However, I was expounding on dirtboy's response you your last post, and specifically the part of your post where you said: But as you are aware, the rules are different for different candidates. And that, my friend, is simply disingenuous.
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.
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....
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.