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?
No sir. The men and women of FREE REPUBLIC should continue to do what they have always done and come to represent in the Conservative world ... patient and persistent, aerticulate and eloquent, no compromise agitation from within, for all the principles you have stated.
Look for yourself. “Nobody by that name”. He wasn’t just banned or suspended. He was deleted. Same with Mia T.
Honetly, if the founding fathers suddenly showed up today, there would be much they would be proud of and there would probably be much they would be disappointed in. But if I recall, they held many long and spirited debates during the time of the founding documents. I'm quite sure that many walked away very proud of some things and very disappointed in others.
Sp you think he’d side with the dims while trying to clear up the issues I mentioned? That wouldn’t be possible....he’d need the base.
As I recall there was some discussion a few years ago about support for the Republican presidential candidate by FreeRepublic. As I recall the discussion was about whether or not FreeRepublic would become known as a Republican web site instead of a Conservative Web site. Since that time there has been a lot of support for Republican candidates at FreeRepublic, not because they have been so good but because they have been so much better than the alternative even when they were bad.
Undoubtedly, FreeRepublic has drawn some Republicans, in contrast to Conservatives, because of that. Something might need to be done about that. Letting the debate continue among the posters might serve you best, at least for now.
But that does not mean you have to let the name "FreeRepublic" be associated with candidates of whom you disapprove. Instead let it be associated with opposition to candidates of whom you disapprove even more.
Most of the time my vote has not been "for" someone for president.
Most of the time my vote has been "against" someone.
I consider the person in favor of whom I cast my vote to be the lesser of two bad choices.
Sometimes it's a matter of taking a step in the wrong direction as opposed to a leap in the wrong direction.
You don't have to step out in favor of someone of whom you disapprove in order to step out against someone of whom you disapprove even more.
In closing, support for a third party at the national level would be a leap in the wrong direction. It is too likely to lead to another 48% president of the wrong kind. Note that I wrote "at the national level". Support at the lower levels is well indicated. Seems to me most third parties want to go for the top position too soon. They don't have a foundation suitable to make them anything but a spoiler.
Finally, "The Constitution is not a suicide pack." Is FreeRepublic? The answer should be "no". Don't let them get you down, you're doing good. And good luck keeping up with all the responses I expect your post is going to draw.
Absolutely not.
There are only two people that I can think of that are truly conservative AND HAVE ENOUGH NAME RECOGNITION to fit the bill.
One is Thompson and the other is Gingrich.
The policies of the country are supposed to be determined and expressed in one place: The Congress
The president’s duties are to faithfully enforce and execute the laws of the United States.
If Rudy could get elected and follow that plan, I would have no problem. But over the years, the presidency has been changed and we are drifting from the plan.
Wow....so she is [banned]....my bad.
The two posters I’ve seen banned today were unique cases. One was one of your Rudy buddies, who accidentally or otherwise posted that Fred Thompson had contributed to Hillary Clinton, rather than Van Hilleary. He/she also had tried to link Thompson’s religion to something it wasn’t a short time earlier.
The other fellow, another of my long time nemeses going back to the last century, made the mistake of ticking off the owner of this site when he was trying to make a point. Very bad timing. We are guests in Mr. Robinson’s house.
As for me, if I didn’t have liberal Republicans to argue with, I might get bored and have to do yardwork. My best to you.
I am frankly surprised we haven't heard more from him, but I think he's got his hands full with something else.
Jim, the Rudybots can’t take the truth and arn’t adult enough to take a challenge so many of them are also
at another site, W.A. so they can feed each other’s egos.
Rudy won’t be nominated so I say, enjoy W.A. Rudybots.
LOL. You too, Luke.
However, I cannot in good conscience do anything that would put either Hillary or Obama in the White House. Rudy may support evil ideologies, but I don’t think the man himself is evil. I don’t envision Rudy finding ways to silence the opposition in the way I am certain Hillary and Obama (as the puppet of the far left) will.
Hillary and Obama are pure evil. I believe they are demons. If the choice is between misguided and evil, I’ll go with misguided.
No way. NO WAY would Tom McClintock have beaten Bustamante. I know CA voters.
If you can't see the difference between the two, nobody will explain it to you.
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.