Most & Least Desired 2008 Republican Nominee

[Rightlane]

Do you agree/disagree with these findings?


Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Most & Least Desired 2008 Republican Nominee (Fourth Quarter Of 2007 Edition)

Here are the selections that were made with the total number of points each candidate tallied following his/her name in parentheses...

Most Desired Nominee For 2008

10. John Cox (3.0)
9. Alan Keyes (5.0)
8. Ron Paul (9.0)
7. Tom Tancredo (20.0)
6. John McCain (28.5)
5. Mike Huckabee (37.5)
4. Mitt Romney (45.0)
3. Duncan Hunter (51.0)
2. Rudy Giuliani (55.5)
1. Fred Thompson (76.5)

Least Desired Nominee For 2008

10. Fred Thompson (4.5)
9. Mike Huckabee (13.0)
8. Duncan Hunter (13.5)
7. Mitt Romney (20.0)
6. Rudy Giuliani (22.5)
5. Tom Tancredo (35.5)
4. John Cox (41.0)
3. John McCain (41.5)
2. Alan Keyes (46.5)
1. Ron Paul (74.5)

Net Score For The 2008 Nominees (Positive Minus Negative)

10. Ron Paul (-65.5)
9. Alan Keyes (-41.5)
8. John Cox (-38.0)
7. Tom Tancredo (-15.5)
6. John McCain (-13.0)
5. Mike Huckabee (24.5)
4. Mitt Romney (25.0)
3. Rudy Giuliani (33.0)
2. Duncan Hunter (37.5)
1. Fred Thompson (72.0)

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/10/rightofcenter_bloggers_select_4.php (http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/10/rightofcenter_bloggers_select_4.php)

[Lazarus]

Firstly, who is this Cox character? Never heard of him...

As to the results of the poll, I wanna make a comment here... We keep hearing fro the "national pollsters" that Fred is trailing Giuliani and way behind the Leftists on the Dark side... But as I walk around and hear the comments of individual Republicans, Im hearing just precisely the opposite...

Point: My dad and I went to our local country fair a couple of weeks ago, and as is the case, both the Pubs and Dems had booths set up to give out literature to the public... When I stopped to talk to the Pubs, I asked them who was gonna win the nomination... They tactfully answered with a smile and canned response that they were there to promote the party and support all the candidates... Then I said, "Ok, you've done your duty - Now, who's gonna win this nomination?" They looked at each other sheepishly for a moment, then in lockstep they all confessed that they were hoping and praying for Fred Thompson...

Point: Down here in the South, we have a rather well known "morning radio" team known as Rick and Bubba... If you are a native of the South you may be familiar with them... I don't usually listen to them but my secretary had them on the radio and told me that Jeri Thompson was gonna be their guest... So we listened together... Beyond the expected politeness that disc jockeys show their guests, these two were genuinely excited about having her on, and they ended their segment with her by assuring her that they were putting their support 100% behind Fred Thompson for the nomination, and were looking forward to her being our next First Lady... That may not sound like much to some of you here but these two are hugely popular in the Deep South and as such they have a certain influence on their audience...

The point Im making is that contrary to the numbers Im seeing from the pollsters, everywhere I go I see nothing but Thompson supporters... In short, I think the national pollsters are lying out their collective ass!!! I believe they are doing again what they tried to do in the last several elections - and that is to influence the election results with phoney, skewed poll results...

I believe they are lying, and Im hoping when the primary election occurs, Thompson is gonna embarass them to no end...



Oh, and I think the poll results on this thread are pretty accurate... I just wish Tancredo could have made a bigger splash...

[Gonzo67]

I disagree and here's why...

If you give a person a list of 10 items, and tell them to list those 10 items in order of their most liked, to least liked...

Then tell them to list those same 10 items in order from Least liked, to most liked....

The lists, logically should be mirror opposites.

If you list something in the number 2 slot of your list in order of MOST liked, that same item should fall at number 8 in your LEAST liked.

The fact that the 2 lists do NOT add up only shows that the people they asked to form the list were a bunch of people bored with meaningless polls and made up statistics, that they just started picking names at random to get the list done so they could get back to their beer.

Here's a group of 5 items for you. They are letters.

A, B, C, D, and E.

Now, list them in order of most proper placement in the alphabet song...

1 - A
2 - B
3 - C
4 - D
5 - E

Now list them in order of LEAST proper placement in Alphabet song...

1 - E
2 - D
3 - C
4 - B
5 - A

See how that works? :)

If you LIKE someone the most in a list of 10 people, by default that equates to you DISLIKE that same person the least.

[Lazarus]

Well that may be true, and its understandable why someone would naturally think that one list would be the direct opposite of the other (at first that was my reaction too), but there are some statisitical explanations as to why the two lists are not exactly the opposite... Its has to do with how people preceive the questions...

However........ That was not the question posed by the thread... Rightlane asked if we agree or disagree with the findings, not if we agree or disagree with the accuracy or relevance of the statistical method...

[Gonzo67]

However........ That was not the question posed by the thread... Rightlane asked if we agree or disagree with the findings, not if we agree or disagree with the accuracy or relevance of the statistical method...


Actually, that WAS an answer to the question he asked. I provided a direct answer first...


I disagree and here's why...


and the rest of the post was the "and here's why..." portion. :)

But aside from that, I prefer other areas of that web site... Most notably the application for the position of New York Times reporter... I feel that liberal application is slightly more accurate.


Comrade:

This is a simple test we use at The New York Times to ensure that our employees reflect a variety of social, political, and economic beliefs. Please read each question thoroughly, and then select your answer with a number 2 pencil. When you complete the exam, please place it in the box marked “Politburo” at the front of the room.

Remember, there are no wrong answers (except on questions 2,5,7,8,13 and 17).

If at any time you feel that you are being pressured in absentia by George Bush and his cronies, please notify a test monitor immediately.

1. Which of the following statements best describes your political leanings:

a. I consider myself a far more progressive Nancy Pelosi.

b. Bush lied, people died!

c. I have George Soros on speed dial.

d. I feel Stalin never really took it to that “next level.”

2. Complete the following: “Bush is to Hitler as…”

a. Jeffrey Dahmer is to Clay Aiken.

b. A serial rapist is to a benign snuggler.

c. Full-blown AIDS is to a hangnail.

d. A skyscraper is to Lincoln Logs.

3. The War in Iraq can best be described as:

a. An unmitigated disaster. And illegal.

b. The Mesopotamian Vietnam. And illegal.

c. Illegal. And Illegal.

d. Started by Bush on a dare from one of his “Skull & Bones” buddies after a week-long cocaine bender. And illegal.

4. You are a reporter in the field in Iraq. You come across a scene where you witness members of the resistance movement detonate an empty building, scatter teddy bears and children’s toys throughout the rubble, and douse the entire scene with goats’ blood. After a brief make-up session, they begin to wail at the sky while holding an unexploded shell casing that has “Infudell Xplosifs” written on the side in crayon. What do you do?

a. There are teddy bears in the rubble for goodness sake! I must set aside my training as an unbiased newsman and help dig the children out, although they were probably evaporated by the force of the blast.

b. Report the American soldiers’ war crimes to the proper authorities. In this case, the AP would have jurisdiction.

c. Apologize profusely for America’s punitive foreign policies that have forced these noble freedom fighters into such desperate measures, and then help to burn George Bush in effigy.

d. Immediately remove my Che Guevera t-shirt and replace it with an Osama bin Laden one to demonstrate my unity with the cause.


HERE (http://www.thenoseonyourface.com/) for the rest of the application... just scroll down.

[Lazarus]

Actually, that WAS an answer to the question he asked. I provided a direct answer first....Oops... You're right... Carry on...:D

I like that other survey... That's funny stuff...:thumb:


Edit: Im sorry but this one slayed me...:rotflmbo:
14. True or Not False: “Cheney” is an old Cherokee word that literally translated means “he who slaughters innocents, while his daughter munches squaw-wampum.”
a. True
b. Not False

Did Wyatt write these?:roar:

[Rhino]

If you give a person a list of 10 items, and tell them to list those 10 items in order of their most liked, to least liked...

Then tell them to list those same 10 items in order from Least liked, to most liked....

The lists, logically should be mirror opposites.That struck me too.

[Rhino]

Oops... You're right... Carry on...:DNo problem there. Gonzo carries on all the time! :rotflmbo:

[Rightlane]

What's new: Huckabee's 'surge' in Iowa

• ABC News -- Huckabee is surging in Iowa, new poll shows: The latest ABC News/Washington Post Poll of "likely" Republican caucus-goers in Iowa shows former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee a close second to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in the race there for the GOP presidential nomination. The results (posted in full here):

- Romney: 28% vs. 26% in July.
- Huckabee: 24%, vs. 8% in July.
- Fred Thompson: 15%, vs. 13%.
- Rudy Giuliani: 13%, vs. 14%.
- Sen. John McCain: 6%, vs. 8%.
- Rep. Ron Paul: 6%, vs. 2%.

No other candidate polled above 2%. There were 400 people surveyed for the poll, and each result has a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/11/whats-new-12.html (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/11/whats-new-12.html)

Key elements of the Republican base are coalescing around Mike Huckabee in Iowa, lifting this comparatively little-known candidate to the first rank in the first state to cast votes in the 2008 presidential contest.

Huckabee's support in Iowa has gone from 8 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post poll in late July to 24 percent now, up threefold. Mitt Romney has 28 percent support, essentially unchanged from 26 percent in July. With sampling error, they're about even.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=3892803&page=1 (http://www.abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=3892803&page=1)

[Aaron]

Fred the most, Guiliani the least. Ron Paul is a non-issue, so I don't even care about him. The rest are nobodies with no chance, except maybe Romney who I would much rather have over Guiliani.

[Teenager]

Firstly, who is this Cox character? Never heard of him...

