Posted on 04/19/2007 11:04:50 AM PDT by Mia T
I asked jla to send me the information Mia was circulating about why she was banned, but he didn't, so I don't know her side through no fault of my own.
But I would be surprised if she was banned simply for saying that. areafiftyone says that a lot as well, and frankly it's a good thing to discuss. I suppose if you put it in the assertive tone (Fred IS running to help McCain) as opposed to the opinion tone (I think Fred could be running to help McCain), you might get dinged because you would be accusing Fred Thompson of acting in a devious, deceptive, and dishonest manner, with no evidence, thus attacking his character.
But I don't generally like the attacks on character against any candidates launched from that perspective. I don't mind attacking character as revealed in their own acts (like being divorced, who's fault the divorce is, whether they cheated on the spouse, whether they spoke kindly to the people of NARAL, etc.). But I tend not to like the assuming of motive and the easy way people throw out liar and cheat and the like about candidates on both sides of the aisle.
If it (punishing one differently than another) is done by those who profess that their religious and social values rule their lives, yes, it is completely wrong, and inconsistent with the values of conservatism.
I disagree. It is non-ideal, imperfect, but not wrong to punish wrongdoing, even if you do not punish ALL wrongdoing. What is wrong is not punishing the OTHER wrongdoing, not the punishing of the wrongdoing that IS punished. We don't let everybody get away with things because some get away with things.
It should be about all the choices and their differing positions on the issues.
It should be about putting all of the candidates before the electorate and debating about who will best represent our Party platform.
It's my opinion that there are several candidates besides Rudy that we can run against the Dem candidate, and if we all get behind him in the general election, we can beat anyone.
To say only Rudy can win insults the average Republican voter, who will turn out in large numbers to support a quality conservative candidate.
The issue is simply why the most important election of our times is going to be held hostage for a candidate who meets the approval of the social right, a relatively small part of the Republican Party.
We all know how important this election is. That's why we're already working hard so early to promote our choice for nomination next year.
It's bad enough that Rudy fans are supporting such a left leaning guy on this conservative forum, but your arguments insisting Rudy is our only chance to win in November '08 ignore the fact that there is a long, hard primary race to fight, delegates to choose, a Party platform to agree on and a Convention to hold.
Rudy folks want us to skip the primaries, set our arguments and principles aside, and rally around a man who does not share our conservative ideas.
And you may think that we social conservatives represent a small part of the electorate, but our conservative views are shared by a much larger portion of the general population than you may want to admit.
MiaT went to the dark side, RA. At the end of the day, FR is a conservative website.
Peach, JimRob has been quite clear. Rudy boosters can push their candidate.
However, they cannot use FR as a platform to bash actual conservative candidates.
But I guess you're still safe to bash past conservatives such as Reagan.
I'm sure you, like Tommy Daschle, are deeply saddened by that.
Well there was much to build up to that in our discussions of conservatism, conservatives and extremism. Anyway, doesn't matter. The rules are not different for conservatives v: liberals, but for conservatives v: conservatives. The tiny elements representing extreme views here get a free ride, while the rest have to walk on eggs or be banned. Conservatives are being banned, not liberals, not trolls.
I believe 100% of your argument there was that it was disingenuous that Rudy was treated under different rules than other candidates. If that is only 1% of your argument, you should probably post the other 99% of why it is wrong for the most liberal candidate to get a lot more grief and for posters against him to be given a lot more latitude than they are when criticizing a more conservative, more acceptable candidate.
Here's an example: A poster can call other conservatives on this site treasonous liberals and treasonous cretins with impunity. In fact such obscene characterizations of fellow Republicans are encouraged here. OTOH, if one of the top posters, top conservatives and top contributors of research on this forum suggests that possibly Fred may enter the race to take votes away from Rudy for McCain's benefit as has been rumored, she is excoriated and following sufficient insults, is banned.
That is anything but conservative! Yes, I am continually reminded of the forum's philosophy, but I remind you and the others here of the rules which prohibit personal attacks. Yet one side can use that tactic with full blessings; the other side better watch it. And that goes for just about anyone who dares to suggest that Rudy, McCain, or Romney actually might make a better president than would Hillary. And apparently, though these supporters are called liberal wackos here on FR, 70+ percent of Republicans currently want one of those three.
