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?
We can only hope you can sleep well knowing that another abortion is taking place in NYC right now, or a defenseless person is being assaulted because they are unarmed or some high school girl missed her prom because Rudy's wearing her dress.
“He cut taxes like crazy in NY....plus hes currently talking about a flat tax! No else will has even touched that!!!”
1. He opposed the elimination of the commuter tax
2. He opposed pataki’s 25% tax cut
3. He opposed the flat tax when forbes proposed it. Now he wants forbe’s support -tada, he gives lip service to the flat tax.
And on the other side of the coin, look at his spending in his second term in office. he’s a big spender when he’s rolling in revenue.
"The state remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men." -- H. L. Mencken.
You can't change the nature of the beast. You can't make government less socialist. You can't reform it. You can't make it work better. You can't make it work at all!
Politics cannot fix this. Politics itself is by its nature corrupt. In time, it defiles everything it touches. We never solve our problems by turning them over to politicians. That is like pouring more gasoline on the inferno.
Our goal is not to have a conservative government -- ain't no such thing. It is to make government smaller. Barry Goldwater had it exactly right: I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size." And that always boils down to the fight to reduce its taxation.
Free men have to fight with the tools of freedom. We must make the most of free markets and free institutions to solve our problems. Foremost, for ourselves, is our freedom to think, speak and publish here in Free Republic. FR is a potent voice and a potent tool for right thinking. It is like the antidote to politics.
Should Free Republic ever lower its sights and seek no more than to get some politician -- any politician -- elected, it may as well fold up shop. But I'm not worried about that day coming. We have a good shop here and always will, so long as we remember what we're trying to achieve.
The only question is, will those who support Rudy be alowed to post here.
***That’s disingenuine. Obviously most rudybots have been allowed to stay. In a spring cleaning it would probably be the rude ones who would get the boot. Now, I personally think it’s rude to post false dilemmas & obfuscations in support of a socially liberal candidate on a socially conservative forum. If it were me, I’d post my standard false dilemma response to the false dilemma and if that person posts one more time without responding... bye bye. But it’s not up to me, it’s up to Jim.
I’ll wager Balwin watched it twice already!!
Rudy is not, cannot be the one.
I agree the worst thing W did was painting all the socons as big spenders...thus creating the current rift between the social conservatives and the fiscal libertarian/ conservatives being played out now. Denny Hastert and W with their big spending ways have ripped the Reagan coalition. Rudy is just the beneficiary,
Reagan signing amnesty does not make it conservative, nor is it a valid defense of Rudy. If anything, that you would try to use it in Rudy’s defense of illegal alien sanctuary is an indictment of you and Rudy. There is no excuse or defense whatsoever of sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. Rudy Giuliani is unfit for office on these grounds and many others.
Tolerance of evil is still evil, even if it's only evil 50% of the time. Why can't you see that? The reasoning that you and other so-called conservatives employ in blindly supporting RINO's is what has gotten us to this point in the first place.
If a candidate has no principles on which to stand, then they are as bad as the godless liberals you so abhor.
There are alot of New Yorkers who FReep here and think Rudy is God!
A question I've asked many, many times but have yet to receive an answer.
“Of course. Our disagreements are their joy. Which is why I try not to give them any red meat. Its self-defeating. I prefer to rally behind winning GOP candidates and have the last laugh...”
“Where the heck did you get that idea from?”
“But what Forbes failed to point out is that in Rudy’s second term, when the economy was booming, he abandoned fiscal restraint and became a big-spending liberal. City budget expenditures jumped 25 percent twice the inflation rate and Giuliani left his successor a projected operating deficit of $4.5 billion and New York’s citizens with the highest tax burden in any major municipality in America.”
It’s called the truth. It’s better than spin.
“big spending repubs”
I think rudy will turn out to be exactly that.
Good post. Principles!!!
Well I remember the day when you thought George W Bush was unfit for office and a cokehead so you’ll have to forgive me if I hold my own opinions about Rudy’s fitness for the presidency.
Dick Gephardt NARAL rating=30%
Rudy Giuliani NARAL rating=100%
So do I. What a shame that this happened to him and this country.
The illegal alien problem was no where near as bad under Reagan. Granted, he made the wrong move and the problem has gotten much worse.
“Rudy Giuliani is unfit for office on these grounds and many others.”
I can’t envision any grounds on which he IS fit for office.
My household will not vote for Rudy! I really don’t think he will win the Republican nomination, and I pray he doesn’t! A family member sent this beautiful song to me today. Just wanted to share it with you and everyone on FR. Perhaps many of you have already heard it, but this evening was the first time for me. “In God We Still Trust”
No, and me and mine won't bow down either.
I'm sitting here reading this thread absolutely astounded at the "only Rudy can save us from the Islamofascists" nonsense.
