Quote: Cedric wrote in post #56

---

What are the prospects for next year's congressional election?

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #61

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #58

---

As far as the personal attacks go............I consider them rude, boorish, childish, "unconservative". [Edited]. We can agree to disagree but your debate attacks leave a lot to be desired.

---

Would you consider calling someone (about whom you know very little) an "enemy of our Republic" and "a traitor" to be personal attacks?

Just wondering.

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #59

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #55

---

[It's amazing how Executive Order 13228 of October 8, 2001 Establishing the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council was ready in less than one month after 9-11

---

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/nsa-asked-for-p/

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #64

---

Thanks for the link !

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #66

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #63

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #61

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #58

---

As far as the personal attacks go............I consider them rude, boorish, childish, "unconservative" and very UN-CHRISTIAN (since you claim to be one). We can agree to disagree but your debate attacks leave a lot to be desired.

---

Would you consider calling someone (about whom you know very little) an "enemy of our Republic" and "a traitor" to be personal attacks?

Just wondering.

---

Yes I would. Which I never called you btw - you came up with that on your own putting words into my posts that I never meant, said, or implied.

The only thing I ever did was ask you a simple question:

"Do you put party over the Constitution?"

So I will ask you again where your loyalty lies:

Which is more important, The U.S. Constitution or the Republican Party?

---

Yeah, you did cast those personal attacks upon me, Gramma.

Predictably, however, you now lack the requisite Christian character to 'own" the slurs you made.

Regarding your sophomoric question, you didn't pose it as a question when you first brought it up, you presented it as a statement.

Whereupon, I sent you off on the task of finding one quote of mine which substantiated your reckless claim.

For days and days you searched but, alas, you were unable to find any such quote(s) of mine.

Because there are none.

Now, Gramma, how 'bout last week when Frank called me a vulgar name and you immediately responded, "Bravo, Frank"?

Do you consider that to be a "personal attack"?

Or do you grant yourself a coward's exemption because you didn't launch the attack, personally, you merely cheered for the guy who did?

---

Zitat

---

You need to read Washington's Farewell To Invidious Grammas Address.

---

To which you responded again in this post accusing me of being a 'wolf' trying to destroy to GOP simply because I don't agree with your assessment of congressmen trashing the Constitution.

I responded back in this post that I am simply protecting the Constitution. I made the observation that those who put party loyalty ahead of protecting the Constitution are dangerous, which if you had read Washington's farewell address you would have known HE would have agreed with me. I did use the word you since by this point you had seriously ticked me off, se la vie. You then twisted these comments that I had accused you of treason and you personally being a danger to the Republic when all I said was your 'actions' (putting party loyalty ahead of the Constitution) were what was dangerous which btw Washington had affirmed to be so in his address. I can only presume what you would have called Washington but I won't go there. Apparently I hit a nerve because you've been attacking me ever since.

In this post you admitted mocking me personally.

In this post your comments were so offensive they were deleted by a mod.

And in this post you were warned to knock it off.

And so on........

Just the one lone thread above when you read the entire thing proves who is telling the truth here so I'll just let that stand.

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #68

---

Thanks for unwittingly proving my assertion, Gramma.

This: "You have exposed yourself as person who puts party above the Constitution...." is how you operate.

First, you make unfounded claims then, thereafter, you assume them to be true and agreed upon.

It's tedious, Gramma.

Cut it out.

---

We need an ignore feature.