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?
Your claim does not contradict mine.
I do, however, get disappointed when so many conservatives get duped into supporting not-quite-as-liberal-as-the-other-guy.
I think it's more important to cast my vote for a conservative that be able to smile and slap everyone on the back when "Our Guy" wins the election. It's easy to say "Death before Slavery," but what does it mean if you vote for someone who will take more of your liberty away?
Hey, another pro-rudy poster who managed to “escape the purge”.
Must have been a real incompetent purge, with all these pro-rudy people still around.
In other words, the “purge” is the nonexistant figment of the imagination of the pro-rudy people.
You have to admit he was the ultimate troll.
That man was the reason God invented alcohol ..... what a lunatic. He was funny ... but only in tiny doses.
Maybe FR could let him back with the caveat that he can only post on a Sunday from 0900-1000? He can't be drunk ALL the time.
Did I say that people on THIS thread were threatening to vote for Hillary?
You’ve been on threads where it’s been threatened, I’m quite sure. Lots of us have seen it, commented on it, and some freepers have saved those posts. I’m not one of those freepers.
What memories of this RM2 HICOM operator you bring back . . .
Mischaracterized by the media. Here's something Alan Keyes has written about reparations:
"The truth of the Civil War is that the terrible price for American slavery has been paid, once for all," when Americans gave their lives on the battlefield to end slavery. "The price for the sin of slavery," Keyes wrote, "has already been paid, in blood."
I can't disagree with that.
Sure, he is, but Peach has said on this thread that he is stifling free speech by banning and purging all the pro-rudy posters.
He is doing no such thing. In his mind he’s been more than fair to those using his site to push a candidate he hates, so for those same people who are benefiting from his site to accuse him of doing what he probably WANTS to do but doesn’t is pretty hypocritical.
You mean, like you?
“The so called “conservative base” is in PERPETUAL alienated mode; something offends one of them each and every day and off they go, moralizing and pontificating.”
Damn those conservatives, “morialising and pontificating”..you sound like a fkn liberal. Listen to yourself.
I'm kind of a "one issue" voter--My issue is the Constitution!
Look, I hate to get all technical on you, but there's no way I said that every Rudy supporter is being banned. LOL. It's amusing for you to write it that way, of course, but you know it's not true.
What did quidnick (sp?) do to get banned? Nothing that I can see. What did MiaT do to get banned and called an abortionist troll?
Unfortunately, this is no drill. Confidence is high.
“Who yanked your chain?”
Howlin why are you being rude... He is 100% correct.
There’s no way Rudy can win in the general election. I don’t think he can even win in Idaho, one of the reddest states in the union.
You very well could be the most clueless poster I’ve ever seen on this forum.
And for some reason, you think you’re hilarious; you’re alone alot, aren’t you?
I’m waiting for that list too.
Well, don’t mind me if I continue fighting for what’s right. Hint, liberalism, socialism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, gun control, taxpayer funded abortion, sanctuary for illegal aliens, ignoring the law, trampling on the constitution, etc, etc, are not right. Supporting a candidate that is guilty of all of the above is simply not the right thing to do.
I’ve always thought you were a conservative. What happened that made you support such a liberal?
I’m not interested in talking to him.
And don’t lecture me.
Gosh, do you just think a lie repeated often enough is going to make people believe your little canard or what?
We accept it, but we also refute it.
I’m sick of this thred. I’m goin to the Canteen and listen to some music! Hang tight, ol pal!
You sound like a damn (unoriginal) parrot.
We have always cherished the worth of the individual, not as a tool, but because he was an individual.
***Good place to bookmark and say good night. Well said.
Stooping to the ad hominem tonight?
I was wondering when the marshmallow would come to the bonfire.
There are a lot of well meaning Freepers who are firmly to the right of the average Dim senator, but they sure as hell aren't Conservative. Just my thoughts, and offered with all due respect.
They want God completely out of the picture. Why?
