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?
You didn't forget your horns.
I think this thread has hurt Free Republic, yet there are many here who think it has helped.
What I know is that many of the people I’ve known and admired over the years are now gone.
Some say that is an improvement. I don’t. I always felt we could handle civil disagreements without demanding a ban.
It’s not like arguing with Kucinich supporters.
If the forum wants to ban the supporters of the GOP frontfunner, well, that’s a watershed event.
It had better be successful in making sure he’s not the nominee, because if this forum becomes a place to trash the GOP nominee heading into a crucial election the applause from DU will be deafening.
And I’m sure I’ll be invited into the bugzapper by those posters with froth coming from their mouth. You guys are so cool.
Stay away from the bait, it really stinks. ;)
As evidenced by what? Are you referring to the fact that the WTC was a KNOWN TERRORIST TARGET and that the biggest danger would be the lack of a viable evacuation program and that Rudy did NOTHING in seven and a half years as mayor to develop a plan?
“Hopefully, Jim’s springcleaning has made the house much more hospitable for real conservatives who love God, love life, love liberty, and love America.” Eternal Vigilance 4/29/2007
Mr. Robinson,
Please remove my name from Free Republic’s membership list.
barset
Howdy CM.
Therein lies the problem. The incivility became awful; my guess is that Jim decided he had to put a stop to it. Since both sides were equally guilty, all else equal if you must pick one to ban you're going with the more liberal one.
But then he says he supports gub payment for abortion. That's something that makes my skin crawl.
He says he'll pick strict constructionist to the court but I haven't heard him condemn Roe. And he supports gun-grabbing so whose constitution is he strictly constructing?
He supports gay marriage. Why? He doesn't seem to think non-gay marriage is all that serious.
I liked what he said about the Dems and the WOT, and I want to like him because he may be the smartest Pub, but right now I can't bring myself to trust him.
Which part do you have an issue with: is it the love of God, the love of life, the love of liberty or the love of America? (Obviously, if you are not an American, if you are Australian for instance, it would be natural for you to love your own country.)
barset
While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment itself does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has held that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join together with others. The Supreme Court has found the Constitution to protect the freedom of association in two cases:
1. Intimate Associations. A fundamental element of personal liberty is the right to choose to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships. These intimate human relationships are known as "intimate associations." The paradigmatic "intimate association" is the family.
2. Expressive Associations. Expressive associations are groups that engage in activities protected by the First Amendment—speech, assembly, petitioning government for a redress of grievances, and the free exercise of religion.
When someone implies the Constiution is not to be taken seriously, they’ve crossed a line, I think.
This issue isn't just one where Rooty fails. I am flunking the bulk of announced presidential candidates.
I will admit that mistakes were made .. but then .. I have yet to see anything run perfectly
With that all said .. I think the folks in NY .. including Rudy handled things the best they could on that terrible day
In that tone, perhaps we can regard them and the mistakes they made with due and real charity. There were, however a core of agitators, with a real agenda to harm, just as we saw earlier on the Terri Dailies and as we actually saw at Pinellas Park that dark time. These are the ones I see as bugs flying into the zap light.
To them, I say, "See you later, agitator."
Howdy WB,,,feelin’ better today I hope,,,tuff to catch-up
with all these posts...;0)
As opuses go, I’d rate yours an “A” for brevity and lack of whining.
But, all things considered, personally, I’d give you an “F-” for your stated reason.
You can't CLOSE the boarders .. for many reasons
Though I'm all for making our border security stronger .. I never said I was against that
I totally disagree. We had a spirited debate about the candidates.
Which should be a good thing.
It was a bit early, starting in February of 2007, but what the heck, Freepers look ahead.
We still haven’t had a Republican candidate debate and it’s now April.
The incivility began when it was made plain here that you can’t support a particular candidate. I’m not sure you can even be undecided at this time about that candidate.
It’s not quite that cut and dried, but the message is unmistakeable, and the lunatics running around trying to get people who have been members here for nine or ten years is utterly disgusting.
Well, guys, it worked. High fives all around!
Now what?
Indeed.
We’re talking about two nearly identical buildings, not a city. No efforts were made to avoid a repeat of the nearly tragic evacuation in 1993.
The bottom line, is there is NOTHING that indicates that Rudy is in any way qualified to be Commander in Chief.
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.