Giuliani Rattled, Cancels Remarks as Pro-lifers Disrupt Sunday Bus Tour Stop

Christian Newswire ^ | 1/13/08 | Christian Newswire

[Balding_Eagle]

Then why is nicmarlo still here? He’s called a poster a liar & then a demented liar. Clearly, there is a double standard.

Maybe there is a double standard, but then again, maybe not. I didn't hit the abuse button. Maybe wagglebee doesn't have as thick a skin and did hit the button.

Theses kinds of threads get pretty heated, and my thought is that if I'm going to 'hit' really hard, and I think I did, then I've got to expect someone is going to fly off the handle when they realize they are loosing and get real personal.

I don't mind, nothing is as clear a signal as that, and it gives a chance to end it with a clean break.

[Delphinium]

I for one don't want to eliminate anyone from this debate. It is not fun to just pat each other on the back.

I actually believe you are right about these shouters offending some who might other wise be in agreement with them.

But I believe and appreciate that they are doing a service anyway. I doubt very much even if the behavior of yelling offends a true pro-life person they would want to vote for a pro-aborter like Rudy, or change their conservative stands.

It takes all kinds to get the job done including what others might find uncomfortable.

Last election, I was working 8 counties. In one of my counties one of the young workers organized an event where the Republican held signs along a busy route. One of the more sophisticated women was horrified and refused to be apart. Of course that particular lady believes her only role should be to hob nob with the money and power, and has no heart for what needs to be done to get people elected. She finds knocking door to door, putting up signs, letters to the editor, etc,distasteful.

Of course I who do all those things find her distasteful, but she plays an important role and I always want her included.

It takes all kinds of folks, and I believe these particular people not only have a right, but in my mind a very important place in what they are doing.

I don't dislike you because you disagree with me, it's not personal, I think this debate is important. I personally love a good heated debate, and even had fun with some of our former freepers who were down right mean, and nasty.

Having said that, I understand the frustration when the debaters say rude and condescending things and will not answer legitimate questions posted to them. Some of us get a touch suspicious when certain freepers always debate from the lefter view with such nastiness.

[wagglebee]

Maybe there is a double standard, but then again, maybe not. I didn't hit the abuse button. Maybe wagglebee doesn't have as thick a skin and did hit the button.

Maybe you should read my explanation of the events in post #652 before you speculate. Perhaps it doesn't bother you to be called a liar by some newbie troll, but I find it unacceptable.

And perhaps you need a reminder that it is common courtesy around here to ping someone when you openly talk about them.

[Delphinium]

I found this while searching about tar and feathering. Really applied to the discussion, especially when discussing what lengths our founders would have gone to.

http://www.newnation.org/Archives/RevolutionaryMajorities.html

Excerpt:

"The radical political leaders of the Revolution such as John Adams, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Richard Henry Lee, John Hancock, and Joseph Warren, to name but a few of the more well known, had to conduct their struggle for freedom in the face of disapprobation and rejection by their peers before the time of actual armed conflict, and after its commencement to charges and cries of "incendiaries and traitors." Indeed "the friends of government" knew little restraint when it came to condemning the Republic's Founders. The Loyalists called Washington, among other things; a liar, perjurer, murderer, blasphemer, criminal, traitor, patron of villainy, and a villain's chief. The other Founders fared little better and were variously referred to as being dregs, illiberal (sic!) and violent men, despicable wretches, bandits, rude, and depraved. While thus labeled by "respectable citizens," these men led the country toward rebellion.

Correspondingly, the Founders had an analogous movement among the common people which, although the objective of overthrowing the government was the same, the methods were those resorted to by people in every age when faced with overpowering force of all-powerful government, namely, mob action, riots, uprisings, midnight forays, and harassment, intimidation, or terroristic acts directed against governmental supporters. All of these and other acts came under the single heading of patriotism so far as their perpetrators were concerned.

After a review of non-battlefield hostilities, it becomes apparent that the American Revolution was won more by mob action than by armed conflict! Thus, any idea that the Revolution was won in an ordeal of battle is out of place in view of the facts.