Here we have have a candidate with zero credentials on national security issues who has demonstrated a complete and fundamental lack of understanding of the constitution, embraces a radical agenda on cultural issues, has a petty authoritarian streak a mile wide, no history of anything remotely resembling conservatism and a train wreck of a personal life. Yet he's going to save us from Hillary and the 12th century hordes.
Who's going to save us from him?
He was in his 2nd term - see the link I posted above.
When he has revenue rolling in, he’ll spend it.
His fiscal conservatism is largely a myth.
When Reagan was Governor of CA he signed what is called in all the articles at the time “the most liberal abortion policy in the country”. Granted, today it looks like child’s play, but there’s no doubt that it opened the door to where we are today. Ditto amnesty.
Maybe we can enlist the squeegee men?!?!?
“Do you really expect me to do that?”
When pigs fly, and liberals don’t lie and the oceans go dry.............nope!
Truly brilliant commentary...
Sounds like you have a lot on conviction and not much brains or class.
“There are alot of New Yorkers who FReep here and think Rudy is God!”
Yeah but that same bunch thinks that Jeter is better than AROD too...and that Don Mattingly belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Your #200 is a good post, Blackirish, and is a reminder of the posts and discussions we used to be able to have at FR about candidates and issue. Of course now I can see it’s being called “trashing the candidates” on FR. /s
That wouldn't be a smart move.
I'll be sure to look in on your pro-Rudy posts from time to time. If you keep posting threads that attack conservative candidates, while promoting the gay loving, gun grabbing, big govt liberal abortionist Giuliani, I'd venture a guess that your days around this forum could be numbered.
>>>>>And if you think most of us have forgotten ... We do not have historical amnesia, much as some of you might wish we did.
That was in 2000 and involved troublemaking rightwingers. Like I said, most of them were sent backing. This time its you liberal Republicans causing all the grief. Jim`s laid down the law. Break his rules and you'll probably pay for it.
BTW I love what Jim has done with the site - brush away the cobwebs, throw open those windows & let in the light!
“The illegal alien problem was no where near as bad under Reagan”
It was a drop in the bucket. Reagan had no way of knowing that all of the constraints in the bill would be ignored.
I'm not saying that at all, and I think JR knows that. As far as I'm concerned this is a discussion and nothing more. I'm only asking if it's better to stay home and not vote or to vote for the lesser of two evils, not necessarily Rudy, but any pseudo republican.
I think the last thing JR would do would be to flame me out of existance for asking a question... I think... I hope...
He became much more conservative when he was POTUS and was representing the entire nation instead of liberal California.
NYC is a liberal bastion in this country as well. I don't believe a conservative could be elected there any more than in California.. then or now.
Your #90 is right on! Semper Fi Leather Neck!
B-Chan, that’s an excellent summary of why Conservatism matters.
#1. I haven’t trashed any of the presidential candidates, but keep lying and pretend I have. You have a nose to brown up to on this thread, after all.
#2. Feel free to check in on my Rudy posts. I’m delighted by his front runner status nationwide, even in the south where we were told the socons would reject him.
#3. And like I said before, it was NOT a few trouble makers largely supporting Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan in 2000. I know you wish we all had historical amnesia because those two picks never got into double digits as I recall and not a few freepers are feeling marginalized all over again that their candidates this time can’t get out of single digits AGAIN.
Who’s going to save us from him?”
Yep. You just nailed it.
I'm not hugely pro Rudy. I can accept him, but I'm not head over heals thrilled by him. I haven't gotten behind a candidate I'm in love with at this time. Thompson looks interesting, but's he's not officially running and his background is now only being pealed back for further examination.
I have no problem with revealing the underbelly of the candidates. As long as it's done constructively, not destructively.
But at some time there will be a standard bearer that probably neither you nor I will be thrilled with. I doubt there will be a viable third party candidate. Perot will probably be the last one for generations, and he blew it when he went off the reservation.
You've been behind President Bush through much of this administration. Yet, while he has given us two justices that appear to be pro life, both during confirmation they pretty much indicated they believed and supported stare decisis. But my guess is they are very pro life and could be a deciding factor on abortion. We don't know for sure.
But you hear very little from President Bush on the leadership of changing the hearts and souls or men and women in this country away from that culture. Maybe one of the strongest keys in changing how we view this procedure and yet we hear little from the bully pulpit. Yet you stand behind him. Is he going to allow his version of judicial fiat make that ruling?
I'm not saying Rudy or McCain or some of the others are the best man for the job. I think any would be better than Clinton or Obama or whoever the dems put up. We may only have the choice between Rudy or Clinton or McCain and Obama. Let's see how this plays out. But in the mean time, some good spirited and informed debate is good for this forum, good for the party and good for the conservative movement.