Skip to comments.Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?
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?
'Cause its the truth!
>>>>> ..... without mentioning his outstanding fiscal conservative positions and tax cutting policies ...
When Rudy left office, he left NYCity straddled with a $2.0 billion deficit and an increased debt reaching $42 billion. Rudy didn't reduce the size of the city government. Rudy added 15,000 new teachers to the city employment rolls, making the NEA and the AFT very happy.
When Rudy left office NYCity was still the highest taxed big city in America. A liberal-socialist hell hole.
>>>>> .... and his strength in terms of national security and hating the Arab jihadists.
LMBO You've got to be joking. Rudy has no special talents or abilities in the area of natl defense or natl security. And lotsa Americans hate the Jihadists!
Illegal immigration and the 2nd amendment have nothing to do with social issues.
Those who may support a Republican nominee that you are against will not be supporting infanticide, Einstein.
LOL. Too many around here would like to forget that.
THe love affair of conservatives with Fred Thompson is the last straw I think for them, they expected we'd have to fall in line with no good conservatives getting any traction (BTW, something that they are working hard to maintain, trashing every conservative whenever there's any movement).
They didn't see Fred coming, and now he's viable and they are trying to knock him down but not succeeding. And they have gotten increasingly harsh about it, saying more stupid things by the day. And they are bitter because they don't understand how a person like Fred Thompson who is not 100% conservative is getting all the love from conservatives while their Rudy, who they love, can't get any traction.
I don't know what it is about Rudy that attracts them, especially the women (PhiKapMom was nearly swooning with exitement over having been in the same room with Rudy, that was in her last post to the site before she ran off without being banned).
I keep forgetting about John Ketting McCain.
I believe you've come to the wrong conclusion regarding the FR poll. I voted for Fred Thompson in this poll but I will vote for whoever is the Republican nominee. Most of us would prefer a conservative candidate but staying home or voting third party is out of the question. No way will I put Hillary in charge of our military. NO WAY!
LOL!! Are you going to join the All New Idaho FR Ping List or will this be contingent on us hiring Gruden back? ;)
None of us has any idea, but we can guess. I suppose that is keeping them from voting in the secret ballots for him as well.
I wonder if they’ll be willing to actually step up and push his button.
Chickens. Wait, that’s not fair, I don’t know they are chicken, I only have your word that they are chickens, and I shouldn’t call them that just because you did.
Peach wrote: “Making conservatives feel welcome? Which conservatives are those? Certainly not fiscal conservatives. Or law and order conservatives. Ooh, ooh - wait. You mean making social conservatives feel at home.”
That’s a bogus argument, Peach. Most conservatives can’t be so conveniently classified as that. Most conservatives I know are conservative in their views on social, fiscal and security issues.
Most people I know who are liberal on social issues but conservative on fiscal issues are libertarians, not conservatives.
Joe Lieberman is conservative on L&O and security issues, but he’s a liberal on most everything else, and not even close to being a conservative overall.
The Issues2000 website classified Rudy as a libertarian-leaning moderate, which is an arguable point. He’s just so liberal on the four real hot-button social issues (abortion, illegal immigration, gays and guns) that conservatives who believe in fiscal restraint, security AND traditional values can’t bring ourselves to even consider him.
Rudy’s support of social tinkering on any one or two of these issues would be deal breakers by themselves, but ALL FOUR?
And even if Rudy is a moderate, what good is that? The GOP moderates and their suicidal tendency to go along with liberal Dimocracks have made a real mess of the Republican Party and the nation.
It’s going to take a lot of hard work just to get the country back on the path Ronald Reagan set it upon a little over a quarter-century ago. this is not a job that we can trust a moderate or a liberal to do. We need a conservative for this task.
Who was the subject of the post you were replying to?
Ok, so you're not only a liar, but you are a dissembling prevaricating liar. Figures. Liberals lie a lot.
Giuliani's liberal positions and utter contempt for the constitution, individual rights, the rule of law, national security, national sovereignty, etc, disqualifies him from any consideration for the presidency,
Agreed. Jim`s laid down the law, these anti-conservative liberal types should just hit the road. Be gone!
“And lotsa Americans hate the Jihadists!”
That must mean we’re all qualified to be President!!!
That’s the dumbest post I’ve ever seen on FR.
Elyse, what we are seeing here is no longer simply discussion, but online combat. More specifically, it’s online ‘kamikaze’ combat, born of desperation and an absolute determination to either ‘rule or ruin’.
Which we largely repealed in 2000. And we had a balanced budget. And yes, it would have been better not to have had a tax increase, but you take the good with the bad (we had an enormous tax increase with GW Bush Sr as well).
As I said, can you get any creepier?
Sweetie's one thing, calling me Hillary is another. Discussion is obviously over, as I don't sink to your level of discourse.
Guess who worked for Reagan from 1981 to 1983 (as Associate Attorney General overseeing Immigration) and was instrumental in promoting his amnesty plan (only to later defy its enforcement through sanctuary city policies)? You got it—none other than... Rudy!
No wait! This is a trick question, right?
I’m voting third party on that one.
This is just so precious. A perfect example of the kind of sh*tty attitude JR is seeking to eliminate, IMO.
I'm all three types of conservative that you list. But my social conservative side has taken a beaten by you and yours for far too long.
You all beat up on the fiscal conservatives here who criticized Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress for unprecedented increases in discretionary domestic spending. Now you want to wear the fiscal conservative mantel. No way.
