Peroutka bombed on Medved

Folks, remember there's rules on this board.
I clearly remember stating that anyone mentioning the Indians has to inclue "Wahoo!" shortly after such a mention.
Gina

 

Looks like the Indians - Wahoo! - will have a tough time catching the Twins.

 

I really enjoy listening to Michael Medved and think he is the best out there! I have also had the pleasure of meeting/speaking with him in person a few times as well.
And IMHO Medved ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

First, it is no surpriste that Medved attempted to trash the only candidate who stands for Biblical, constitutional government. Medved is, after all. a Republican first and a Christian second, like so many.

Second, Peroutka is not taking my vote away from Bush. I would not vote for GW Bush for ten million dollars.

 

The important question is not what we think of Michael Medved, Michael Peroutka, GW Bush, John Kerry, or anyone else. It is what values will be reflected in our civil government.

I will always vote for the candidate who reflects the values that I hold dear.

Those values do NOT include the explosion of federal spending, women in combat, gay activist appointments to high level posts, status quo on abortion, and federalization of our childrens' education.

Therefore, I am not in agreement with Medved, Bush, Kerry, or their supporters on the BB or anwywhere else.

 

You should repent for your un-Christian personal attack on the character of Michael Peroutka. Your accusations that he is an anti-Semite are without any merit. Debate him on the issues, but try not to stoop so low as to start bringing in the race card and attacking his character.

 

Am I the only one who finds in interesting that many of these neo-cons started out as liberal Democrats, before becoming a Republican? Did they move to the right, or did the Republican Party move to the left to pick up their vote?

According to Wikipedia, the "newness" of Neoconservatism refers to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds).

 

So you will simply dodge the issue of you unjustly calling Michael Peroutka an anti-Semite?

Or is that your new deffinition of an anti-Semite, someone who disagrees with a radio host, and in your opinon, "bombed" on the interview?

 

If Michael Peroutka is a garden variety, run-of-the-mill anti-Semite
*DELETED*

[ August 25, 2004, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

That's b/c Seattle's talk radio 570 KVI offered Medved his own daily three hour show in 1996 and he jumped at the offer. Medved's bio

 

So what?

 

So you have bought the neo-con lie, that cutting foreign funding of other nations is equal to being an anti-Semite?

 

Perhaps a case can be made that church mouse guy is pro-Israel while being anti-American.

 

To make a statement like that you would have to be assuming that the person voting for a third party candidate would have voted for a Republican or Democrat if those were the only choices. From what I have read from most of the Constitution Party supporters on this board, I would assume that they would either not vote or leave the presidential vote blank on the ballot if that were the case. If that is true, then it isn't taking a vote from anyone. As Ken said, you have to define who the "opposition" really is.