Replies

It was nice of you to provide links, thank you. Unfortunately for you, that means people will actually be able to read what I wrote, and not your highly redacted and misleading snippets.

However, I am not sure I understand your issues here with what I have said.

First of all, you certainly aren’t trying to say that you like Romney. So I don’t know why you seem to object to me correctly noting that you have a hatred of all that Romney stands for. Maybe you think I have over-generalized, and that you do like some things about Romney — but I highly doubt it.

SO tell me, in what way do I “attack” you by mentioning “your hatred of all things Romney”?

Further, in what way to I “attack” freepers in general, when I note that some of them also hate what Romney stands for? Many of these freepers have said so themselves, and some have said they hate the man personally. I believe it is a stated position of this web site as well.

If you say you hate something, and then I say you hate that thing, I can hardly be accused of being “anti-freeper”. I certainly think that you are wrong in your hatred, but that doesn’t mean I’m “anti-freeper”, just that I disagree with you. After all, I am also a freeper, and you disagree with me, but that doesn’t make you “anti-freeper”.

As to the 2nd link, again I urge people to read what is at the link, and thank you for providing it. In that thread, I stated “I’ve decided not to bother anymore. These are the people who gave us John McCain as our nominee, although they didn’t support him at all either, and gave us Obama, because they never could come up with a candidate they all could support. They believe that just attacking others will somehow win elections next time around.”

I stand behind those words, and believe that they are accurate. And I have made no secret of my disdain for the tactic of attacking also-rans instead of focusing on the real issues that confront us. Many of us have, as I have said again in this thread, simply chosen to ignore the blind haters and bashers when they engage in such tactics, finding them counterproductive, but arguing with them also counterproductive.

If Romney was actually pushing a plan, and I supported that plan, and some people here were attacking the plan simply because Romney was for it, that would be a productive argument. But I find no value in participating in the rehashing of old arguments that have no current meaning.

On my third link, in the context of the link which you have provided, I stand by that statement, although there were many things that “gave us McCain”. One factor clearly was that conservatives couldn’t find that one single candidate that we would all support. Hunter? 1%. Keyes? 1% maybe. Thompson? Had the world on his side, and lost it. Romney? strong supporters, but equally strong detractors. Huckabee? certainly not appreciated here.

While conservatives split their vote (and for the record, by the time I was able to vote, McCain was already our nominee), McCain won by plurality. In 2012, it is imperative that we find a candidate we can all support, and not split our vote.

My 4th link is an excellent post by me about the problem conservatives are having, and again I thank you for providing the link. Your quote is but a small part of what I said. ANd I believe your posts here at FR are a perfect example and proof of what I am talking about in that thread, where some conservatives, rather than debate philosophy or discuss issues, use personal attacks as a first resort, I believe because they are lazy, or simply don’t know how to articulate a conservative position in a way they think will win a debate.

As a former debater, I learned long ago that such tactics are useless and counterproductive, but a surprising number of people resort to name-calling anyway.

As to my 5th quote, I can’t believe ANY conservative would argue that we should allow the liberals to PASS THEIR LEGISLATION simply so our country is destroyed and we might win elections in the future. I certainly would much rather stop the democrats in their tracks. And the tea-party protestors are certainly NOT fighting to get democrats to pass legislation, and the anti-Obama health care protestors are not trying to help Obama pass his health care legislation.

So I ask you — are you actually trying to help Obama pass his legislation, in order to win the next election? I said “I can’t hope for bad policies to continue so that the economy crashes more just so we get Obama out of office.” — are you fighting for bad policies to continue? If so, shame on you.

The 6th quote is somewhat the same, although I do understand why some people want the economy to crash to discredit Obama. And in fact, despite my statements to the contrary, I did find myself conflicted at recent economic news, part of me happy that our country will not end up being owned by the Chinese, but another part of me thinking if things were worse it would be better for the next election.

But my rational side stands by my statement — I do not want the end of our way of life; I do not want the economy to crash; I do not want bad things to happen to my country; EVEN THOUGH if things get better, Obama will no doubt take credit for it. I certainly don’t want Obama to get credit for things he had nothing to do with, but I don’t wish ill on my fellow Americans simply to put Obama down.

That’s right, it was you who attacked freepers for having a 24 live thread. Interesting that you would bring that back up, and repeat it, in a post where you are complaining about “attacking freepers”. Fortinately for those of us who enjoyed watching “24”, the owners of this forum do not share your disdain for the show, or for those who would want to watch it — or at least, are more tolerant of freepers who want to discuss the show than you are.