What no Apology?

:)


Jarrad



On Apr 21, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Lance McCulley wrote:

> You are seriously, no longer worth my time or effort. Good bye and  
> good luck on your aspirations.
>
> -Lance
>
> On Apr 21, 2009 12:37 PM, "Jarrad Reiner" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Republicans see them as separate issues because "national defense"  
> is provided for by the Constitution, whereas the Fed's socialist- 
> leaning economic programs of late ARE NOT.  They are most different  
> as determined by their constitutionality.
>
> You most certainly called me an undeserving name because, as you put  
> it,  I was making "blanket statements" as you ASSUMED I was  
> identifying liberals at the Tea Party by how they looked, acted, or  
> talked.  When I did nothing of the sort.  Your Assumption lead you  
> to a wrong Conclusion which led you to mislabel me.
> The entire paragraph in question:
> >> This was pretty humorous--"talked with independents, liberals and  
> libertarians all in attendanc...
>
> Now, once I pointed out your mistake, you switched your argument  
> to:  Jarrad was making blanket statements about Obama's socialist  
> views being wacko.  Yet, that had nothing to do with your original  
> "blanket statements" point found in the above quoted paragraph.  You  
> switched points in order to save face.   Nice try.
>
> You ask where were the Republican politicians  were when Bush was  
> growing the government in the earlier years? They didn't oppose it  
> because by and large they considered it a part of National defense  
> during wartime and they (and their constituency) thought it to be  
> Constitutionally sound.  And do not forget that early on, many of  
> those votes were received from the democrat side of the isle as  
> well.  I doubt the Republican attitudes have changed much, I suspect  
> they still support his "national defense" growth of government.  Yet  
> a Large numbers of those very same Republican legislators HAVE  
> Consistently Opposed Bush as he adopted socialist-style economic  
> policies.   They're behavior hasn't changed, the type of spending  
> and Government control Bush was pushing is what changed.
>
>  Let me spell it out; A large number of Republican legislators  
> supported Bush's expansion of the government when it was for  
> National Defense during wartime because they believed it was  
> Constitutionally Sound.  A large number of those same legislators  
> have opposed Bush during his Expansion of Government control and  
> dominance in the Private Sector and the Free Market because they  
> believe that Action to be Unconstitutional.
>
>
> Jarrad
> On Apr 21, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Lance McCulley wrote: > That's the  
> problem, Jarrad. Republic...
>
>
>
>
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Politically Opinionated Outspoken People Expounding Religion" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/pooper?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to