Christian leader rejects McCain

NewsNetDaily.com ^ | Januaru 13, 2007 | Bob Unruh

[Reagan Man]

>>>>So what's my number?

Thought I made that abundantly clear in my other posts to you.

[Reagan Man]

Doubtful. Since he opposes Mccain, I can't see how he would support Rudy.

[HitmanLV]

I voted for Rudy three times for mayor of nyc. And my support for Rudy on FR isn't a secret at all.

In any event, it's not part of this issue at all. You still haven't answered my main question. Or maybe you just wont. Can you identify a social issue where conservatives are on the losing side? I can. It doesn't bother me much - you win some, you lose some. Denial ain't a river in Egypt and the culture has rejected some of our social values. It's called 'losing.' Winning and losing. It happens - it's all ok.

Also Reagan said a person who agrees with you 80% of the time is an ally, not an enemy. To be fair, that's not a defense of Rudy (who we may agree with less than 80% of the time, when it's all tallied up).

I won't throw away an otherwise good candidate because of a couple of disagreements over a few issues. Would Reagan? No. Would 'reagan man?' That's up to you.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>I voted for Rudy three times for mayor of nyc. And my support for Rudy on FR isn't a secret at all.

I'm fully aware of your history of support for Rudy Giuliani on this forum.

Having been born in NYCity and raised in Brooklyn of the 50`s, 60`s and early 70`s, I can honestly say I knew young liberals just like Rudy. Rudy is no friend of conservatism. Rudy was born a liberal and he will die a liberal.

>>>>>You still haven't answered my main question.

You've proffered many questions, but offered few answers. Except to say that Rudy is you guy for 2008. And that's okay.

>>>>Also Reagan said a person who agrees with you 80% of the time is an ally, not an enemy. To be fair, that's not a defense of Rudy (who we may agree with less than 80% of the time, when it's all tallied up).

I'd say most conservatives have about as much in common with Rudy Giuliani, as they do with Joe Lieberman. That would maybe equate to a 20% level of agreement with both liberals, Joe and Rudy. Although, that might be pushing it a bit. This is more then just a couple disagreements over a few issues.

[HitmanLV]

You've proffered many questions, but offered few answers. Except to say that Rudy is you guy for 2008. And that's okay.

My original post had nothing to do with Rudy. My original questions have nothing to do with Rudy. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. 'Rudy on the Brain' is a bad thing.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Cute. I'm not the only one carrying a hammer, my friend.

You say our debate had nothing to do with Rudy Giuliani. Truth be told, American politics and Presidential candidates are always bound to cross the same road, from time to time. Maybe making Rudy more of the issue in our debate, wasn't to your liking. So be it.

[eleni121]

Me too.

I respect Dr. Dobson highly.

[af_vet_1981]

I'm an atheist and so have nothing worthwhile to contribute on this subject.

[HitmanLV]

I'm all for discussing Rudy and have done so many times, just in a proper context and threads. You were the one with the compulsion to to talk about Rudy instead of staying on the issue. Am issue you still have avoided.

If you had a hammer, you'd hammer in the morning. You'd hammer in the evening, all over this land.

You'd hammer out danger, you'd hammer out a warning. You'd hammer out love between all of my brothers and my sisters, all over this land.

[Reagan Man]

The issue happens to be about a well known national Christian leader, James Dobson, coming out against supporting John McCain for POTUS in 2008. I think asking a simple question of you about Rudy Giuliani is most appropriate for this thread.

Btw, thanks for validating my political hammer. I will continue to use it to the best of my ability.

[HitmanLV]

I was mocking it, not validating it. But I suppose that nuance was lost to the fertile mind of 'reagan man.'

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>I was mocking it ...

You mean, as in ridicule? No, not you, Mister Rudy-Rooter! LOL

[HitmanLV]

You're about as quick on the draw as old Ronnie was in his later years. "Well, that's Alzheimer's for you."

[Reagan Man]

Right, when all else fails, go for the pure ad hominem response. That's a sure winner. And working Reagan into your attack was really unique.

You clown. LOL

[HitmanLV]

First of all, nothing on my part has failed.

Second, an ad hominem attack is when the person making an argument is attacked rather than engaging in the argument they are making.

I have been engaging in the argument you have been making. You've just been reluctant to stay on point and respond clearly, cogently, and coherently. You still haven't answered my main questions, instead misdirecting on a Rudy tangent. That's what you have in your toolkit, though, so I don't fault you for that.

So to be clear, my wisecrack was not an ad hominem attack on your arguments, but rather an entirely personal barb. As far as the content you have written, I have usually explicitly agreed with you, and not attacked it.

I just don't find you even trying to address my main point: what do you do policy wise when the electorate tells you that you're wrong? So since your mind tends to wander from the question, an Alzheimer's joke seems fitting. And you are the reagan man, after all.

The jokes just write themselves.

[Reagan Man]

Call it a wise crack or a personal barb. Whatever. An ad hominem response is when one appeals to emotions, rather then the intellect of factual arguments. That was a pure ad hominem response. Not unexpected, coming from a pinhead like you.

>>>>>I just don't find you even trying to address my main point:

You've had many main points. As I told you earlier, I have NO interest whatsoever, in debating you on issues not relevent to conservatism. And since you support the liberal Rudy Giuliani for POTUS in 2008, I know what your objective is and what your agenda is all about.

[HitmanLV]

An ad hominem response is when one appeals to emotions, rather then the intellect of factual arguments.

No. An ad hominem attack is when you attack the person rather than the argument they are making. Look it up, mr smartypants.

[Reagan Man]

It was an ad hominem response. But you call it whatever you like. look, if you can't control your emotions, maybe you need a timeout. However, if you want to turn this into a flame war, I'm ready.

[HitmanLV]

I was just teaching you what 'ad hominem' is. You had it wrong. I had it right. I wanted you to know you were using it wrong so you don't make the same mistake again.

It was you who brought it up in the first place, incorrectly.

I'm not upset in the least. It wasn't me who misused the term, it was you. If that gets you upset, nothing much I can do about it.

[Reagan Man]

So, you're still stuck on stupid. Your post at #233 was a personal attack appealing to emotions, a purely ad hominem response.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Latin. 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Merriam Webster, Encarta and Wikipedia all give similiar definitions. Its an ad hominem response, bucko.