I cannot think of any reason why anyone in their right mind would care about whether or not you respect them.

leanright on January 28, 2008 at 6:15 PM

You’re a very unique character, aren’t you. You can’t quite remember what you say seconds after you say it. You seem extremely confused, even in your own beliefs.

You might recall that YOU were the one who wrote the comment about winning the respect of others, and then you went right ahead and hypocritically violated your own suggestion. I couldn’t possibly care any less if you respect me. Actually, I’d prefer that most of those arguing with me over the McCain situation (all three of them) NOT respect me. I might start to worry if I found myself agreeing with such people.

Like a parent that has a child that has pushed them to the limit, your obnoxious childish behavior would bring out the worst in anyone. I apologize for my remarks that offend you.

Yeah, we all know. It’s not your fault. It’s someone else’s fault that you lost it and resorted to name calling, right?

Of course, when the moron HeeHaw decided, without knowing me, to suggest that I hadn’t done anything for my country, and then further decided to suggest that I was lying regarding my military service, suddenly name calling is way way off base. Is that how it works?

Now lets get back on subject, I am sick of discussing your childish behavior.

And now we’re right back to name calling. See? It took you no more than 1.5 seconds to completely forget your own philosophy. That’s gotta be a record, don’t you think? Do you have trouble remember which toothbrush is yours?

Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 5:57 PM

I cannot think of any reason why anyone in their right mind would care about whether or not you respect them.
Like a parent that has a child that has pushed them to the limit, your obnoxious childish behavior would bring out the worst in anyone. I apologize for my remarks that offend you.
Now lets get back on subject, I am sick of discussing your childish behavior.

And you sir have gone from just being obnoxious to being an obnoxious jackass.

leanright on January 28, 2008 at 5:53 PM

ROFL! Hey, remember this?

You cannot win respect and influence by name calling.

leanright on January 28, 2008 at 3:43 PM

How ironic, huh?

Just keep throwing your nonsense out there. It’s entertaining.

That is not at all what I am saying.

leanright on January 28, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Yes, it is.

What I was trying to say is, that in an imperfect world, we must make allowances and coordinate our efforts in order to achieve the goals which we choose to pursue.

And you’ve chosen, as your goal, to nominate a man who lies every time he opens his mouth and currently sits at number six on the “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” list.

Or, is your guy the other one who lies every time he opens his mouth? You know? The one who’s never ever supported amnesty and always supported Bush’s tax cuts.

Way to set your goals high.

You need to stop being so angry blindly biased and think things through.

That is not at all what I am saying. You need to stop being so angry and think things through.
What I was trying to say is, that in an imperfect world, we must make allowances and coordinate our efforts in order to achieve the goals which we choose to pursue.
Those who cannot bend will surely break. But if you continue to refuse to support anyone that isn’t perfect, you will accomplish nothing.
You obviously are desperately looking for something to believe in, I hope you find it.

Riehl World View

Probably not relevant to Florida. But his issues with conservatives won’t end there.

Would he not nominate an Alito?

And Michelle Malkin notes more problems on the Open Borders front.

URL: Riehl World View…

What’s “moronic” about supporting the candidate that holds the values that you do?

highhopes on January 28, 2008 at 2:28 PM

You tell me. What’s moronic about voters who support a candidate who holds the values that they do?

Just accept people for what they are, none of us is perfect.

leanright on January 28, 2008 at 4:05 PM

Just accept that huckabee is number six on this list and vote for him anyway. Nobody’s perfect.

That was tacky, snotty and un-called for.

kcd on January 28, 2008 at 4:14 PM

Okay mom.

It is more than clear that you are hostile when it comes evangelical Christians.

highhopes on January 28, 2008 at 4:09 PM

Really? I thought for sure that it was clear that I simply called out “Christians” who insist on voting for a snake of a human being for President. I don’t recall mentioning anything about Evangelicals. Can you point that comment out to me to refresh my memory?

I guess this would be another example of Huckabee supporters lying, misrepresenting facts, or saying anything if it helps their cause.

Very Christian of you.

Just accept people for what they are, none of us is perfect.

leanright on January 28, 2008 at 4:05 PM

I get it. Just accept the candidates for who they are and vote for them anyway. Got it.

Thanks for the advice.

P.S. So how well did you follow that concept when John Kerry was running for President?

At best Guiliani was ambivalent on whether Roe v Wade should be overturned in the 5/3/2007 MSNBC debate (the first portion of the linked YouTube video). I’ll continue the search through the video archives.

steveegg on January 28, 2008 at 4:07 PM

That’s the quote to which I was referring.

Search if you want, but you’re wasting your time. He never said it was settled law.

Here’s the thing, to me at any rate: What it sounds like you’re saying–and many others–is that you want a nominee who will say that he will only appoint judges who will say flat-out and upfront that they’ll vote on this issue.

Fine if you want to take that view–the Dems certainly do–but I consider that to be judicial activism, and not conservatism, regardless of who’s taking what side at any given time. Therefore whatever a condidates personal views are on any subject before the court, or even his view of how a matter might be decided are and should be to a conservative, pretty much beside the point.

What’s of absolutely critical importance is that the candidate will apoint judges who won’t make it up as they go along, then–every bit as important–fight the bitter battles that will surely come to get them on the bench.

The rest is irrelevent.

Buttercup on January 28, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Opps! Make that Shemane

Nugent/Thompson 08

Buttercup on January 28, 2008 at 2:47 PM

How about Ted and Shaman 08, that would get both the men’s and men’s vote and Ted might even get a few women beside.

flytier on January 28, 2008 at 3:42 PM

Shaman as in Witchdoctor? Sounds better than McLame

LOL! I know enough to at least spell it correctly.

That was tacky, snotty and un-called for.

Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 3:10 PM

It is more than clear that you are hostile when it comes evangelical Christians. Tolerance is a Christian value, sport. You are clearly not practicing what you proclaim is part of your faith. Does that make YOU a compuslive liar? I think it does by your own definition of the term.

Typhoon on January 28, 2008 at 3:55 PM

At best Guiliani was ambivalent on whether Roe v Wade should be overturned in the 5/3/2007 MSNBC debate (the first portion of the linked YouTube video). I’ll continue the search through the video archives.