As to the results of the poll, I wanna make a comment here... We keep hearing fro the "national pollsters" that Fred is trailing Giuliani and way behind the Leftists on the Dark side... But as I walk around and hear the comments of individual Republicans, Im hearing just precisely the opposite...

Point: My dad and I went to our local country fair a couple of weeks ago, and as is the case, both the Pubs and Dems had booths set up to give out literature to the public... When I stopped to talk to the Pubs, I asked them who was gonna win the nomination... They tactfully answered with a smile and canned response that they were there to promote the party and support all the candidates... Then I said, "Ok, you've done your duty - Now, who's gonna win this nomination?" They looked at each other sheepishly for a moment, then in lockstep they all confessed that they were hoping and praying for Fred Thompson...

Point: Down here in the South, we have a rather well known "morning radio" team known as Rick and Bubba... If you are a native of the South you may be familiar with them... I don't usually listen to them but my secretary had them on the radio and told me that Jeri Thompson was gonna be their guest... So we listened together... Beyond the expected politeness that disc jockeys show their guests, these two were genuinely excited about having her on, and they ended their segment with her by assuring her that they were putting their support 100% behind Fred Thompson for the nomination, and were looking forward to her being our next First Lady... That may not sound like much to some of you here but these two are hugely popular in the Deep South and as such they have a certain influence on their audience...

The point Im making is that contrary to the numbers Im seeing from the pollsters, everywhere I go I see nothing but Thompson supporters... In short, I think the national pollsters are lying out their collective ass!!! I believe they are doing again what they tried to do in the last several elections - and that is to influence the election results with phoney, skewed poll results...

I believe they are lying, and Im hoping when the primary election occurs, Thompson is gonna embarass them to no end...



Oh, and I think the poll results on this thread are pretty accurate... I just wish Tancredo could have made a bigger splash...

I concur. It should also be interesting to note that I visit a liberal forum(it's extremely left leaning), and there was a poll to see who they wanted for their candidate(eight options), Hillary was tied dead last(with zero votes), while Kucinich, Obama, and Edwards lead the poll. Several even commented that they don't understand how Hiltlery is supposedly winning in all the national polls, as they personally talked to very few supporters of Hillery. I think it's just a case of the media outright lying about these polls in an effort to sway national opinion.

[Aaron]

By any chance would this forum be LiberalForums? Bunch of lunatics, except for the conservatives who come on and troll the forums :D.

Yeah, funny how the most die-hard liberals hate Hillary, and usually the most die hards hate Guiliani, and both are the supposed front runners.

Of course they would like Kucinich though, he is a freakin communist.

[Teenager]

By any chance would this forum be LiberalForums? Bunch of lunatics, except for the conservatives who come on and troll the forums :D.

Yeah, funny how the most die-hard liberals hate Hillary, and usually the most die hards hate Guiliani, and both are the supposed front runners.

Of course they would like Kucinich though, he is a freakin communist.


Haha, yep! :thumb:

[Aaron]

Haha, yep! :thumb:

I used to post there but I got banned. I got along with a couple of the moderates and the Libertarians, along with the conservatives with Esteemed Status, and I even got along with some of the liberals who were pretty down to Earth people, but I couldn't stand this girl LeftGirl who compared the fetus to a parasite. So I got into some heated arguments with her and this idiot Totalitarian dude.

Edit-And was subsequently banned. Go figure.

[Teenager]

I used to post there but I got banned. I got along with a couple of the moderates and the Libertarians, along with the conservatives with Esteemed Status, and I even got along with some of the liberals who were pretty down to Earth people, but I couldn't stand this girl LeftGirl who compared the fetus to a parasite. So I got into some heated arguments with her and this idiot Totalitarian dude.

Edit-And was subsequently banned. Go figure.

Yeah, there are some really wacko people there, which is why it's interesting that not one of them voted for Hillary to win the presidency.

Btw, the site was actually sold by the owner, and the majority of the members moved to a new site, while the new owner of the old site is stuck with a bunch of trolls... :/

[Venus de Smilo]

Fred the most, Guiliani the least. Ron Paul is a non-issue, so I don't even care about him. The rest are nobodies with no chance, except maybe Romney who I would much rather have over Guiliani.
Romney can't beat Hillary. The only difference between Romney and Rudy on social issues is that Romney is in the closet about his positions. He did a come-to-Jesus shuffle when he decided to run, and that's the only difference. He's also a coward and a country club punk.

[Venus de Smilo]

By any chance would this forum be LiberalForums? Bunch of lunatics, except for the conservatives who come on and troll the forums :D.

Yeah, funny how the most die-hard liberals hate Hillary, and usually the most die hards hate Guiliani, and both are the supposed front runners.

Of course they would like Kucinich though, he is a freakin communist.
So is hillary, and she's more gutsy about it. Kucinich doesn't have the cojones to do half the commie things he dreams of. Hillary does.

[Venus de Smilo]

I used to post there but I got banned. I got along with a couple of the moderates and the Libertarians, along with the conservatives with Esteemed Status, and I even got along with some of the liberals who were pretty down to Earth people, but I couldn't stand this girl LeftGirl who compared the fetus to a parasite. So I got into some heated arguments with her and this idiot Totalitarian dude.

Edit-And was subsequently banned. Go figure.

Where is the site?

[Venus de Smilo]

Tancredo is out and forget Cox, Keyes and Paul. Of the remaining six, here's how I group them, starting with #1 Most desired:

1). Duncan Hunter
2). Fred Thompson
3). John McCain
4). Rudy Giuliani
5). Mike Huckabee
6). Mitt Romney

Ranking them in order of who can best beat Hillary:

1). Rudy Giuliani
2). Fred Thompson
3). Duncan Hunter
4). John McCain
5). Mitt Romney
6). Mike Huckabee

This 'beat Hillary' list could change, obviously, if Fred would get the lead out and show me he knows how to fight.

What's really sad is that Duncan Hunter doesn't have the name recognition and the money to surge. He has by far the best policy plans of all of them and the best voting record. He's solid as a dollar.

[Rhino]

Where is the site?http://liberalforums.com/

[Lazarus]

I concur. It should also be interesting to note that I visit a liberal forum(it's extremely left leaning), and there was a poll to see who they wanted for their candidate(eight options), Hillary was tied dead last(with zero votes), while Kucinich, Obama, and Edwards lead the poll. Several even commented that they don't understand how Hiltlery is supposedly winning in all the national polls, as they personally talked to very few supporters of Hillery. I think it's just a case of the media outright lying about these polls in an effort to sway national opinion.I think this is significant, regardless of the mental capacity of the libs in question - They are still going to be the ones to decide...

I believe this is now solid evidence that the MSM with the willing assistance of several of the national pollsters (who are supposed to be reliable and trustworthy:rolleyes:) are actively trying to control the outcome of this election by choosing the party candidates...

Hilary is NOT the choice of the Left, and Giuliani is not the choice of the Right... The question now is, will the voters vote their minds and consciences or will they vote like sheep and be led by the MSM lies...

[Rhino]

They could vote for the lesser of the evils as well. Only time will tell.

[Wyatt_Junker]

I heard the other day that Oprah is going to PR Obama's white ass in the same manner when she puffs another shitty tome and then it hits NYT bestseller status within minutes.

We will see what happens when Oprah lends her vagina to the Magic Negro. Together it is almost as if they are a Condi. Her menstrual cycle, his white boy routine, and the thin layer of dark frosting to make everyone get a diversity boner.

[Maggie_T]

And who is Mr. John Cox when he's at home? :question:

[Venus de Smilo]

http://liberalforums.com/
Thanks, Rhino!

[Teenager]

Thanks, Rhino!


That's kinda interesting. That site must've got sold. That was the old domain of the site before it got sold, and then most of the members moved to a new domain. The new one is called ontheleft.org which is where I post at.

[Rightlane]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20071130/cartoon20071130.gif

[oldcoastie]

I trust no polls.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I trust no polls.

I trust no RINO.

Go Fred!

[gnome]

I think this is significant, regardless of the mental capacity of the libs in question - They are still going to be the ones to decide...

I believe this is now solid evidence that the MSM with the willing assistance of several of the national pollsters (who are supposed to be reliable and trustworthy:rolleyes:) are actively trying to control the outcome of this election by choosing the party candidates...

Hilary is NOT the choice of the Left, and Giuliani is not the choice of the Right... The question now is, will the voters vote their minds and consciences or will they vote like sheep and be led by the MSM lies...

This matches something that I've noticed for a long time too--Hillary does NOT have a lot of support among my left-leaning friends. Needless to say, she has ZERO support among my right-leaning friends.

[MarlinsFan]

I trust no RINO.

I assume you're referring to Huckabee?

[BuckeyeMike]

I heard the other day that Oprah is going to PR Obama's white ass in the same manner when she puffs another shitty tome and then it hits NYT bestseller status within minutes.

We will see what happens when Oprah lends her vagina to the Magic Negro. Together it is almost as if they are a Condi. Her menstrual cycle, his white boy routine, and the thin layer of dark frosting to make everyone get a diversity boner.

Beyooootiful!!!!!!!!!!!:claps::rotflmbo: :thumb: :D :claps:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I assume you're referring to Huckabee?

Among others.

I agree with Rush, there's only one true Conservative in the race, and I will be voting for him.

"There was one candidate who did not display any moderateness or liberalism or have any of his past forays into those areas displayed, and that candidate was Fred Thompson." ~ Rush Limbaugh

[Rhino]

Originally Posted by Rush LimbaughWOW!!!! When did Rush start posting here?!?!?!? :rotflmbo:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

WOW!!!! When did Rush start posting here?!?!?!? :rotflmbo:

:biggrin:

The quote didn't quite come out like I thought it would, http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon11.gif. (I'll edit my post to reflect it correctly, :smirky:.)

[Reagan Knight]

Why is Alan Keyes on that list? Is this a list of everybody or just candidates that have declared? Because if that's the case I'm surprised Newt Gingrich isn't there.

