JoinRudy.com Website Lauches today

Race42008.com ^

[Paul8148]

Because the GOP, and America, need Rudy now.

More than ever.

by DaveG @ 5:40 pm. Filed

[HitmanLV]

I agree. I am a Roman Catholic and don't believe in divorce, but I know there is a difference between an annulment and a divorce.

Further, I know there is a large hostility to divorce on FR but it tends to be very shallow minded and unsophisticated. If all you know about someone is that they have had a divorce, that doesn't tell you why they divorced.

Many people have spouses who just walk out on them, leave, or would just rather date someone else. In itself, that's not damning to the person who is being walked out on.

Further, a cheating spouse behaved badly, but that's not to say the cheated-upon spouse was innocent. Many spouses who have been cheated upon or walked out on were just dreadful, rotted spouses. while I don't advocate cheating, I do consider leaving a rotten person a strong mitigating factor in these types of issues.

I think too many people on all sides of the political aisle tend to think in only one dimension, which is a problem in a three dimensional world.

[HitmanLV]

He dissed Lincoln Chaffee, Christie Todd Whitless, Nelson Rockefeller and took a soft jab at GWB.

This is to his credit.

[NeoCaveman]

This is to his credit.

I thought the smilie was enough to denote my approval.

But it's funny, the sheeple herded by the punditry class clamour for moderates and the "moderate" candidates start a "more conservative than thou" contest with each other.

it's amusing to say the least.

[HitmanLV]

I know you approved, I was just seconding it! ;-)

[Vision]

If the choice is Hillary, who will take the country down immediately or Rudy who will continue to slowly destroy Conservatives by marginalizing us, I'll stay home and plan my move to Texas.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Excellent point, Hit.

Further, I know there is a large hostility to divorce on FR but it tends to be very shallow minded and unsophisticated. If all you know about someone is that they have had a divorce, that doesn't tell you why they divorced.

And probably some of those making the loudest noises are divorced themselves. Oh, the irony.

What I find so narrow-mind is the lack of capacity for so many to think beyond the headlines. So and so is divorced.... OK, why? What happened? Oh no, no, let's just tar and feather them.

Every time there is a headline on the horizon there is a run for the stars so to speak, like sperm going for the egg... run, run, run, and post a condemnation cliche like... “burn in hell, you bum!” Or, “oh, he's doomed.... he's good for nothing... he's toast... I know everything I need to know,” and many more.

Is it so hard to stop and find out what on earth happened, and if that's not possible, is it so hard to take some time and think a little before condemning someone to hell? Good Lord.

While I don't advocate cheating, I do consider leaving a rotten person a strong mitigating factor in these types of issues.

Exactly. We don't know what the cause of their divorce is. Anyway, I don't like divorces one bit, either, but wouldn't it be totally hypocritical to cheat while “keeping one's vows?” Wouldn't it be better that if the situation has caused irreconcilable differences between the couple, and instead of cheating they would divorce? Wouldn't that be more honest?

[HitmanLV]

Yes. I consider divorce to be a sad thing, but I also consider it to sometimes be the best course of action.

I have met many Freepers dead-set against divorce and that's fine, but they haven't been able to tackle a situation where one spouse just leaves, or prefers to date another person. Lots of talk about the sanctity of the vow, etc, but no practical approach at all.

For too many people, being principled means turning their brain off at the door. Very odd perspective.

[Victoria Delsoul]

but they haven't been able to tackle a situation where one spouse just leaves, or prefers to date another person.

Well, I guess that means, shut up and take it.

[AmeriBrit]

Cheer up! Maybe Santa will leave some 'Manners and Smarts' this year in your Christmas stocking instead of coal.

I doubt if it's possible with an attitude you appear to have from the history of your posts, but do try your best to have a 'Merry Christmas'.

[Godebert]

Calling me names? That's not very polite of you. I'm smart enough to know that you are a liberal.

[stockstrader]

Wow, very,very, VERY impressive discussion in your last few posts about exactly WHY divorce can be a wonderful thing! Glad that you could share that with everyone. You have an impressive, iron-clad, rock-solid grasp of the blatantly obvious!!!

I particularly liked this comment, "I consider divorce to be a sad thing,,,,,,"

I am curious. Have you EVER met anyone in your life that actually thought that as a general rule--divorced was a GOOD thing???? Just wondered...lol

P.S. Reference your objection to my Rudy-apologist appellation for you and others here--as the old saying goes, "You only take 'flak'--when you're over the target".

