Good Post
I'll get in the mud, but with the issues.
Here is an issue: If liberals don't like being called traitors, then they shouldn't give me a reason to do so.
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?
Reagan breathed life back into the Conservatives when he ran for President. He won by landslides.
I think we need to relax and see if Fred or someone can come by and do that. I am not jumpin on Rudy bandwagon. IF forced today to vote, I would vote for Hunter. If Fred gets in and Champions my cause, I will get behind him. I am not cowering like Shag and Scoob because the media tells me I need a liberal to beat a liberal. I haven’t believed a word the media has said in years. I dang sure won’t start believing them now.
I thought your point was entirely correct. 100%.
That's why I offered my humble advice as to your wording thereof.
(Let's not give the Enemy extra ammunition if we don't have to).
Best, OP
And where are you when you resort to calling someone a “fundie”?
The links would be wonderful to have to call on. The anti-Reaganites hate when facts are used to prove them wrong.
Thanks
Amen to that! It’s depressing, we may have to go completely into the gutter before the turn around. But whatever happens we have to keep fighting!
There is, in my opinion, too much name-calling.
But some of us have tried very hard to have a debate on issues, and have been futile because the rudy people don’t seem to want to debate the issues.
Last night, while rudy person afer rudy person came to scream and rant about being mistreated (which they certainly believe they are), I tried to get them to explain why they made claims about Rudy. When they mentioned an issue, I did a simple thing, asking them what Rudy had done on that issue.
I had ONE person respond, weakly, to my question about why Rudy is thought of as strong on terorism. Nobody else would even try. One poster said that without Rudy, we’d have truck bombs and wal-marts. I didn’t understand, so I asked what Rudy’s positions were on wal-mart, and got no answer. I was told Rudy supporters thought national security was the most important thing, but when I asked what experience Rudy had with national security there was silence.
I’ve tried to steer anti-rudy posts to the issues when they got personal. I’ve chastised people on both sides for attacking other freepers, and received grief from both sides for the effort.
I can’t remember ANY group posting so many duplicate articles about their pet candidates in my history here, as I see from Rudy supporters. They go out of their way to overwhelm the readers here with posts touting Rudy.
Polls get posted 3 or 4 times, and then are repeated in othe threads, and posted again a week later when a blog somewhere talks about them.
And speaking of blogs, any blog, no matter how infantile or meaningless, appears as if gospel if it says something nice about Rudy.
When an article is split between pro and anti-rudy sentiment, the rudy people always post it with strictly pro-rudy exerpts, even when someone has already posted the exerpted story.
And the rudy people post vanities attacking conservatives for being stupid for adhering to conservative principles, attacking other candidates for things Rudy agrees with, attacking principled conservatives for wanting Hillary as president, and even saying that pro-life people will have the blood of aborted babies on their hands if we don’t vote for pro-abortion candidate Rudy.
The post left-wing articles attacking good conservative candidates. When they can’t find a left-wing media report, they’ll find left-wing blogs to repeat, or strip left-wing spams out of Wikipedia and post them as gospel.
And when they post their polls, and their rudy-cheerleading articles, they get all smug and dismissive of the people on this forum for having principles and being too stupid to see the inevitability of our downfall.
And when they tire of that, they launch into the defeatist durge, the death march of conservatism, where they tell us conservative thought has lost, that 2006 was it’s funeral, that a real conservative can’t win election. They ooze defeat, telling us that rather than trying to lead the country in the right direction, we must instead find out where the country is heading and pick whatever candidate is in that direction who is willing to put an “R” by their name.
I have lots of places on the net I can go where my conservative values will be trashed, where my candidates will be lied about, where my attempts to push conservative principles will be met by laughs of derision and dismissed as a quaint relic of a bygone era.
Those are called liberal blogs. I shouldn’t have to put up with that from multiple posters on a conservative web site. Conservatives shouldn’t have to have a coordinated attack on them from behind while we are trying to fight the good fight.
I’m tired of being shot by my “own troops”, I’m tired of spending all my time having to watch my back, to sleep with one eye open, to spend my time watching for false, negative, and personal attacks on my conservative candidates from people who claim to be on my side.
