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?
BUMP!
That person STILL wouldn’t be Rudy McRomney...
You might want to look into Rudy’s appointments record. And I will never ever accept or support or vote for an abortionist, gay rights loving, gun grabbing liberal for president or leader of my party anyway. Rudy is totally unacceptable and is out of the question.
Why are you such a defeatist?
“I don’t thing the party has learned the lesson of 2006 yet.”
Neither do I!
Becki
That may be. Time will tell. But one would not necessarily come to that conclusion to look at the polls, or read the articles that accompany his various visits to towns and cities across the nation.
The election is a long way off, in a sense. Lots could happen. But conversely, the first debate is just weeks away. And at this moment in time, the race is between Rudy and McCain, with Rudy in front, and Romney also in the mix. That is a fact. And PS - I am one of the conservatives here...and Rudy is far from a socialist. I think it's hyperbole to call him one.
This is why you are my hero.
I agree that a substantial thid party draw would ensure a Hillary presidency. But I disagree that she must be loving the idea of a Rudy nomination -- Rudy couldn't win the FR vote, but he is capable of winning the national vote and defeating Hillary. Hillary is hating that idea. And it would be a very sad chapter in US political history if FR played into Hillary's hands, by drawing off Republican votes from Rudy to an unelectable third party candidate.
That's asinine.
You pick the candidate in the primaries that most closely resembles your views. If you think Rudy will be the best President, vote for him. But you are voting for him based on electability you are going to lose every time.
Democrats always pretend to be conservatives to get elected. Remember when the reporter in 2004 tried to get Kerry to admit he was a liberal during the debate? He couldn't do it. The 2004 Democratic Convention was a stage production for fake patriotism. They win by the narrowest margins by convincing the mush in the middle to give them the benefit of the doubt.
What happens when the Republicans start acting and talking like liberals? They lose. Every time we vote for a squishy, quasi-conservative because he's "electable" we get a bigger, more powerful government, and the balance of power between the three branches gets further out of whack.
If the Republicans continue to operate under this "bigger tent" theory, our choices will soon change from Democrat or Republican to Communist or Socialist. If the Democrats didn't shoot themselves in the foot in their eagerness to push us over the edge every time they get in power we would be there already.
Bump
Hell no! We ain’t giving up the fight.
“I find it implausible to associate Rudy with the meaning of ‘socialism” I learned by my own skin while living under it.”
Precision is not a FR strength. While the rest of America uses words like liberal, conservative and middle of the road, at FR anybody not a social conservative is a socialist.
And up to the post number here, there has not been one single word in this thread about national security, world terror threat.
The site is less and less in touch with reality, because those issues are near the top for voters.
“You might try paying a little attention to some of the conservatives here. I think the chances of Rudy ever getting the nomination or of becoming president are somewhere between slim to none and not a snowball’s chance in hell.”
Sweet to the ears. Those country clubbin establishment types are only a vocal minority. They will get their collective (pun intended) azzes kicked in the primaries. The nomination will eventually go to a conservative. But the swift surrender by the hierarchy of the GOP is a battle as important as the nomination. Conservatives need to work to kick them out. Freepers need to join your local GOP Party/Club/Central Committee and start changing things again.
1) “Social Conservative” is a term ACTUALLY used to describe those to whom social issues (anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc) are far more important than any other issues.
2) Ok, so your definition of “socialism” is? (and no, it’s not “anything I disgree with”.)
If the party nominates a candidate that alienates and drives away a significant portion of the base, that’s the fault of the party and the candidate, not the people who choose to vote their conscience.
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.