Posted on 04/24/2007 10:22:39 AM PDT by Al Simmons
Two words...
Duncan Hunter.
A real conservative.
I’d take Rudi over Hill, but I am tired of having to choose between the lesser of two evils.
I am also tired of RINO’s trying to explain their ever shifting “principles”.
Great point, pilgrim!
Not just on this forum, but on talk radio as well. I get to listen to it all day (Roberts, O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage). Hannity, for months acted like Rudi was signing his checks. I can't tell you how many times I e-mailed him to tell him about Duncan Hunter before Hannity even deigned to mention his name.
I'd Like to see a Thompson/Hunter ticket. Thompson at the head of the ticket for one or two terms and then hand off to Hunter. That could secure us the White House for some time. Both have solid conservative credentials and know how to communicate.
“Conservatism, we are told, is out-of-date. The charge is preposterous and we ought boldly to say so. The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline. The principles on which the Conservative political position is based have been established by a process that has nothing to do with the social, economic and political landscape that changes from decade to decade and from century to century. These principles are derived from the nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about His creation. Circumstances do change. So do the problems that are shaped by circumstances. But the principles that govern the solution of the problems do not. To suggest that the Conservative philosophy is out of date is akin to saying that the Golden Rule, or the Ten Commandments or Aristotle's Politics are out of date. The Conservative approach is nothing more or less than an attempt to apply the wisdom and experience and the revealed truths of the past to the problems of today.” – Barry Goldwater, The Conscience Of A Conservative, 1960.
A fair look at those threads would indicate those banned were predominately long-time forum prima donnas who sought internet martyrdom by publically provoking the owner. They consider being banned some sort of badge of honor, I guess.
Most of the rest of us found their theatrics entertaining and are downright pleased they and their unjustifiably inflated egos are gone.
I haven't yet seen anyone banned for offering thought-provoking political commentary.
When Jim laid down the law, the egos came out to take him on.
Not to worry, though. Its likely the entire cohort will be back posting as ‘newbies’ under brand-new screenames shortly after the primaries.
I’m sure. Most people don’t respect how addicted they are to FR.
Why,that is the silliest thing I've ever heard of;you might as well say addicted to the truth!
Hey, you left my name off your list.
What don’t you understand about “Rudy is not acceptable”?
tell it isn’t so Al!!!
Kudos on your post, Al. I do think Robinson has allowed a free rein to the hate-spewing anti-Rudy people, who are also spewing hate against Rudy supporters, and even against people who say we should look at both Rudy’s pluses and minuses and occasionally defend Rudy without endorsing him, like me. It’s disgraceful.
And yes, “crude” and “illiterate,” as well as “goon squad,” are appropriate terms for some of the anti-Rudy people on FReep.
There is nothing wrong with providing feedback to the owner of the site. As with anything else in life, if you see something you think is wrong, you speak up. Not always, but when it matters. Don’t call that “whining” just because you don’t want to hear it.
Goldwater would not have cared for the extreme anti-Rudy comments on this site, not at all. And I mean the Goldwater of 1964.
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.