Julie-Annie agrees with the Democraps on most of them.
I've been around here since 1998 and I've never seen such garbage thrown at our candidates from our own site.
Stick around... some of them deserve it...
No more perverts in the White House!
Posted on 10/21/2007 10:09:49 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
"Shut up, Rooty!"
from Richard Bachman's The Regulators
Hey! This would be a good thread for you to put up that priceless reply you put up about a week ago!!! I loved it!!! I forget who else was copying it and passing it around at that time. Do you remember what I’m talking about???
I think that Rudy, and his policies, are fair game. But, I also think that those who do support him should be heard, so long as they do so in a constructive manner, and only booted when they become abusive of the privilege. I doubt they can convince me to support him, but merely shouting down the opposition, instead of refuting their argument, achieves nothing.
If we drive out anyone who dares to go against the local orthodoxy, FR will end up being nothing but an echo chamber, mindlessly congratulating each other on how clever and conservative we are. On the other hand, if those supporters of Guiliani present their best arguments, and those of us who do not support him can clearly refute them, we may convince them to our side. We will, at the least, hone our own arguments.
FO was outed as a dishonest debater when, after being constantly refuted, he resorted to logical fallacies and rhetoric, like "a vote for x is actually a vote for the Dems. Why are you supporting the Dems?" To see similar arguments used by others here makes me think they are likewise incapable of constructing an honest rebuttal. Things such as childish nicknames, repetitious spin slogans, cut and paste hit pieces, and out-of-context misrepresentations only make me suspicious of the persons using them, even if they are done in support of a candidate I tend to favor.
I am left thinking, "If X is such a good choice, why do his supporters need to lie about Y?" and "If FReeper Z had used the same rhetorical tactics in support of Rudy, he'd be banned. Why is it tolerated in support of another candidate?"
Try reading for comprehension. I said candidates referring to all of the non-democrat candidates.
Buddy, this is not a liberal site.
Thanks for the tip.
Except for further exposing Rooty`s liberalism, the management of this forum, AKA. the owner/operator of this forum, disagrees with you. And so do I. FR is not a liberal debate society. We are a conservative forum. We promote conservative candidates, advance conservatism and defend the Constitution. And we oppose everything associated with liberalism.
Thats it, in a nut shell.
>>>>>"If X is such a good choice.... Why is it tolerated in support of another candidate?"
This is pure bull crap. The basic concept of FR says, anyone who promotes, supports or defends a liberal or liberalism, is the enemy of conservatism. An open target for serious political attack.
Every member of this forum, in good standing, is free to support any good conservative candidate of their choice. My rationale for supporting Fred, is clear and concise, and based on sound conservative reasoning. Along with my 40 years of political involvement and experience, I know what I'm talking about.
Obviously, you find my politicking unfair and biased. As a conservative, all I can say is, you're right. I'm biased towards conservative candidates. Especially, viable and reliable conservative candidates.
If you missed the theme of my post, it can be summed up in one word. CONSERVATISM.
Serious political attack does not consist of making up cutesy derogatory names. It consists of refuting the opposition's ideas. Anyone whose argument consists of calling Guiliani "Rooty Toot" is a political light weight, to be taken about as seriously as saying your ol' lady wears army boots.
Obviously, you find my politicking unfair and biased.
No, bias is fine; I'd expect any politically aware person to have an established view. What I find is that your politicking is juvenile and unconvincing. It is pure Argument from Authority: Conservatism is what you say it is, so your way or the highway. That's fine, if all you want is backslaps from a bunch of Yes Men and cronies. It's very thin gruel for political debate, however.
Anyone who hunkers down in a forum where their view is the only one voiced is due to be bitchslapped by reality, just as many here were in Nov. 2006. The fact is, in the Real World, Rudy has a lot of support in his quest to be nominated. If you want to truly stop that, you'd be better served by honing your arguments against the opposing ones than by merely banishing them from your presence and pretending they are vanquished.
Since August 2006, along with other FReepers in the anti-Rudy contingent, I've been attacking Rooty on the issues. Haven't seen you on one of the thousands of anti-Rudy threads, denouncing his liberalism. Calling Rudy, "Rooty", is fun. It always ticks off the liberals and exposes them for all to see.
>>>>>What I find is that your politicking is juvenile and unconvincing. It is pure Argument from Authority: Conservatism is what you say it is, so your way or the highway.
Then you haven't followed my posts. Far from being juvenile, I enjoy exposing the liberalism of the leftwing and have been doing so for decades. Have no intention of stopping anytime soon, btw. Like I said, its the policy of Free Republic to advance conservatism. Not liberalism. Your argument is pure fallacy and as unconvincing as any.
>>>>>The fact is, in the Real World, Rudy has a lot of support in his quest to be nominated.
You're free to hold any political position you like. So far, your rhetoric borders on centrist-moderatism. Not conservatism.
Fred is the only viable option. Duncan for Sec of Defense under Fred.
Julie-Annie agrees with the Democraps on most of them.
I've been around here since 1998 and I've never seen such garbage thrown at our candidates from our own site.
Stick around... some of them deserve it...
No more perverts in the White House!
No more perverts in the White House!
I know, but I'm sure calcowgirl didn't mean it intentionally. She's the 2nd coming of Alamo-girl.
Thank you for your encouragements!
I’m not impressed.
Darned right!
Thanks, EEE. The ultimate compliment! :-)
Feel free to look up Argument from Authority, then come back and discuss fallacy. Meanwhile, I shall prefer to know my opponents instead of merely shouting them down.
Btw, whenever you feel compelled to defend Rooty Toot, I encourage you to look me up.
I assumed you were including Rudy in that list. If you're not --- and you're in effect saying Rudy is a democrat by any realistic taxonomy --- then I was wrong and I stand corrected.
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.