Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
bump
Amen! NEVER............
God bless you Jim, I thank God you are there. I won’t surrender my principles just to elect an “R”.
Heehee,Just wanted you to have a smile:)
I have no doubt there are people here to divide us. My purpose here is to get every single person in this country to agree with my point of view about every subject of importance to the country.
Or to be persuaded by intelligent rebuttal that I am wrong, so I can adopt a better position and get every single person in the country to agree with my point of view.
Isn’t that what everybody really wants? To convince the world that they are right? The only possible distinction between me and a common person is that I am not “ideological”, in that I am looking for defensible positions and will change if logic dictates, rather than dismiss logic if it refutes my beliefs.
I’ve never understood people who didn’t believe they were right about everything they believed. Why would you believe anything that you thought was wrong?
Anyway, that’s why I am here, and to divide would be a waste of my time and would be at odds with my goal. In fact, I’m probably more conciliatory than most people would like me to be, some see me as being unprincipled and a “compromiser”, because I specifically want to try to avoid alienating anybody. I won’t likely convince them they are wrong and I am right if I’ve antagonised them to blindly and emotionally reject my arguments.
I will not pass judgment on EV’s purpose for existance, he can answer to his own life. I am simply of the opinion that his POV regarding Thompson in the CFR matter, while strident, is not a smear campaign, and is a valid basis for discussion on this, a political discussion forum.
It’s not like he repeated without evidence that Thompson was a mormon, or called Reagan an abortionist after it was pointed out that Reagan was always pro-life, and thought the bill he signed would advance the pro-life cause.
“A loyalty oath for a long-time Freeper. Disgusting.”
No. No ‘loyalty oath’.
And what was truly disgusting was their response and the reason they were banned.
Ya ain’t gonna get a conservative appointee from Rudy, anyway. Think “Souter” and you get some idea what sort of “conservative” judges Rudy will appoint.
Remember, he’s runnin’ for the primary right now - Rudy has gone as far Right as he is EVER going to go... Once the primaries are done, its “Leftward, HO!”
I don't "support" the bannings, but I reject your claim that people are getting purged simply for supporting the "wrong" candidate.
Every person who got banned from THIS thread made personal attacks on Jim, or on good conservatives like Reagan, in disregard for the truth. Most got a warning to stop before they were banned. Some asked to be banned.
I'm not defending the bans, I wish they were all lifted, but it's fiction that people are being banned simply for being annoyingly supportive of Rudy.
If that were true, areafiftyone and Hildy would be gone, and they are still here, along with a lot of other Rudy supporters.
Just watch how he accelerates it after FT announces. Caveat emptor.
If you'd paid any attention, you would have noticed that basically ALL of the Hunter supporters are also fully supportive of Fred Thompson.
The only inflexible people around here seem to be the Rudy Rooters. The only logical reason for that is that they too are bleeding heart liberals.
I apologize for my part in bringing your name to that level of attention. I really just wanted to know who Peach was talking about, so I could go see if they really meant it, and if not to bring them here to explain that they weren’t voting for Hillary, because it seemed to really upset Peach that FReepers were all voting for Hillary instead of her candidate.
I didn’t mean for it to lead to some list of “bad freepers”, although I should have seen that’s where my insistance on an answer would lead.
Again, I apologize.
Up until this thread you couldn't open FR without being inundated with any article that made a passing reference to Giuliani. There have been threads dedicated to such enlightening subjects as the outcome of a poll at a local GOP pancake breakfast and the posting of a pro-Giuliani article from a college newspaper in which the author was unable to correctly name the candidates. A pro-Giuliani poster on this thread attempted to refute another poster by cutting and pasting an entire section of the Giuliani campaign website.
I personally have no problem with anyone supporting whomever they choose, but perhaps the owner of FR has decided he doesn't want his website turned into an outpost of the Giuliani campaign and rightfully so.
I think what some people object to is the "some animals are more equal than others" aspect of the bannings.
Jim called one person an "asswipe." He went out of his way to attack others. When they responded, they were banned.
I'm not sure if it's a calculated plan to purge Rudy supporters or just blind, stupid hypocrisy. Either way, it stinks.
Rules should apply to everyone, not just those we disagree with.
This is the crux of the issue; your assertion can be judged as being directly contradicted by Lieberman's victory in CT. There is a big difference in protesting against the war in order to score political points vs really wanting the US to lose.
The Rudy calculus is simple: are there more than enough centrist Dems who, even though they oppose the war, would really vote for defeat vs the number of SoCons who will not vote for a social liberal?
I think it's going to depend much more on who the Dems are likely to nominate.
Rudy matches up well against Hillary! due to the fear factor which might induce some SoCons to still vote for Rudy. However, I do not believe Gore engenders the same level of visceral dislike, which might be a problem in a tight race. Under that scenario, I think Gore takes in 2008 if he is nominated by the Dems.
Standing with you Jim, won’t support a Liberal no matter what party he or she is from.
