Free Republic

I apologize for the possibly inappropriate break in your reasoning, but I have to finally post this:

Fascinating exchange. Thank you for posting this series.

Since leaving the Arminian and Dispensational frenzy years ago, I have been fascinated with the question of how I got there in the first place.

Keep posting.

You may be on to a new thread. Post it and I'll ping. :)

A novel concept: If we allow Libs their abortion "rights", then in another 20-30 years, there will be none of their offspring left. Right? Or am I just way off on that one?

It's like a second-chance abortion with someone else doing your work. You can't have an abortion doctor perform a "procedure" at the 120th term. That would be murder. Or at least inconvenient. It is more suitable to select and support a group of individuals whose sole function is to exterminate those who have escaped planned parenthood. We all know that the population is spiraling out of control. It is an altruism. Right?

Well. If those crazy right-wingers insist on ending the right to choose [read: kill the kid], then we, as compassionate Liberals will extend the right hand of friendship to those who might go forth and, at random, kill more innocent people. Those are the people that do not know of Jihad or compulsary conversion.

It's freeing really. Think of all the public tax savings in medical certifications and registrations. Think of all the schooling that will now become unnecessary. We have a pool of folks ready to post-term abort people worldwide. And it's free. The only overhead is a small pittance paid to the families of those brave individuals who are willing to ignite, incinerate, detonate or otherwise catastrophically prime themselves with explosive materials.

What an ideology! What a concept.

End the death penalty. Don't give them a chance to live their lives. Don't punish them if they screw up. Support a consititional amendment to preserve the rights of Post-Term Abortionsists (PTA's). Don't let them suffer the indignity of Britney Spears and lots of soap. Give them their religious materials. Allow them the right to throw feces in protest of their abominable conditions and let's have a Peace March in their honor. I say "Fight those war mongers." Fight their violence. Shout down those ignorant soldiers (who don't set policy). Let's get 'em guys. Come on!

And those loony conservatives. They think we have socialist leanings. They have no idea how far we lean...

[with tongue firmly planted in cheek and just a little pissed off that people I know have been killed in Iraq for these zealout b*st*r*s]

"full of stupid hate to the french..." Nice. Well spoken and well-fashioned response.

And by "retarded" one would think that is such an insensitive term. Should you really use an outmoded and bigoted term to describe something you disagree with?

Shame. Shame. Shame.

Stupid and retarded. How insulting.

Personally, I thought my post was hilarious. It was written partly in humor and partly in response to Chirac's most recent exercise in political folly. That you are humiliated or offended or in any way terrified that people like me are out there is no reason to respond like you did.

As an aside, are you in the military?

Funny. I just piddled on myself.

Nice retort. You're a Sophist, aren't you?

Didn't I mention that for facilitators and financiers, you get a special dispensation?

Maybe I need a litte humor in my post. It might get more attention...

Phooee. I think Chirac is worried about one thing: Arab money or Islamic violence or France being defeated once again. Take your pick. I can't decide.

I guess I'll go with "being defeated yet again" (and yet again by a smaller country). When was the last time France won anything other than a free trial to Lever 2000? Oh, yeah...the Revolution. And that was when one French side had to win AND that side went on to get whooped at Waterloo. The French way is not the successful way, unless you mean to pack on carbs or visit a nude beach.

I think Chirac should lead a new alliance: An Allah-iance, if you will. It should be a new Union. This one would have the unique and rather bold mission to try to overpower the US economically. Or did someone try that already?

Iran, France and Germany could form a pact with each other. They could launch a full-scale peace summit with Green Peace leading the fray. The Swiss would demand neutrality and get rich (and besides, they have cool Army knives). Iran would inevitably be ruined for siding with the French and Germany would turn treacherous and defeat them both (as an aside, I heard that French military schools were recently shut down...yeah, they ran out of white flags to give the freshman class). Then we could rebuild Germany and set up shop there for a few decades and no one would argue about executing their war criminals.

I am not writing from a hateful stance. I am writing from a position of being fed up with the concept of peaceful negotiations with people who wish nothing but Sharia law. It is part of Islamic teaching to be "peaceful" with non-Muslims only until you are able to conquer them. Look it up.