I know that Rudy supporters are tired of attacks on their guy as well. But they are not naive, they know their guy is not conservative, but at best is a schizophrenic who agrees with conservatives on a small number of issues.
It’s clear when they attack all the other candidates for “liberal” positions that match Rudy’s positions. It’s clear when they discount the importance of much of what Rudy stands for, or argue that Rudy won’t really be in charge of things but will instead defer to conservative advisors on a wealth of issues of importance.
It would be better for all of us if they would be more honest about their person, more honest about why they support him, and more honest about the opposing conservative candidates.
And while it would be better in my opinion if everybody stopped the personal attacks, it would be especially nice if rudy supporters wouldn’t use attack people personally that ARE clearly conservative and support conservative candidates.
When your only argument for your candidate is that nobody else can win, you should on a conservative website have the decency NOT to make personal attacks on conservatives who are simply being true to their principles. Sure, those conservatives are saying bad things about you, but rudy supporters are acknowledging forgoing their princples in order to win an election, so you don’t really have the moral high ground.
And after what Mia T. said about me and other pro-lifers who don’t support Rudy, I have little patience anymore for the complaints of rudy supporters of being called pro-abortionists or even “treasonous liberals”. I wouldn’t use those words, but if you are going to lie in the mud you are going to get muddy.
“Who , other than Rudy , has a chance to ACTUALLY get the votes to beat an extremely powerful Dem onslaught ?”
Who is he going to get vote from? The moderates?
Because he’s going to turn off the conservative base that does the legwork to get republicans elected.
Then who would do the day-day work? The world is already ordered along these lines and, with the exception of certain policies, seems to be working pretty well.
Technology (medical, information, etc) and business is developed, financed and advanced by the most intelligent ie graduates of the world's top 25 universities. 2nd tier managers and distributors are employed to manage growing organizations and deliver goods & services. Manual labor provides actual assembly (unless robots are building robots) and service/maintenance. A criminal underclass exists to employ those in law enforcement.
Overall unemployment is under 5%. What would be achieved via eugenics?
OK, it just seems such a shock coming from the man who wrote the rules.
But espousing liberalism? That profanity goes clear to the bone--to the utter marrow. That's filth of entirely different, far more befouling and destructive nature.
What liberalism? Honest question - haven't followed quidnunc's posts.
hmmm, well what do you know... crickets.
You can’t have national security, and on the other hand support people who enter the country illegally.
***The reason why you get crickets to such a statement is because they have no answer. The shouting about WOT for rudy is all sizzle and no steak. Once you investigate it, it’s really just a lie. Tootiefruityrudy is soft on WOT.
There's plenty of Scripture concerning actual human fecal matter, including passages describing the application of human fecal matter to the face of hypocrites. Would you like me to quote the specific citations?
If God Himself can call hypocrites "sh*t-faces", I think that Jim Robinson can probably get away with calling a Jack-Boot like Quidnunc "asswipe" on his own Forum.
Goodbye, Quidnunc. Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish.
The most vocal supporters of Arnold, instead of admitting they were DEAD WRONG, are here providing the same lame counsel using the exact same rhetoric - 'never mind his positions, vote for Rudy, he's got broad appeal.'
No. I’ve not defended any name-calling on this or any other thread. In fact, even if people were saying things about me that pro-rudy people are saying about Jim, I would hope not to respond as he has.
But those who provoke him with false claims are not without blame.
Just making sure that you realize that the person you were responding to was not being serious. However, the person they were replying to and quoting WAS being serious.
bump for good Reagan quotes
Good Post
I'll get in the mud, but with the issues.
Here is an issue: If liberals don't like being called traitors, then they shouldn't give me a reason to do so.
There was a lot of daring to be banned last night. I’ve been told I shouldn’t practice psychiatry without a license (big-government liberals think a government paper makes you competent), so I’ll just say that it appeared to my untrained eye the some people wanted to get banned so they’d have an excuse to move on without being called quitters.
Kind of like “suicide by cop”.
My comments were sarcastic, sorry you missed that...
If the '67 law wasn't bad(I haven't seen the full text of the law), how could the results be bad?
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.