Replies

I think this may be what some of the folks in this fight intended all along -- instead of focusing on Cruz/Davis, their attacks from day one against Arnold set the stage for no talk about the RATs. The DemocRATs have been doing this for years and are quite good at splitting groups. I refuse to believe some of the spin I have seen written on here is from conservatives. If it is, then I don't know those type of conservatives.

The clincher to me is that Issa and other Conservative Republicans have said that Tom told them he won't be a spoiler but they have chosen to believe one man instead of the others when they are all conservatives. For me, I basically gave up when they started spinning the Indian donations along with the glowing praise from the DemocRATs -- if they couldn't see through that then I have my real doubts about their being Republican to begin with.

At times, it has felt like some of the pro-McC folks are reading from talking point papers. No one will ever convince me that calling all of us RINO's along with some very conservative Republican politicians was not sent out to a group of folks. First time I saw Issa called a RINO some of the McC people on here now could not believe it happened either.

Think we have at least two groups maybe three that belong to the McC supporters. We have the people that truly believe in McC and what he stands for, the people that are here to cause trouble from the enemy, and some people here to cause trouble from within conservatave ranks. Guess that does make three groups. When I see conservatives posting about moving to a 3rd Party that speaks volumes about their agenda!

Think we have at least two groups maybe three that belong to the McC supporters. We have the people that truly believe in McC and what he stands for, the people that are here to cause trouble from the enemy, and some people here to cause trouble from within conservatave ranks. Guess that does make three groups. When I see conservatives posting about moving to a 3rd Party that speaks volumes about their agenda!

How many groups do we have of Arnold supporters? Oh that's right - just one! And they're pure as snow! LOL

Talking about third parties...

The last third was started by a bunch of losers who could not see through the lies also.

The last spoiler and liar, Perot, appeared on Larry King Live. Larry says "Hey, why don't you run?". Next day Perot says he's running because "the people" started calling and wanted him to run. PURE BS! He had his 800 number and campaign apparatus in the works for months. Liar. The whole campaign was hatched in deceit, on a big lie.

Perot said "the rich" should pay more taxes. Then one of the worlds richest people (Perot) gets exposed as a hypocrite when he has to file a campaign financial report. It shows most of his money was in tax-exempt muni bonds and treasuries.

When Bush I was behind, Perot drops out. When Bush I was moving up and about to tie Clinton, dufus decides to re-run. It is well known that Perot hated Bush I. He manipulated all of his well meaning but naive followers, and gave us 8 years of "The Scumbag", just for a petty, vindictive, personal grudge.

Let me explain what my experience was when supporting Buchanan. I believed in his immigration stance. I had felt that our nation would pay dearly for allowing this issue to go unaddressed. I take no pleasure in saying it, but 09/11 was exactly the type of incident that I feared. Frankly, I feared far worse and still believe it is only a matter of time, but to this day our immigration issues go unaddressed. I ask you, what issue supercedes sovereignty?

A nation without enforcable borders is not a nation. We have seen what our immigration policies have done to California. We seem intent on doing that nationwide. We know that middle-easterners are coming across our southern border from the documents dropped along the border on the way in. Even in the face of terrorism, we won't put an end to it.

I argued this and other points in support of a Buchanan candidacy in 2000. I tried to debate this issue on the merits. It was impossible. I was a racist bigot and there was no problem with immigration at all. Some on the Bush team were absolutely disgusting to deal with.

On my side were some who were intelligent and would argue the issues on their merits. Others were malcontents and intollerant of any opposing view. At the mention of opposition they'd just hurl insults.

At the time I suggested that only Buchanan supporters enter Buchanan threads and only Bush supporters enter Bush threads. This was deemed a terrible idea. I suggested debates to try to move the hostility off the forum. The Bush people insulted me for even proposing such a thing.

A good number of Buchanan supporters were jettesoned from the forum. I believe that most of them were done for good cause. I am aware of one very nice individual who got caught up in the whole mess and was jetessoned unfairly, but I understand how that can happen. This saddened me, but it was understandable.

I was directly involved with some of these bannings. The perps would get slapped down, then contact me to intercede for them. In several instances they were reinstated, then went right back to causing trouble only to be banned again, sometimes for good.

When they would contact me, I'd seen what they had done and would be frank with them. Look, I saw you do X. You can't expect to do X and get a free pass. You should know that. I had more than one person turn on me for being honest with them, and I don't mean just philosophically. They got very angry and unloaded.

By the time the election was several months away, I could see that it was a lost cause. Buchanan would wind up in the low single digits. At that point I backed off and only entered debate if I felt he was being unfairly criticized. This presented almost constant instances where I was engaging not to win support, but to keep the arguments factual and rational.

No matter what the level I'd back off to, the other side was still beastly about it. If you were discussing other topics on the forum, or made a factualy observation about Bush in a reasoned manner, the "One-Percenter" epiteth would be hurled.

To this day, three years later I still get people dumping on me because I supported Buchanan. Some of them just attack on general principles if I even venture a comment about Bush, neutral or even complimentary. Several people I've never addressed before on this forum have attacked viciously out of the blue for hating Bush. I don't hate Bush. I disagree with some of his policies and support others. I think he's a good man.

I go to the Bush day in pictures threads once in a while and offer up a graphic. I may do this once every two months or so. The people there seldom address me. If I bother to make a comment it goes ignored.

We refer to the McClintock folks as overly zealous and I think that's fair to a certain degree. On the other hand I have to feel that folks get wound up and find themselves incapable of backing off in the heat of the season.

Are there some disrupters or sabetuers? There may be. We've run a number of clear ones off. I don't know what the answer is. I see some of the same desparate attempts to move people I used early in the process in 2000, being used today in the futal last moments of a failed bid. Accepting the futility of a drive to get someone elected is a very difficult thing to do. For some people it's impossible.

In 2000 I had to accept that Buchanan wasn't going to catch on. I had to accept that pushing my man beyond a certain point would aid Gore, even though I saw some serious concerns with Bush. I had to pull back and accept reality, and realize that some things were worse than my man alone losing.

After the election, I had to forget the insults from the Bush camp, overlook the despicable actions of some of them directed at me, and help organize large protests to block Gore from stealing the election.

I had to overlook the people on my side that got booted for doing what it sometimes appeared the people on the other side did, but didn't get booted.

Humans are human. The owner of this forum and the people who participate on it with his permission do what they think is reasonable. Some of the participants get out of hand when they get worked up and actions have to be taken. I support those actions even when they go against my views, which they seldom if ever have. If it comes to the point that I need to have my pants dusted for something I do, then I'm as fair game as anyone else.

I'm not convinced folks are here in an effort to disrupt. Some of them just aren't as capable as others at conducting reasoned debate. They can't rationalize as well as you may be able to. I get worked up at times and am less objective than others. That's human nature.

I'm not certain there are no disrupters here. I've seen evidence to support that theory on more sides than you'd like to discuss I can assure you. ;-)

Human nature being what it is, I think most things we see here can be explained by it. We may think it looks fishy in light of the facts, but when people get worked up, it's sometimes hard for them to recognize facts. Heck, it's hard for all of us to agree on the ramifications of just about any fact.

See. Don't get me started...