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?
New Yorkers rate Bloomberg better than Rudy, and said they’d rather have Bloomberg as president.
“Elect hilary” is not the same as “vote for Hillary”. Since the poster said “vote for Giuliani”, I presume he would have said “vote for Hillary” if that’s what he meant.
We all know there are freepers who won’t vote for Rudy, even if it means Hillary will be elected.
I just asked for the freepers who actually said they would VOTE for Hillary.
I’m still waiting for that, although the “vote for the democrat” could be implied to mean “hillary” if you think hillary is inevitable, which I do not.
But once again, the poster did NOT say he’d VOTE for Hillary. He said he’d give her money, but NOT that he’d VOTE for her.
C’mon Jim. It’s very early in the A.M. People are tired - yet have passion in their convictions. Peach is one of the best around here. Let’s take a step back and breathe.
But was it dumber than my other post? Because I’m upset that mkjessup beat me out so quick and I’d like to get my award back. :-)
Oh my gosh. I actually logged back onto the computer to check something else and saw this post.
So now it’s attacking Ronald Reagan to post his record? Anyone who knows me for these last 9 years has seen me post about my opposition to abortion. You draw whatever conclusions from that you need to draw.
ROFL!!! I was thinking the same thing.
Note though he didn’t say he’d VOTE for Hillary, just that he’d give her money. You could speculate he’d vote for her, but it’s easier to send money than to actually pull the lever.
Maybe just one more post?
Where, I’m reading every post, and I’ve seen 3 so far, one said he’d vote for a democrat but it didn’t say hillary, and later said he’d stay home; one said he’d “elect hillary” but not that he’d vote for her, and the 3rd said he’d give her money, but not that he’d vote for her.
I believe that there is a freeper out there that actually said they’d vote for Hillary. I’d just like to know who they are, and we don’t have that name yet.
Jim later explained that it was for his post about the founding fathers, NOT the post to Jim.
It got lost in the mayhem that followed. Maybe I’ll get to it.
but....but...he inhaled 9-11 dust at ground zero...he's entitled!
I hate the personal attack speech from both sides, but I’m not a moderator so I can do little more than cover my ears and cringe.
And I used up my vanity complaining about saying “i’d hit it” every time a girl’s picture is posted.
So what can I do?
And that was all she wrote.
I was simply explaining where I see all of the “that’s the worst” comments. They are usually NOT hear, but on liberal sites like NotLarrySabato.
I didn’t know that was a card. I thought it was simply an explanatory statement.
Was that the worst playing of a liberal card ever?
“New Yorkers rate Bloomberg better than Rudy, and said theyd rather have Bloomberg as president.”
My son that lives in New York City may or may not agree with those polls, but it will be difficult to shake me from my view that Rudy is one of America’s great historical figures as the mayor of New York City in an age where we had centuries of history to compare him with.
Rudy is who he is and he should be proud, but the measure of the man will come when it becomes clear that his Mayoralty does not translate to “President of the United States”.
but the measure of the man will come when it becomes clear that his Mayoralty does not translate to “President of the United States”.
That was the worst non-post I ever stayed up all night for. Does anybody have a ping list for when it finally gets posted? I’d hate to miss it.
Those are from his exploratory committee. Are we certain they are his positions, and not just what his exploratory committee thinks his positions are?
I went and looked them up a few hours ago because I was interested in his “flat tax” support, and as you can see there is nothing there about the flat tax. In fact, under Cutting Taxes, it doesn’t actually say that Rudy will cut taxes, or that he won’t raise them, it just talks about what he already did.
So in fact some of those aren’t really “issues” but are rather “accomplishments”.
I hope he gets a web site up soon that actually lists his current issues, especially since according to rudy posters tonight a lot of his positions are evolving now.
You should've just stated the truth that Giuliani is an abortionist and that you are ok with that and support him anyway. There's no reason for anyone to smear good consrvatives or to try to justify abortion. That will not fly on FR.
None of them said they would “vote for Hillary”.
“So now its attacking Ronald Reagan to post his record?”
When Reagan changed from a Democrat to a Republican and pro choice to pro life, he was embraced.
Im asking you to put up or shut up, please give me the quotes and his political statements that support your constant slurs.
Don’t think she’ll be answering now.
Hopefully tomorrow, after everybody gets some sleep.
I don’t know how we will do live speech threads without Peach, she was the only one who could keep up and post everything that was said in real time.
I’m willing to put up with her absurd comments about Reagan for her outstanding transcription ability.
Hey, and with that, I’m the last one standing again.
Ping - 1671.
You are welcome.
Quidnunc is Banned?
