8mm
Posted on 02/25/2007 2:46:59 PM PST by wagglebee
We all know about "limosine liberals" and "San Francisco liberals" and "east coast liberals" and "Hollywood liberals" and we all say we are against them. So, why is it that we seem to have a new breed of liberalism that is festering on a conservative forum?
By my calculations it is a small number (only about 15%) of FReepers that seem to be supporting a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, thrice-married (once to his cousing) gun-grabber for the office of President of the United States of America. And I'll be the first to admit that many of them are supporting Giuliani because they think he is the only Republican who can win. However, what about those FReepers who seem totally comfortable with Rudy's liberalism? In her book Treason, Ann Coulter describes in detail how communists infiltrated the Democrat Party and my fear is that decades from now, someone will describe how liberals infiltrated and destroyed conservativism in the name of pragmatism.
We all know that there are liberals here and I'm pretty certain that they aren't going anywhere. As a conservative, I know that conservativism consists of a belief in a strong national defense, fiscal conservativism and social conservativism, so to call these FReepers conservatives in name only (CINOs) would be incorrect because many of these FReepers don't even claim to be social conservatives. So, my question is this:
WHAT SHOULD WE CALL FREE REPUBLIC LIBERALS?
Feel free to copy-and-paste that exact post over on the anti-Rudy "kool-aid drinkers" thread when you have a sec.
If you think that calling the pro-Duncan Hunter crowd "kool-aid drinkers" is an offensive an insult as "treasonous liberals" then you are as silly as you are supercilious.
I agree, which is why I am a Romney supporter. He is castigated for having become more conservative. Well, I like it that Romney is trying hard to please conservatives. It beats a stick in the eye, which is what you get from Giuliani and McCain.
And, as I am wont to harp, the MSM sure believes Romney is a conservative, as they've made a cottage industry of producing hit pieces on him. The RINOdar of the MSM is unerring, and Romney is not registering as a RINO on MSM montitors.
If you had actually bothered to read what I wrote, you will see that I clearly differentiated between TWO distinct camps.
Camp 1: And I'll be the first to admit that many of them are supporting Giuliani because they think he is the only Republican who can win.
Camp 2: However, what about those FReepers who seem totally comfortable with Rudy's liberalism?
Al Simmons calls people like you and me "Kool-Aid drinkers."
And I find it ironic and insulting that on a CONSERVATIVE FORUM, conservatives are being lamented in such a way for being conservative.
A) The "kool aid" thread doesn't single out just the pro-Hunter crowd. It's everyone opposed to Giuliani. Read it again.
B) The post that started this thread, the one you responded to, didn't use the phrase "treasonous liberals". Read it again.
You're not spilling your sanctimony onto that thread because you agree with them. The least you can do is be honest about it.
I DID NOT use the term "treasonous liberals" and as far as I can see, neither did WhistlingPastTheGraveyard.
Here is what I wrote:
In her book Treason, Ann Coulter describes in detail how communists infiltrated the Democrat Party and my fear is that decades from now, someone will describe how liberals infiltrated and destroyed conservativism in the name of pragmatism.
If this analogy makes some FReepers uncomfortable, then so be it; however, to languish in a fantasy that conservativism is safe from liberal infiltration is myopically naive.
I forgot to ping you to this yesterday.
When facts just won't do... make sh*t up.
I imagine that all of the Rudyites here are suffering the same dilemna the 'Rats have when they try to convince the country that a leftist is really just a moderate.
Fribbies?
Banded... you mean like they do wild birds they want to keep track of?
"call em Sir"
...or madaam or master or just "boss"! :)
Pookie, if what you describe happens, if the far right sits on its hands and lets a Dem. win the WH, we could call them all "losers."
I look at the coming election and I see a national disaster. If Giuliani is elected with conservative support then the next elections will be run with the politicians' knowledge that Conservatism is dead and we won't have much in the way of choice above the local level and we will have a couple more generations to build conservatism again. If we let the Democrat get elected, especially if it is Mrs. Clinton then we will get the Congress back in two years, maybe even the senate. If WE elect Giuliani then we are looking at the Congress we will have for at least 6 years with further left development.As far as the war is concerned, Giuliani will pull his punches and refuse to see just who is the enemy just like any other Republican in prospect.
Just a little constructive criticism...this should be off the table, it makes those of us who are unenthused by Rudy sound like judgmental nitpickers. First, he had no idea that woman was his cousin, so criticizing him for it is not only bad strategy, but simply mean. Second, though I wouldn't have done the same thing in his place, I completely understand why he would be messing around when he was married to a man-hating ultra-shrew who wasn't taking care of her wifely business any more. Let's stick to the bloody issues, please.
FRiberals?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.