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?
Are you too stupid to read a tagline?
Yesterday I was arguing with one who was praising Giuliani for violating the NY State ban on giving welfare to legal immigrants in country for less than a year.
The poster really and truly believed that it was a good and necessary thing.
I have two theories:
A. They are liberals who call themselves conservatives just to try to promote their liberal candidate in the GOP primary.
B. They are ex-liberals who have been mugged by the reality of 9/11 and think that because they believe in national security, that makes them conservatives.
Perhaps it is a combination of both.
And I apologize for snapping at you; you and I agree on more than we ever disagreed on.
If you really think that way then post your opus and hit the road. In the meantime if you're going to talk about him why don't you post to him?
Maybe you should consider making a Ghouliani_Republic site and see what you get?
No, but you do kind of remind me of her. She's a tough old bat too.
Amen! Everything will hinge on the primary.
With a child like you, it’s a wonder she’s not in a psych ward.
Has nothing to do with terrorism, but he was the mayor, not the police chief. And when the police chief who accomplished most of the miracles Rudy took credit for got top billing in Time Magazine, Rudy fired him.
He was articulating the Islamist threat way before any pol I can think of. Way before 9/11. That was one of the reasons he kicked out Arafat despite the shrieks of the NYTimes.
I asked for facts. Point me to a speech he gave about the "islamist threat", and then explain how that speech prevented any deaths on 9/11. Tell me how kicking Arafat out of a theater stopped the terrorists from bombing our embassys, or solved the Israili/Palistinian crises, or prevented any terrorist attack. Don't just say "he's strong on terror". I already heard that, I want some proof.
His response to 9/11 despite what others say was heroic.
What did he do? He ran his city. He didn't personally run into the building and rescue people. He didn't put his own life in danger. He reacted well when you wanted him to react well.
Meanwhile, ordinary citizens were sacrificing their lives on a plane over Pennsylvania, firefighters and police were running up the stairs of a building doomed to collapse.
Donald Rumsfeld was running INTO the burning pentagon. Firefighters from all around DC were rushing to a place that could be hit again, to rescue people.
Sure, some people wouldn't have done so well, but he didn't really do anything. He did get on TV though.
Provide 3 specific examples of things Rudy did on 9/11 that were extraordinary either in bravery or in action. Should be easy for you. Again, I didn't ask you to repeat the assertions, I want facts. What did Rudy DO on 9/11 that showed him to be far above anybody else? What did he DO that was more than what any competent manager would do?
His speech following 9/11 slapping around the UN was fantastic.
Words are not deeds. A lot of people can say the right thing. I could make a speech that would run rings around Giuliani, and I'll never be presidential. A speech is not an act against terrorism. And everybody whose anybody can slap the UN around. What did he actually DO? What acts did he take that showed the terrorists wouldn't win?
Watching those buildings collapse around him and attending all those funerals....he more then any other pol knows the nature of the enemy...hes qualified.
He saw the building collapse? We all saw the buildings collapse. That's the "he was there, so he is tough on terrorism" argument. In what way does watching the buildings collapse make him no more than "any other pol" the nature of the enemy? Romney doesn't understand? Gilmore (who was the Governor of the state in which the Pentagon was hit) doesn't understand? McCain doesn't understand the nature of the terrorist threat? What has Rudy done to show he knows the nature of the threat more than any other pol?
To summarise, he's strong on terror because he employed more cops than the next 4 cities combined just to get a 20% better crime rate, he kicked Arafat out of a theater in a pique of authoritarian rage, he watched the towers fall, and he made a good speech.
I'm sorry, but I am unimpressed.
A lot of people came here to escape religious persecution. oddly enough, many of them turned around and began perscuting others. So you would say that anything that occurred between 1492 and 1776 weren't part of our national heritage? If you really want to strictly define "national" to exclude anything leading up to the American revolution, I suppose that's your choice, but that overlooks a lot of our history.
With Giuliani's position on illegal immigration you might as well get used to it.
Howlin, Tell me what ‘BLUE DOG” democrats ran on if not gun ownership and tough immigration positions? Yup, conservative values. It most certainly wasn’t ‘free’ healthcare amnesty for illegals, gay marriage and gun restrictions.
You think you know what IS is kind of like you think you know what humor is. You attack anyone who disagrees with you in the tinyest way.......just like Pelosi and Reid. You spare no expense and take great lengths to tear down good people trying to have straight forward dialogue.
You are part of what is WRONG with FR.
That's funny - she says that a lot too - are you sure you're not my mother?
I do tire of looking things up and they refuse to read it. They just slink off to another thread and post the same crap you just refuted!
I can say you have much more Patience that I would have with my thumb on the ZOT button.
But I still love FreeRepublic!
The current administration ran on social conservative platform. It was also supported by and elected by social conservatives. They won in 04 by pushing the marriage amendment and by the lameness of Jon Kerry. By that point it had become clear that fiscal conservatism or promoting the idea of small government was not on their radar screen. In fact with earmarks and pork bills like the farm bill, the energy bill, the highway bill and the medicaid billAt this point I’m unclear how socons are fiscal conservatives or believe in a smaller less intrusive government. If I’m wrong...tell me. I’d like to believe that.