Best FR news I've heard all week. Maybe longer. There was absolutely no excess of Government expenditure or Government violence to which that gun-controlling jack-boot would not stoop to justify in the name of "Law & Order!" None.
I to can not eve vote for him.
We all have different sleeping cycles. Simply put, the time of day is no excuse. It’s not like this is the first time she did that kind of stuff about Reagan. Besides, she was clearly warned by Jim in the previous post. (Replying to any of the names I brought up out of respect, even though Peach is no longer with us.)
No excuse for Peach’s remarks I meant.
Thank you for the ping. Have a lovely day.
It all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
But it does not provide nearly as much amusement for the masses.
Thank you for your uncompromising stand on those things that really matter.
Maybe it boils down to individuals determining that they want someone in the Presidential office at all costs of WINNING?
To hell with the constitution, these people want to WIN at all costs! Liberals and PseudoConservatives will say and do anything to get elected because it is POWER that they desire.
In FReeperland we should judge a man or woman by what they said and did NOT what they are saying they are “going to do” if elected.
Rudy, or any other liberal, that has a proven track record of throwing out the constitution to gain their current position of “power” must be considered in the primary process of the upcoming elections.
The media will continue to put these people in a “positive light” because they know that in the end it will tear the conservative voter away from the Republican party. (A city divided against itself cannot stand!)
Hey... the SUN never sets on FReeperland! I am sitting over here in Rota, Spain and the sun is just about half way in the sky and kind of enjoying this thread.
These are unique times, and the GOP is going to have real trouble winning an election with the demographics that are changing as we speak. The democrats have successfully demonized republicans as being mainly white religious bigots.
Rudy connects across the board, with many disaffected democrats as well as independents and also with the youth that watched his leadership after 9/11.
“From what I can tell, a lot of them are no longer here, and in my humble opinion thats an improvement.”
Amen to that!
Rino Rudy can not win without support of the base, he will split that. So he will lose.
Regardless of whether Giuliani would be a good or a bad President, the problem you have inadvertantly raised is one of divisiveness.
Extirpating all the Giuliani BOTS will not result in anything but a smaller party that is destined to become even smaller as others refine who is and who is not a conservative.
It is your Web Site so you can do what you want. If there is a diminution of interest in FR the problem is not the site but the plethora of interactive, conservative blogs.
He sure does.
Hes running on his liberal record and admits those who cant live with that should not vote for him.
Mighty big of old Rudy, that.
I think her first step will have to be an admission that Giuliani is what he admits to being
None of the Rudy folks here seem to want to do that. They'll yell and stamp and shout that he really is conservative no matter how many times he says he isn't. The truth doesn't seem to matter to the RGs.
"He's a fiscal conservative!" they'll shout. But they can't explain what's fiscally conservative about using taxpayer funds to pay for abortions or welfare for illegals.
"You're a one issue voter!" is usually the next one they toss out. So you list at least 4 things RG is obviously shriekingly liberal about; gun control, abortion, McCain Feingold, 'sanctuary' cities for illegals, etc. Then they'll switch to the 'he's electable' canard.
I don't care what they say. I don't vote for liberals, period end of sentence.
And it's darned good to see you putting a few of these folks out Jim.
Wow, quite a thread, you have been busy.
Do you find the rest of the GOP field— Romney, McCain, Thompson, Hunter to all be conservative enough?
I hope that Thompson runs, we need him to run.
The GOP is at a big disadvantage picking candidates for national office. A successful candidate for national office needs to have the right ideology, plus be “attractive” in the sense that people connect with them, and have a relatively spotless past.
Conservatives have a bigger problem in this regard than the libs. Most people with the right conservative politics are already successful in the private sector, and strongly distrust government. They would never consider becoming a politician which by its nature is a sleazy business.
So, our best candidates are busy running large corporations, or running their own businesses, or enjoying the lifestyle that their success has brought them. Not running for President. Most people see what the lib media does to a conservative politician and feel that life is too short to put up with that crap.
The original idea that politicians would serve for a time then go back to their regular jobs is pretty much dead. And the “success and personal responsibility” party suffers because of it.
I just got up,Jim and jumped to the last post. You need to go to sleep. I do agree with most of your original post.
Do you not realize that just about all of the canidates have had cancer in one form or another?
Ronald Reagan had a very serious colon cancer operation while in office.
Anyone can get the big “C” in a New York minute.
This should be your last reason for not voting for someone.
You mention Romney, McCain, Thompson, Hunter. IMHO, though I really distrust McCain, all of them are more conservative and more suitable for the task than Giuliani. I’d also include Newt as a possible if he’d run. The debates will be interesting.