Posted on 03/12/2007 4:21:40 PM PDT by areafiftyone
Well, "treasonous liberal" was allowed. It's only a short hop to "commie" after that.
Who knew.
"This Julie-Annie crowd is the new Rosie O'Donnell wing of the Republican party... they hate guns, love perverts and illegals, like to kill babies and hate religious folks..."
Just out of curiousity, do you think this kind of name calling wins people to your side,...
I am an atheist, I am on my own side and not running for office... I WILL VOTE ON THE ISSUES...
The fancy Madison Avenue designer labels and cult of personality does not impress me,
You posted this statement.
You, therefore, stated that winning is not the "only" thing that matters.
You, therefore, implied that losing is sometimes acceptable.
Therefore, I asked you to explain how and when losing is helpful to the country. Could you do that, please?
Finally, good lord, if anyone needs to get real, I believe it's you. See above.
Wheels and crickets . . . wheels and crickets . . . lol
Oh wow! That picture is real cool!
Easy. He is the 'front-runner' in a plurality sense because of name recognition. He gets the third that will always go with the yard sign they last saw. He has little else to recommend him. But thanks for asking.
I am not a Rudy supporter, but I am open to his candidacy. But if you honestly believe the people here on FR who are supporting Rudy are the type that "go with the yard sign they last saw," I've got to wonder about that.
A couple days ago, there was a great post here that compared the 2006 elections to a shipwreck and Giuliani supporters to survivors desperately clinging to a giant turd they had discovered floating in the waters. That's probably what you smell.
Nope.
I believe it was your conduct on this thread that was offensive.
And BTW, the only people clinging to turds around here are those who are claiming they will not vote for [fill in the blank] should he get the Republican nomination, AND that they will not then be responsible for the impact of their failure to vote on the nation.
Now, THAT stinks up the joint big-time.
You'd think some people would have learned from the Ross Perot fiasco.
I agree that the playing field is not exactly level.
That said, I stand by my point. I do not believe that the rank and file Republican voter is helpless, powerless and the victim of Big Party Forces.
Sure, the party has ways of fostering candidates. And, frankly, that isn't the worst way always.
But that doesn't mean all the people posting here about how horrible they view the possibility of a Rudy nomination can, at the same time, sit back and say, "Not my problem. They (the mysterious, vaunted "they") are shoving 'their' candidate down my throat."
Do you dispute that the Rat Machine did nothing to raise up the Obama candidacy, and rather was forced into making room for him in the field by a groundswell of popular support?
Do you dispute that Howard Dean---long may he scream---also tapped into a new mechanism, external to the party apparatus, for making a solid, though ultimately unsuccessful run?
My point is this: the excuse that the MSM, the Party, TPTB, talk radio, or "They" limit who can break through is just that: an excuse.
I'm not saying it's not a huge mountain to climb. That's why most people around here have concluded that, for those not out of the gate yet, (Hunter et al.) a solid run is unlikely to happen.
But that is quite different from whining that voters are powerless.
The fact is if there were, by some chance, a huge groundswell of support for, say, Duncan Hunter, he would be the Obama, the Howard Dean of the Republican party this election cycle. But there is not. So what does that say?
That the "bigwigs in the party" (BOO!) are keeping him down? Or is it more realistic to say that the grassroots support necessary to boost him up DOES NOT EXIST?
True, Rudy has a head start. But I disagree that that's because the "bigwigs in the party move the resources and people power to a candidate of their choice." You really think that happened here?
Rudy has a head start because he is who he is. Just like MRS BILL CLINTON has a head start because she is who she is. Period.
And MRS BILL CLINTON, who absolutely controls the party machinery and is a master fundraiser, is looking mighty vulnerable these days. Why is that not happening---or, according to you, not possible in the Republican field?
I'm sure you include the owner of the forum in that charge. You know, you guys belong on DU - as does the leftist you want to put in office. You hate everything the Republican Party platform purports to uphold, as well as everything FreeRepublic represents, yet you persist in blaring these Ra-Ra-Rudy threads at us. Ick!
I cant believe the hatred I see toward Rudy. The man is a great patriot. A leader. He doesnt deserve to have this crap said about him.
No, he doesn't. But there is a pent-up vehemence from the minority's frustration at not being able to more powerfully shape the outcome of the majority's choice for the nomination. So they resort to name-calling and sabotage, which ultimately hurts our country.
I don't understand the focus on tearing down one candidate rather than on getting busy to get a candidate more acceptable to them nominated.
If the shoe fits, wear it. There are no gods to whom one must bow down on FR.
I remind you that you no me not one whit. I most certainly do not "hate everything the Republican Party platform purports to uphold." If I did, unlike some of the jokers here, I would leave the Republican Party and not remain to sabotage its nominee and, thereby, hand more power to the Rats on a silver platter.
I have never posted a Rudy thread, so take your invective elsewhere. Further, there is a well-known method for avoiding threads that make one go "ick." It's called "scroll."
And don't ever call me an "abortion fan" again. I mean it.
You and your boy Rudy who . . . uh . . . "hates" abortion. Yeah, right.
As you said so aptly, "If the shoe fits, wear it."
Shall we call those who stayed home in 1992 and 1996, or who voted for Ross Perot, "abortion fans" because their actions directly contributed to the election of the Clintons?
What shall we call them in 2008, should their selfish, irresponsible actions again lead to handing more power to the Democrats on a silver platter?
I, at least, wear the shoes that fit me. Unlike some, who ramble around here pontificating about how their "values" and "principles" prohibit them from making a choice, NOT OF THEIR OWN MAKING, that is the lesser of two evils.
I already told you I am not a Rudy declaree. You ignored that. I already told you I am not a "fan" of abortion. You ignored that.
Go back in your hole. And if you do nothing to support the Republican nominee, WHOEVER he happens to be when this all shakes out, please know that YOU are the one who is furthering abortion in this country. That is because ANY Rat administration (the officials appointed and hired throughout all the levels of government through the party, not the president) would be worse for the nation than ANY Republican administration.
Kindly do not post to me again.
no = know
sigh
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.