You all also beat up on the law and order conservatives who criticized Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress for refusing to enforce immigration laws, failing to prosecute law-breaking employers, and for proposing amnesty for the illegal aliens' and their employers' crimes. Now you want to pretend that YOU are the law and order conservatives. Fat chance.
Then you beat up on the national security conservatives who wanted our borders sealed after 9/11 and continued to call for border barriers and military on the border ever since. Many of the Rudybots (some now banned) were the ones calling national security conservatives who demanded better border security things like "racist", "xenophobe" and other liberal nonsense. Now you want to be the national security conservatives. That's not credible either.
You just don't have any credibility as a conservative. Now you have even less as you promote a liberal abortionist, homosexualist, gun-grabbing, draft dodging serial adulterer to be the GOP presidential candidate.
Real conservatives are feeling more welcome here as the liberals who have been attacking them are being shown the writing on the wall. Support conservatives and conservatism or take a hike. We don't need you distraction and disruption here. We've got better things to do and it doesn't involve promoting liberals and their liberalism.
“Giuliani’s liberal positions and utter contempt for the constitution, individual rights, the rule of law, national security, national sovereignty, etc, disqualifies him from any consideration for the presidency”
B U M P
The left runs midddle and governs left. The right doesn’t do a good job of defending itself in an election and upon accidently winning, governs in the middle.
We need to sell conservatism, no doubt about it.
I don’t think Giuliani can pull down those three states, but he would damage conservatism.
Since when did you believe anything a pro-rudy person posted? :-)
“Giuliani’s liberal positions and utter contempt for the constitution, individual rights, the rule of law, national security, national sovereignty, etc, disqualifies him from any consideration for the presidency,”
Stealing that for my next tagline lol.
If you examine the picture closely, you’ll see that abortion and closely related issues are indeed the key division with in the Republican Party. This may not be YOUR key issue — I didn’t say it was everybody’s — but it is most certainly the key dividing line. If you look at FR threads regarding potential Presidential candidates, they are always heavy on posts like “He’s pro-abort and I’ll never vote for a pro-abort”. This is a VERY frequent comment when Condi Rice’s name comes up, despite her ample conservative credentials. That the first black President could also be the first female President AND support the real Second Amendment is a breathtaking possibility, with major implications for the future political landscape in the US — devastating the general perception in the electorate that the Democratic Party is the party that’s “for” women and blacks, shifting many blacks and women into the RKBA camp who’d never before had any reason to seriously consider making that shift, and greatly weakening the the popular Democratic/Socialist refrain that US blacks are disproportionately poor and crime-prone because they were “oppressed” (hard to prevent black people who’ve bought into that from considering that if Condi was oppressed — which she clearly was — and didn’t let it hold her back, they can too). But a huge percentage of FReepers don’t give a crap about any of that, because she’s “a pro-abort” and they don’t need to know anything else about her to know they’d never vote for her. The colossal amount of time and energy our elected representatives are spending yakking about abortion, morming after pills, embryonic stem cell research, and of course the other pet issue of the same camp of the Republican Party, gay marriage, is all a very convenient distraction, which enables the socialists — both Democrat and Republican — to keep on piling up new government spending and wealth redistribution schemes without any noisy opposition. Most of the potential noisemakers are too busy putting on a show for their constituents of trying to get full citizenship rights for zygotes, and of trying to prevent Jim and Joe from ever getting a marriage license, to bother much with the details of the ever-growing tax-spend-redistribute monster.
Forum Question of the Night
You are doing a great job defending you positions from the rudy haters.
Somehow I doubt it.
“I don’t sink to your level of discourse.”
After reading your tag line, I would say that statement is an ‘oxymoron’.
“Lets see a link and Ill believe you.”
No. You run and fetch! Its been posted dozens of times refuting Rooty suports the flat tax. I wont bother posting it again for someone that refuses to read things when they are posted.
AC—I dug up some of the original quotes by Reagan at the time the abortion bill passed in 1967 when he was governor of California. He was anything but liberal. Unfortunately, the law was interpreted over time much more liberally than it was intended. See my post for some of his quotes:
Jefferson had fifty male relatives in the state of Virginia, any of whom could have been the father. We essentially went from no chance to a 2% chance. I don’t take odds on a 2% chance.
If they learned their lesson they would not be trying to so hard to alienate the conservative base.....again. Oh and they aren’t my sit at homers. You see, there are alot like me, who didn’t sit at home but didn’t vote for the those we were told we should “because they can win’. Some of us actually do vote FOR our values rather than bandwagon style.
If a lesson was learned, ‘Republicans’ wouldn’t be so eager for a New York-New York Presidential race. While this would be a slap in the face to Al Qaeda, it is a slap in the face to Americans as well. To me, it isn’t worth it.
The most valid criticism, imho, of GWB is his lack of serious action securing our borders. Do you think Rudy will do anything different? Hardly.
“Sweetie’s one thing, calling me Hillary is another. Discussion is obviously over, as I don’t sink to your level of discourse”
1. This from the person that insults the owner of the site.
2. Are you delusional? nobody called you Hillary.
I agree with you. That is a very good analogy.
“This is just so precious. A perfect example of the kind of sh*tty attitude JR is seeking to eliminate, IMO”
My opinion too!
so exactly when was it that a conservative got any movement and is fred thompson a conservative ?
Thank you, staytrue.
I would be right on board with you if it weren't for one thing... Hillary. I'm sorry, but I'd vote for Gore before I let her get into office. Rudy bothers me on several issues, but HC scares the crap out of me.