Have a nice day AND night.

[stockstrader]

ooops...meant to include Victoria in that last post. Sorry 'bout that.

[AmeriBrit]

And the name I called you was what??????

Perhaps Santa should leave you some elementary school reading books also.

[TitansAFC]

---"What the heck's wrong with you '100% your way or nothing' people?"---

I understand your attitude and concerns in this respect, but you have it quite wrong.

We don't need it 100% our way, the Rudy backers do. For them, it's Rudy and only Rudy who can win and should therefore be backed. For we who oppose him, it is simply "please give us anybody but Rudy and we'll draw swords on the battlefield on their behalf."

Yet given an infinite field of acceptable candidates other than Rudy, we are told that it must be Rudy - the only candidate we find unacceptable.

If it had to be 100% our way we'd each have respective names to shove down everybody's throats. It is quite the other way around - many people are trying to shove Rudy down our throats, despite our very reasonable objections to his Liberal views.

I think that we are entitled to rule out support for a single candidate based on their Liberal tendencies. We are not ruling out several people in favor of just one and claiming them to be the only possible reasonable choice - Rudy-ophiles are doing this.

We are simply ruling out ONE candidate - ONE - and being told "too bad, he's the only one."

In a near infinite field of choices, we are ruling one candidate out. Think we don't want to go door-to-door again, and work phone banks, and take to the political battlefield to see the Dems go down? We do. But not for this one particular candidate.

That being said, I still find it amazing that with thousands of acceptable candidate so many people are trying to force upon us the one single candidate who is unacceptable to us.

[Godebert]

Look.......I'm just not that interested in getting into it with some post-menopausal liberal shrew. Sorry.

[AmeriBrit]

Your batting zero today. Perhaps having your depends changed would help sweeten you up. [At the least it would help the air around you and make it more pleasant for others around you]

Make good use of that coal.

[Cincinnatus.45-70]

"Actually in my opinion, Rudy and McCain are the only two Republicans that can win in 2008. Or its either Rudy, McCain, or Hillary so take you choice."

Faced with those choices, I would likely sit the race out, as will others, as they did recently. My money will go to the NRA, but my vote will stay home. Looks like a long run for the Dimocrats.

[My GOP]

Go ahead and forgo the WOT and good economic policies and let Hillary take over. It will only be a long run of Democrats if people get all ignorant and demand a "perfect" candidate or nothing at all! Sometimes you just have to compromise to get some than lose everything and if you can't do that then you're not too bright or realistic.

[HitmanLV]

Wow, very,very, VERY impressive discussion in your last few posts about exactly WHY divorce can be a wonderful thing! Glad that you could share that with everyone. You have an impressive, iron-clad, rock-solid grasp of the blatantly obvious!!!

Very, very, VERY poor reading comprehension on your part. I never suggested divorce on balance is a 'wonderful' thing. That's a strange word you decided to use.

I find the attitude toward divorce on FR to be childish and immature, and incomplete. Sometimes it may be the best thing of several (admittedly bad) options. Sometimes a spouse is abandoned. Sometimes a spouse is neglected. The vow to be together 'for better or for worse' is not a license for a person to have their behavior and conduct gravitate to 'worse.'

There are many cases where a person may rationally and morally chose to divorce. I gave some examples already - one spouse abandons the other, one spouse would rather be with someone else, one spouse is dating someone else, one spouse decides they don't want to breathe the same air as the other.

If all we know about someone is that they divorced, all that means is that their marriage broke up. It doesn't mean they are necessarily a rotten person. This should be obvious, but to many people, it just isn't.

And that's a shame.

[stockstrader]

"Very, very, VERY poor reading comprehension on your part. I never suggested divorce on balance is a 'wonderful' thing. That's a strange word you decided to use."

You may have an ironclad grasp of the blatantly obvious, but you have a very, very, VERY poor grasp of sarcasm. Next time I'll make it even more obvious.

Thanks again for HIGHLIGHTING the instances were divorce really is a 'wonderful' thing. "/S"

Again, sorry I forgot to include Victoria on my earlier post--as she also contributed to all the brand new 'revelations' and ORIGINAL INSIGHTS and analysis on the appropriateness of divorce in many cases. (rolling eyes) I sure that no one on here has EVER heard those before. /s