[Rhino]

:biggrin:

The quote didn't quite come out like I thought it would, http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon11.gif. (I'll edit my post to reflect it correctly, :smirky:.)Wasn't necessary. I thought it was really funny.

[hdmundt]

The point Im making is that contrary to the numbers Im seeing from the pollsters, everywhere I go I see nothing but Thompson supporters... In short, I think the national pollsters are lying out their collective ass!!! I believe they are doing again what they tried to do in the last several elections - and that is to influence the election results with phoney, skewed poll results...

I believe they are lying, and Im hoping when the primary election occurs, Thompson is gonna embarass them to no end...

Oh, and I think the poll results on this thread are pretty accurate... I just wish Tancredo could have made a bigger splash...

Couldn't agree more. The Dims still have a lock on the big electoral-vote states. Whomever wants to beat 'em will have to be able to win BIG in the South and Midwest. I'm gonna enjoy watching the pundits scramble to explain Fred's "new-found popularity", when the time comes.

If the DNC bigwigs are in the Clintons' pockets (if?) and can strong-arm the nomination for her, I'm betting the loonatic left will not support her in the general election; they'll write-in for Hussein O'Bomber, Che, Mr. Natural, etc. I'm just hoping the vote-fer-the-female-no-matter-what crowd isn't as large as I'm afraid it is. Of course, she'll probably spend the week before the election doing a Gore-like screaming ninny routine to court the loons. They are a pretty gullible lot.

[Jack_Savage]

The quote didn't quite come out like I thought it would, ...


:rolleyes:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Right back atcha.

[Jack_Savage]

Right back atcha.


http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/shrug000.gif...................................... ..............http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon13.gif........................................ ...............http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/dimbulb0.gif

[dajoga]

Ranking them in order of who can best beat Hillary:

1). Rudy Giuliani
2). Fred Thompson
3). Duncan Hunter
4). John McCain
5). Mitt Romney
6). Mike Huckabee


What's really sad is that Duncan Hunter doesn't have the name recognition and the money to surge.

Why do you think Rudy can best beat sHrillary?

1-Huckabee
2-Thompson
3-Hunter
4-Romney
5-Rudy? I won't bother to vote if he gets it!

Huckabee had less name recognition and money than Hunter to start, but look at him now! Not sure why Hunter's not doing better.

I don't think Thompson really wants it--probably thought his L & O role would be enough!

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

:lala:

[Jack_Savage]

5-Rudy? I won't bother to vote if he gets it!



I don't think Thompson really wants it--probably thought his L & O role would be enough!


Smart. Real smart. That will get you exactly what you want.



God chooses what we go through; we choose how we go through it!


We choose both. Its called free will.

[Jack_Savage]

:lala:


http://freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/MChr.gifhttp://freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/MChr.gifhttp://freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/MChr.gifhttp://freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/MChr.gifhttp://freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/MChr.gifhttp://freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/MChr.gifhttp://freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/MChr.gifhttp://freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/MChr.gifhttp://freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/MChr.gifhttp://freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/MChr.gifhttp://freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/MChr.gif.http://freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/MChr.gifhttp://freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/MChr.gifhttp://freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/MChr.gif.

[Rhino]

D4R, I fixed the quote in your post. It didn't come out right. :lol:

Seriously though guys, we shouldn't nitpick. We all have trouble sometimes getting things to come out the way we want.

[Jack_Savage]

:roar:D4R, I fixed the quote in your post. It didn't come out right. :lol:

Seriously though guys, we shouldn't nitpick. We all have trouble sometimes getting things to come out the way we want.

.:roar:..http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/goofyeye.gif.....

[dajoga]

Smart. Real smart. That will get you exactly what you want.



I don't vote for baby-killers regardless of party, PERIOD!!

[Jack_Savage]

I don't vote for baby-killers regardless of party, PERIOD!!

Who asked you to?

[dajoga]

Who asked you to?

Rudy is--

[Jack_Savage]

Rudy is--

I don't think so. Seriously his campaign is about getting the vote out from people who put the country ahead of themselves.

Those who don't care who gets in deserve Hillary or Obama.

[dajoga]

I don't think so. Seriously his campaign is about getting the vote out from people who put the country ahead of themselves.



Huh? What's more important than human life? The country? That's what communism thinks too!

[Jack_Savage]

Huh? What's more important than human life? The country? That's what communism thinks too!

I am against abortion. Rudy is against abortion. Rudy will not appoint judges who favor abortion. To call him some baby killer may be in with some on the forum, but it is a lie. Even if you don't like something he did or is for, if the election is between him and Hillary or Obama, standing on your personal principal, and not voting (in effect supporting Hillary) puts your narrow point of view ahead of whats best for the country. Hillary is all for even late term abortion. How not voting for Rudy supports babys is beyond me.

People who think like that, are not the people Rudy is campaigning to. He is not wasting his time asking them to vote for him. He is looking to lead this nation. He is one of the few politicians who will look you in the eye and say what he is for, and not flinch when he knows it goes against what his audience feels. He explains it. And its okay with him of people don't agree. I like that about him.

It gets a little old hearing stupid lies repeated again and again on the forum. But thats what Pinheads do. Following what someone else says. It didn't matter much or at least it was excusable before war was declared on America, but now its different.
listen to a great Republican and former Congressmen, and now attorney General of Florida, Bill McCollum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM7hkxqmhFs

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Democrat4TheGhoul:
Rudy is against abortion.

:unsmile: Oh, yeah, his mantra goes something like this. "I'm against abortion. I hate abortion. I loathe abortion. I oppose abortion. I despise it with the depths of my being. I think it's yucky. It's icky-poo. Spit... ptui... I can't stand it! BUT... I think a woman should have the option to choose it."

Rudy will not appoint judges who favor abortion.

:unsmile: When did he ever make that pledge?

[Jack_Savage]

Democrat4TheGhoul:

B00!


:unsmile: Oh, yeah, his mantra goes something like this. "I'm against abortion. I hate abortion. I loathe abortion. I oppose abortion. I despise it with the depths of my being.

:unsmile: When did he ever make that pledge?

Many times. If you listened, instead of talking when he comes on you could here him. Listen to Congressman McCollum.

I am much more conservative than Rudy. Believe me when I tell you that. You want to set the bar so high only you can jump over it? Actually you probably can't jump over the bar you expect others to meet. But calling for it, excludes anyone you want from winning. What your doing, with the stupid name calling, only hurts all conservatives. I don't have any idea what you do it for.

Deep down I think your probably a pretty smart guy. I bet you have done more than 99% of the people walking down the street, keeping honest, not selling out, but what good is it if you lose because of being stupid? Remember who is voting in the general election. It isn't the 1% who hold your principals. Its the 99% who don't even know where Iraq is. Don't know who the Vice President is. They think what they think because some celebrity told them what to think and who was cool. The cookie-cut heros of today. What ever is in, is God.

You me and the rest of the conservative movement is to blame for letting it get to the point it is and its not going to get changed overnight. Your not some bystander to it all Longhorn, just making comments and taking shots at who doesn't jump as high as you want doesn't help. No. Maybe if you considered the part you played in letting it get to this point you would be a bit more tolerant of those who actually have to get up on the stage and present the solutions you say you want to have happen. Just saying your for Fred does what? Thats the easy way out.

What have you done to fix the problems that plague conservatives, like their ineffectivness, that you think makes it okay to call a GOP candidate a Ghoul?
Saying your sticking to some principal is a convenient way of doing nothing. Its easier than finding out what works and doing it. Plus who can prove your not just being lazy? Thats the kind of thinking that has gotten us into the mess we now face.

[HarvickFan29]

Huh? What's more important than human life? The country? That's what communism thinks too!

There won't be any human life if we don't keep the country safe. Therefore, we have to pick the best man for that job. National security is the most important issue, and what's best for the country concerning that is Rudy.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Democrat4TheGhoul:
B00!


:moo: Halloween's over.

If you listened, instead of talking when he comes on you could [hear] him. Listen to Congressman McCollum.

:unsmile: Why? Is he running for president? Or is it that The Ghoul can't speak for himself?

I am much more conservative than Rudy. Believe me when I tell you that. You want to set the bar so high only you can jump over it? Actually you probably can't jump over the bar you expect others to meet.

:unsmile: That's just nonsensical babbling.

But calling for it, excludes anyone you want from winning. What you[']r[e] doing, with the stupid name calling, only hurts all conservatives. I don't have any idea what you do it for.

:unsmile: Not that I haven't explained it to you. Maybe if you had listened instead of talking, you'd know.

Deep down I think your probably a pretty smart guy. I bet you have done more than 99% of the people walking down the street, keeping honest, not selling out, but what good is it if you lose because of being stupid? Remember who is voting in the general election. It isn't the 1% who hold your principals. Its the 99% who don't even know where Iraq is. Don't know who the Vice President is. They think what they think because some celebrity told them what to think and who was cool. The cookie-cut heros of today. What ever is in, is God.

You me and the rest of the conservative movement is to blame for letting it get to the point it is and its not going to get changed overnight. Your not some bystander to it all Longhorn, just making comments and taking shots at who doesn't jump as high as you want doesn't help. No. Maybe if you considered the part you played in letting it get to this point you would be a bit more tolerant of those who actually have to get up on the stage and present the solutions you say you want to have happen. Just saying your for Fred does what? Thats the easy way out.

What have you done to fix the problems that plague conservatives, like their ineffectivness, that you think makes it okay to call a GOP candidate a Ghoul?
Saying your sticking to some principal is a convenient way of doing nothing. Its easier than finding out what works and doing it. Plus who can prove your not just being lazy? Thats the kind of thinking that has gotten us into the mess we now face.

:unsmile: And what have you done, besides vote & post at a message board? If your anointed savior of the Republican Party fails to get the nomination, &/or fails to win in November, don't blame people like me. Blame The Ghoul, for refusing to part with his cherished pro-abortion views.

