I think we all have a tendency to see the worst in the posts which argue against our points of view and be forgiving of the posts that agree with us.
***That’s true, it’s human nature.
I see the anti Rudy posts as being the most rude, for you it’s vice versa. Could be the truth is in the middle, could be one of us is right, like me ;-)
***If you’d been on the rudy threads for the last few months you would see it differently, that is, unless you’re “forgiving of the posts that you agree with”. If I went over to a liberal forum and started telling them they need to adopt conservative values, it would be rightfully considered as rude. It’s kinda like if you see 2 people arguing, both of them rude and one of them is sitting on his own private property, the other guy who’s a visitor selling Amway is by default MORE rude. Keep in mind that this is a socon forum. Why is it that socons supporting a socon candidate on a socon forum have to face this kind of hostility, as shown in the thread below?
Duncan Hunter, RRRINO: Reincarnated Reagan Republican In Name Only
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1798412/posts
I saw the above post go by, but don’t see how it’s an offensive post, how it is a non conservative post, or that it identifies the poster as a non conservative. If you’ve a mind, would you explain to me how it is any of those things?
***Did you see some of the responses? Some folks said they would be committing a cardinal sin if they followed that request. That’s just one example. It’s an open admission that they are trying to separate socons from their socon beliefs. And if they can’t separate from their socon beliefs, they want right wingers who can “hold their noses” vote for him rather than allow a Clinton to run this nation again.” That is the classic rude false dilemma. Here is my standard response to that false dilemma. Please do answer it.
IF HE BECOMES THE NOMINEE...
That’s a BIG if. It’s also a false dilemma, especially during the primary season.
Since you’re so focused on this false dilemma, I would expect you to answer this false dilemma.
My contention: If rudy gets the nomination, he splits the base, possibly splits the republican party, and loses the election.
Rudy followers’ contention: If Hunter gets it, he wins the base and loses the election.
Hypothetical to answer the rudy followers’ hypothetical. Both sides losing to Hillary.
Side A: The solib republican splits the base. The MSM turns on him the moment he is nominated. Hillary wins. Republican party is split.
Side B: The socon republican wins the nomination, loses to hildebeast in a tough fight. Republicans are united against the hillary presidency.
Which candidate is best for the republican party, Side A or Side B?
Win-Win false dilemma:
Side A: Solib wins presidency by ignoring the socon base and permanently splitting the republican party.
Side B: SoCon wins presidency by (obviously) relying on the socon base.
Which candidate is best for the republican party, Side A or Side B?
Regardless of who wins or loses, Free Republic and the republican party is better off with Duncan Hunter than Rudy as the candidate. This social liberal candidate is simply not healthy for the republican party nor for FR. And rudy followers are proving to be very impolite freepers.
You make some good points, especially if FR is meant primarily for social conservatives.
This may sound kind of uninformed on my part, but I hadn’t really picked up on the fact that FR is strictly a socon site, I’d figured it for just “con” up until this week, though I’d certainly noted early on that libertarian thought is met with scorn by many freepers. Even though libertarianism in its boiled down essence runs pretty parallel to the definitions of conservatism put forth by Jim Robinson’s defintions of conservatism the last few days (except with belief in God not being a requirement for libertarianism).
It looks to me as if this entire fracas is about social conservatism vs the other strains of it.
But then he says he supports gub payment for abortion. That's something that makes my skin crawl.
He says he'll pick strict constructionist to the court but I haven't heard him condemn Roe. And he supports gun-grabbing so whose constitution is he strictly constructing?
He supports gay marriage. Why? He doesn't seem to think non-gay marriage is all that serious.
I liked what he said about the Dems and the WOT, and I want to like him because he may be the smartest Pub, but right now I can't bring myself to trust him.