Posted on 07/08/2002 1:50:08 PM PDT by Wait4Truth
I just you didn't take my advice = I GUESS you didn't take my advice
Now I'm off to bed
To: exodus"Oh, you must have missed all the threadsProbably hard to document it as well.
where she tells us all about how the ENTIRE Bush family are murderers.
It's hard to beat that. "
- Howlin
But, in the interest of keeping the peace
and averting the usual salvo of inane and spiteful personal attacks,
I'm happy to just consider the source and give Howlin the usual pass
on backing up with facts or logic what she has to say.
# 669 by Askel5
It's just as well, Askel5.
Howlin already attacked me.
I cried like a baby and called the Moderator.
To: exodus
I just you didn't take my advice
Again .. GIVE IT UP
# 698 by Mo1
I might do that, Mo1, but I'll need a little help.
What advice are you referring to?
There are 687 posts before your current one.
I haven't read them all.
Please, either repeat your advice or give me a link to it.
To: Mo1
Shoot ...
I just you didn't take my advice =
I GUESS you didn't take my advice
Now I'm off to bed
# 701 by Mo1
No!!
Not yet!
I still don't know what I'm supposed to do!!
Keep reading your almost there and with any luck by the time I wake up in the morning .. You will finally get it
But somehow I doubt it
Good night
LOL .. you are such a liberal
Now I am the one that gives up
Good night again
lol - Howlin
I know it is anoying to read his highlighted liberal spew.
# 673 by TLBSHOW
"His" is still here.
It's considered polite to call people when you refer to them in your post.
"Liberal spew?"
On the last thread I was on, I was called an "extremist."
Something about how stupid I am
to think that the Constitution actually means what it said.
A "liberal spewer" used to be a supporter of Clinton.
I see that has been re-defined as well.
Now a "liberal spewer" is anyone who questions any aspect of the Bush administration.
Funny, at one time the people who didn't accept things without question,
the ones who thought about the issues, were called conservatives.
To: exodus
I think you look like a liberal democrat just fresh from dnc school.
And no that isn't an attack just an opinion.
Another opinion fyi
We don't care about anything else but taking the election in November.
We are going to get rid of as many rats as we can that is the only goal we have right now. Care to join us as we rid govt of the enemy from within the democrats.
# 677 by TLBSHOW
I think not, TLBSHOW.
I believe that the rats are almost equally divided between the Republican and Democratic parties. You yourself give evidence of that.
"We don't care about anything else but taking the election in November."
Nothing matters except getting Republicans in office, right?
Senator Jeffers has proven that he is a political prostitute. Why wait until November? I'm sure that he can be bribed back into the Republican Party. We could have a Republican majority tommorrow!!
There's only one little problem, TLBSHOW.
Jeffers wasn't a Conservative the last time he was a Republican, and he's not a Conservative Independent now. He always was, and always will be, a liberal.
Do you consider John McCain an asset for the Republican Party? I don't; McCain is a liberal. Trent Lott? Even before Jeffers jumped ship, Lott supported liberal policies. Remember what Lott told the House Managers during Clinton's trial? Trint Lott is not a Conservative.
I want Conservatives, TLBSHOW. The people of our nation want Conservatives, too. There's just not any availible in the two major parties.
Remember the Contract with America? Republicans won both houses of Congress with their Conservative message. They were projected to win about twenty extra seats in the last elections. Instead, they almost lost the Senate outright, and actually did then Jeffers left.
Why? Because during the Clinton Senate trial, Republicans proved to the nation that with very few exceptions, there is no difference between a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican.
Both Parties are socialist, and both are playing a shell game with our future.
But all of a sudden I had this cold, clammy feeling someone had arisen from the deep of some northern whirlpool to wring her towel out on me. (I was not disappointed; save by the utter lack of thundering applause, perhaps. I guess threads like this have given me the mistaken notion that I'm of Note and -- per Great Minds that Must Needs Think Alike -- am loathed by all.)
Do dry your tears, Exodus.
