Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?

vanity | April 21, 2007 | Jim Robinson

[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?

[Hot Tabasco]

I miss George Allen.

Yep, and Gracie too.......

[aft_lizard]

I hope not. It will suck if our two main choices are Hillary and Giuliary.

[trussell]

Yet one of the people who have fought the hardest against Rudy is now banned from FR because the Rudybots started yelling that he was stalking. He was baited at every corner...when he asked them to stop posting to him, they said they would do as they damned well pleased...and they got him banned.

Please reinstate posting priviledges for Fierce Allegiance.

[Jim Robinson]

I’ll never vote Rat either. Despite which ticket he’s running on.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“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”

Our founders could never envision the perverse behavior
of the ACLU, and teachers unions who wish to ram homosexuality down our children’s throats. Rudy has no problem with evil and perversity. We cannot allow him to prevail!!

[KATIE-O]

I remember those days too. :) I lurked here because I was afraid to join in. lol Yikes!

[Man50D]

I know you to be a loyal Republican. The fact that Rudy is affecting you and other loyalists this way tells me that for the first time in modern politics, the GOP runs the risk of allowing a true third party threat to take shape in 2008.

What you may not realize is the Republican party is becoming increasingly socialistic as the Democrats. They are essentially one party based on their shared ideology regardless of the party labels. Creating a Conservative party will restore the two party system.

[afnamvet]

Do you really expect me to do that?

No and I stand with you. Liberalism and all the evil that goes with it must be defeated. That fight starts here.

[Bishop_Malachi]

“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. I don’t expect you to do so. And I hope that the conservative movement doesn’t become so unconfident in itself that it believes such expectations are reasonable. The Constitution established by our Founding Fathers - if it had any purpose - was to limit government (especially the federal government). No manner of sophistry on the part of modern liberals can change that.

[MrEdd]

A canned post that I used to put up still applies.

I am a conservative not a Republican. I will vote for Republicans IF they are conservative. If Bush's opponent had not been Hanoi John Kerry, I would not have voted in the last election.

Islam's war against the west will inevitably bring the US a nuclear strike. The persistent open borders are a hot potato that will utterly destroy the party in power when it happens. I prefer that the borders be closed - but barring that, let it be the liberals who are destroyed if we're not going to move to prevent it.

This is as obvious and foreseeable as the earlier attacks on September eleventh. Aside from the loss we all will have of family and friends WHEN not if this happens, I recognize that the party who emerges in power will be able to radically reshape government the United States. Many on the left foresee this as well, and are actively working to keep our defenses weak.

I therefore am willing to sacrifice important pieces to win the game. Winning the white house or congress are less important than closing the borders. A candidate who could win an office, at the cost of placing someone in office that the left could justifiably claim failed to aggressively defend America costs conservatism control of the board.

By the same token I will not move to save a socially liberal republican candidate merely to defeat the democrat. Sometimes control of the board is more important than saving every pawn.

If I get a liberal in office who votes liberal while claiming (unchallenged) to represent the party with a conservative platform, then my voice is even more unheard than if a liberal democrat is in office. It means that conservatives will vote for anyone who claims conservatism, even if they are to the left of Hillary Clinton. It also means that the Republican party did this eyes wide open, believing that I (and other conservatives) would vote for a yellow dog if it was a republican. Sorry RNC that only works with democrats.

Semper Fidelis

[do the dhue]

We don’t need a liberal to beat a liberal.

It’s not just FR, it is the Republican Party.

If the GOP will not stand up for the unborn baby, who will?

If the GOP won’t stand up for the RTKBA, who will?

If the GOP will not stand up for God in Public view, who will?

Democrats?

The GOP needs to give us a real choice. Socially, there is no difference between Rudy and Hillary.

I need a Conservative Patriot to beat a Commie liberal. The GOP needs to motivate the base.

The media is trying to make us believe we need a liberal to beat a liberal.

The media has not picked a front runner in a long time. Coward Dean was supposed to be the next Demoratic Nominee in 04.

When that didn’t work, Kohn Kerry was going to be President.

That didn’t work, so now I need a liberal to beat a liberal.

I say horse hockey!

I am with you, Jim.

Give me a Conservative or give me death.

[GovernmentShrinker]

And for what it’s worth, I do not believe Giuliani is a socialist. Say what you will about the guy’s position on social issues, but he has a record of success as NY Mayor that is pretty darned impressive.

I quite agree. I think Rudy was pressed up against the rightward wall as hard he could be in NYC. Any further and he wouldn't have gotten re-elected, and we'd have had somebody much, much further to the left instead. I expect he'll move somewhat further to the right as a national candidate because he'll have the space to do so -- the rightward wall of the national room is much further right than the rightward wall of the NYC room. Though I know it won't be as far right as my views are, I really don't want him to go any further, since as you note, the only viable alternative is likely to be Hillary.

[Mom MD]

that’s the point. There is precious little difference between Hilary and Guiliani. Would you vote for Hilary if there was an R behind her name?

[Paperdoll]

>This is the forum that largely chose Alan Keyes as the presidential candidate in 2000 so I’m not terribly worried that they don’t like Rudy. LOL<

Really? I didn’t know that. I’ve supported Alan Keyes for 30 years. Good man. Good mind. Too bad the country doesn’t realize how much it needed him. Look where we find ourselves now! Whatever happened to all those FReeper Conservatives?!

[Jim Robinson]

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.

[Lancey Howard]

I don’t believe Rudy is a socialist, but I do believe he’s a chameleon who will blow whichever way the winds of Congress blow, and if that Congress happens to be a Democrat Congress intent on making the United States as great a socialist welfare state as France, then Rudy might just go along to get along.

He cannot be allowed to succeed, because his success would only embolden Republican liberals (”moderates”) and make other wishy-washy GOP jellyfish believe that going “moderate” is the way to win elections.

Run, Fred, run.
I beg of you.

[Enosh]

Uh..., Jim?

You just deleted someone who joined nine years ago.

Take it easy.

[Dead Corpse]

Pre-emptive surrender by picking a RINO is a really friggin’ stupid way to go.

[Strategerist]

Well the long and short of it is FR is basically irrelevant to who the Republican nominee is and who wins the presidential election - unless there’s some incident similar to the Rather/Texas Guard thing - same of course is true of DU, and Daily Kos and whatever.

As active and large as the board is it’s still a micropscopic (and unrepresentative) portion of even just the Republican Party, much less the electorate as a whole.

[Luke21]

Jim, your leadership is much appreciated. Many of us have had it, just as you have, with metrosexual, lukewarm, milquetoast, bootlickers like Rudy.