I'm sure you must have one great argument if what you said was only 1%. But so long as it's trapped inside your head, it isn't doing you any good. Let if free, if it loves you, it will come back to you -- no, never mind that....
Thank you for the sarcasm. It may make you Freeper of the month! I gave you examples. We discussed much in this and other threads here about what conservatism really is; what it is not; what social values that are not a requirement for a conservative; what happens when Hillary becomes president; what issues of importance Americans really are looking to; what the real motives of the far right may be; and several other things. So that one little piece you quoted was true, but only a small part of this picture.
Yes, I have seen how the character of the Republican candidates here is protected.
But I tend not to like the assuming of motive and the easy way people throw out liar and cheat and the like about candidates on both sides of the aisle.
We do agree on that. Facts don't bother me at all, but much of what passes for facts is often little more than creative innuendo.
I disagree. It is non-ideal, imperfect, but not wrong to punish wrongdoing, even if you do not punish ALL wrongdoing. What is wrong is not punishing the OTHER wrongdoing, not the punishing of the wrongdoing that IS punished. We don't let everybody get away with things because some get away with things.
Well, after the infamous "treasonous liberal" thread, I said that if the founder and the moderators did not step in and put civility back into this forum, it would get much worse. And to be sure, it is. Many on the extreme right are calling for the banning of anyone not meeting their definition of conservative. Several of us are regularly threatened with zotting by other posters and reminded of the fact that this is a conservative forum...and this from those who wouldn't know conservatism if it smacked them right in the face.
My rant is about over unless someone simply wants me to repeat myself, but suffice is to say that until those in charge bring back some degree of civility and reason to this forum, and recognize that conservatives come in many styles and sizes and that our true opponents are the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton, it's only going to get worse...and smaller.
Your questions were reasonable. Take care.
In fact there are three who have enough of an understanding of what issues are important to most Americans, and who can bring the conservative Democrats and independents into the fold. I think there is a 4th possibly, but he has yet to declare. The rest can certainly be discussed, and should. So no, this isn't about Rudy from my perspective and never has been. It is about the total attempt to destroy the top three to keep them from the nomination, not to push other candidates who are more acceptable. I would love very much to see some civil, yet substantial discussions of the pros and cons of each candidate rather than the spam machine that is working overtime now...on both sides.
To say only Rudy can win insults the average Republican voter, who will turn out in large numbers to support a quality conservative candidate.
I agree as I said above. But any candidate who cannot see past the social right values in terms of campaign issues is a sure loser. After the infamous 109th Congress debacle, most Republicans want change, and want a candidate who has leadership potential, experience, and mainstream conservative values. Further, they want someone with a broad enough appeal to bring in those on the other side and independents who fear the leftism that has completely taken over the Democrat Party.
It's bad enough that Rudy fans are supporting such a left leaning guy on this conservative forum, but your arguments insisting Rudy is our only chance to win in November '08 ignore the fact that there is a long, hard primary race to fight, delegates to choose, a Party platform to agree on and a Convention to hold.
Two points. First, I have never made such a statement anywhere. Second, I agree that the primary race has many months to go, but realistically it will be over in early February rather than several months later, as it always has been. Finally, unless Fred enters the race, no one else realistically has a shot even within the Party, and if their agenda begins with abortion rather than the security of the Nation, the election is over.
Rudy folks want us to skip the primaries, set our arguments and principles aside, and rally around a man who does not share our conservative ideas.
It's not only Rudy, but also the other two who will in all likelihood not put the traditional social issues in their campaigns. For most of us who call ourselves conservatives and Republicans, we understand that, and poll after poll shows that.
But there will be debates, campaign speeches, editorials, and commercials. Unfortunately for those whose candidate is one of the one-percenters, money will be the key to the nomination and ultimately the victory in November '08. So clearly , time and money are against most of them.
And you may think that we social conservatives represent a small part of the electorate, but our conservative views are shared by a much larger portion of the general population than you may want to admit.
I do know how important the social agenda is to many. But again, right now, 70+ percent of Republicans favor one of the top three. That points out that even though they all have social values to some extent or other, they know how an election must be won.
