Free Republic

ROBOCK, ALAN
MANASQUAN, NJ 08736
RUTGERS UNIV./PROFESSOR

ZEITZ, JOSHUA M
VIA ZEITZ FOR CONGRESS
03/23/2008 500.00 28990817362

FEINGOLD, RUSSELL D
VIA FEINGOLD SENATE COMMITTEE
09/22/2010 1000.00 10020842208

FOSTER, G. WILLIAM (BILL)
VIA BILL FOSTER FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
10/10/2008 250.00 28934750141

HOLT, RUSH D.
VIA RUSH HOLT FOR CONGRESS
04/10/2010 1000.00 10930783377

KERRY, JOHN F
VIA JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC
04/23/2004 2000.00 24961471454

ZEITZ, JOSHUA M
VIA ZEITZ FOR CONGRESS
06/18/2008 250.00 28932239555
10/21/2008 500.00 28993688026

Family history notwithstanding, he has some health issues stemming from his service. I’m not saying he has to go the full Byrd, if he falls ill that will do the trick.

Frankly, I don’t know why he hasn’t retired. If I had a hot rich wife, I would be retired now.

Thank you! And it only took 294 posts!

This is exactly the kind of refutation I’m talking about. If the Hayworth campaign can’t get their act together enough that their supporters don’t have this stuff at their fingertips, it’s no wonder he’s losing. And look at the history of the polling. Arizona Republicans gave him a chance, but he’s no Marco Rubio.

“Shut up, that’s why!” wins nobody any arguments or any friends. If you’re going to win, you’ll have to fight.

But this stuff should be easy to refute. Doesn’t Hayworth even have a Fight The Smears like the BS Obama had?

You can’t just assert that something is a lie and then say “look it up”. People who aren’t informed just walk away saying, “Well it must be true, then.”

Like I said, I don’t care, it’s typical negative ad stuff and wouldn’t persuade me one way or the other. But you seem to care.

No, I said true conservatism is compassionate. It can be defended on its own terms and not by twisting them. Cruelty and "omelets made of broken eggs" are hallmarks of the Stalinist Left.

I’ll fight my wars my way and I’ll be up front about it.

And when you lose?

I'm thinking about the war, to use your metaphor, not a single battle.

Soooooo.....Simcox is ADVISING J.D. Hayworth????

Undoubtedly. The question is whether JD is listening.

” JD Hayworth accepted Simcox’s endorsement whith his background being common knowledge. “

Bare-faced lie.

OK. It's common knowledge now, I assume.

” JD Hayworth was late entering the primary because he had to pay back the money to convicted felon Jack Abramoff. “

Bare-faced lie.

OK. Cite it. Frankly, I don't think much of this charge, but it seems that you do. So cite the countering evidence.

” Rep.J.D. Hayworth the largest single recipient of Abramoff related money and co-chairman of the Congressional Native American Caucus, has received more than $150,000 from Indian tribes once represented by Abramoff. “

Bare-faced lie.

Again, I think the "connected to Abramoff" thing is weak, but if it's a lie, it should be very easy to present the countering facts.

Fair enough. Now show me proof of any of these slanderous lies I posted above, or get lost!!

Whoa! It doesn't work that way. You can push the original poster for verifying information, but once you declare it to be a lie, the onus is on you.

John McCain is my enemy.

You say McCain's an enemy because he has allied himself with Democrats far too often. I think that's true and I get frustrated and angry at it. But I'm not myopic and I won't throw a tantrum because I didn't get my way. If I get one vote better than a Democrat, then I'll take that over the actual Democrat. The true enemy is Obama and Pelosi and Reid. Period.

If we cannot fight for conservatism on FR, where can we?

"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender" -- Winston Churchill

With all due respect, this is just an internet forum. Just like Little Green Footballs or FrumForum (or whatever he's calling it now). Men and women greater and more noble than I have fought for principles of conservatism in places with greater impact and greater risk than an internet forum.

If we cannot fight for conservatism during the primaries, when can we?

Please do. Advocate for your candidate, oppose your opponent. And, most importantly, present good arguments that counter the ones of your opposition.

Has it occurred to you that, perhaps, by not presenting a place where supporters of Hayworth could effectively argue against the arguments of McCain supporters that Hayworth's campaign got soft and insulated?

What if this approach is counterproductive? The great advantage of the conservative movement is that liberals are so uninformed. They've gotten weak because they think that everybody agrees with them.

In short, if you give aid and comfort to my enemy, I don’t want you around.