[Jack_Savage]

And what have you done, besides vote & post at a message board? If your anointed savior of the Republican Party fails to get the nomination, &/or fails to win in November, don't blame people like me.


I have not done enough that is for sure, But what I don't do is take any of the candidates running for granted. Making small, mean spirited comments about there physical appearance. I try and find whats useful from all of those who put themselves on the firing line from those who think this is the dumb old days before 9/11.

If I were to bet, I think you probably have done a lot in your time and I would hope more followed that lead of yours instead of the lazy mans excuse for action, of just complaining.

As for your comments about Rudys stand on abortion he has said again and again he is against it as opposed to Hillry and Obama who are bowing down and pleading with the pro-abortion groups for money. I don't know why you don't focus on them instead of the one who may be going up against them, Just in case Fred decides he has had enough?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

The MOST desired 2008 Republican Nominee is the one that best exemplifies and represents the principles and standards of the Republican Party and platform -- that means the one that holds the most issues the same as the platform. Consequently, the LEAST desired is the one that is the least representative holding the least amount of issues the same.

There is only one candidate that comes closest to the mark of Most Desired (and even Rush sees it). But many X's mark the spot for Least Desired.

Go Fred!

[Rhino]

As for your comments about Rudys stand on abortion he has said again and again he is against it as opposed to Hillry and Obama who are bowing down and pleading with the pro-abortion groups for money. I don't know why you don't focus on them...You know very well why he, and others, focus on them. Rudy's "hate" of abortion didn't start until this election did. He has said he is pro-choice. He has actively supported Planned Parenthood. He has refused to take a firm stance on Roe v. Wade. Since this election began, he has changed his stances on the 2nd Amendment, on civil unions for gays and on partial-birth abortion, so there is plenty of reason to doubt this flip-flop as well. There is far more than enough reason for people here to focus on his quaffling abortion stance, so your attempted lectures to the contrary just sound like hollow pontificating. All of this has been pointed out to you before, so it is you who is ignoring things here. Just because you are able to sweep such things under the rug does not mean that everyone else should. You do not decide what is important to other people, so please stop trying to lecture folks and shape the form of the discussion.

[Jack_Savage]

All of this has been pointed out to you before, so it is you who is ignoring things here. Just because you are able to sweep such things under the rug does not mean that everyone else should. You do not decide what is important to other people, so please stop trying to lecture folks and shape the form of the discussion.

I don't agree. Unless your saying that those who post in favor of their candidate is lecturing? With the amount of vile posts aimed against Rudy, to call my support of him lecturing is puzzling.

As far as trying to shape the form of the discussion who is doing that?

[Rhino]

Read my post again. I didn't call your support anything. I was speaking of your attempted lectures to others on how they should debate here. They are allowed to focus on whatever they want, or ridicule whatever they want, within the rules of course. You lecture quite a bit, and people can get annoyed by it. If you aren't aware of it, maybe you should be.

[Jack_Savage]

Read my post again. I didn't call your support anything. I was speaking of your attempted lectures to others on how they should debate here. They are allowed to focus on whatever they want, or ridicule whatever they want, within the rules of course. You lecture quite a bit, and people can get annoyed by it. If you aren't aware of it, maybe you should be.


Do you think they would like it if I focused on their candidate and really started in on him like they do about Rudy? I don't think so. I have been mild in my mind with calling for support of all the candidates. What if I called Fred the kind of things other members call Rudy would they prefer that? Calling conservatives Ghouls is okay with you?

Maybe you could give me an example of what you call me lecturing? Is it in replying to a post, or just my messages in general, or to those who voted for Bush then worked to obstruct him. Those people I guess you could term me lecturing too or ticked off with anyway. But that isn't the members here is it? I can't think of any other members who do that. Maybe Ron Paul supporters, yes, but not the other members. Now that you mention it, some of the messages to me seem like I am being lectured too.

I always figured in replying to a post, if the person can dish it out, they are big enough for a similar reply.

[Rhino]

Do you think they would like it if I focused on their candidate and really started in on him like they do about Rudy? I don't think so. I have been mild in my mind with calling for support of all the candidates. What if I called Fred the kind of things other members call Rudy would they prefer that?If you have something to back it up, go right ahead. I think it would be out of character though, since you don't seem to have the kind of disdain for Fred that some have for Rudy.

Calling conservatives Ghouls is okay with you?That's common satire. It's a staple of internet forums.

Maybe you could give me an example of what you call me lecturing?I just did. But generally it's in trying to debate people on how they post rather than what they post. I'm not going to pretend that that doesn't happen occasionally, but it's get very old, very fast when it gets repetitive. It's certainly called for when someone goes too far, with decorum for instance, but it's not something to be used regularly in order to try to shape the nature of the debate.

[Jack_Savage]

If you have something to back it up, go right ahead. I think it would be out of character though, since you don't seem to have the kind of disdain for Fred that some have for Rudy.

That's common satire. It's a staple of internet forums.

I just did. But generally it's in trying to debate people on how they post rather than what they post. I'm not going to pretend that that doesn't happen occasionally, but it's get very old, very fast when it gets repetitive. It's certainly called for when someone goes too far, with decorum for instance, but it's not something to be used regularly in order to try to shape the nature of the debate.

Its a tough one to try and figure. Gee what should I say to someone who is making crude remarks about the candidate I am for? Do you think being kinder and more gentle would help? Who should I look to, maybe the Doctor in his replys to Ron Paul supporters? Or Timberwolf?

When replying to a post as I said on my eariler post, I always figured if a person can dish it out, they are big enough to take a similar reply. As far as in general goes, maybe its just my style you don't like. I try and shape the topic to get my point across as clear as possible. However out of respect for you, I will take a look at it.

[Rhino]

I think you realize that some people are going to post in a certain style whether someone else likes it or not. Whether or not you also post in that vein is up to you. I'm sure they can take it. It's when you try to lecture on how others should post that gets people miffed sometimes. Personally, I usually find that 'sinking to that level' doesn't really get me anywhere, but that's a personal choice. Besides, if we get tied up in how others may or may not be posting, it detracts from the debate itself. Some people also take it personally. So, if we aren't actually debating the subject of the thread, and maybe annoying others, what is the point in being here? In essence, you tried to shape the form of the debate by deciding what was relevant to address and what was not. People will decide for themselves what is or is not important or relevant to them. Whether you agree with them or not, people have valid reasons to question Rudy on these issues. You should focus on those issues themselves rather that on what should or should not be relevant, and stop trying to dismiss as irrelevant things that have already had reasons stated for being relevant.

And by perpetuating this exchange, we are again getting away from the topic. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Democrat4TheGhoul:
Making small, mean spirited comments about the[ir] physical appearance.

:question: Who's doing that?

:unsmile: Oh yeah, you didn't read my comments on why I call him "The Ghoul".

[Jack_Savage]

I think you realize that some people are going to post in a certain style whether someone else likes it or not. Whether or not you also post in that vein is up to you. I'm sure they can take it. It's when you try to lecture on how others should post that gets people miffed sometimes. Personally, I usually find that 'sinking to that level' doesn't really get me anywhere, but that's a personal choice. Besides, if we get tied up in how others may or may not be posting, it detracts from the debate itself. Some people also take it personally. So, if we aren't actually debating the subject of the thread, and maybe annoying others, what is the point in being here? In essence, you tried to shape the form of the debate by deciding what was relevant to address and what was not. People will decide for themselves what is or is not important or relevant to them. Whether you agree with them or not, people have valid reasons to question Rudy on these issues. You should focus on those issues themselves rather that on what should or should not be relevant, and stop trying to dismiss as irrelevant things that have already had reasons stated for being relevant.

And by perpetuating this exchange, we are again getting away from the topic. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.


Sure. But Rudy had to get elected in New York. He said he personally is against abortion. Very much against it. But he also said he is for the other person making that decision for themselves. He promised he would not appoint judges who believed abortion was okay. Or words to that effect.

When people continually post that Rudy is a baby killer, that is a factual lie and I can only conclude it is done to shape a decietful argument. I'm not trying to lecture to people, unless my authorative manner sounds like that. I believe strongly in what I'm saying. I try and preface my comments with IMO, I do it on purpose so that I don't sound like lecturing. All I have is my opinion. So I reply with what I think is important to view when it comes to all the GOP candidates. The only one I have critisized is McCain and I wish I hadn't done it. It only pissed off McCain supporters. And in the larger picture, I can live with McCain over Hillary or one of Soros's other followers.

Anyway, maybe in my effort to be precise, it comes off as lecturing. Or maybe when I get disgusted with the fools who abandoned Bush, it comes off as aimed at other forum members, but really that isn't my intent.

If you recall I have never complained about another forum member since I have been posting here. I really do think this forum has the best membership of any forum out there. I don't agree with some, but if I agreed with everyone, this probably wouldn't be the best forum. (or maybe it would be the very best I don't know havent found on like that yet) All of the posters are serious and I take it that way, I hope I am also.

I don't know what is going on lately, but this is the first time I have seen you step in and grab the wheel this firmly. Up till now I have told others how well you seem to guide the whole room with a touch here and a touch there, letting it become what it is naturally. I think your a terrific administrator and will of course read your counsel with respect. I think the forum is working like a forum is supposed to work, no complaints from me on that.

[Rhino]

As for judges, he said "constructionist", which is generally seen to be anti-abortion.

Some people loosely use the term baby killer to refer to those that support allowing women to continue killing babies. While that may not strictly be accurate in a technical sense, that's why they use the term. While you may not agree with the application of the term, that is where it comes from, and why some apply it to Rudy.

None of your political criticisms or opinions are being portrayed as lecturing. That only applied to when you try to tell others how they should post. I think you are applying my comments too widely.

[MarlinsFan]

abortion shouldn't even be up to the SCOTUS to decide. That should've been up to the States

[Jack_Savage]

As for judges, he said "constructionist", which is generally seen to be anti-abortion.

