL JIM, ENJOY THE BED YOU HAVE MADE: Quix's latest Opus Installment

TrueBlueRINOs antifreeper site ^ | « on: Today at 11:38:49 AM » | Quix

[RitaOK]

Yes, an outstanding post! Wish I had a printer, for stealing purposes. Needs a patent. :)

Thanks!

[Politicalmom]

I’d better be on that list. :)

[humblegunner]

Yes! I’m the evil immolater of innocent

[svcw]

THX 1138

[Darksheare]

I dunno.
I was mentioning a little troll site that has an unhealthy obsession with FReepers, so much so that they ape their handles and have an entire section dedicated to obsessing about us.
Usually, when they work up the ‘courage’ to come here and make friends, they go after certain posters specifically.
Rather odd behavior for a website that claims to be saner...

[RitaOK]

LOL! Truly, I didn’t even do that on purpose! LOL!

Time to start a thread on arthritis, with tips from rusty old girl person.

%;D

[Resettozero]

Which one? Son bought my wife the whole series on DVD. (She’s very much Samantha Carter-like, except smaller.)

[Star Traveler]

Yes, he was a true defender of the faith - and that would be the faith as delivered from the word of God. He was against cults and cult groups - but faithful to what the Word of God said.

SO ... I think that many of those who were (are) against him, would actually be against others, too - who also defended the faith, as spoken from the Word of God, in the Holy Scriptures. But, that’s not surprising - as we’re told that the “world” (for the most part) will not listen to or adhere to the Word of God, preferring to take other “men” as their authority.

Well, we’ll pray for Quix for him to be under God’s good grace wherever he may be. His Lord and Savior will one day say to him, “Well done, good and faithful servant!”

[lonevoice]

Yep, I agree with you completely. I thought sitetest said it very well in post #870. I thought very much the same thing just from reading the rambling opus, but sitetest said it much better than I could have.

[Graybeard58]

Rogue Yam:

Participation in political analysis threads seems way down from where it ought to be, by my estimation.

G.B.58:

I’ve noticed it too. No one is getting enthused at two liberals running against each other, it’s like a rat primary. Who cares?

To: Graybeard58

I see it differently.

I think that most normal, decent, honest people are tired of having psychotic, lying, haters spew useless, ugly garbage at them every time they try to discuss the election rationally.

Further, I think the haters’ purpose in spewing the garbage is to dissuade normal people from posting here.

Finally, I think you know all of this already, but are lying about it.

587 posted on 06/17/2012 9:17:09 AM PDT by rogue yam

To: rogue yam

We are all allowed to think what we please but outright calling me a liar is a little beyond the pale. It takes a cowardly person to express those thoughts while protected by the anonymity of the internet.
588 posted on 06/17/2012 10:25:22 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (Obama versus Romney? Cyanide versus arsenic.)

To: Graybeard58

Unfortunately, some people lie.

Even worse, there has recently been a trend toward lying here on FR as those who are driven to derangement by their hatred for Mitt Romney lash out in every way they can.

A general rule against pointing out people who are liars would only advantage liars and result in more lying.

But you knew that already.

To: rogue yam; All
Unfortunately, some people lie.

LOLOLOL!!! Where’s the graphic of the little guy rolling around, pounding the groudn with his fists and laughing?

That’s pretty rich coming from you, ryam. Psychoic, lying haters spew useless, ugly garbage ... you posted upthread of we more than 100-strong FReepers who’ve been arguing pretty eloquently and thoughtfully for our declared refusal to commit Romney by ABO.

Talk about “a trend toward lying here on FR” ...!!! LOLOLOL!!! Rich!!!

Any lurker who doubts, click on the screen name and then “in forum” of, say, me, or the other FReepers here trying our best to alert to the folly of Romney. Look for examples of it — and you’ll start to wonder about rogue yam’s definition of invective.
597 posted on 06/17/2012 2:38:49 PM PDT by Finny (A deal with the devil is ALWAYS a losing proposition. Voting for Romney to avoid Obama is just that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2895030/posts?page=588#583

[trisham]

Yes, sitetest’s post is excellent.

[Finny]

You are now! Bringing it up to an even 180 names, exactly three times my original expectation. I'm more among kindred political thinkers than I thought, here on Free Republic.

It's likely that I saw your name on an earlier thread and in my quickie in-forum search didn't find a post where you said directly that you refused to vote for Romney. I won't add a person to the list unless I see that or something so close that it's nearly certain, and then I put a "?" behind the name. Out of all 180 names, only 8 have question marks, because while they haven't directly said "To hell with Romney and the donkey he rode in on," they consistently write things like "Romney is a pathological liar" and "I won't vote for him unless he apologizes for RomneyCare," that kind of thing.

So there are probably many FReepers I've passed putting on the list because I wasn't able to find, in a quick in-forum search, any declaration that they refuse to commit Romney by ABO.

There have too many to count that are enough to make you weep -- you think, "I've got a live one!" when you read posts by folks who really skewer Romney and rightly, who really skewer the ultimate failure of pragmatic voting, who really come down hard on "living on your knees instead of dying by standing up to slavery" -- and then you feel this intense pity and sadness as you see them post, "But I'm holding my nose and voting for Romney this time because ...."

I'm a Californian. Before Arnold Schwarzenegger, I'd have been right there with them. Was blind, but now I see.

[Star Traveler]

I had never been there until I saw the link at the top (for this post). But, I suspect that section that everyone is talking about serves the same purpose as the “Religious Forum” here serves. Namely, those types of discussions are not what everyone wants to see or listen to in a thread - SO - in order to not have it clogging up every thread - they create a special section for it and say - “Go here!” ... :-)

Like I say, it’s like the Religious Forum here. Inevitably “SOME” religious comment is going to show up - but - if it’s going to turn into a debate and an extended discussion about the religious issue - then “take it over to the religious section”.

But, since I haven’t been there and I have no idea what they’re about - I really couldn’t tell you if the REST OF THE BOARD is saner or not (aside from that one section that they have).

If and when I get some time to do it - I might go and check it out.

[xzins]

Months ago I posted an “I’ll never vote for Romney” thread. I don’t know that all those folks have held the line, but it was not an excessively large number of posts, maybe 300 or so, but probably a 100 or so hard line no-Romney voters.

[Tribune7]

Thanks DJ. Maybe I should use mail more.

[humblegunner]

This one, season seven:

http://www.gateworld.net/sg1/s7/707.shtml

Turns out it wasn’t about a granola mine so much as a Naquita (Nah-qua-dah) mine.

Same same anyway.

[TheOldLady]

I am, of course, your lowly assistant, my Overlord!

[Finny]

When I get a chance, I’ll look for it! Am playing hookey now as it is ... gotta get back to work!

[greyfoxx39]

What I was pointing out - is that if one wanted to continue a religious discussion (and it looked like it was turning into a discussion by then) - the place to do it is in the religious forum.

I think she got the message.

[Star Traveler]

That’s fine by me ... :-)