That's your right. But moving McCain so far and forcing him to take positions in opposition to his previous positions is a major success. More importantly, he's locked himself in to some of these. Take the victory and use it. Don't fight battles that are over.

I believe that true conservatism is persuasive and compassionate. I don't believe that it operates by aping the Left's organizational paradigms.

That isn’t the issue. It really isn’t. We aren’t a bunch of Twilight readers who have to decide “Team Jacob/Team Edward”.

I’m not an Arizonan and I haven’t given money to either candidate.

I won’t support Hayworth just because I want my pound of flesh from McCain. I am willing to acknowledge that “not McCain” might be worse than McCain. With Hayworth being significantly younger, that is a much bigger issue than for McCain who is unlikely to finish his term. Frankly, I’m just not well-informed on the race. Early on, it could be said that I was more sympathetic to Hayworth, which you are welcome to quote from my old posts.

Of course, at this point it doesn’t seem to matter because Arizona Republicans seem to have moved to McCain.

You being unwilling to respond is very convenient for you, but the only potential lie that regards Hayworth is that he knew about Simcox’ past and “accepted” his endorsement.

Let’s face it, there are lots of endorsements accepted from people who aren’t perfect. The correct response isn’t to brand it a lie but to say, “So what? McCain was endorsed by Lindsay Graham.”

If that’s a dealbreaker, there won’t be any endorsements. Besides “accepting an endorsement” is a huge range. Reagan accepted the endorsement of the Log Cabin crowd saying that he was happy that they agreed with him.

If you call somebody a liar, you’d better have countering facts and if you ban someone for making arguments you can’t counter, then you’re admitting that you can’t win the argument.

Again, you keep using the word “lie” but you have only applied that to one of the banned posters and I have not seen a post that exposes any of the “lies”. Granted, one post was obliterated, but another is still up there.

Honestly, I want to know what the lies are.

You keep using the word “lie” but (1) even you didn’t argue that this applied to the poster who was responded to after the ban and (2) I read the non-pulled post and I didn’t see a refutation of the “lie”. Frankly, I didn’t see anybody actually refuting them even though I thought they were weak arguments, tangential and beside the point.

Thank you for exposing your intellectual shortcomings.

I gave it some thought but I think I'm right in that this is not just a non-sequitur, but extremely non in its sequiturity.

I oppose Obama and the Democrats. I’m really not much concerned with cliquery.

One is banned for being a troll. A LIAR. A disinformation/disruptor. One is NOT banned for failing to contribute to a conversation

Actually, that is why someone is banned. A troll by definition contributes nothing. A disruptor stirs the pot just to watch the arguments. And, of course, there are the zealots or paid For the record, I don't agree with the argument, but it's reasonable and could be responded to by an intelligent person.

In addition, the specific post responded to was not a lie.

Look, if you want to justify it to yourself, fine. Ban whomever you want and cackle about it later. Charles Johnson and David Frum do it all the time.

For me, I never feel like I have to get the AH HA! at the end of every argument. If I win, I know it. But it's just one of hundreds of threads on a little message board. It doesn't change anything.

But to respond afterwards? Pretty low to me.

No, it’s not libertarian. It’s human nature.

People think that if they throw a tantrum and threaten to take their ball and go home that they will get their way.

Maybe. Once. But eventually the other players stop inviting that kid, buy their own ball and invite somebody else to play.

This is basically David Frum’s MO, by the way.

Wait, wait...I’m not following this.

You ban her, for, I guess, being a troll who adds nothing to the conversation.

But then, immediately afterwards, you respond to her.

Afterwards. So that she can’t respond to you.

Classy.

What just whizzed past my head? Is it a little green football?

If they are honest and not just bigots, then they are reacting to puritanism. Most American liberal opposition to religion is along these lines.

Who are the puritans today?

Personally, I think the problem with artists (and 100 times as much with art critics) is that they’re bored with art. You see this with the movies. They don’t produce things for audiences but for their peers.

But almost all classical art was popular. The reason why it’s preserved is that we remember the best and toss the rest away. Shakespeare gets reproduced all the time, but not so much for “Our American Cousin,” for example.

Speaking of “courage” in art, I’d have to ask the following: Would Norman Rockwell paint an image of Mohammed?

I agree with rintense, that is outside-the-box thinking. She’s good on TV, she should know the ins and outs of the party, she get along with a lot of the wings of the party and she’ll do what Steele won’t: Cheerlead for the party no matter what.

The RNC’s job is to say that Republicans are great and Democrats stink. Period. No matter how much you might dislike certain Republicans.