Skip to comments.Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?
Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
We've got some real challenges facing us. FR was established to fight against government corruption, overstepping, and abuse and to fight for a return to the limited constitutional government as envisioned and set forth by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and other founding documents.
One of the biggest cases of government corruption, overstepping and abuse that I know of is its disgraceful headlong slide into a socialist hell. Our founders never intended for abortion to be the law of the land. And they never intended the Supreme Court to be a legislative body. They never intended God or religion to be written out of public life. They never intended government to be used to deny God's existence or for government to be used to force sexual perversions onto our society or into our children's education curriculum. They never intend for government to disarm the people. They never intended for government to set up sanctuary cities for illegals. They never intended government to rule over the people and or to take their earnings or private property or to deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech, free religion, private property, due process, etc. They never intended government to seize the private property of private citizens through draconian asset forfeiture laws or laws allowing government to take private property from lawful owners to give to developers. Or to seize wealth and redistribute it to others. Or to provide government forced health insurance or government forced retirement systems.
All of the above are examples of ever expanding socialism and tyranny brought to us by liberals/liberalism.
FR fights against the liberals/Democrats in all of these areas and always will. Now if liberalism infiltrates into the Republican party and Republicans start promoting all this socialist garbage, do you think that I or FR will suddenly stop fighting against it? Do you think I'm going to bow down and accept abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, global warming, illegal alien lawbreakers, gun control, asset forfeiture, socialism, tyranny, totalitarianism, etc, etc, etc, just so some fancy New York liberal lawyer can become president from the Republican party?
Do you really expect me to do that?
I will have to agree with you. We have the primaries for a reason -- to weed out liberals, RINOs, closet socialists and others. But if such a candidate were to survive the primaries and with none but ourselves to blames, we still must stand behind our candidate. If Americans are expected to stand behind a president they did not vote for (in theory at least), then why shouldn't we stand behind a nominee that not all of us supported.
Agreed, the differences between Hillary and Rudy are not great but the prospect of Hillary in the oval office is just unimaginable ! It simply **CAN**NOT** be allowed to happen. I cannot emphasize this enough.
"Do you really expect me to do that?"
Hmmm... I'm goin' way out on a limb here and guessin' that you're not real likely to do that.
That may be, but I damn near fear for my safety if Hillary gets elected.
I agree. And that’s not the only problem.
Most remember in 2000 when Jeffords jumped from the GOP and made Daschle the majority leader by one and Trent Lott the minority leader.
Then in 2002 when the dems lost big and Trent Lott became the majority Leader, Dashle was sitting in that chair in the lonely room the night they lost.
Then Lott was casted out and Frist became the majority leader. In Congress it was Delay and Pelosi.
They knew the names, they knew who Pelosi, Frist, Reid, Daschle, Hastert and Lott were and who they represented.
The difference now is this: Most Americans dont even know the name, the voice or face of the republican minority leader in the senate nor the republican in the house today.
Worse, A surprising number of politcal junkies now cannot name the two republicans in the house and senate.
UNopposed statements from Reid and Pelosi are considered to be “truth” by those who do not pay as much attention as we do. And “truth” is what they will go by when they go to vote in Nov. 2008.
Who in the republican party should be contacted about this problem? Who is responsible?
We need to cut this cancer now before it’s too late in 2008
"Well now, Jim, no, I really don't expect you to do that...Remember, All great change in America begins at the dinner table."
Why would a someone as liberal as Giuliani work to appoint conservatives to the court?
The world is not divided into two monolithic blocks of people labelled “conservative” and “liberal”. It’s a continuum, and Rudy would nominate SC justices further toward the conservative end of the continuum than Hillary would. The last thing we need is SC justices who’ve bought their positions from the Clinton machine, and base their decisions on PC sociobabble like “It takes a village to raise a child”.
Yeah but... isn't that a "vote for Hillary"? That's what I keep reading at this site.
enjoy the thread. I especially like post #56
If our only object was to stop HIllary, why don’t all the republicans simply switch to the democratic party and vote in the primary for John Edwards?
I’ll tell you — because there are more important things in life than “stopping hillary”. Hillary is not the problem, she is the symptom.
I get the impression some people would in fact vote for Obama, Edwards, or Gore if it would stop Hillary.
Of course not. I didn’t support Arnold. But like you, I don’t reside in California and had no say in the matter. I’m just saying that the stakes weren’t nearly as high.
And Arnold did at least posture himself as a “fiscal” conservative with no previous record to prove he was lying.
Rudy doesn’t have the same luxury.
Don’t get overly sanctimonious. Presidents nominate justices to the Supreme Court. THAT is where the conservatism counts more than any other place.
While libs give us Ginsberg and Breyer, psuedo-libs give us Stephens and Souter. There really isn’t that much difference between the four.
Way to go Jim!
I am sick of the “I’ll vote for any Republican” contingent. Electing a RINO just means a slightly slower slide into socialism.
>Unless we subscribe to radically different definitions of “socialism”<
My definition of socialism is suicide.
And I asked you to do a google on “socialist.” I will not join a third party and cause a fracture in the Republican Party. The last time that happened, we got Slick Willy and the Hildebeast. I would consider Fred Thompson IF he ever decides to run, but he’s not my ideal candidate either.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
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.