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?
Good post, thanks. I agree.
“If Rudy wins the primary, then you must support him.”
I don’t vote for liberals, no matter what party they belong to.
Perhaps quidnunc has only been...excerpted.
That certainly makes it clear. Thank you.
California is much better off with Arnold than they would have been with a democrat.
However, not sure if conservatism is better off or not.
But our country is nothing like California, and we don’t have to consider the defeatism of picking a liberal for president.
I’m sorry but I disagree with you. Hillary is a flat out communist in most respects.
A Pub who is not perfect as to all our wants is better than her. Good women don’t run for an abortion just because it is allowed.
I will live my life with my own good morals no matter who is elected but I don’t want to be taken over by the terrorist and Hillary is a pacifist - and certainly not based on religious values.
I thought I didn’t need to leave a sarcasm mark but clearly I was wrong.
There is no way we are going to vote for a man who stands for 90 % of everything we hold dear!!
Rudy is a FRAUD!!
FWIW, overall, It's more like California than it is like FR - simple reality.
>My definition of socialism is suicide<
>> Not every suicide is a socialist, although some are; and what to do about such socialists as kim, fidel, hillary and the rest? It would be great for the mankind were they to off themselves, but they do not. Thus your definition is erroneous. Even if you expand it into “mass suicide”, it would not be able to stand. Look at all the collectivist places - despite mass murders and general brutality they survive.<< (Completely all sic!)
Had a few already have you? I maintain, GSlob, that socialism will be suicide for our Republic, ie: socialism is suicide.
Stands AGAINST everything we hold dear, that is: )
Having just posted I would vote for Rudy if it comes down to that, I have to admit anyone who will not stop the flow of illegal aliens is a real problem (not that any republican president has stopped it, but still). I do hope Thompson gets nominated and I hope he can beat Hilary.
Yes.
A Rudy nomination will give us a third party spoiler and a Hillary win.
It's what the DBM push polls don't tell you.
Jim...please see post 201. I’m not the only one who believes a mistake was made in banning Fierce Allegiance. Please reinstate his account...he is NOT a stalker!!!!
and?
In such a case, if Rudy were to win it would redefine "conservatism" and the republican party.
In either case socialism always fails. Better that it fail under an out-of-the-closet liberal, that for it to happen under a republican who claims to be conservative.
The MSM would exploit that failure as a result of a "conservative republican" President.
You’re looking to get banned with that sensible post.
I’m with you Jim. As I have stated many times in the past, given a choice between Hillary and Rudy, I’d take Hillary. Either would do serious harm to the country, but Rudy would also do serious harm to the GOP. Besides, if Hillary wins, we won’t have to look at pictures of Rudy in drag for the next 4 years.
Well, GWB is pushing an amnesty program for illegal aliens. Is he a conservative?
Dick Cheney accepts his gay daughter. Is he a conservative?
Crime, taxes (and the abortion rate) went down when Rudy was Mayor. Isn't that conservative?
Is Rudy the perfect conservative candidate? No. But as my uncle Ed Linn, who was a long-respected FReeper said when I asked him what he thought of GWB - "compared to who??"
But - I won't convince you of anything. The only question is, will those who support Rudy be allowed to post here.
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.
THANKS TONS for telling it like it is, Boss. Now, what can we do beyond what we've been doing? What we've been doing seems so inadequate to the challenges you've articulated so well.
How do we motivate the troops from the discouragement and maliaise that seems to have descended over so many. Then, what major tasks do we focus on? The liberal globalist tide sometimes seems like a Tsunami. How do we maximize the effectiveness of our efforts in the wisest ways possible?
Thanks for all you are and all you stand for. Thanks for standing in the gap for our Republic and our founding values and Constitution.
Thanks for letting us love you in our feeble flawed ways.
I don’t think it was a delete. More of a “ctrl-alt-face slap”
I didn’t know Fierce Allegiance was banned. Funny, the pro-rudy people don’t mention that when they bemoan all of the “politically motivated” bannings going on. They got him banned? Who’d have thought that was possible if there was an assault on pro-rudy people here?
