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?
Im hoping I didnt need a sarcasm tag for that last post”
I thought you did a great job.There’s so much sarcasm dripping off it, I had to get a towel and wipe off my screen.
Who said he was wrong? I don’t support the flat tax. But you said Rudy supported the flat tax, and he doesn’t. I wouldn’t have actually bothered, but someone else told you it was wrong, and you doubted them and asked for proof, so I gave it to you.
That’s the only reason I posted it, to support the charge of the other poster. I don’t post stuff like that that I agree with just to attack a candidate I don’t like, it’s unseemly to me to attack someone for agreeing with me.
If I were to support something, it would probably be the fair tax, but I’d have to see the implementation. I also would like to study a VAT, although most conservatives fear it because it’s so easy to hide.
“No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing.”
I don’t know if you are just wrong or just lying. What he said was that he would not change his position on supporting partial birth abortion. (he would continue to support it)
Go back and look it up!
Well, that’s one. Any more?
Abortionist? Oh, right. I forgot. You think anyone who is pro choice is an abortionist.
Run Newt run.
Rex posted 2-3 other posts by freepers who said they’ll be voting for Hillary instead of Rudy. He posted them since you asked me for proof.
I am not supporting or defending the banning, but it was a little more than that. One, it was an implied statement that Jim preferred Hillary. Two, it showed the kind of silly logic that annoys so many people here i.e. the idea that if you don't support Rudy you support Hillary.
They may not have been consecutive. My days are running into each other.
But yes, I have found your posts to be uncharacteristically harsh and personally mean-spirited the past few days. I noticed because it was not something I expected.
It’s just an observation. I won’t say it again, you can look again tomorrow and decide if you care at all whether I perceived your posts that way or not.
A member of this forum, in good standing for 9 years, got banned for this post:
Because that’s the choice you know; a not-so-socially-conserevative Republican or another eight years of the Clintons.
50 posted on 04/21/2007 9:56:25 PM EDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
Their judgment sucks, but we have little choice.
However, I trust that they are teachable, which is why we need someone who, when he talks, actually tells them things that are right, rather than things that are wrong, to lead them to the truth, and not to evil.
Every bloody one of them is about Hillary Clinton.
(you don’t suppose there might be a tad bit of hyperbole in there do you?)
No offense, but how did you think up your handle?
But look, I'm not saying he should have been banned for that. It's just that it is very annoying when told that if you don't support a liberal Republican you must be for Hillary. And, well, when you say it to the owner of the forum, you shouldnt be shocked if he gets pissed.
“No. You run and fetch!”
Sit tight hold your breath and I’ll get righr back to you!
I thought the voters that M. Thatcher trusts so much put the democrats in control.