Posted on 09/04/2008 7:58:50 AM PDT by edzo4
How incredibly uninformed you are.
Have a nice day.
Piper Palin for Secretary of State!
How about addressing the issue or answering the questions I raised?
Should we only elect people who Muslim fanatics will find acceptable?
Why not just elect a Muslim man if this is your mindset?
Do you consider negotiation the highest ideal, and is negotiation best conducted by immediate capitulation to your foes as to who you will allow to do the negotiating?
Actually my facts are correct. Have a great day.
Let you deeds, actions and work speak for you. keep your head up - always-.
Nope, you are twisting.
>>>and Rice speaks on behalf of the US Just as Vice president Palin will speak on behalf on the US<<<<
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2074539/posts?page=4#4
I specifically stated I was speaking on the POTUS issue.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2074539/posts?page=15#15
Clafified here Rice isn’t CIC
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2074539/posts?page=20#20
Emphasized at post 20 that Rice is in a different position
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2074539/posts?page=21#21
Emphasized again here that I was speaking on CIC specifically
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2074539/posts?page=27#27
Clarified AGAIN that I was speaking about the CIC position
>>>are you so brainwashed by muslim men that you think a woman can not be respected?
It is their culture with their rules. It has nothing to do with brainwashing. It is how large amounts of the men do business.
Thanks. I’m actually reading about this Kirkpatrick woman in another browser and feeling better about the situation.
You did not address the issue, you merely claimed it was an issue, not one we imposed, but a “real” issue.
Wow! What insight. How do we deal with the issue? You seem to favor capitulation to Muslim sensibilities so that they will never have to be confronted with their prejudices. This is not something I favor.
>>>You did not address the issue, you merely claimed it was an issue,
I sure did. I said, “Showing strength to 3rd world countries has nothing to do with copting to their morals.”
I was not advocating capitulation to anyone. You are creating that. So you be my guest and argue with yourself.
Co-opting? “To take or assume for one’s own use; appropriate”
So is sending a woman and telling them “talk to her or pound sand!” showing strength more or less than “We know you don't like talking to women so we sent a man instead and we hope that the fact he is an infidel pork eater doesn't offend your sensibilities”?
Which shows strength and which is capitulation to their prejudices?
I have no idea what you posted. Nor am I interested.
I have no idea what you posted. Nor am I interested.
I have no desire to speak with you.
TR’s “trust busting” was relatively moderate when compared to the FTC of today. Besides, it was “rock ribbed Republican” Taft who was more aggressive at breaking the “money trust” in action, something few people remember.
Well, there was that thing about TR’s running a 3rd party campaign on the Progressive Party (Bull Moose Party) ticket. He split the Republican vote, which threw the 1912 election to Democrat Wilson.
That sort of thing happens when one cannot defend their position. They suddenly find they have no desire to continue the conversation.
It works very well, it will completely throw them off their guard.
Ask Barack Hussein Obama.
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.