Some people loosely use the term baby killer to refer to those that support allowing women to continue killing babies. While that may not strictly be accurate in a technical sense, that's why they use the term. While you may not agree with the application of the term, that is where it comes from, and why some apply it to Rudy.

None of your political criticisms or opinions are being portrayed as lecturing. That only applied to when you try to tell others how they should post. I think you are applying my comments too widely.


I have no problem with the other members of the forum and I pretty much have restricted my comments about Rudy and the posters against Rudy to simple replys. Since Rudy will probably will be the nominee and if that sounds like I'm lecturing, well I don't know to say it differently. I would say to other members who don't like Rudy, to expect me to reply in support of him when theys go on and on about things that are false. Or If I think they are forgetting something important. Again, I'm not lecturing anyone, just sayin. I say the same things when other members speak ill of Fred. I don't think it helps. Do you?

[Rhino]

I wasn't speaking of your comments about Rudy. If you have questions, could we take it to PMs, and let the thread get back on track?

[The_Elucidator]

Back on track about the original intent.

Least Favorite:

GOP:
McCain
Paul

RATS:
Clinton
Biden

Most Favorite:

GOP:
FDT
Hunter

RAT's:
None

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Democrat4TheGhoul:
Sure. But Rudy had to get elected in New York. He said he personally is against abortion. Very much against it. But he also said he is for the other person making that decision for themselves.

:unsmile: Translation: He's pro-abortion.

[Gonzo67]

Translation: He's pro-abortion.


I have to disagree with you on this one point.

I myself am Anti-Abortion. When it comes to my wife or girlfriend and my child, I will firmly say there will be no abortion.

But I also feel that I have no right to make that decision for YOU.

I will listen, and even appreciate anyone that speaks with experience about a subject and tells me of alternatives. I will thank a person for advice, especially if he or she has experience with the topic, has lived through that choice, whether it's advice that supports or opposes my belief and feeling.

But I will neither thank nor accept ANYONE "forbidding" me to live my life and make my own choices.

A woman who has had an abortion has every right to approach others facing that same choice and telling them what she went though. She has every right SUGGESTING that someone not make the same mistake she made. But she has NO right forbidding someone from learning from their own mistakes just as she has done.

I'm sorry LP, but I disagree. Not believing you have the right to live someone else's life for them is NOT the same as being "pro-abortion".

[Jack_Savage]

:unsmile: Translation: He's pro-abortion.

Are you lecturing me again?

[Jack_Savage]

I have to disagree with you on this one point.

I myself am Anti-Abortion. When it comes to my wife or girlfriend and my child, I will firmly say there will be no abortion.

But I also feel that I have no right to make that decision for YOU.

I will listen, and even appreciate anyone that speaks with experience about a subject and tells me of alternatives. I will thank a person for advice, especially if he or she has experience with the topic, has lived through that choice, whether it's advice that supports or opposes my belief and feeling.

But I will neither thank nor accept ANYONE "forbidding" me to live my life and make my own choices.

A woman who has had an abortion has every right to approach others facing that same choice and telling them what she went though. She has every right SUGGESTING that someone not make the same mistake she made. But she has NO right forbidding someone from learning from their own mistakes just as she has done.

I'm sorry LP, but I disagree. Not believing you have the right to live someone else's life for them is NOT the same as being "pro-abortion".

Very good post. Better than I said it.

[Rhino]

If one believes that life begins at conception, then that makes it murder. In that case, forbidding others to do it is certainly appropriate. It seems obvious that Rudy doesn't believe that.

But, this isn't really an abortion thread.

[Jack_Savage]

If one believes that life begins at conception, then that makes it murder. In that case, forbidding others to do it is certainly appropriate. It seems obvious that Rudy doesn't believe that.

But, this isn't really an abortion thread.

This is about the best Republicans and if you hurry, Rudy is on Hannity and Comes right now. Really interesting. This guy is the real deal. The most desired Republican in the race. He explained why he isn't bashing other Republicans. He believes in the Republicans 11th Commandment, never critisize another Repbulican unless he is attacked of course. Anyway its real interesting.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

If one believes that life begins at conception, then that makes it murder. In that case, forbidding others to do it is certainly appropriate. It seems obvious that Rudy doesn't believe that.

As one of those who 1) believes that life begins at conception, and 2) has had an abortion and so is intimately knowledgeable about the issue, I completely concur with Rhino's assessment.

Making a choice to get a tattoo, piercing, or any other body modification is, and should be completely free to make that choice. When their "choice" effects another's (the new life's) "choice" (i.e. right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), that's a whole different ball game.

But also as Rhino pointed out, this is not an abortion thread. Sorry if I have added to the aside, but I felt compelled to respond.

[Jack_Savage]

If one believes that life begins at conception, then that makes it murder. In that case, forbidding others to do it is certainly appropriate. It seems obvious that Rudy doesn't believe that.

But, this isn't really an abortion thread.

Should we prosecute those who commit the crime, or is it their choice?

[Rhino]

The most desired Republican in the race.By you and a few others, yes. Not to the rest of us.

Should we prosecute those who commit the crime, or is it their choice?You'll note that my post was non-attributional. I wasn't necessarily stating my position, nor that of anyone else. I was merely stating the logic that one side of the debate is based on.

You'll also note that this is still not an abortion thread. However, if you guys want to debate Rudy's abortion stance, I can split that out into a new thread.

[Jack_Savage]

By you and a few others, yes. Not to the rest of us.



But he will be. At least the way things are going. Fred has not shifted gears, and if not Fred then who? When I say who, I mean who would be best for the country at large, not sombodys personal choice?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

You are not omnipotent. The primaries haven't happened yet. We are not forced to accept who YOU deem the #1 because we haven't even had a chance to vote yet. You can predict all you want, but when you state flat out, at this point, when things are still up in the air, you are making a blanket statement not rooted in truth. THAT'S what steams some of us. You're free to believe him to be the best candidate, but that doesn't MAKE HIM the best candidate. He certainly is NOT the best representaive of the Conservative principles and values of the Republican party, and no amount of wishing on your part is going to make that so.

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/fred08.gif

[BuckeyeMike]

D4R is just one of the reasons why I find the "ignore" button so convenient.

[Jack_Savage]

D4R is just one of the reasons why I find the "ignore" button so convenient.

I would have guessed it was because you find it too difficult to come up with a logical reply to the questions I posed to you. But if this type of post does it for you, by all means keep doing it. I find it most interesting.

[Jack_Savage]

You are not omnipotent. The primaries haven't happened yet. We are not forced to accept who YOU deem the #1 because we haven't even had a chance to vote yet.

Who is forcing you to do anything. You have stated that condition several times. Being forced. What is it that makes you feel that way? I can't be responsible for that feeling in you.

He certainly is NOT the best representaive of the Conservative principles and values of the Republican party, and no amount of wishing on your part is going to make that so.


Are you lecturing to me? Sounds like it. Where does it say this forum functions at your whim and caprice? Maybe if you brought out those contenders who you think have a better chance at beating the Soros candidates, it would help in understanding what is bothering you?

Who has demonstrated the abilities to win better than Rudy? I also like the stand Fred has on the issues, but he hasn't shown he is effective at winning the Presidency or really any effective level of entheusiasm for the office of President.

You complain about Rudys position on abortion where he believes personally that it is one of the most horrible acts a person can take, but also believes it is the mothers choice to take in early pregnancy. He believes she has to face the consequences for that decision. If you disagree and consider it murder, do you think then that the mother should be prosecuted and punished? Does your candidate believe that? I don't get what your saying. Something is troubling you but it doesn't really make any sense. Rudy has said he would appoint judges in the mold of Justice Roberts. Whats so offensive to you about that?

Forums are a place for ideas and opinions to be shared, I have no idea what it is that bothers you about that?

[Rhino]

Are you lecturing to me? Sounds like it. Where does it say this forum functions at your whim and caprice?Oh, spare us the sarcasm. She said nothing about how the forum functions. Give it a rest.

Forums are a place for ideas and opinions to be shared, I have no idea what it is that bothers you about that?Apparently not a thing, since that's exactly what she was doing. Are you simply trying to be irritating, or can you truly not tell the difference?

[Jack_Savage]

Oh, spare us the sarcasm. She said nothing about how the forum functions. Give it a rest.

Do you think I am forcing people to vote for Rudy?

Apparently not a thing, since that's exactly what she was doing. Are you simply trying to be irritating, or can you truly not tell the difference?

So am I. Its a two way street. What would lead you to conclude I am being irritating. I have no idea what you or Homeschooler is talking about other than complaining about support for Rudy.

Complaints about his position on abortion but refusing to fully explain what the problem is is also irritating. Like his believiing it is the mothers responsibliity and accountability for having it. Nobody wants to answer that question, but they do want to continue to blame Rudy. If that is irritating you, why have a forum?

[Rhino]

Do you think I am forcing people to vote for Rudy?She didn't say that.

So am I. Its a two way street. What would lead you to conclude I am being irritating.By lecturing again on "Forums are a place for ideas and opinions to be shared", when she was in fact sharing her opinion, and then backing it up with the condescending "I have no idea what it is that bothers you about that", when she was indeed doing "that" that you are attempting to lecture her on.

I have no idea what you or Homeschooler is talking about other than complaining about support for Rudy. I am starting to realize that you do indeed have some difficulty understanding the difference between posting and debating political opinions, and trying to lecture others on what should be posted, or how it should be posted. You need to understand that difference. You also need to lay off Homes for a while. You seem to be on some kind of vendetta. If you have a chip on your shoulder concerning her, or me or anyone else, maybe you should just take a break for a while until that chip is gone.

Complaints about his position on abortion but refusing to fully explain what the problem is is also irritating. Like his believiing it is the mothers responsibliity and accountability for having it. Nobody wants to answer that question, but they do want to continue to blame Rudy. If that is irritating you, why have a forum?That doesn't bother me. That's debating. And those questions have been answered. Just because you don't like the answers does not mean that anyone else is under the obligation to restate or further explain those answers. Certainly we would like people to do it in instances like that, but they are not required to. That is their choice. And if they make that choice, it is not your job to start lecturing on what they did or did not post, or on how they posted it. You actually seem to be getting worse at this because I think you may have your dander up after yesterday. Try chilling out some.

