Posted on 04/24/2007 10:22:39 AM PDT by Al Simmons
About me:
Lurker - since 1998
Member - since 1999
In self-imposed exile - since April 2007
The tone of the debate and the attacks on long-time fellow Freepers for the cardinal sin of daring to support Rudy Giuliani in early 2007 around here have really saddened me. Instead of fighting the enemy FR is now imposing an 'ideological purity' test on FR members. The well-oiled train has gone off the rails and Mr. Robinson risks becoming the next Joe Farah - a fellow who started a great website for conservative news and opinions, but who gradually drifted off to la-la land, losing all credibility - and readership - in the process.
He has set himself squarely in the Internet media spotlight, doused himself with gasoline, and and lighted himself on fire - a fact that has not escaped the attention of the left-wing lunatics at Daily Kos. Their reporting on what has been going on at FR is perhaps the first factually true account published on their site.
Jim, if that quote of yours about setting up an organization to 'Swiftboat Rudy' is accurate as quoted in their article, the only thing I have to say to you is that you ought to be ashamed of yourself, as you have now become the back-stabber of the conservative cause.
If you wish to marginalize this site by turning it into a narrow "several-issue" forum, that is your right. Just as it is my right to choose to not participate here any longer.
But you will be disappointed if you think that the crude, illiterate "goon squad" you have allowed free rein around here (dmw, narses, dirtboy, extremely extreme extremist, ReaganMan and several others - if I have slighted anyone, please email me if you want onto this list) will elevate the level of intellectual debate.
The result has been predictably in the other direction. That is what happens when you hire a bunch of brown shirts to enforce your own brand of political correctness.
Well, guess what? Politics is 99% BS and one can quite nicely live one's life without the need to bloviate about it. I know how I am going to vote. I could care less about anyone else. Life is too short to waste my time around here when I am clearly one of those made to feel like they are not welcome.
So, go ahead Jim -
MAKE MY DAY. BAN ME. I DARE YOU.
Ok. Enlighten me, please. I hate missing the beginnings of a new entry to the FR lexiocon. Where did the spork weasel come from?
Well, he could have at least put “Golden Palace.com” on his back in greasepaint before he took the leap.
As an Opus goes, I have to give one digit up, guess which digit?
You’re getting excessively personal. I simply said that the post was stupid.
“Rudy would destroy conservatism for decades.”
Support this very far-reaching claim. How? And why?
Jesus, you people are repetitive.
Come up with something new at least?
I’m getting no more personal than you did. If you want to pass out insults, expect them back. I’m getting tired of this crap from drive-by posters, tossing grenades then whining because someone fights back. Just drop it — if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
I’m certainly not trying to coerce FReep. I’m just saying that people who criticize some aspect of FReep shouldn’t be name-called into silencing themselves. As for your silly point about “FReep” being only a verb, not a noun — show me the citation in the rule book. Then, if you can, tell me why it must be followed.
I’ve reported you for abuse.
I see old arses never get lost. Nothing is more predicatable than an unprincipaled self righteous Rudy supporter that just hates those conservatives.
Now report me again. Horse hiney.
I would say the same to you.
Because it would be nearly impossible for the GOP to continually oppose a GOP president.
And in fact, you did get more personal than I did.
“Rudy would destroy conservatism for decades.”
I don’t agree with you on this, however he would destroy the Republic Party for decades.
He’s no conservative therefore he can’t possibly touch us.
Fred has denied that he ran as pro-choice, and his statement that it all seems to trace back to a single source matches exactly with what I have found in my own research.
I didn’t do the following research. I believe it may be Sturm Ruger’s.
**************
STRONGLY OPPOSES topic 1: “Abortion is a woman’s right”
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson_SenateMatch.htm
*
Next, I looked up his voting record on life issues:
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm#Abortion
*
Then I decided to check out how a pro-life interest group, the National Right to Life Committee evaluated Fred on life issues:
“This morning, I cited reports being promoted by the pro-Romney blog Evangelicals for Mitt suggesting that Fred Thompson ran his two campaigns for Senate in Tennessee as a pro-choicer. Not so, National Right to Life executive co-director Darla St. Martin just told me.
St. Martin said that she went down to Tennessee in 1994 to speak with Thompson personally when he first ran for Senate, and that she determined he was against abortion.
‘I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion,’ St. Martin said. She told me that the group went on to support him in that election, and his record reinforced for her that their determination was correct.
‘He has a consistent voting record that is pro-life,’ she said.
On the NRLC website, they archive their congressional ratings back to 1997, so they include six of his eight years in the Senate. Thompson took the pro-life position on every vote he cast on the abortion issue...”
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6017
“With 54% of the vote, pro-life former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander (R) won the seat of retiring PRO-LIFE Senator Fred Thompson.”
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL11/senate.html
Next, I looked up how a pro-abortion interest group, NARAL, graded Fred on life issues:
“NARAL also rated nine other Republicans... Based on their abortion rights stance, the following Republicans received a grade of ‘F’: ...Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee...”
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Try=No&Page=\Politics\archive\200007\POL20000714a.html
*
Then, I looked up another pro-abortion group, Planned parenthood, and how it rated Fred on Life issues:
“Listed below is the name, state and party of each of these senators along with Planned Parenthood’s rating of them.
Name State Party PP rating...
Fred Thompson TN R 0% “
http://www.all.org/stopp/rr0111.htm
*
Conclusion: Fred Thompson is pro-life, and he’s always voted that way. Pro-life groups love him, and pro-abortion groups hate him.
How and why would he destroy the Republican party?
Dear Kenny Bunk,
“Fred Thompson’s position has always been generally and substantially pro-life. However, when first running for office in ‘94, he did a say he thought the ‘ultimate decision rested with the woman.’”
This appears to be a matter of controversy. I’ve read accounts that dispute the accuracy of this quote, including one statement from Mr. Thompson, himself, where he wonders how anyone ever got the idea that he was anything but pro-life.
sitetest
Oh, really? Why did you say this in a private Freepmail:
“I’ve reported you for abuse, punk. I will keep reporting you for abuse if you continue with this.”
So calling someone a “punK” is not a personal attack?
I’ve reported you again. This krap has to stop. We’ve taken it from your kind for far too long.
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.