FR- Fantastic Site, but Some Outrageous Views That Drive Me Bonkers (VANITY)

Self | 3/30/07 | Self

[Ingtar]

There are some who look at Rudy and see someone only taking positions on social issues for the sake of trying to get part of the base. To them, he will not live up to his promises. So then it comes to these choices for them: vote for Rudy in the general election and ruin both the party and the country or vote principle and only risk the country going down the tubes. If Rudy wins the election, then the social conservatives have no expectation of either party listening to them at all, basically back to the pre-Reagan days.

[NYC Republican]

Damn, I forgot that one!

[RightWhale]

the folks who say OBL id dead. Bring me the body, (or at least his head).

$$$$ ?

[ohioman]

Were you once a hall monitor?

[tumblindice]

NYCR your home page gave me a boner.
Thanks, now I can't leave my desk.

[Xenalyte]

Your a idiet.

Technically, that's three words.

[Dirtysnowbank]

What a Muzzie fag...

[John Jorsett]

to that end, we will not see ANY major liberal policies being championed until '08.

I assume you mean '09. Advancing a highly-liberal agenda in '08 would be a good way to get a Republican elected president.

Why can't you look at the issues holistacally. I'm not espousing supporting Rudy, but even though he's socially liberal, fiscally and on the WOT he's solid. Excellent on crime... Will appoint the right judges..

How do you know? Because he says so? George Bush promised to do control the borders and did exactly the opposite. I no longer believe anything somebody just says, I need some evidence, like a past history of actually having done what they're presently claiming they'll do if elected to a new office.<>In so many ways, the tone of the discussions have degenerated over the years. Insults are almost the norm from some of the posters... Also, comments like "fags","muzzies" etc - that amazes me, and makes us look like a bunch of intolerant whackos.

I don't like it either, but in any forum like this, you're going to get zealots who can't confine themselves to civil discourse. The other side is just as bad or worse; take a look at the comments on Daily Kos or even in the comments sections of conservative blogs. The remedy here is to eschew that behavior oneself, and to speak against it when it shows up from others.

[Huck]

makes us look like a bunch of intolerant whackos.

You say that as if there's something wrong with it. Fag.

[theDentist]

$$$$ ?

????

[The Blitherer]

So then it comes to these choices for them: vote for Rudy in the general election and ruin both the party and the country or vote principle and only risk the country going down the tubes. If Rudy wins the election, then the social conservatives have no expectation of either party listening to them at all, basically back to the pre-Reagan days.

Yes! Thank you!

[LongElegantLegs]

What about those of us who already have one?

[NYC Republican]

Clinton was a governor of a state, and had the MSM at his back, and ran as a moderate, not a liberal. Hunter is running as an unabshed conservative, and while it might play well in suburban S.D., it's not going to play well in mainstream America, not now. It's not 1979.

[ClancyJ]

Dobson is out of line to judge whether a candidate is a christian or not.

Who made him judge of religious belief? In fact, Thompson was baptised in the Church of Christ. Now, how come Dobson did not check on facts before he judged?

First time I have been ashamed of a comment by Dobson. Makes me doubt Dobson - not Thompson.

[RebelBanker]

Excellent rant! I give it an 8.5 and officially cancel out the 2.5 from the East German judge ;-)

If I may add a personal pet peeve: Obsessive posters.
During the Terri Schiavo situation, someone came up with a measure called the "T-Factor." This was the number of the response on a totally unrelated thread that referred to her. Something like, "How can you discuss the price of tea in China when there is a woman being starved to death in Florida?!"
Now it looks like we need an "R-Factor" to measure how quickly someone posts anti-Rudy Guiliani spam on every thread.

[dfwgator]

We cannot win without an army following the leader.

And an army without a leader is like a foot without a big toe.

[The Blitherer]

Dobson is out of line to judge whether a candidate is a christian or not.

I think you'd better go recheck what Dobson's quote actually was in context.

[JamesP81]

When I talk about "single issue voters", I wasn't necessarily referring to the Rudy candidacy. I was referring to the folks that say... "if they're not pro-life, I'm staying home", or "if they're not strongly pro-2nd amendment", or...

I see your point, and I don't *usually* single issue vote. But it does depend on the issue. For me, the show stoppers are abortion and gun control. If my candidate doesn't have it right in some other areas, that's OK. But I cannot vote for a candidate who wants to disarm me, or who justifies murder. A person who supports gun control supports the desutrction of the American system.

This is usually not an issue since Republicans, by and large, are not pro abort or anti-2nd amendment.

[Jeffrey_D.]

"Clinton was a governor of a state, and had the MSM at his back, and ran as a moderate, not a liberal. Hunter is running as an unabashed conservative, and while it might play well in suburban S.D., it's not going to play well in mainstream America, not now. It's not 1979."

I wouldn't be too sure.....this country is overwhelmingly conservative, most just don't know they are!

[webstersII]

"typed this while doing the full twisting 2 and 1/2 in the pike position is what sold me."

Well, there's always that.