[Jack_Savage]

She didn't say that.



We are not forced to accept who YOU deem the #1 because we haven't even had a chance to vote yet.

Whats that?


I am starting to realize that you do indeed have some difficulty understanding the difference between posting and debating political opinions, and trying to lecture others on what should be posted, or how it should be posted. You need to understand that difference. You also need to lay off Homes for a while. You seem to be on some kind of vendetta.

Not at all, just responding to her posts to me. I didn't bring the subject up.

[Rhino]

Whats that?It's "We are not forced to accept who YOU deem..." Just what it says, which says nothing about forcing anyone to vote for anyone.

Not at all, just responding to her posts to me. I didn't bring the subject up.You brought up what I've been talking about. She did not.

[Jack_Savage]

It's "We are not forced to accept who YOU deem..." Just what it says, which says nothing about forcing anyone to vote for anyone.


I never said anything about forcing anyone, just the opposite, it is out of choice that Rudy is the front runner. Out of his leadership and heart that make him the most desired candidate to date. He earned that feeling people have of him. I think all of the GOP candidates show that quality over what is on the other side.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Gonzo67:
I'm sorry LP, but I disagree. Not believing you have the right to live someone else's life for them is NOT the same as being "pro-abortion".

:unsmile: No, but believing that somebody else should have the right to take the life of an innocent person is. This is what separates "pro-abortion" from "pro-life". Those of us who are pro-life know that the fœtus is a living, breathing human being. Those who aren't pro-life will always babble some lame claptrap about not interfering in a woman's right to make her own choice... about killing her own baby.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Democrat4TheGhoul:
Are you lecturing me again?

:whatever:

:unsmile: Don't try to project your bad habits on me.

[Jack_Savage]

:unsmile: No, but believing that somebody else should have the right to take the life of an innocent person does. This is what separates "pro-abortion" from "pro-life". Those of us who are pro-life know that the fœtus is a living, breathing human being. Those who aren't pro-life will always babble some lame claptrap about not interfering in a woman's right to make her own choice... about killing her own baby.


Do you think women who commit that offence should be prosecuted for the crime of murder? Or be left alone?

[mkafrica]

Do you think women who commit that offence should be prosecuted for the crime of murder? Or be left alone?

Personally, prosecuted in a murder trial. But that's JMHO.

[Rhino]

I never said anything about forcing anyone...You insinuated that she claimed as such.

"Do you think I am forcing people to vote for Rudy?"

I merely pointed out that she had said no such thing.

...just the opposite, it is out of choice that Rudy is the front runner.She was just addressing the impression your post gave, i.e. that Rudy is a foregone conclusion, so we might as well give up any other hopes. Though you may well have not intended it that way, it did kind of sound that way, which is why she responded the way she did. And if you had simply offered up the above clarification at that time, this entire exchange between us could have been avoided.

[Rhino]

Do you think women who commit that offence should be prosecuted for the crime of murder? Or be left alone?It would make the argument a whole lot easier if there was a scientific way to prove when life begins, i.e. prove the existence of a human soul.

[Suzie]

It would make the argument a whole lot easier if there was a scientific way to prove when life begins, i.e. prove the existence of a human soul.
That doesn't matter. If you don't abort a life will grow and continue to grow until it meets a natural death or is murdered. You ending the process by choice at any point takes away a growing life, and that's murder.

[mkafrica]

Man, what happened to the original topic for this thread?

My preferred order of Nominee:

1. Duncan Hunter
2. Fred Thompson
3. Is there even anyone else?

The ones I DON'T want, in the order that I would want them least:

1. Rudy Giulani
2. Ron Paul
3. Mike Huckabee
4. John McCain

[Suzie]

Man, what happened to the original topic for this thread?



You are right. The never say a bad word about Rudy crowd derailed yet another thread and I didn't realize it because I have some posters on ignore. Sorry, my apologies. I will try not to get sucked into another thread destroying pro Rudy lecture unwittingly.

[Rhino]

That doesn't matter. If you don't abort a life will grow and continue to grow until it meets a natural death or is murdered. You ending the process by choice at any point takes away a growing life, and that's murder.It does matter, but as we've both noted, this isn't supposed to be an abortion thread.

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m212/omahabob/hijacked.jpg

[Jack_Savage]

You insinuated that she claimed as such.

"Do you think I am forcing people to vote for Rudy?"

that was a question to you.

I merely pointed out that she had said no such thing.

And I pointed out that Rudy is the front runner because of the affection this nation has for him.

She was just addressing the impression your post gave, i.e. that Rudy is a foregone conclusion, so we might as well give up any other hopes. Though you may well have not intended it that way, it did kind of sound that way, which is why she responded the way she did. And if you had simply offered up the above clarification at that time, this entire exchange between us could have been avoided.

That was her impression, not mine. I said nothing about giving up hopes, just the opposite. I have no idea why she responded like she did. Again, I don't think anyone is supporting Rudy out of being forced. He is the most favored candidate because of what he has earned. His past experience. His heart. He said on Hannitys show last night, how much respect he has for all of the other GOP candidates and how he thinks attacking other hopefulls is a mistake. The race is ongoing and I support him to the fullest. I don't take shots at other GOP candidates except for one. I have given my thinking on that many times.

[Suzie]

Again my apologies. I guess that is the drawback of the ignore feature. You can't see any of the things that caused you to use it in the first place.

[Jack_Savage]

It would make the argument a whole lot easier if there was a scientific way to prove when life begins, i.e. prove the existence of a human soul.

So then do you think Rudys position on it, that it is the mothers decision that should be the law, even though he is adamantly opposed to it personally, is one of the things that has made him the most favored candidate to date?

I think it is, and I think because of that he becomes a much tougher person for Hillary or Obama to beat. I think he will win the general election. That will be in my opinion what is the best for America.

[Rhino]

that was a question to you.During our discussion of your reply to her.

And I pointed out that Rudy is the front runner because of the affection this nation has for him. Yes. So? That wasn't what we were discussing.

That was her impression, not mine. I said nothing about giving up hopes, just the opposite.And, as I said, all of this could have been avoided had you simply explained that.

I have no idea why she responded like she did.You could have asked.

Again, I don't think anyone is supporting Rudy...have given my thinking on that many times.And again, I wasn't discussing Rudy, nor your support for him. I know why you support him. Everybody does, unless they dozed off for a few weeks. I was discussing lectures about how things are posted here, and accusations about things that never occurred.

[Rhino]

So then do you think Rudys position on it, that it is the mothers decision that should be the law, even though he is adamantly opposed to it personally, is one of the things that has made him the most favored candidate to date?No. Not unless he's trying to get votes from liberals. I think his position (or lack thereof) is one of the reasons he is losing ground. That, and some other issues.

[Jack_Savage]

No. Not unless he's trying to get votes from liberals. I think his position (or lack thereof) is one of the reasons he is losing ground. That, and some other issues.

Well the polls are fluid thats for sure, but Rudy still shows a 12 point lead in Fl. according to your post yesterday. Overall he is doing very well against Hillary and Obama, better than the other GOP contenders, and he hasn't resorted to personal attacks on the others.

As far as his position on abortion I would have been for prosecution of those who committed the offense, but after listening to Gonzo67 excellent and articulate view of it,I just don't know. I have a better feeling about Rudys position also. Gonzo has a point, and he is no liberal. So I would think Rudys position is one of the reasons his, never ending lead in the polls, jumps out as remarkable. He cares about people way more than me. His genuine personability reminds me of Luc. a nice person.

If others attack him, his support will grow because of that, in my opinion. Its important to remember why he is called the peoples Mayor. He earned that title.

[Rhino]

The post yesterday was an average of polls. The one I consider most reliable shows him eight points behind. But I don't trust polls all that much, and it's still too early to tell.

Rudy's stated position on abortion is not so different from some others in the past. I think part of his problem is that so many people just aren't sure what his position really is, because he's changed it so many times. The same thing goes for gun control.

[Jack_Savage]

The post yesterday was an average of polls. The one I consider most reliable shows him eight points behind. But I don't trust polls all that much, and it's still too early to tell.

Rudy's stated position on abortion is not so different from some others in the past. I think part of his problem is that so many people just aren't sure what his position really is, because he's changed it so many times. The same thing goes for gun control.

He was on Hannity last night, didn't come off as having any problem with how it was going. He said he expeced to get the majority of the 29 primarys, and had 10 more states in the general election than any other GOP contender. He was confident, relaxed and warm as always. Next time he is on, check out his position on the various issues. He is pretty clear. Contrast him to another person running and any change in position is explained with genuine sincerety showing him heads and shoulders above the Soros people. Since I like most of the GOP candidates, I guess McCain is the only one who stands out as not very genuine. But he is still better than Hillary and Obama. No. I don't see Rudy as havig the problems of the others, and more important, from what I pick up listening to him, neither does he. Not arrogance on his part, but he has been in tough tough situations, hits put on his life, he can stand up to trials of a primary season. He has the sea-legs for the challanges America faces. I sense that the people feel safe with his leadership. That is unique from any other candidate at this point.

[Suzie]

The post yesterday was an average of polls. The one I consider most reliable shows him eight points behind. But I don't trust polls all that much, and it's still too early to tell.

Rudy's stated position on abortion is not so different from some others in the past. I think part of his problem is that so many people just aren't sure what his position really is, because he's changed it so many times. The same thing goes for gun control.

I thought we were going to quit following the thread hijacker? or are you still responding to them and I can't see? At any rate, I will not continue with the abortion side road, hopefully to return this thread out of respect to the person who posted it and wants to hear the comments on their topic.

[Rhino]

We're back on topic.