Give me a break.....I don’t know one Guiliani supporter who would not support Thompson if the tide were in his favor. He hasn’t even announced he’s running yet.
Daniel Pipes included Giuliani in his article about “ostriches” who denied domestic terrorism.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16926
Key excerpt: Law enforcement seems more concerned to avoid an anti-Muslim backlash than to find the culprits. This attitude of denial fits an all-too-common pattern. I have previously documented a reluctance in nearby New York City to see as terrorism the 1994 Brooklyn Bridge (“road rage” was the FBI’s preferred description) and the 1997 Empire State Building shootings (“many, many enemies in his mind,” said Rudolph Giuliani). Likewise, the July 2002 LAX murders were initially dismissed as “a work dispute” and the October 2002 rampage of the Beltway snipers went unexplained, leaving the media to ascribe it to such factors as a “stormy [family] relationship.”
*****
Here’s more from Pipes on one of the pre-9/11 terrorist attacks on NY under Giuliani’s watch (which he used as a platform to call for stricter national gun control):
Ali Hasan Abu Kamal, a Palestinian gunman hailing from militant Islamic circles in Florida, took a gun to the top of the Empire State building in February 1997 and shot a tourist there. His suicide note accused the United States of using Israel as its “instrument” against the Palestinians but city officials ignored this evidence and instead dismissed Abu Kamal as either “one deranged individual working on his own” (Police Commissioner Howard Safir) or a “man who had many, many enemies in his mind” (Mayor Rudolph Giuliani).
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0702/pipes1.asp
*****
Here’s information on an earlier terrorist attack on NYC while Giuliani was mayor:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E2DD113AF936A35750C0A962958260
Key excerpt: The Mayor’s urgency to quash the widespread reports of a link between the shooting suspect and the well-known terrorist organization fit a pattern he established immediately after the Tuesday shootings. From the beginning, he personally took control of all briefings on the matter, often appearing with the Police Commissioner at his side, and took pains to dampen the rumors that might pit one ethnic group against another or raise the city’s level of fear.
Even now, Mr. Giuliani and the Police Department have refused to discuss the question of a motive in the van shootings, which left one student brain-dead, another in poor condition and two others with less serious wounds. Though many Hasidim say they are certain the students were shot because they are Jews, the police say they have not determined the shooting was anti-Semitic.
Yesterday morning, Mr. Giuliani met for 40 minutes with a group of Arab restaurateurs, business owners and community leaders from Brooklyn. He told them that Arabs as a group should not be blamed for the shooting, and the Arab leaders put out a statement expressing condolences to the families of the victims and noting that Arabs were instrumental in contributing information that led to Mr. Baz’s arrest.
*****
This particular attacker was linked to a hotbed of Brooklyn Islamofascism centered in Bay Ridge. But Giuliani didn’t follow up to see if there was a wider pattern of Islamofascist attacks being planned/supported/funded there — he treated the shooting as an isolated crime, tried to avoid admitting any links to terrorism, and met with leaders of Brooklyn’s Arab community.
The picture that is emerging when Giuliani was confronted with a terrorist attack on NYC is of a mayor who tended to deny a terrorism motive, and prosecuted the attack as a stand-alone crime (rather than what they were: part of an interconnected war the Islamofascists were waging against us). He rejected the idea that these murderous Islamofascists were basically being encouraged and deployed by a larger community of global Islamofascists (some of these communities operated right in NYC), and instead took pains to insist that Islmofascist communities as a whole were in no way responsible for the actions of an individual attacker. This is the action of a crimefighter, not a warfighter.
Even when he later called something terrorism, or broke up a terrorist plot, he didn't connect the dots back to a concerted war against us -- he just kept swatting at flies.
I know it’s just an analogy, and they are never perfect, but you could well strike out a person and lose the game. The person on third could steal home. The person on first could steal 2nd, and then the catcher could miss the 3rd strike while the batter swings and then runs to first.
If it’s only one out, it might be more important to keep the guy on 2nd, and maybe you would be better to WALK the batter (Oh No, giving in to the other team!!!!), so that you have a chance for a double play or a force-out at third.
Baseball, as boring as it is, does have a degree of strategy, just like politics.
With Rudy in the White House we can watch Congress passing a leftwing agenda with ‘Pubbie help and Rudy enthusiastically signing it.
With Hillary!, we might hope for some gridlock...
“The Reagan bashing, posting of false accusations about other candidates, incessant posting of duplicate threads, and posting of outright lies has been going on for months.”
Yes. Of that I am aware and is one of the reasons I had written off FR and tried to cancel my account here.
I wrote Jim Rob two emails stating so, and for some reason, neither one would go through. So I logged off and only checked here occasionally and found nothing had changed.
This thread brought me back, so maybe ‘fate’ had something to do with the fact my emails just wouldn’t work.
I’ve read the threads that Jim Rob has posted and it just seems that this one was the final ‘straw’.
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.