As the definition, it is defecative: any collectivist social system, even if it leaves the private property more or less alone and neither owns nor administers the means of production [it could co-opt the private owners- that’s the loophole] is still socialist - see the national socialists, or 2007 oligarchic russia. I would build the definition NOT on economics but on sociology: absolute primacy of the interests of the group [especially of the preferred, favored group] over those of an individual, with that individual’s subjugation. The group could, and does, become abstract and fictitious, serving as a front for the ruling elite. Hence mass coercion and the development of the nomenclaturists’ “master race”, for whom and by whom the system is run. Now, even non-socialist systems have quite a few elements of this: US nomenclaturist Sandy Berger’s adventures come to mind. Still, one could speak of the degree to which the body politic is infected, and introduce an arbitrary threshold value.
At least someone who gets it around here.
I will be doing the same.
There's only one reason this thread exists: as an "anti-Giulianni" thread.
Ultimately - what really will count when it's time to vote is: in whose hands can you put America's security for the next four or eight years.
Regardless of Rudy's "social positions", I will feel a lot more comfortable if that security is in Giulianni's hands, than if in Hillary Clinton's or B. Hussein Obama's.
That's why I will support the Republican candidate, and why I will vote for Rudy, if he is indeed the Republican candidate.
The future counts too much, to do otherwise.
- John
“Dick Cheney accepts his gay daughter. Is he a conservative?”
Wow, you just went the “Cheney’s daugher is a lesbian” route ala John Edwards to defend rudy. Classy!
Hey Jim while you’re off banning people can you let A+Bert come back?
You have to admit he was the ultimate troll.
NO
Murry Mom’s account is still open and Mia T was banned?
“Crime, taxes (and the abortion rate) went down when Rudy was Mayor. Isn’t that conservative?”
What did rudy do to reduce the abortion rate in new york?
Let me answer for you: NOTHING. There is no policy implemented by rudy that can be attributed to a declining abortion rate in NY during his time in office. But that doesn’t keep rudy from taking credit for it.
You nailed it.
I agree. I am voting for whoever is the Republican nominee in 2008. I might switch and vote for Obama in the primary, just to vote against Hillary. But any Republican is better than any Democrat.
We need a winner for 2008!
I believe a couple of Rudy’s supporters accused him of stalking...even though he had asked them to stop posting to him and was told they would post to him if they damned well felt like it!
Do you really expect me to do that?
No.
I wouldn’t trust Giuliani with a dog, let alone this country. And his ex-wives would probably say the same thing. Now give me one of your anti-Reagan comparisons we are so familiar with.
Yes you will. The Rudybots demand it. Rudy will be us a glorious new world. You have not choice you must vote for Ruuuuuuuudy
Mr. Robinson,
First off, THANK YOU, or the forum you have provided us, the conservatives in this country.
I hear and understand the concerns and ‘anger’ you have expressed about the possible ‘Giuliani’ nomination. I agree with them.
I hold this site as a gift.
I had hoped that W would move the country closer to being what is was originally intended to be, and used to be. Domestically, W has been a disaster. Foriegn policy wise, he’s pretty much spot-on.
Social Security reform-failed.
Reduction of Government-Failed
Border control-Failed
Return of education to the States:abolition of DOEd-failed(non-started?)
Prescription Drug Benefit?- Well, that flew. The Lefties hated it because it didn’t go FAR ENOUGH.
So, should we now support Giuliani, just to keep the HildyBeast out of office? Rudy is NOT a conservative. With all due respect to those on FR the support him, he is just NOT someone that should carry our banner forward.
Who? I hope Fred Thompson formalizes his candidacy. I will support that with time and treasure. At the same time I hope that more REAL conservatives will speak out, unafraid of PC-constraints. Unafraid of the MSM/DBM/lefty media. And go for office.
I agree Jim, and FReepers, do not support Rudy. He is NOT of us. He will not move us towards our goal. He will, I think, betray us.
Just my 0.02 to the founder of the finest website on the planet.
What are you talking about? Socons are the ones who are fighting hardest against faux conservatives like rudy.
[But I would vote for a trained chimpanzee if it meant keeping Hillary out of the White House.]
= = =
me too
= = =
me three.
That’s the right approach, Veronica. This thread is just bait to ban people.
Some Freepers in the Giuliani camp are quick to play the victim card, when in reality, they give as good as they get.
If Hillary becomes president because Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee, it will be the liberal Republicans’ fault for not nominating someone who motivates the conservative base.
And what if Romney becomes the head of the Republican party?
A long shot, I know, but where do you stand on his candidacy?
WooHoo!
I can’t believe it took nine years either.
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.