During the entire length of the armed conflict from 1775 to 1781, the King's armies lost only 1,512 men killed in battle; this seven-year, battle-death casualty rate was exceeded by Union forces at Cold Harbor in 1864 during the first eight minutes of a single engagement. The King's armies had previously lost far larger numbers of men in the Seven Years War (French and Indian Wars) yet pressed on to victory. An adequate explanation then of the patriots' final triumph over the government must be provided by other than a military victory.

An answer, in great part, lies in the violence and vigilante action carried on by the patriots against the government and its supporters! Though most Americans today are familiar with the Boston Tea Party, few know much about the secret organization that conducted it, the Sons of Liberty. Led by Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Dr. Warren ("the greatest incendiary of them all"), and Paul Revere, they met in secret, dressed in disguises, and carried out vigilante actions under the cover of darkness. This revolutionary Ku Klux Klan was as much dreaded by "the friends of government" as its ideological offspring, the Klan, ever was by unruly Blacks. The Sons of Liberty and other similar groups were responsible, during the course of the conflict for independence, for causing tens of thousands of Loyalist to flee the country (the Klan was usually satisfied with merely running undesirables out of the county).

The means were simple and effective. Terror and intimidation were directed against the Loyalists. Methods used to create these twin scourges of "the friends of government" included, but were not limited to, whippings, coats of tar and feathers, banishment, church burnings (if run by a Loyalist preacher or used for a Loyalist meeting place), confiscation of property, and wherever deemed necessary - death of any one of several reliable methods.

Other patriotic groups formed throughout the thirteen colonies to carry on a relentless persecution of "the friends of government." Each organization operated independently of the other though often exchanged information on Loyalists."

[Balding_Eagle]

Wow, I guess I was right about the skin.

[wagglebee]

I’m certain I was right about your lack of courtesy.

[Balding_Eagle]

I know, I know, and I won’t call you a liar either.

BTW, did you notice that your post is #666?

[calcowgirl]

Not that I endorse their tactics, but all one has to do is look back at the events, annually, on May Day since the 1880s and Haymarket. Politics has always been a nasty game where being polite is rarely practiced. Activists supporting the repeal of prohibition also engaged in some pretty violent tactics. I’m sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of other causes that took on much more drastic actions than the current anti-abortion activists.

I agree with your other post that all sorts of people play important roles in the process. Not all endorse each other’s tactics, but it is part of our history and probably won’t change anytime soon.

[Balding_Eagle]

LOL! Ya really got a burr don’t ya?

BTW, why do you think the other guy got booted for purposely ignoring JR rules against personal attacks and you didn’t? True or not, the rules prohibit such attacks.

[nicmarlo]

Your lies, misrepresentations, and statements you make, but falsely attribute to me, ARE personal attacks against me.

Or can you not understand that?

[calcowgirl]

True or not, the rules prohibit such attacks.

Stating the truth is not an attack.

[nicmarlo]

Stating the truth is not an attack.

Exactly. He apparently doesn't understand that, either.

[Balding_Eagle]

I think you’re confusing truth being the legal defense against slander, and the rules against personal attacks here on FR.

Maybe someone can point us to the rules.

[nicmarlo]

See my post #671. See Calcowgirl’s post #672.

Rinse and repeat.

[Admin Moderator]

Knock it off now.

[Balding_Eagle]

Will do.

[MEGoody]

I find this statement by the author particularly unsettling: "This revolutionary Ku Klux Klan was as much dreaded by "the friends of government" as its ideological offspring, the Klan, ever was by unruly Blacks."

We all know that the Ku Klux Klan we know didn't just lynch 'unruly blacks'. And I certainly wouldn't call it an 'ideological offspring' of the Sons of Liberty.

[MEGoody]

A lot worse was done during campaigns in the old days.

Perhaps. I'm sure I would have found those tactics distasteful as well.

[Palladin]

Not many battles, political or otherwise, are won by the faint of heart.