Someone asked me to name the 10 most powerful nations on the planet. I made it to 15 before deciding that I couldn't decide on just 10. I had the US, China, the UK, Japan, Australia, Israel, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Russia, India, Korea (north or south, tied) and either Pakistan or Iran in the 15 spot (but the rest not necessarily in that order).

Now which of these countries doesn't presently have a problem with Islamic violence?

Japan? It's true that there may only be a small Muslim community in Japan, but Japanese civilians have been killed in bomb blasts, airplane attacks and many other incidents internationally.

Pick again.

Or maybe I've just had too much beer.

How cool is that! Thanks for the kudos.

So that's the end of it, huh? No liberal criticism of how I talked about Kennedy and Kerry? No critique of the GWOT?

It's telling isn't it?

The one thing that anyone could take away from my original post is that President Bush did not win both popular votes.

All the rest has not been argued against.

Telling isn't it?

Nice. There are those, I'll admit. This is a party that makes for strange bedfellows, no pun intended. Yes, I did. I meant that all the way. I'm insensitive. Oh, well.

Tunehead, what?

What is "BTTT"?

What do you mean by "another mystery"?

Interesting. The Venezuelan coup. What do you have to criticize about that? What would you forward as a decent resolution? UN intervention strategies and differences in political development? What? Hugo a homie of yours? And before you go accussing me of Mccarthyism, check your facts on geopolitical communism and Islam. It is no farce. Still alive and well, I'll have you know.

Gotcha on the immigration thing. Already mentioned. I'm just about an isolationist anyway. What? You want to argue about NAFTA. Bring it.

I'm in the military. You want a dispute on the Geneva and Hague Conventions? Would you care to dispute the US and UN position on "just war." Want to bring up Augustine? Want to fuss about that? I can debate the theological issues surrounding that. I've written a journal article about the differences on that issue with a thesis in the works contrasting the positions. Care to debate?

Excessive bipartisanship? You want to talk to a Libertarian about bipartisan politics? Huh? It's what we/they thrive on. It's what gives us/they a bandwagon to ride.

It's cute how you post one line responses. It really is.

Think I'm an uninformed military shmutz?

Bah Humbug.

OK, OK. Got me on that one too. From here on out, any criticism that deals with spending or homeland security is void. 'Cause I think President Bush is jacked up on those, but that's a different post at that point. Yes, he spends like a Democrat. But guess what? I'm Libertarian, so most folks would expect ME to disagree with that. You know us, right? We believe the GOV should only be involved in defense, protection of the populus and military might, right? Oh, and securing our borders. Oh, and guaranteeing our right to defense. Did I miss something?

Judgemdude,

No fault, but the burden of proof is always on the negative. Never took LD debate in school? We will always have the burden of proof. Always. We say "Saddam has WMD." And for some reason, we (conservatives) think we have the upper hand, demanding evidence to the contrary (albeit simplistic argumentation at this point, but grant me a little room here). For some reason, it's like the California Gubernatorial primaries; we give our arguments, they respond and for some reason, we recoil at the audacity of their logical fallacies and think we have a duty to defend ourselves. STOP. Stop defending. Let's go offensive for a Congressional term or two. Good grief. What the hell is wrong with us? Do you honestly believe that we are the minority. We are not. We have only lost the battle with the media. That is not the soul of America. Don't give up. The Left has not won. Teddy has not driven us off a bridge. Kerry has not pressured us into giving his version of events.

OK, you guys got me again. Smalliville? Is that like "The Village" by Shyamalan? I'm not up on FReeper talk.

I only go by the stuff at the end of the tally. President Bush, and I prefer to call him by the office due his name and title, did win. No Supreme Court intervention was necessary. No K. Harris necessary. He won. I'm about sick of NEW Kerry stickers being sported about. President Bush won. Don't like it? Win one yourselves. And for the record, I am neither Republican or Democrat. I am a registered Libertarian, like it or not. I've spent my time campaigning for my candidates. President Bush, in my opinion, was the best for the job! No question in my mind.