Posted on 07/19/2011 8:17:20 PM PDT by Issaquahking
Exactly! Mister Da, if you’re in doubt, your post is one of 140 that supports that position....making you odd man out. The country is dog ired of a moron in the white house (actually the whole world is, but he is our problem)
Spot on Mr. West!
She is indeed, NO LADY at all...
I had never heard of Ann. Thanks for the heads up. She’s a hoot.
Where can we find 534 more like this guy?
Mister Da, I understand what you are saying, but disagree with you. Albion is correct; polite RINOs “playing by the rules” has gotten us to where we are RIGHT NOW. TO my mind, polite RINOs are WORSE than the Dems; they’re the asswipes that sneak down in the middle of the night and open the gates to let the barbarian hordes into the city.
I’ll direct you to what I consider one of the BEST posts I have ever seen out here on Free Republic - “I Do Not Want Civil Discourse”.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2657837/posts
To my mind, it sums up this fight for the very survival of our Country.
To combat and defeat scum, sometimes you have to have get some of it on yourself as well.
THis is not a time for politesse; this is a time for holding them by the nose and kicking them in the ass, to paraphrase Patton.
Now THAT’s the way to take the fight to the left!!!!!!!!!
Well done, Congressman West!!!!
Hilarious. Is there anyone too obscure for a Freeper to put them on a ticket? Ann Barnhardt? ROTFLMAO. Unbelievable.
You know, some of this might be funny if we didn't currently have a committed Marxist in the WH hellbent on destroying what's left of the Republic.
Let me step back, a moment, and begin by saying that I do agree with your overarching point: honorable people debase themselves if they descend to the mud-slinging tactics of their detractors.
That stated, I disagree as to your assessment of the nature of West’s communiqué. I do not agree that he was participating in name-calling. In fact, it seems to me that he was calling Schultz out over her name-calling on the House floor, and letting her know in no uncertain terms that he would neither be party to it, nor tolerate it. That he employed strong descriptives of her low character, and behavior does not, to my mind, equate to name-calling on his part. When I call Charles Manson a murderer; am I name-calling? When I call Barack Obama a liar; am I name-calling? When I call a spade a spade; am I name calling? In all cases the answer is clearly, “No.”
Now, in Rep. West’s case, the exact accusation was, “You are the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the US House of Representatives.” It may be hyperbole to say she is “the most”; there could be one or more who are worse, but is it name-calling? Not in my estimation, because the specific terms are accurate descriptions of Shultz’ reprehensible behavior and manifest low-brow character.
If this subjective assessment affords us any ground for an accusation against Col. West, it can only be that he declared that Schultz is “the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member” instead of covering the possibility that there may be someone worse by declaring her to be “one of the most vile...members.” Even here, though, I believe that this is excusable, because his language kept the matter confined to the conflict between him and Schultz.
Had West used language that allowed for some other House member to be proven more vile, unprofessional, and despicable,” that would have thrown open the doors for the entire Rat cabal to jump into the fray. Of course, it may be the case that West’s choice of language is actually the exact truth; Schultz may actually be “the most vile, unprofessional and despicable member of the U.S. house of Representatives.” But whether it is or is not precisely true in that regard, the language employed by Col. West in his missive does not descend to the level of mere mud-slinging or name-calling because it is true in its description of her character, and behavior.
Saying that what is, is, cannot be cause for reprimand.
As to his challenge to her, “...you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige”; it has been my experience that when West goes to-to-toe with an opponent, he does it with facts. So, West’s dare the Schultz to throw down her gauntlet amounts to him saying, “You know as well as I do that if it came to an open debate between us, there would be no contest. If you insist, I’ll be happy to destroy every argument you cough up, but I advise that you are better served to simply keep quiet, get back to your own District, and eat your peas.”
We will see whether Schultz is enough the gutter snipe to bite on that hook, but I don’t find any basis, here, for faulting West.
No,it is still funny.
I did answer your question...very well in fact. But yes we will disagree on how Admirably Allen West has taken a stand and made his claim. It’s long past time our politicians take them to the mat and call them out...which is exactly what West did. Being nicey nice has gotten us where? It’s gotten us on the ground time and again with bruised heads and bodies. There comes a time...and the time is now to call these thugs out.
Thanks for the kind words.
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.