I don't demean anyone's value system, but have made the point many times that believing in a social agenda that includes many of the values seen here daily does not make one a conservative. In fact, some of them fly in the face of conservatism. Most of us are against abortion to varying degrees. Some with exceptions, some completely. Most of us do not believe in gay marriage, but yet understand that the 10th Amendment gives the power to each state to fashion its own family laws. Most of us were sorry to see Terri Schiavo die as she did, but understand that bringing in the federal government to handle every social issue we bring up is anti-republican and definitely anti-conservative.
There is more, but suffice is to say that we mainstream conservatives are not your enemies, though many here would dispute that.
Few from the social right are actually radicals or extremists, but many of those show up here, which not only gives the site a bad name from its competitors, but gives conservatism a bad name through guilt by association.
And the majority of the anti-Rudy Freepers are willing to at least consider someone other than their guy, with the exception of Rudy.
Rudy is an aberration to many of us. To me personally, nominating him would forever change the Republican Party for the worse, and move our nation closer to a socialist form of government.
So no, this isn't about Rudy from my perspective and never has been.
No, it's about the positions and values we would be accepting as a Party if we allow someone with his record to represent our Party.
It is about the total attempt to destroy the top three to keep them from the nomination,...
No, just Rudy, as far as what is happening here on FreeRepublic.
I really, really don't want him.
Further, they want someone with a broad enough appeal to bring in those on the other side and independents who fear the leftism that has completely taken over the Democrat Party.
Historically,the Republican nominee positions himself to the right to appeal to the base, and then shifts somewhat towards the center to attract moderates, independents and undecideds.
Rudy is starting so far left, where do you think he'll end up in the general election?
I understand that the nature of politics is the art of compromise, but we need to start from a strong, right of center position.
So if you don't know then why air an erroneous conjecture?
The implication is that Mia had been fomenting insurrection here by 'circulating information' and badmouthing. This is not the case.
When people messaged her to ask why she was banned, her reply was that precipitating event appears to have been the last thread. There were no pleadings, no 'circulating info,' no badmouthing the opposition, no talks of 'unfairness,' etc.
In my opinion, if anyone wishes to know exactly why she was banned they should ask the one who did the deed.
I will say that anybody who has supported what are thought to be liberal candidates here should be very cautious now NOT to post anything that is false. Two people now have been banned, both shortly after posting things that most of of knew were obviously false things. And it didn’t matter that they both asked to have their statements expunged.
I haven’t seen anybody banned yet simply for being a Rudy supporter, but it might be accurate to say that there are some who are looking for a good reason to act, so don’t give it to them.
I’m in no way agreeing with it, just an observation.
If it means I don’t have to read lies about Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney, or Duncan Hunter, on a conservative forum, if it means I don’t have to waste my time DEBUNKING obvious lies (like Fred Thompson is a mormon? or Fred Thompson donated money last year to Hillary? — no sane person could believe those things, could they), I won’t be too upset with the policy.
And if that policy was extended to lies about Rudy, I would also be happy. It’s easy enough to debunk Rudy with the facts, we don’t need any lies.
First, I apologize for not pinging you to that post. I knew there was a comment I had which needed a second entry, but I was doing three comments at the time and screwed up. I think one should always be pinged to a comment where they are mentioned, and my ommission was an error on my part.
Second, I aired the ‘erroneous conjecture’ because first, I don’t know it to be erroneous, as it comes from someone else who may be a person with knowledge, but moreso because I disagreed with that conjecture and wanted to say so publicly because I presumed others might have the same conjecture.
The fact that Mia was banned right after posting a comment that included an irrational claim about Thompson being a “washington politician (an opinion, but one devoid of sense), along with two links to previously posted threads by Mia in the past week attacking Fred first for having “no experience” (ignoring his 8 years in the senate), and then falsely (or at least with wanton disregard for any facts) claiming that he was running just to help his good buddy McCain — and this in a vanity post asking “what does pro-life mean” in which she had just posted another comment having NOTHING to do with her own topic quoting left-wing additions to Fred Thompson’s Wiki entry to make him look bad.