It is really quite simple. If our RIGHTS do not come from GOD, then where do they come from. The leftist/socialist would tell us (as Bill Clinton did years ago) that our rights come from government. And if our rights flow from government, then what government gives, government can take away.
As long as people believe that our RIGHTS come from GOD, then government cannot take them away. Remove GOD as the source of our rights, and the default position is that they come from government, and therefore they can justify restricting or eliminating them "for the common good."
I’m off duty in 30 minutes. Third-shift Rudy-haters are coming already overdue, but my replacement is late.
Gun grabber rudy won’t win TN, a state where even the democrats introduce pro gun bills!
The rudybots are so afraid of hillary they can’t conceive of another candidate getting the nod. Imagine bill richardson, who was endorsed by the NRA, running against anti gun rudy. The republicans lose any change of winning the pro-gun union vote that gives them the edge in many areas.
Well Im going to bed
After this thread Im more convinced than ever to vote for Rudy ....The anti Rudy crowd convinced me
No man is so foolish but he may sometimes give another good counsel, and no man so wise that he may not easily err if he takes no other counsel than his own. He that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master.
Oh, my god, you caught me.
And I am so wounded, you being the bastion of correct posting guidelines and all. You set an example most of us can only hope to attain some day.
Daniel Pipes included Giuliani in his article about "ostriches" who denied domestic terrorism.
Key excerpt: Law enforcement seems more concerned to avoid an anti-Muslim backlash than to find the culprits. This attitude of denial fits an all-too-common pattern. I have previously documented a reluctance in nearby New York City to see as terrorism the 1994 Brooklyn Bridge (road rage was the FBIs preferred description) and the 1997 Empire State Building shootings (many, many enemies in his mind, said Rudolph Giuliani). Likewise, the July 2002 LAX murders were initially dismissed as a work dispute and the October 2002 rampage of the Beltway snipers went unexplained, leaving the media to ascribe it to such factors as a stormy [family] relationship.
Here's more from Pipes on one of the pre-9/11 terrorist attacks on NY under Giuliani's watch (which he used as a platform to call for stricter national gun control):
Ali Hasan Abu Kamal, a Palestinian gunman hailing from militant Islamic circles in Florida, took a gun to the top of the Empire State building in February 1997 and shot a tourist there. His suicide note accused the United States of using Israel as its "instrument" against the Palestinians but city officials ignored this evidence and instead dismissed Abu Kamal as either "one deranged individual working on his own" (Police Commissioner Howard Safir) or a "man who had many, many enemies in his mind" (Mayor Rudolph Giuliani).
Here's information on an earlier terrorist attack on NYC while Giuliani was mayor:
Key excerpt: The Mayor's urgency to quash the widespread reports of a link between the shooting suspect and the well-known terrorist organization fit a pattern he established immediately after the Tuesday shootings. From the beginning, he personally took control of all briefings on the matter, often appearing with the Police Commissioner at his side, and took pains to dampen the rumors that might pit one ethnic group against another or raise the city's level of fear.
Even now, Mr. Giuliani and the Police Department have refused to discuss the question of a motive in the van shootings, which left one student brain-dead, another in poor condition and two others with less serious wounds. Though many Hasidim say they are certain the students were shot because they are Jews, the police say they have not determined the shooting was anti-Semitic.
Yesterday morning, Mr. Giuliani met for 40 minutes with a group of Arab restaurateurs, business owners and community leaders from Brooklyn. He told them that Arabs as a group should not be blamed for the shooting, and the Arab leaders put out a statement expressing condolences to the families of the victims and noting that Arabs were instrumental in contributing information that led to Mr. Baz's arrest.
This particular attacker was linked to a hotbed of Brooklyn Islamofascism centered in Bay Ridge. But Giuliani didn't follow up to see if there was a wider pattern of Islamofascist attacks being planned/supported/funded there -- he treated the shooting as an isolated crime, tried to avoid admitting any links to terrorism, and met with leaders of Brooklyn's Arab community. Giuliani's record on Islamofascist attacks when he was in charge is not good.
