The 'threat' is the behavior, the manner in which many of the anti-Rudy folks are making their case. The bullying and intimidation is in the rhetoric: the 'Rudy is a gun-grabbing, gay-loving, child-killing, etc' talk.
You must recognized the near-hysterical pitch to much of the debate. The pro-Rudy folks just like Rudy. The anti-Rudy folks are name-calling, insulting, etc. (I just don't agree he's a 'Liberal', that seems like name-calling to me).
I, personally, don't think GW is much of a 'conservative' -- but I'd never call him names.
Just an observation.
I'm curious to see how this plays out. Rudy seems to have the edge at this early stage. If he does win the nomination, a lot of folks here have drawn some pretty clear lines in the sand.
Next November could be very wierd. Most of the hard-core D true-believers seem opposed to her, too. So we could have Rudy v. Hilly, with both extremes not voting for either.
Very interesting times we live in.
Well, you can argue Rudy is not a liberal, as many have done. But I did not put any falsehoods into post 161.
And I did not include his socially liberal stances either.
So how one would expect that Freepers, a group of mostly staunch conservatives, would treat the idea of a Rudy nomination as anything other than disastrous, I don't get.
Nevertheless, the name calling directed at other freepers needs to come to a screeching halt.