Well, that was a run-on and I don’t think it’s a sentence. My point is that since April 1, Mia posted at least 2 direct attacks on Fred that had either no support or deliberately ignored facts not to her liking; she posted a vanity questioning pro-lifers commitment and saying that if they didn’t vote for a pro-abortion candidate the blood of innocents would be on their hands, and then IN that thread re-launched attacks on Fred Thompson that had NOTHING to do with the thread topic of abortion.
I am convinced that THIS is why she was booted. Well, that was the “reason” anyway, I think her deleted comments which she admitted were wrong were the excuse. If you are going to attack conservatives with little or no facts, you better make sure not to post any other lies or make false claims.
Yes, she's told me the same thing even in private correspondence. I believe the Jewish term is chutzpah. I understood the point she was trying to convey, though I didn't agree with it. And for the record, she is adamantly pro-life.
and then IN that thread re-launched attacks on Fred Thompson that had NOTHING to do with the thread topic of abortion.
I didn't see the thread or the post so I can't really comment. Thompson is not the answer to the G.O.P.'s current problem. Too bad Mike Pence will not enter the race, then we'd have a legitimate conservative for all to rally behind if Duncan Hunter fails to get legs and cover a lot of ground.
You couldn’t tell the truth to save your life. Get lost.
I'm not very sure about that, as I doubt they would accept McCain or Romney. I personally couldn't vote McCain in the primary, but reluctantly would in the general. Most here despise all three because they know each will put their social agendas behind other issues.
Rudy is an aberration to many of us. To me personally, nominating him would forever change the Republican Party for the worse, and move our nation closer to a socialist form of government.
For me, not having any particular candidate has been interesting watching the reactions to Rudy here on FR. Much of what I have seen other than his abortion stance is understandably overblown and there is a lot that tells me he would be anything but socialist. He is a strong capitalist from everything I see, but most here look at his gun history in New York and assume he would somehow have the power to do something substantial to reduce the 200 million guns in the Country. Long before that I think that the courts will complete some significant rulings with respect to the power a state has to regulate personal weapons. So that issue doesn't concern me, at least until I hear more. Too, even though his abortion stance is quite liberal (unless it changes during the campaign), I look for the court to review Roe sometime in the near future. That would hopefully move abortion back to the states to regulate as they did before.
But for me, neither of those issues is important for a president. I've stated my list before several times, so I won't go into it again.
No, it's about the positions and values we would be accepting as a Party if we allow someone with his record to represent our Party.
And that is what the primaries are for. But when the general election comes around I expect all conservatives and certainly all Republicans to understand what is at stake for this Nation, and know what kind of leader Hillary would make. For anyone to walk away at that time would speak volumes about their value system, certainly one that I could never associate myself with.
Rudy is starting so far left, where do you think he'll end up in the general election?
Assuming it is Rudy or any of the top three, I suspect they will offer some compromise with the social right, but not too much. Because right now, they don't see their base walking away from them. It's far different in the Democrat Party where the left is in solid control. Our Party is changing its face, not its conservatism, but its face. A lot of things contributed but the do nothing 109th Congress, the sleaze and corruption, the visible efforts to placate the social right with such things as Terri Sciavo and the constitutional amendment efforts that most Americans wanted nothing to do with all contributed.
Mainly though the leadership of the Party sees the vulnerability of Hillary with out of sight negatives and because of the substantial influence of the left, they see that we can win this election with a mainstream conservative candidate who can appeal to mainstream America. To do that, we must break the hold of the far right, and from all the polls I've seen, I'm hopeful. With that part of our base less vocal and less influential, we can bring back the Reagan Democrats and many of the independents to the fold.
Starting from a solid center to center right rather than from a farther right position will, in this instance, bear fruit.
But anyway, we disagree, and I enjoyed the chat. Take care.
I’ll leave the last word with you. Enjoyed the chat CW.
It’s this thread. This all happened up right where she got banned. Look at posts 126, 133-135, and 143.
I’ve never said she wasn’t pro-life.
I’m sorry I used the term “that thread” when it was this thread I was talking about. I’m in several threads right now.
FairOpinion is gone. She posted that Fred gave money to Hillary (showing a lack of judgment), and that combined with the absurd assertion that Fred Thompson was a Mormon did her in.
I still think you won’t get banned if you don’t make false claims about conservatives.
I see BS posts every day on FR so that explanation doesn’t wash.
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.