Certainly is no drill.
Who’s confidence do you see as high?
Have a great night my FRiend!
“Stooping to the ad hominem tonight?”
I don’t see why tonight would be any different! ;)
Your candidate has a problem that invoking the magic phrase "front-running status" is unlikely to cure, in my opinion. That is simply this - in American politics for the last four decades or so there were two hot-button issues, abortion and gun control, and in the last decade or so a third has been added - illegal immigration. The problem is that Rudy has either temporized or come down on the wrong side (for conservatives) on each of these.
These are hot-button issues for liberals as well, and hence there tends to be very little middle ground, and a politician who strives to find it ends up respected by neither of the polarities. The Excluded Middle may be a fallacy in logic but it's a political fact. And it turns out that claiming their candidate's strength on national security while ignoring the fact that two of these issues, gun control and illegal immigration, are intimately associated with national security, is going to be a very difficult rock for Rudy's people - I assume you are one of them - to try to move out of the road.
I don't think they're likely to manage it, and that, plus quite a bit of unwarranted heat, is what this thread is about. I think that Giuliani is profoundly untrustworthy on each of these issues, and were it to come to a choice between him and Hillary the election will, in the view of many conservatives, come down to a choice between a woman who will take our rights away and a man who will deal them away. That's a pretty ugly choice. Some of us are unenthusiastic about such a choice but not, I think, unreasonable.
“I said that maybe you were making social conservatives feel welcome, but those of us who are national security and fiscal conservatives arent feeling terribly welcome.”
Social conservatives ARE the fiscal and national defense conservatives. Your not knowing that is confusing to me.
You must at least recognize that social conservatism and patriotism and national defense and fiscal responsibility are the simple core of everyday conservatism.
When you look for a fellow conservative in a new, liberal environment wouldn’t you expect to find a kindred soul at the pro-life booth? (except for the social conservative part)
Well, since they left this morning it would be difficult to ignore them, but it’s sweet of you to be concerned.
Oh so we are already to the rabid namecalling stage huh? Have at it, it shows that is the best you got Howlin. Go call someone else names who will actually be intimidated by it. I actually like it, it shows what you are made of and how you actually do treat conservatives. I say something truthful about your position and you call me names in return. Ha Ha Ha, lightweight.
I think removing the “Rubber Stamp Congress” excuse has been quite productive on more than one front. I guess you miss what is going right now with Funding the troops huh? Pelosi is just doing soooooo well and so is Reid huh? THEY aren’t doing anything they said they would, the ultra lefties who were once attacking Republicans are now eating their own. You see no value in that I guess. Actually I must be wrong about that.....as you just did to me what those lefites are doing to Democrats.
You really don’t see it do you Howlin?
Maybe you fear they are comin for your positions next?
I'm not the one who claims conservatism is dead, and that we have to settle for a liberal because we lost the war. The defeatists are the rudy supporters, by their own words we cannot win votes for conservatism.
I bet you are one of those who voted Democrat in 2006 just to teach the Republicans a lesson.
You would lose that bet. On the other hand, I'm not one of the republicans that are now crying myself to sleep at night in dread fear that if we don't throw out conservatism and "go with the flow" that we'll lose more power.
I believe in the power of God to control all things. I believe in the power of our country to overcome all things, even democrats in power. I believe we survived Bill Clinton, and we could survive Hillary Clinton.
I believe that if we sell America a bill of goods just so we can be in charge, we are hypocrits and sellouts, damaging our country for power.
“You sound like a damn (unoriginal) parrot.”
Polly doesn’t want a liberal.
Polly doesn’t want a liberal.
Polly doesn’t want a liberal.
Richardson’s actually got a very good rating from GOA.
Ah, son, does that actually MEAN something?
I’m not quite convinved English is your mother tongue.
I only asked a question.