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.
Time after time, a few Rudy boosters (the ones leading the personal attacks against Rudy critics) deny posts they have made. When confronted with the past posts, they parse them. That is documented.
It's getting as predictable as Hillary saying "uuuhhh" ever other sentence in her responses to questions.
See post #107.
IMO, that's preposterous. You should be ashamed of yourself. You should know better.
The signal:noise ratio is already high enough. This place can't afford to lose any more reasonable posters.
What does that have to do with my post to you? Talk about a change in subject.
But if you want to discuss minority status, did it bother you in the least that such a majority of freepers supported Alan Keyes in 2000 when it was clear he wasn’t out of double digit status?
Haven’t you noticed how most of the nastiest posters who pretend to be perfect conservatives don’t ever support candidates who have actually announced or could actually win? There’s something a little off there.
According to the Democrat controlled MSM, they are not frontrunners, right?
We make whomever we want into front runners, by deciding to back them, by getting their names out, by sending links to friends and asking them to pass them on, check them out, etc.
This is the new media. It has brought down old media icons, but that is just strutting around the edge of the nest flapping a fledgeling's wings.
Time to really fly.
We can ill afford to let the Dems tell us who our candidate will be. Hunter looks best to me, but who ever is well enough backed by the grassroots could attract money--which comes to people who look promising.
Let's pick a candidate on the issues, and then push for the exposure.
Granted, some media viability has to be inherent (or taught) the candidate, but someone who resonates with conservatives who can work the whole conservative field.
People who vote party line Republican will get on the bandwagon, and anyone dissatisfied with the latest liberal antics, loss of soverignty, open borders, and who wants to be as secure as we can against terrorism will jump aboard too.
If the significant 'anyone but Hillary' crowd means that, their votes count as well, and there is a chance of bringing in some of the third party right wing on the basis of conservative principles.
Can it be done? Why not?
Who else would you want to get the nomination and why?
I believe a high SNR is a good thing, signifying a lot of signal (numerator) and little noise (denominator).
Ahhh - you join in the slime campaign. So typical of Rudy boosters - you claim to take the high road and then make a post like that.
” This is the difference:”
Feh.
All the other GOP candidates say the same thing, but no others are as liberal as Rudy.
Rudy is more like Hillary than like them.
Not so much offensive as immature.
*shakes head* Pathetic.
You’ve been reported.
I’m sorry to see you go, My2Cents. I agree with what you’ve written and stated many times that, thankfully, not one Republican I know, including the most socially conservative among them, talks the way these few maladjusted freepers talk.
However, I refuse to let some maladjusted people who don’t like the Republican I like run me off the forum. They can continue to whine to the owner and the ultimate decision is up to him.
Shhhhh.....please don’t confuse him with facts,,,,”HE WAS ON A ROLL”!!!...lol
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.