Posted on 06/13/2010 11:56:17 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Edited on 06/13/2010 1:39:14 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The race track? At 6/3”? Obviously you are not a jockey.
Just a fan. I go when I can.
The way you try to slip in unmentioned, undiscussed criteria ("total take") is just precious, DoughtyOne...and I won't be responding to that particularly impotent bait, but I'll point you to a post of Jim's from the day before yesterday, if that's recent enough for ya, you betcha:
"I’m not anti-Palin, but I am anti-McCain to the core!
Go Palin!
Go JD!!!"
- Jim Robinson, June 11, 2010
McCain voted for a trillion dollars in federal spending right before the election.
McCain co authored the Kennedy amnesty with chain migration.
McCain = EPIC FAIL!!
NO. Why would you even draw that conclusion from my statement?
Off course? Box crushing is NEVER off course!!!
There is more to it than that but his stances on the Big Picture are not correct. The money bomb was a warning to rogue nations that they are in trouble. The attack on Wall Street was meant to provide serious damage in the wake of transition. It should have been attacked but the culprits are far and wide.
Actually, McCain voted for the TARP loans, and the majority of those have already been paid back. Unfortunately the Obama Administration re-directed the funds.
McCain voted against the stimulus plan.
I gave you amnesty.
By your own score-card he’s 7/9 - or perhaps 6/9. Nowhere near your 10% (1/9).
Well why did you ask me “Who do you think is? Paul? Romney? Huck? Plewnty? Please what yawners. “
How did anything I said draw that question out of you?
Chunga, that’s why it’s so difficult to do much more than laugh at you. Yes, Jim has made a number of statements. Strangely enough, you won’t address any of them that don’t match your heart’s desires.
Those quotes I linked you to were quite pointed. Acting as if they were some kind of unfair thing to bring up is just silly. I didn’t cast them as anything other than what they were either.
I didn’t say Jim had written Palin off, so the one you posted means nothing to me. It is what it is. And his prior comments are too.
You see, it’s not just a small group of people you can slander who have problems with what Palin has done by backing John McCain for re-election.
I’ll send you a picture for your friend, I just don’t think I have anything loaded. Let me fire-up these scanners I have. :^)
Back the horse that’s ahead? Sorry, you have her confused with Romney. Palin has endorsed a number of underdogs, a few who have won.
It is a small group of people who post about little else on Free Republic.
You and five guys chortling at one of Palin's political positions being "missionary" are laughing at me.
Look around the board, D1, and come to a disturbing conclusion.
I haven’t figured out if its Psycho-sexual disorder > http://members.rediff.com/cweber/symptoms.html
or narcissistictic personality disorder >
https://health.google.com/health/ref/Narcissistic+personality+disorder
Wow! I did offer to refer one of them to a shrink the other day. Perhaps you are a shrink I can refer them to? Do you handle crackpots?
McCain-Feingold...I can go on all night.
Post #78 you nailed it.
Hey, you gave the list that said he was a 10 percenter, not a 70-80 percenter, and by your own list he’s in the higher end.
I’m not saying don’t support JD over McCain; what I am saying is that whomever wins should be supported over the Democrat, because they will be a lot more in line with conservative values than anyone with a (D) after their name.
“I’ll let Reagan respond...
“We don’t intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals of our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all.” — Ronald Reagan
In case you have no idea what type of person he was talking about...
http://www.hotr.us/data/mccainagain.htmlz";
_______
Exactly. Another one.
from Reagan in 1975 from Reason magazine.
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/06/ronald_reagan_t.html
Only the libs said “WHO”. Well read conservatives knew who she was.
The more I add, the higher McCains rating goes with you. I add one, and McCain goes from 60% to 70, instead of 60% to 50%. Obamanomics?
McCain is a socialist piece of shit.
How about “No teachers union left behind” ?
40%
I’ll keep going.
The 10% was for the surge, otherwise, he gets a Zero.
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.