I see.
Posted on 04/03/2007 7:24:18 PM PDT by Reaganesque
It is always disappointing to be reminded that there are people in the world who do not like you so much that they are willing to debase themselves and others in order to get their way. We, as conservatives face this from the Left on a day to day basis. But when such action comes from another supposed Conservative, that is truly disappointing.
The posters at DU think nothing of swearing and posting the most filthy, perverted and twisted things about their political rivals. We here at FR are, for the most part, better than that. At least we try to be. Unfortunately, there's always someone who proves that both sides have their ugly side.
I have posted a number of pro-Mitt Romney threads recently as have many others. I discovered this afternoon that several of them have been the victims of childish and down right purile dirty tricks. Now, political dirty tricks are nothing new and nor are they uncommon on either side of the aisle. But some simply cross the line of decency. Such is the case with whomever played their little game of messing with the Keywords on these Pro-Romney threads. Here are four examples:
Romney Tops Republicans in Fundraising
KEYWORDS: ANTICHRIST; CULT; FUNDRAISING; MITTRAPESCHILDREN; ROMNEY; Click to Add Keyword
Why I Think You Should Vote For My Dad
KEYWORDS: 2008; ELECTIONPRESIDENT; ELECTIONS; MITTBEATSHISKIDS; MITTISTHEANTICHRIST; ROMNEY; Click to Add Keyword
Parsing the Polls: Answering the Mormon Question
KEYWORDS: CULT; JOEYSMITHDELUSION; Click to Add Keyword
KEYWORDS: ELECTION; FRED; FREDTHOMPSON; MITTISTHEANTICHRIST; ROMNEY; THOMPSON; VP; Click to Add Keyword
People, campaigning can be a hard and painful thing. You have to have a thick skin to run for office and heaven knows, all candidates take their blows, some more than others. But there is such a thing as decency. And this little prank doesn't just cross that line, it obliterates it.
Disagree with the thread? Fine. Present your arguments. You don't like the candidate? Great. Tell me why and make an attempt at intelligent conversation. That's the way this place is supposed to work. But, resorting to such sophomoric, vulgar and quite frankly bigoted childishness is beneath contempt. If you can't manage a reasonable level of maturity, then there's a whole bunch of like minds over at DU you can have fun with.
“The Rudy supporters have shown a lot of class in the face of a vitriolic, relentless attack.”
You are either blind or a biased Rudybot.
Well dear, you finally decided this was the thread to expose the plan you all have made at your other gathering site. You know, the place where you plan your spin and vent your dislike for conservatives and people of faith.
Your whole post is hogwash and should embarass you.
You are also guilty of the same behavior you are so offended by.
Yes, it is decidedly relevant--as are his divorces, his private life, etc.
Sorry, but if you want to be POTUS, you go under the microscope.
If you cannot pass muster, so be it.
If we fail to scrutinize our candidates under the guise of 'being nice', you can bet that the most negative things which can be said about them will be by the opposition.
If they cannot survive that on this website, how will it be with a hostile MSM blaring their shortcomings a year (and millions of dollars) down the road?
We frequently accuse the Democrats of being in denial: "Moonbat Liberals", and yet there are those among us, who, for whatever reason in the midst of their personal enthusiasms refuse to admit that a particular candidate might be unsuitable for a specific office, no matter how much they feel they might be ideal.
Failure here to critically assess the candidates' track records, their historical positions on the issues, and their past actions which may impact their ability to win an election will result in a loss, especially in the Presidential race.
You can be guaranteed that Hillary, with her full cadre of backers and financial support, as well as other resources including the contents of 900+ illegally obtained FBI files, will be doing her utmost to dredge up any dirt on candidates she can. We have to be self-policing in this, or we will get blown out of the water later.
As for calling supporters of candidates names, I think there has been plenty of that to go around.
I cannot, however, support maligning a candidate with no basis in fact. Knowingly making false characterizations, especially reprehensible or criminal ones, should not be done.
Of what value is calling Judith Guiliani a whore?
How is calling Rudy supporters "Rutards" or Romney supporters "Mittbots" helping advance the conservative cause?