It's frustrating, I know, to play croquet with a bunch of Red Queens who expect you to score a coherent sentence through words that shapeshift and wander about like living wickets and who seek to make you tremble in fear of painting your posts the wrong color as they bellow: "Off with his head!!" in an effort -- both public and private -- to clear the field of any and all who refuse to handicap themselves by offering gratuitous strokes to the King.
_______________________
Actually, I blame the insomnia on Keuhnelt-Leddihn ... here at the end I can't seem to ration myself and found an excerpt I had to type up for a friend. I'll drop it in the Hot War/Cold War thread tomorrow.
I could read him indefinitely and can only imagine what fun he'd have been to try and follow in conversation. Particularly as he delved into anti-colonialism -- relating bits of conversation he's had with this VIP or that regular joe in every corner of the globe -- I wondered when he had the time to read like a fiend and soak up like a sponge the details of the world's history, events, geography, politics, philosophy, theology and personages. No doubt his eight languages held him in good stead. One of the handful of humans on the planet I'll bet listeners wished would please never stop talking.
<cough> As opposed to you and me.
And on that note, I'll bid you goodnight (or morning as the case may be ... =)
I agree, Amelia.You think causing a fight would assist in law makers working together?
If President Bush made an issue of Clinton's wrongdoing,
Hillary would use it to attack Bush and the Republicans.
Here is where we will probably disagree, though. I believe that if Hillary started a shooting war with the Republicans, the Democratic Party would never recover.
The Democrats could not survive a full disclosure of their actions during Clinton's administration.
I can't be the only one to realize that. President Bush is not dumb, we all know, despite what his Democratic opponents said about him. He has to know that a public fight about these issues wiuld give him a second term, and fill both houses of Congress with Republicans.
I consider (Bush's) avoidance of the fight either an act of corruption, or of cowardice.
# 679 by exodus
"...assist in law makers working together?!!"
That's just another way of saying that we need to be "bi-partisan."
Bush is too good to sink to the Democrats level?
The Democrats fight for what they believe.
Is Bush too good to sink to that level?
Democrat Clinton got basicly anything he asked for at a time when the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress. Now I'm told that Conservative projects don't have a chance of passing, because the Republicans only have control of the House, the Presidency, and 49 percent of the Senate.
Yes, I want a fight.
I want people who claim to be Conservative to stop rolling over every time a liberal project needs to be passed. I want Conservatives to actually do what they say they believe in. I want people who claim to be moral leaders to actually lead.
As I said before, it won't happen.
Republicans are liberals, just like the Democrats.
Democrats just don't have to lie about it.
To; Howlin:To: Askel5
"...What would please You..." - Askel5
Golly!!
A real liberal!
Will you look at that; a discourteous interruption, an out of context quote, a hateful personal attack, and falsely impersonating a conservative by appropriating a famous name.
And that's all in just one post!
To: M. Thatcher*************************
I'd like to see (Askel5) stay.
Does my vote count or am I just an "average freeper?"
# 693 by nunya bidness
You could never be considered average, nunya bidness.
To: GretchenEE*************************
It's those "insights we don't have" that worry me.
# 694 by droberts
Me too, droberts.
We never accepted Clinton at his word, not even before he proved himself to be dishonest. Why? Because we knew he was a liberal.
Why should we trust a Republican President when we know that he's also a liberal? "We Are At War' is not good enough. When President Hillary takes over, "We Are (STILL) At War" would not cause us to close our eyes. Does a Party label really mean that much to us?
This is a Republic. Citizens are required to defend themselves, defend their country, create law, enforce the law, rule on the law, rule on guilt or innocence, vote for qualified leaders, and remove those un-qualified to be in positions of authority.
Without information, we can't make valid decisions. "Trust me, I'm your leader" is not enough to base decisions on.
I don't have time to read this entire thread, so you will have to refresh my memory. What article are you talking about?
I keep thinking it was some thread based on a Judicial Watch press release.
If it doesn't ring a bell ... don't worry about it. I'll poke around some more.
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.