Posted on 03/02/2007 8:40:17 AM PST by areafiftyone
All day today we are covering speakers and panels at the 34th Annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC. This morning, we'll hear from Republican presidential hopeful former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He will be followed by Reps. Scott Garrett (NJ), Tom Tancredo (CO), and others.
CLICK ON THE MAIN CSPAN PAGE HERE
Trolls are thrown out every day, with no fanfare whatsoever.
I don't care if people stay or go myself, but I could care less if people threaten to leave because their positions are rightly questioned as being non-conservative.
I do think there are others who wouldn't miss people who might leave because they were always questioned on their politics.
The opus is a time-honored tradition here. Either use it, or stand and defend your ideas. either is fine with me. But all of this "come on, you need to stop being so conservative, or else we won't donate money to the site", or the "if Rudy isn't acceptable, we'll stop posting and you'll miss us", I just don't think that argument is going to sway those who find Rudy unacceptable.
I'll readily admit that my characterizations above are caractatures, simplifications and distortions. It's a perception about what the argument is, meant only for illustrative purposes.
I've been able to have cogent, meaningful discussions of policy with Rudy supporters in this very thread, without all the name-calling and threats. So I know it can be done, and the place would be more useful if both sides would unilaterally disarm when it comes to trying to out-do the personal attacks of the others.
But if both sides persist in the name-calling, I'm pretty sure I know which side is going to lose, because I've seen the mission statement for the site, and while the owner is very tolerant of the discussion here it's clear which side he is on.
I am right with you on that!
I don't know how much we can all celebrate if Hunter wins the nomination.
I could say we'd all celebrate if Thomas Sowell won the nomination, but only until Hillary took the oath of office. If Hunter leads to the same result, the celebrations would be short-lived.
On the other hand, if a "Hunter wins" unites FR, while a "Rudy wins" divides us in half, doesn't that suggest that Hunter is the better choice?
You speak about the old folks sitting up front at CPAC. Remember, we/they are the adults, with the most discretionary spending capabilites...not only for front seats at CPAC, but also for campaign contributions. In other words, we walk softly, and carry some big sticks.
According to the current Supreme Court, McCain-Feingold is constitutional.
There's little chance a President Rudy would seek out a supreme court justice that will fix that travesty.
As to what the truth is of the law, rather than what the Supreme Court has decreed:
If one month before an election, you just decide that a candidate will ruin our country. So you step outside, and scream out why. But nobody is listening anymore, they are all in their houses watching TV.
So, you mortgage your house, sell your car, take all the money you have, and buy time on TV. You get on the air, and tell the world why you think the candidate will be the end of our nation.
Under McCain-Feingold, you are going to jail.
How could that possibly NOT be a violation of the 1st amendment?
Actually, I think they are people who will cheer for a good idea, no matter WHO said it. Nothing Gulliani said would evoke a negative response. In fact, the anti-Rudy posters here didn't attack what he said, but rather complained that what he was saying wasn't what he believed, or did, and that it left out all the issues on which he was a liberal.
If Rudy had argued for abortion-on-demand, or for the assault weapons ban, or for civil unions, nobody would have been cheering THOSE parts of his speech, and in fact he might have gotten booed off the stage.
Conservatives CHEER when Leiberman stands up on the senate floor and talks about supporting the war and our troops. But we would NEVER vote for him for President, or come to FR and complain about people attacking us if we supported him for President.
Leiberman could walk into CPAC today, and be cheered as a hero, so long as he spoke about the war.
((((STOP RUDY PING))))
Looks like Giuliani's ovations at CPAC were mostly orchestrated by a pre-coordinated group of shills and were not as enthusiastic as the actual conservative speakers at CPAC. Pinging to a first hand account from an eyewitness at the speech.
I'm not a big fan of EV's method of communicating, but there's a big difference from not personally preventing abortions, and actively supporting those that DO the abortions.
If every person in the United States stopped supporting Planned Parenthood, it would decrease the number of abortions. If every person showed up and picketed all the clinics, some women WOULD not get abortions.
It's pretty much a certainty that Rudy isn't going to do anything to stop abortion.
Your interpretation is absolutely incorrect. The candidates with the loudest responses were those with the most paid shills (e.g. Romney, Brownback, Tancredo). Don't let the facts get in the way of your jihad.
Really. So LaPierre had paid shills there too. And if nearly everyone there is a "paid shill" for one candidate or another, then who cares what audience reaction was to any candidate's speech - to include Rudy's.
Lesson number one from Morton Blackwell's Leadership Institute campaign school: Put your supporters in the crowd in a diamond pattern so that they can lead the response.
Sheesh Spiff! I learned that one before I learned how to blow up helium balloons.
If you think the other candidates don't do that, you're being incredibly naive. And if they actually don't, then they are the ones who are incredibly naive.
You miss the point. But since you're so much smarter and more rational than the rest of us, I guess that's your privilege.
LaPierre is a candidate running for office? He didn't mention that last night during dinner.
Not surprising as duplicity attracts duplicitous people like moth to a flame.
Maybe I'm missing all the other name-calling. Feel free to complain about those.
But this is like I can't say how many times you've resorted to name-calling. nanny, but-kisser, tattle-tale? I feel like I'm back in kindergarten.
This is an adult site meant to discuss adult issues from a conservative perspective. I'd expect people to get passionate, and even understand "uncivil" when it regards discussing the positions of the candidates. Maybe people will even call the candidates names.
But nothing is accomplished when the posters start targetting each other personally. Nobody cares what one poster thinks about another, much less how stupidly "clever" people think they are in making up infantile personal insults.
I love the discussions of issues, and I even enjoy when people defend clearly unconservative positions so I can argue with them.
Feel free to say "but he started it". I'll respond like I do to my 10-year-old, "I don't care who started it"
I never understood the "post to others and ignore me" posts. If you say something I want to respond to, I'll post in response. I won't break the link because people who read your post and look for replies wouldn't see my reply. I won't ignore your post because I might disagree with what you said and want to make my argument.
When people respond to my posts in a way that I find unproductive, I simply ignore their responses. It's easy to ignore responses, and puts the control in your own hands, so you don't have to try to deny other people the right to do what they want.
Liberal. See, it's not all that hard.
I don't really care if an issue effects 80 million people, or 2 people.
Rudy is wrong to take away guns from law-abiding citizens. He is a smart man, but his smarts apparently led him to a misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment, and of history. He made a stupid choice.
If he can't even get that right, why should I trust that he will get any other new decision correct?
He thinks women should be allowed to kill their babies. That's wrong-headed, and how can I trust a person who can rationalize THAT position to make the correct decisions on other matters?
Did you just imply that Jim was Josef Stalin?
Even M. Thatcher had the sense to just call ME a communist.
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.