[Rhino]

He was confident, relaxed and warm as always.He's supposed to look that way. That's politics.

Next time he is on, check out his position on the various issues. He is pretty clear. Contrast him to another person running and any change in position is explained with genuine sincerety showing him heads and shoulders above the Soros people.He isn't running against the Soros people yet. And I'm familiar with his positions, so I have no desire to watch him. I'm not voting based on personality. Yes, he is clear on his positions. He was also clear on them when they were quite different positions.

I sense that the people feel safe with his leadership. That is unique from any other candidate at this point.You sense that because you like him, a lot. And that is in no way unique from any other candidate. I sometimes wonder if your apparent fascination with him isn't clouding your judgement somewhat. I'm not trying to get personal here, but you do seem to fawn over him quite a lot.

[Jack_Savage]

He's supposed to look that way. That's politics.
Of course, but many who are supposed to don't. He does. Thats a plus for those who are sitting on the fence, or for some candidate who isn't showing he is effective, to switch if they are putting the country ahead of their own feelings.

He isn't running against the Soros people yet. And I'm familiar with his positions, so I have no desire to watch him. I'm not voting based on personality. Yes, he is clear on his positions. He was also clear on them when they were quite different positions.

Thats what I mean, he is genuine in what he believes. His opinions change and he isn't afraid to speak to that. I would rather have that then someone who sticks with something he isn't genuinly for, trying to show how right he is. In a tough election, and this will be one, the smart thing to do is look at who can win the general election. Thats what my eye is on. Not winning Iowa.

You sense that because you like him, a lot. And that is in no way unique from any other candidate. I sometimes wonder if your apparent fascination with him isn't clouding your judgement somewhat. I'm not trying to get personal here, but you do seem to fawn over him quite a lot.

Maybe if you could get specific about what you call fawning? I wouldn't put that spin on it. But since your question is probably more about what it is that I like so much about the guy, it is his heart and courage. In the face of people who call him a ghoul he is steady, even, fair, and untroubled with the segment of society that is so hollow they follow what the peer groups, paid for by lobby groups like moveon.org and other Soros teams put out. In that respect he is running against the entire George Soros machine right now as they know he has a real shot at winning the general election. Who else has shown that much effectivness and electibility?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Democrat4TheGhoul:
Do you think women who commit that offence should be prosecuted for the crime of murder? Or be left alone?

:unsmile: Personally, I think the woman should be prosecuted for manslaughter.

[Gonzo67]

Personally, I think the woman should be prosecuted for manslaughter.


That's a dangerous position to take up LP... You do know there's no statute of limitations on murder. You do know that there are some in these very forums, that you consider 'friend" and you have always been polite to and supporting of who are guilty of this.

So do you extend the title of criminal to them?

What about a woman who has been raped, whether by a stranger or a family member. Would you be willing to call her a murderer because she could not handle the pain and torment of giving birth to a child that is the result of something she did not ask for? The result of an event that horrible and traumatic?

What about a woman who develops complications? Giving birth has a 90% chance of killing both mother and child. Are you willing to tell the husband that it is against the law for doctors to save life of his wife?

There's a lot of things to consider about something of this nature, and I don't think anyone can speak with any authority on it until they have faced this decision.

But no matter what your stand on it, I could never justify thinking that I had the right to live your life for you. For me to make that decision FOR you, that would be the height of arrogance. That would be me telling you that I know whats good for you, and you're not mature enough to make your own decisions, so I've decided that I will make them for you.

Frankly, I would never stand for ANYONE making decisions regarding me and my family for me.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Gonzo67:
That's a dangerous position to take up LP... You do know there's no statute of limitations on murder. You do know that there are some in these very forums, that you consider 'friend" and you have always been polite to and supporting of who are guilty of this.

So do you extend the title of criminal to them?

:unsmile: I sincerely doubt you'd be able to prosecute anyone who had an abortion under Roe vs. Wade, & I wouldn't advocate that. But if the decision were overturned, all future abortions should be prosecuted under applicable laws.

What about a woman who has been raped, whether by a stranger or a family member. Would you be willing to call her a murderer because she could not handle the pain and torment of giving birth to a child that is the result of something she did not ask for? The result of an event that horrible and traumatic?

What about a woman who develops complications? Giving birth has a 90% chance of killing both mother and child. Are you willing to tell the husband that it is against the law for doctors to save life of his wife?

:unsmile: Like all pro-abortion advocates, you're throwing out scenarios that represent a miniscule portion of all abortions. Gee, Gonzo... What about the woman who has an abortion in April, because she got pregnant in February, & wants to look good in a bikini in August? Oh, I know. You don't want to presume to tell her how to live her life, so murdering somebody who's inconvenient to her vain desires is just fine with you.

But no matter what your stand on it, I could never justify thinking that I had the right to live your life for you. For me to make that decision FOR you, that would be the height of arrogance. That would be me telling you that I know whats good for you, and you're not mature enough to make your own decisions, so I've decided that I will make them for you.

Frankly, I would never stand for ANYONE making decisions regarding me and my family for me.

:unsmile: Your rationales are no consolation to a dead baby.

[Gonzo67]

I sincerely doubt you'd be able to prosecute anyone who had an abortion under Roe vs. Wade, & I wouldn't advocate that. But if the decision were overturned, all future abortions should be prosecuted under applicable laws.


This could be true. But you're making it clear you consider these women criminal, so don't duck the question. Do you extend that opinion to the people in these forums that you call friend who are ALSO guilty of this "criminal activity"?


Like all pro-abortion advocates, you're throwing out scenarios that represent a miniscule portion of all abortions.


And like all knee-jerk zealots you are throwing around labels that are both unearned and untrue.

I have stated a NUMBER of times my stand on abortion. And for you to once again call me a "pro-abortion advocate" is both ignorant and totally uncalled for. I was NOT advocating abortion, I was OPPOSING people that refuse to keep their own lives under control because they are FAR too busy living everyone else's life for them. I was not confrontational in my questions to you. I was willing to debate this rationally, and intelligently, but you have JUST made it clear you are unwilling to debate without name calling. So I'll do you a favor, and I'll end this conversation. I have no interest in discussing this or anything with you any more.

[Kathy30]

I agree with the original Roe decision. Unlimited in the first trimester, by medical necessity in the second and not at all in the third. I cannot in all good conscience make all abortions illegal. Yet, I cannot agree with the current state of abortion which is, all abortion all the time and women who bring babies to term are losers who shouldn't be allowed to live normal lives.

As far as Rudy goes, he's on the downside. Unfortunately for the rest of us, its Huckabee who is ascending, and Ron Paul doing the shake up. I'd like to see Fred break out of the pack, but at this point it does not look like it's going to happen. His campaign in so low key, it's almost not there. I hope it changes in the future.

The person I would like to see LEAST be elected, Barak Obama. He is clueless.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Considering this is an issue in which I have a unique voice, if anyone would be interested in my thoughts on, I'd be amenable for someone to start another thread to discuss it, and happy to share them (my thoughts).

However, this thread is not about abortion, as has been repeatedly stated. We should really let it get back on track.

To streamline things, I'll give the Reader's Digest Condensed Version answer:


Most Desired 2008 nominee -- Republican
Least Desired 2008 nominee -- Democrat

:biggrin:

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Gonzo67:
This could be true. But you're making it clear you consider these women criminal, so don't duck the question. Do you extend that opinion to the people in these forums that you call friend who are ALSO guilty of this "criminal activity"?

:unsmile: Twisting my words on your part does not constitute "ducking the question" on my part.


And like all knee-jerk zealots you are throwing around labels that are both unearned and untrue.

I have stated a NUMBER of times my stand on abortion. And for you to once again call me a "pro-abortion advocate" is both ignorant and totally uncalled for. I was NOT advocating abortion, I was OPPOSING people that refuse to keep their own lives under control because they are FAR too busy living everyone else's life for them. I was not confrontational in my questions to you. I was willing to debate this rationally, and intelligently, but you have JUST made it clear you are unwilling to debate without name calling. So I'll do you a favor, and I'll end this conversation. I have no interest in discussing this or anything with you any more.

:unsmile: Wise move on your part, since your "rational" & "intelligent" debate consists only of worn-out, rehashed pro-abortion rationales that have grown tedious over the decades.

[Suzie]

Perhaps it's time for this thread to be split?

[Gonzo67]

No need to split it Suzie. My part in it is done. I asked a simple question that required nothing more than a yes or no, and in asking it twice, failed to get a straight answer. The other party, while he's SUPPOSED to be a mod here, feels that resorting to name calling and slander is a perfectly acceptable way to discuss and debate, at least when it's HIS decision to do so, but any one else would have been slapped down, and sometimes are, even by him.

He neither deserves my attention on this matter, and he sure as hell doesn't deserve my respect. Frankly, I'm done with him.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: The other party is lowering his credibility by accusing me of name-calling when I didn't. He needs to develop a thicker skin if he wants to post at Free Conservatives. We debate politics here. Anyone who can't handle it is welcome to go HERE (http://www.freecell.net).

[PrezLeefun]

Considering this is an issue in which I have a unique voice, if anyone would be interested in my thoughts on, I'd be amenable for someone to start another thread to discuss it, and happy to share them (my thoughts).

However, this thread is not about abortion, as has been repeatedly stated. We should really let it get back on track.

To streamline things, I'll give the Reader's Digest Condensed Version answer:


Most Desired 2008 nominee -- Republican
Least Desired 2008 nominee -- Democrat

:biggrin:

^^^^ Another reason I love you!:thumb:

[Rhino]

Thats what I mean, he is genuine in what he believes. His opinions change and he isn't afraid to speak to that.But I wonder if it isn't his opinions changing, but just his rhetoric. To me, actions speak far louder than words, and his actions on some important issues just don't match his words. I won't discount the possibility that he has truly changed his mind, but I've seen too many politicians play this game to put any money on it, or my vote.

