Posted on 06/13/2012 2:03:43 PM PDT by MindBender26
It’s the greatest feeling. To upset the masses simply by your presence on a thread is the height of human accomplishment. There’s no feeling as great as when a child looks at you and says “Dad” when I grow up I want everyone to hate me!” well... it just chokes you up.
Some people strive for greatness in the arts and sciences. BAh! True greatness only comes through the hatred by others!
And yes, I’m kidding ;)
Maybe some people aren't yet convinced of that. What people see is you enthusiastically campaigning for Romney. Maybe if you could tell folks the specific things you dislike about Mitt Romney.
The degree of destructive capacity between the two is a gulf so large it cannot be crossed.
Actually, I think Obama and Romney have taken similar positions in the past in many areas - the homosexual agenda, abortion, contraceptives, health care, mandates, etc. Tell folks, if you can, the specific differences that create the "gulf so large it cannot be crossed.".
:)
Why is she still here then?
THX 1138
So I did!
I like Rush, too, and 10 years of my posts prove it. But I recall that in Rush's "Realville," Newt calling Romney out on the crappy ethics of his work at Bane (as Rush knows, something can be perfectly legal within the framework of capitalism and still be vile, like ticket scalping or loan sharking) was, somehow, the equivalent of being "anti-capitalist." In Rush's "Realville," Palin's momentous announcement that she wasn't going to run for 2012, didn't even merit one single mention on his show the next day. (Which made me realize that his show didn't merit all the time I'd been spending listening to it.)
Rush's "Realville" is just as bent and distorted as anyone else's. Rush is fallible, and that is a FACT. Over the past year, I've lost that lovin' feelin' for him because those two items really heaped some mud on his feet. He'll have to do a lot to redeem himself in my eyes, and he probably will someday, because he IS the Great Maha Rushie. But Rush's "Realville" is his interpretation of it, and that is all.
You want a more likely Realville? Re-read Norm's truth:
The whole problem of dealing with Obama is an easy one to solve. Congress has 8 million ways of stopping each and every one of his programs cold.... So if [Republicans in Congres] won’t stop Obama, what makes you think [they'd] fight Romney when the lib judge nominations begin? Because [Romney's] history is one of appointing them. Or his gay marriage crap? Same there. Or his Global Warming crap? Same there. Or any of a thousand other 100% liberal actions.
In MY "Realville," it is happy horsecrap to bust ass electing and promoting limited government Tea Party conservatives to Congress on the assumption that they cannot possibly stop Omnipotent Obama, but that they woudldn't roll over for Romney.
It defies all common sense. As does voting for Romney.
I hear you. At least a few fine FReepers have been maligned on this thread.
That's not what you told your fellow FR haters.
"I have held off contributing for fear of the zot and I think many have."
You lied to your fellow FR haters. And they're just stupid enough to buy it.
For me, the "common sense" to voting for Romney is this ...
Romney Picks Pro-Life Conservatives [Bork and Glendon] as Top Judicial Advisors
The Romney judicial team, according to a Boston Herald report, has 63 members who have signed a pledge to ensure that they will help Romney nominate federal judges “who faithfully adhere to the Constitution’s text, structure, and history and he will carry out the duties of president as a zealous defender of the Constitution.”
Andrew McCarthy on SCOTUS appointments
Sure, you can argue that it is foolish to trust Romney on this. But we know for sure that 0bama's SCOTUS nominees are in the mold of Sotomayor and Kagan.
Common sense says that at least with Romney there is a chance he'll listen to his select group advisors on this.
The ‘undead’ thread?
And now this new hypothetical of which island would you point the lifeboat with children toward, Obama's or Romney's. My answer: flip a coin and pray that before arrival, our course would be intercepted by a warship manned by freedom fighters who planned on routing the leaders of BOTH islands.
I've done you the courtesy of answering your hypothetical question, now you do me the courtesy of answering mine. I will be awaiting your answer to the following:
What would you do if you knew both islands were populated with cannibals, one whose people, if they caught you, would boil you alive in a big kettle, and the other whose people, if they caught you, would skin you alive before chowing down? Which island would you steer your lifeboat toward? Bramps, exactly, which island would you opt for?
Of course my hypothetica question is a ridiculous, silly, stupid, emotion-generated "argument." It is a spoof of your own hypotheticals, all of which rather serve to illustrate the folly and/or cowardice of ABO.
And I'll tell you what I think what would be the better risk, an option you have not perceived, in the much more realistic scenario of being faced with two cannibal-populated islands: I'd do what thousands of British sailors adrift at sea did in the same situation: tough it out, collect the rain for fresh water, stay on the lifeboat, and NAVIGATE TO A SAFE HARBOR even it was another 1,000 miles.
But bramps, what would YOU do?
That is why I love FR so much, a whole forum of researchers!
Good call!
HEY! No cutting in line! He still hasn’t answered my hypothetical on whether or not he stopped beating his wife yet! ;)
There could be no better example of that than the duplicitous poster who goes to an anti-FR site to slam this forum. She might as well post at DU where her anti-FR posts would be welcomed.
.
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.
