Posted on 02/23/2007 2:58:35 PM PST by Jim Robinson
FReep this poll: Giuliani vs Duncan Hunter:
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=173
"A Free Republic poll is the equivalent of a straw poll of activists and political junkies, particularly when looking at the "member votes."
LOL!!!!! I wasn't around here in 1999 and 2000 but from what I hear Keyes was running away with the nomination here on FR. We know how that worked out. Seriously, internet polls are meaningless.
Huh???
I will FReepmail JimRob and ask him if he has EVER been lectured by me about ANYTHING!!!
LOL!!! ...as if!!!
Honest disagreement/discussion is NOT "slamming,""nasty," or uncivilized!!!
touche MI:)
"But just wait until Hunter starts climbing and Rudy starts falling in the "all important" polls."
I'm pretty sure Hell will never freeze over.
'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
***When the pitcher starts aiming at your head, you start looking at things a little bit differently. At that point, your analogy falls short. For those millions of dead babies, they're getting hit in the head by the pitcher. Their batting average is zero. Once you average that into your team batting average, you'll see why the equation looks different from that perspective.
Uh, what? You OBVIOUSLY HAVEN'T READ THIS THREAD. Try posts 100 - 300. You might learn something about how dialog goes, instead of just barging in without reading!
But, as I said before, I simply think you're being hypocritical when you loudly refused to support the British Conservative Party when THEY choose a candidate who was "too liberal", but you're arguing WE should nominate Rudy. If you're look at post #270, Giuliani is certainly to the LEFT of David Cameron (for starters, at least Cameron supports hunting & gaming rights in England, while Rudy's a gun grabber). Rudy would be a Tony Blair clone at best.
YES, the methods in which political parties nominate candidates are different over there. YES, the way government is organized and who welds power is different over there.
HOWEVER, it's the same basic fact in BOTH countries that the next person running the country will be from one of TWO political parties. If Labour nominates "Gordon Brown" in England, your next Prime Minister will be Brown or Cameron. That's it... one or the other, no conservative "third party" will ever win enough seats to run government, that Charles Kennedy from the "Liberal Democrats" will never be prime minister no matter how many good candidates he runs, etc., etc. Any vote not cast for Cameron's team will be a vote to put Brown in charge. In fact, your protest vote for a minor conservative third party will be lucky to net 2% of the votes in England. Same thing here, IF the Republicans pick Rudy, the choice will be between Rudy or a commie Democrat. I would rather the GOP does not pick Rudy, because then the next President of the U.S. is guranteed to be a liberal no matter what happens, due to the "third parties never run the government" rule.
IF the Democrats nominated "Hillary" (and that's a big IF, I personally think she too polerizing to get the nod), and the only alternative is Rudy, I would probably hold my nose and support Rudy. But under NO circumstancse will I ever encourage Republicans to nominate Rudy, just as I would not NEVER encourage conservatives in Engladn to nominate Cameron for party leader (too late now, though, isn't it?) But given the choice between Cameron and Brown, I guess I'd have to vote Conservative MP even with a CINO idiot heading the party.
The truth is Rudy already HAD his chance to "beat Hillary" in own turf, and defeat her to represent New York in the U.S. Senate. His popularity is far greater in his own state, but he tucked his tail between his legs and ran away. Now he wants to sell the idea he can beat her nationally because he was mayor of the largest city. I don't buy it. Imaging Ken Livingston announcing a bid to be the next Prime Minister.
Finally, it's just a pointless race between a unless left-wing Democrat and a useless left-wing "Republican", I have voted third party in the past, and not because I had any delusions that they'd "win". I did so in the last race for Governor in Illinois when I supported the Constitution Party nominee. It was simply a protest vote, a way to send a message to the "main" parties that we will not support two evils on the ballot. They'd be wise to listen. While I might be willing to hold my nose and support Rudy simply because his opponent is so awful, not every Republican will do the same.
I will give you this grunt. You are the longlastingest troll I've ever seen on FR. That requires some sort of talent.
More underhanded backstabbing and malicious mischeif have been propogated by the self-righteous "civility" crowd while they disgracefully put eveyone else down...
***Hmmmmmmm, you may have a pretty good point there, based on what I've experienced on some Rudy threads.
This is because you normally spew like Archie without any deep thought. Fact of the matter is I've been consistent. Didn't support the recall, thought it'd really screw up the primary process (ho-boy), supported Arnie over first bustabudget and philthy angelides, have always promised to support the most conservative candidate in the primary and the republican in the general. Even now you mistakenly assume I am an Arnie supporter because I don't join the ilk in baggin' on him. Well, I'm not and I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher in a primary. I would vote for him against boxer in the general, though. The fifth columnists are using all the extremist rage to alienate those among us, and the middleground, insuring defeat.
No freakin' way... FReeping is too important to let cleaning get in the way!
Oh, you meant the forum...nah, just showing who's "in the house."
Kev...that was Reagan...take it up with him.
Thats funny, EVie, only fifth columnists think that.
Thanks for that input. Always a pleasure to hear from the psychic contingent. That is, psychic enough to know what other people's psychological makeup is, but not so keen at knowing what's going on in political developments.
I don't care to lead you anywhere. You want to wait until a candidate is shoved under your nose, that's your business. It's not my fault you've managed to avoid learning anything about him, despite his having been mentioned in numerous news articles, and interviewed on major networks. At some point, you might want to consider actually paying attention instead of complaining because the parade isn't passing directly in front of your house.
LOL yep, some threads are more difficult than others:-)
Nope...when the website guy puts up his own poll...it is intimidating to folks who aren't as ballsy as I am. I mentioned this to Jim. I would have rathered he promote an off-site poll, where people would feel comfortable. You can check my posts to see the venom that spews from the Hunter side.
I'm not interested in semantics. Choose your own classification, then, to describe this posting if you are uncomfortable with the word "lecture".
The point is the same. Your registration date didn't intimidate you from questioning the judgement of this poll's inclusion on the site. And your registration date doesn't intimidate me from issuing a reminder that conservatives on a conservative site are by nature going to be hostile to a liberal candidate. It is natural and it is justified.
Beyond that you've exhausted my interest in further conversation with you tonight. It seems to be limited to whether i have the right to say my piece because I didn't register a few years earlier than you. Until notified of a rule change stating one member may not conflict with another of senior rank, I'll continue as I have.
LOL!
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.