I would rather have that then someone who sticks with something he isn't genuinly for, trying to show how right he is.So would I, but so far I haven't seen any of his opponents doing that. And since I can't be sure what Rudy is "genuinely for", I can't rule out the distinct possibility that he isn't the one misrepresenting himself here.

In a tough election, and this will be one, the smart thing to do is look at who can win the general election. Thats what my eye is on. Not winning Iowa. That's why I support Fred.

[Jack_Savage]

But I wonder if it isn't his opinions changing, but just his rhetoric. To me, actions speak far louder than words, and his actions on some important issues just don't match his words. I won't discount the possibility that he has truly changed his mind, but I've seen too many politicians play this game to put any money on it, or my vote.

The worlds changing. But keep in mind the way Hillary is changing what she is saying and what she will do. That is what this is all about. Picking someone who can actually win the general election. Who else can do that at this point. Not who else can run against her, but who else can win?

So would I, but so far I haven't seen any of his opponents doing that. And since I can't be sure what Rudy is "genuinely for", I can't rule out the distinct possibility that he isn't the one misrepresenting himself here.

You have to make that decision for yourself. All I can do is share how I see it.

That's why I support Fred.

I like Fred also. I would like to see his organization get it back on track.

[ardentconservative]

The worlds changing. But keep in mind the way Hillary is changing what she is saying and what she will do. That is what this is all about. Picking someone who can actually win the general election. Who else can do that at this point. Not who else can run against her, but who else can win?



You have to make that decision for yourself. All I can do is share how I see it.



I like Fred also. I would like to see his organization get it back on track.

I am a Fred man also, but I must admit I sometimes get discouraged at Fred. Though I don't put much stock in the polls, most are ran by liberals that only use them to try to influence voters, it seems he is not doing very well. I hope that I am wrong because I don't like Rudy at all, not Romney. I like Fred best, with Huckabee coming in a close second.

[Rhino]

The worlds changing. But keep in mind the way Hillary is changing what she is saying and what she will do.I wasn't comparing him to Hillary. We're debating Republican primary candidates. And besides, I wasn't making any comparisons anyway.

That is what this is all about. Picking someone who can actually win the general election. Who else can do that at this point. Not who else can run against her, but who else can win?Fred.

Quite frankly, I'm not worried about Rudy's chances for a win. As I've stated before, I'm more worried about what may happen after he wins.

[Jack_Savage]

I wasn't comparing him to Hillary. We're debating Republican primary candidates. And besides, I wasn't making any comparisons anyway.

When debating the contenders, I think everyone is looking at who can win the general. That is why so many people want Rudy. It may not matter to you, but those voting in the primarys are doing it to win the general election. What other reason is it for?



Quite frankly, I'm not worried about Rudy's chances for a win. As I've stated before, I'm more worried about what may happen after he wins.

What is it specifically, that you think he will or won't do?

[Gonzo67]

What is it specifically, that you think he will or won't do?


Well, for one thing, he won't have to waste his time making New York a safe haven for illegals, he'll be able to do it on a national level.

And second, I still have my doubts about his cross dressing episode being "all in good fun" and would hate to see a production of La Cage Aux Fols live from the oval office! :D

[Suzie]

And second, I still have my doubts about his cross dressing episode being "all in good fun" and would hate to see a production of La Cage Aux Fols live from the oval office! :D
How many men (real men) do you know that would even entertain the idea of dressing up as a woman and pretending to make out with Donald Trump?

When I think real man I think of men like Patton or John Wayne, could you EVER picture them doing that? In fact if you suggested it your ears would be ringing for a month after they told you where to go. THAT'S the kind of man I want as a leader.

[The_Elucidator]

When I think real man I think of men like Patton or John Wayne, could you EVER picture them doing that? In fact if you suggested it your ears would be ringing for a month after they told you where to go. THAT'S the kind of man I want as a leader.

That's why if FDT doesn't win the nomination... I'm writing in Mike Ditka!!

See what his supporters think of him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwW10UvymkA)

[Rhino]

When debating the contenders, I think everyone is looking at who can win the general. That is why so many people want Rudy. It may not matter to you, but those voting in the primarys are doing it to win the general election. What other reason is it for?Um....maybe for choosing the candidate that best supports your interests? If we vote simply by who has the best chances in the general election, principles be damned, then what was the point in having principles in the first place? Besides, Rudy is far from being the only winnable candidate. I don't even think he's the most winnable candidate.

What is it specifically, that you think he will or won't do?We've already covered that elsewhere, ad nauseum.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Um....maybe for choosing the candidate that best supports your interests? If we vote simply by who has the best chances in the general election, principles be damned, then what was the point in having principles in the first place? Besides, Rudy is far from being the only winnable candidate. I don't even think he's the most winnable candidate.


Took the words right off my keyboard, :smirky:

[Suzie]

Um....maybe for choosing the candidate that best supports your interests? If we vote simply by who has the best chances in the general election, principles be damned, then what was the point in having principles in the first place? Besides, Rudy is far from being the only winnable candidate. I don't even think he's the most winnable candidate.


Who dictates the person who is "most winnable" heck if that's the only standard and using the media to judge this they are gonna have to vote for Hillary, because the media says SHE has the best chance of winning.

What??? You mean people say they can't because they don't agree with her??? But they tell us she has the greatest chance of winning? Is the light bulb coming on yet?

[Jack_Savage]

Um....maybe for choosing the candidate that best supports your interests? If we vote simply by who has the best chances in the general election, principles be damned, then what was the point in having principles in the first place? Besides, Rudy is far from being the only winnable candidate. I don't even think he's the most winnable candidate.

I didn't say principals be dammed. He has the best shot at winning the General Election as of now. There is a reason for that. People believe in his leadership. He is called Americas Mayor for a reason. He isn't called Americas Mayor because he is percevied as some unethical immoral person. People think of him in that light because of the courage and heart he has demonstrated time and time again during his long career. Whether as a member of Ronald Reagas justice depertment, fighting corruption or as mayor who became one of the important leaders who brought the country through 9/11. He did that by showing the rest of the country his view on what makes America great. It wasn't from revealing a lack of principal. Just the opposite from my view.

I know many are threatened by, his candidacy, especially the Soros crowd, and they should be. He has the best shot of winning at this point. Looks like Romney comes in second, I can live with either of them. Fred too. Its up to the candidates themselves to make the cut, not me. I'm simply giving you my take on why I see why the public likes Rudy so much. I see it also.

We've already covered that elsewhere, ad nauseum.

Other than abortion, I really don't recall what it is about Rudy that is objectionable. He is critisized without much substance. Kinda like a salesman talking about features instead of benefits. What benefits do you think we would lose with Rudy. What are the competitive differences in terms of the benefits to the people we would lose with Rudy. Winning the general election and keeping Hillary out is one of a number of big benefits Rudy brings. He said the other night, and he is not one to make false claims, that he can win an additional 10 states in the general election of any other Republican running. That is a benefit. Its also one of the reasons he is so strong.

[Gonzo67]

Winning the general election and keeping Hillary out is one of a number of big benefits Rudy brings. He said the other night, and he is not one to make false claims, that he can win an additional 10 states in the general election of any other Republican running. That is a benefit. Its also one of the reasons he is so strong.


Your reasoning is very weak there.

First of all, ANY candidate that wins will keep Hilary out of the Whitehouse, even Obama. So that's hardly a "benefit" unique to Rudy.

And HE says he can win an additional 10 states, so THAT'S a benefit? Well, I say I can win an additional 20 states... and putting ME in office will keep Hilary out of the Whitehouse... so can I count on your support?

I have just matched BOTH of your "benefits", does that mean that I too am now a "strong" contender for presidency? ;)

[The_Elucidator]

And HE says he can win an additional 10 states, so THAT'S a benefit?

The latest polling from Rasmussen shows that even that benefit is gone!

Against Obama he is neck in neck.. 42 - 41 with a boat load of folks undecided.

Against Hitlery he is getting spanked 50 - 37 and Hitlery is at the 50% mark!

Rasmussen New Jersey Poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_jersey/new_jersey_2008_presidential_election)

[Rhino]

That's the difference in paradigms. I'm not greatly concerned about the prospects in the general election, because that's not what primaries are supposed to be for. Primaries are to select the candidate that best matches your values and principles, not to select electability in the general election. That would mean your focus is more on the potential opponent rather than on your own candidate. If we focus mainly on electability in the general election, then our principles and values are taking a back set. Primaries are supposed to allow you to vote for who you are for, not who you are against. Focusing on electability instead of principles is bass ackwards thinking and shortsighted. Our goal is not the lection. It is to get a conservative elected who best represents us. The election is merely a method to reach the goal. It is not the goal itself. If we lose sight of the goal and focus only on the election, conservatism is likely lost.

[Rhino]

Other than abortion, I really don't recall what it is about Rudy that is objectionable.Are you kidding? You've debated those issues with us several times, like immigration, the 2nd amendment and social liberalism. Are you really so head over heels for this guy that you can't even focus on the debate? C'mon, D4R. You're starting to scare me.

[Jack_Savage]

That's the difference in paradigms. I'm not greatly concerned about the prospects in the general election, because that's not what primaries are supposed to be for. Primaries are to select the candidate that best matches your values and principles, not to select electability in the general election. That would mean your focus is more on the potential opponent rather than on your own candidate. If we focus mainly on electability in the general election, then our principles and values are taking a back set. Primaries are supposed to allow you to vote for who you are for, not who you are against. Focusing on electability instead of principles is bass ackwards thinking and shortsighted. Our goal is not the lection. It is to get a conservative elected who best represents us. The election is merely a method to reach the goal. It is not the goal itself. If we lose sight of the goal and focus only on the election, conservatism is likely lost.

In the context of what the election is all about, its electability that counts. Following your message, I should vote for Duncan Hunter, as he meets scores high on all the issues. But the problem is I don't think Duncan Hunter can win. It would be wasting my vote and send the wrong message to the rest of the country.