You can pretty it up all you want, but behavior like this is NOT vetting. It is smashmouth personal attacking candidates (AND their supporters) and trying to make it seem responsible is just plain hogwash.
I don't even go on some of these threads because they carry NO information; only junk like I have described.
All that is going to result from this type of behavior is people leaving or ignoring FR, and the marginalization of this site as an influence in national politics. Enough threads like I have described and no one will take this place seriously.
i could not agree more with what you said, and you said it beautifully.
“Yup - the liberal gun-grabbing abortion approving excusemeisters: rudybots.”
>>This line is becoming suspicious as well. It’s a DU parody of a redneck response.
What’s REALLY suspicious is calling someone who is anti-abortion and pro-rkba a “du plant,” while Rudy is now the “Conservative.”
Rudy supports killing babies, and he wants your guns.
“Exactly right. I have some issues with Rudy but stand shoulder to shoulder with his supporters on this board because of the things I have seen them have to deal with. I have yet to see one say they’d stay home and pout on election day if their candidate did not secure the nomination.”
Nice way to misquote and misrepresent. THAT Is the DU tactic.
It’s not “stay home of their candidate isn’t the nominee,” it’s “will vote their conscience - meaning not for a liberal gun-grabber who supports abortion.”
If the GOP offers up a choice that is outside the bounds of what I am willing to support I will not vote for them just because of the nominal R next to their name.
Get it right!
“How is calling Rudy supporters “Rutards” or Romney supporters “Mittbots” helping advance the conservative cause?”
Please show me some posts when you have posted to Rudybots that calling him “Duncan Donuts” is inappropriate.
I’m not thrilled with ANY of the candidates. IMO they all have fundamental flaws. Rudy I could not vote for, under any circumstance. He is too far from my values on key issues for me.
Rudy supporters are quite a breed though. They employ logical fallacy after fallacy. For example, document some liberal position of his, and they whip out some “rutarded” article about how he’s a conservative. It is a red herring - it doesn’t address the issue brought up, such as how he didn’t lower taxes quite as the rudy supporter suggests, or his anti-gun and pro-abortion stances. It’s an appeal to authority “frontpagemag says he’s conservative, so he must be!” It’s this kind of anti-intellectualism that earned them the title “rutard.”
Now if some Rudy supporter said, “You know, I’m a liberal Republican and Rudy suits me just fine!” I could respect that, and disagree on the direction of the party and on his positions. But pretending that Rudy is some kind of Conservative in the mold of Reagan when he’s a liberal in the mold of Bill Clinton is why they have been called Rutards. Consider it shorthand, and consider yourself informed of the definition.
What’s worse is the abuse meted out to newer members of the forum by Rudy supporters that for calling rudy a “gun grabber” or “pro-abortion,” as bing a “DU Plant.”
Why did you ping me to this crap? I’ve never called Hunter any names and rarely go on any of his threads.
2) Clearly you haven’t read the links provided on Rudy threads if you think he didn’t lower taxes 23 times. ROFL
3) The rest of your post is just so much baloney that I’ll leave it at this: Don’t ping me to your nonsense again.
Mormons are ... a little different.
But hey, that’s what they believe. As long as a candidate isn’t a Muslim, I don’t particularly care how he worships as long as he has political values that correlate with mine.
My issues with Romney are political, not religious.
This isn’t a theocracy.
Do people have to be signed on to add keywords??
What is this compulsion to make sure that any criticism is backed up by proof that you have criticized all equally? Are you telling me that you think "Rutards" is acceptable?
I want ALL of the name-calling to stop! All candidates! All sides! Post some INFORMATION or a COHERENT ARGUMENT! Accept that people are going to disagree, and chalk it up to the human condition!
Last night I saw someone saying that Ann Coulter was supporting Romney because she had a crush on him! Is THAT intelligent discourse?
And why did you feel it necessary to ping Jim Robinson?
Do you really believe that? LOL.
NYC is no longer part of the United States? The things you can learn on Free Republic.
Great post and all very true.
I would LOVE to have the address list of the DUmmies; we’d then see how brave they really are.
Good job, Joe. Well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.