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?
Maybe not, but I think it's too early for us to be saddled with McCain, Giuliani or Romney. Overnight can be the longest time in a political campaign, and we've got a lot of nights between now and the primaries.
What evidence do you have, what facts, support your opinion that this vetting will be a problem?
It certainly won't be a problem for you, unless you actually LIKE Rudy's positions on those issues and will therefore find Fred not liberal enough for you.
President Thompson isn’t going to be able to do a thing about gay civil unions in the states
That is true, but he will be able to support doing whatever it takes so that the american people are educated as to why it's a bad idea, and to protect states from OTHER state's laws on civil unions. That is in my opinion the best we can hope for right now.
what’s the pro-life movement going to do when no more then 2 states vote to outlaw abortion for adult women in the first trimester?
Well, first thank God that in two states all the babies are being saved, and in most others a good number of them are being saved, even though many will still be slaughtered.
Then we will use the positive news from states who ban abortion (banning abortion will in time help with gang violence, child abuse, all those crimes that stem from people's devaluing of human life that started with selling abortion to women who knew better), to convince other states to protect all the people, not just those who vote.
And we will pour our money into the states that do the right thing, and take it away from states who do the wrong thing.
At least I have much better confidence that a President Thompson will try to appoint a judge that will lead us to where states COULD ban abortion. I have no confidence Rudy will appoint such a judge -- there is no evidence for it in practice, only a few nebulous statements and the promise of one of his supporters.
Is Thompson for a constitutional amendment banning all abortion, which is the next logical, legal, conservative step in the pro-life advance? I doubt he will take that position.
Apparently we didn't have a vote on the human life amendment while he was in the Senate. So let's ask him. I don't see anything in his record to suggest he'd support it, or not. I doubt it would pass in any case.
Anyway, as a constitutional amendment, the President could do nothing more than use the bully pulpit -- he doesn't vote on or sign constitutional amendments, and can't veto it.
At least there's a possibility Thompson would support it, or be neutral. We already know that Rudy would speak out against it.
Now, having addressed your policy points without personal invective, your post was a typical rudy supporter post, where you raise doubts about a candidate precisely for positions that the candidate you support is strongly for.
What is most interesting is that you call it a "problem", meaning that at least you acknowledge that these positions of your chosen candidate are problems. Most supporters think they can be dismissed.
Now, that, was damn funny. :)
I’d love to have 100 more Ron Pauls, if they replaced 100 liberal democrats. :-)
In my opinion, Fred Thompson in 2001 was a LOT like John McCain, but without the craziness. I don’t think that is altogether bad — McCain is well-liked, a good number of his positions are strongly conservative, he crosses the social conservative/fiscal conservative boundary well.
There are differences between the candidates, and so far as I can tell all those differences fall in Thompson’s favor. It’s just my opinion, but for people who generally liked McCain on the war but would oppose him for his crazy habits like the gang of 14 and anti-torture stuff should find Thompson a much more palatable candidate.
I don’t think I agree with Thompson on everything. But I think there’s enough that I could not only vote for him, but could happily go door to door for him and sell him to my friends and neighbors. I could send him my money, and be happy when he was elected.
With Rudy, I’d be embarrased to admit I was supporting him, I’d have to fight against his positions on many issues, I’d feel cheap giving him money, and even if I voted for him I wouldn’t be happy if he won, just relieved that the democrat lost.
What did stuned beeber do? He was in the Hate Rudy camp.
when this started out several months ago, I know she wasn't with the campaign.
And if you know I post over there, I guess you are reading over there, too. You could try joining, but I suppose you're not interested.
Want to know why I joined? So I could talk to some people who are my friends who aren't here any more, like Arne Fufkin, MadIvan, and now PhiKapMom and probably some more.
I don't support Guiliani, and haven't picked anyone to back. I tend to lean more towards Romney, but that's just me.
That is not entirely true. Ronald Reagan was basically tied with GHWB a year out from the primaries.
It is also important to look at trends among the 'Rats, because the Rudy Rooters main claim is that if we don't nominate Rudy that Hillary will win.
The last non-incumbent Democrat who was the "clear frontrunner" a year before the nomination to actually win the nomination was Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and he lost.
The last non-incumbent Democrat who was the "clear frontrunner" a year before the nomination to actually win the nomination and go on to win the presidency was Grover Cleveland in 1892. However, he had previously served a term as POTUS, which makes his status somewhat unique.
The last non-incumbent Democrat who had never been president who was the "clear frontrunner" a year before the nomination to actually win the nomination and go on to win the presidency was Andrew Jackson in 1828 (the first person to actually run as a Democrat). However, Jackson had previously run for the presidency and lost in 1824.
Therefore, NO non-incumbent Democrat who has not previously served as president or run for the presidency who was the "clear frontrunner" a year before the nomination has ever won the nomination and go on to win the presidency.
I'm not playing the victim. I'm merely tearing down your facade and exposing you to the light.
I can't be a victim unless I let myself, and I'm certainly not going to let myself be victimized by thoughtless false accusations of mindless predators like you, Spiff.
Find someone weaker to go after. You'll always lose if you accuse me because my record as a conservative is clear, even if you don't happen to be smart enough to know it.
You raise a question. How do we “increase” Duncan Hunter’s name recognition? I post his name to most threads that it’s appropriate, I always say nice things about him, I speak well of him on other forums.
We can all write letters to the editors to help get his name out there, assuming anybody reads a paper, much less letters in the paper.
We can’t get him on the news. We can’t buy him ads. We can send him money, but most of us here don’t have enough money to make that big a diference (Hunter took in a little over a half million, while Romney took 23 million).
We can go door-to-door, but the average person now doesn’t care, doesn’t want to be bothered at home for an election that is over a year and a half away. We can circulate his stuff at our republican committeee meetings, or get his organization to show up and talk (I recommend that for all candidates — our county republican committee has open invitations to all republican candidates for office to come talk about their candidate).
But all of this is small stuff. We could get him another percent or two just by our own work. We could “picket” in Washington DC with his name on our pickets — that might get him a little more news.
But it is up to Duncan Hunter to get people to notice him. Seriously, if Duncan can’t get over 1% in the polls, I blame him, and think it raises questions about his ability to run for and be President. A candidate has to be able to lead, and part of leading is to be able to make yourself the important issue, to force people to pay attention to you.
Where was Duncan Hunter on Tuesday after the VT shootings, giving HIS condolences and showing he wouldn’t use the issue for his own gain? There were stories about other candidates stopping their campaign activities, but even here at FR I saw no thread posting an announcement from Duncan that he was stopping HIS daily activities. Maybe he didn’t HAVE any to stop?
I’m mad at “my” candidate Mitt Romney as well, but at least I see him out there trying to make news, inserting himself in the debates of the day, sometimes poorly, sometimes brilliantly, but always getting a few seconds on the news.
Maybe Duncan should have had a visible press conference thursday denouncing Jim Moran for his using the VT tragedy to push gun control. Duncan could have come to Northern Virgina into Moran’s home district. The news media would have attacked him for it, maybe excoriated him. The liberal talk shows would have lambasted him. Rosie might have called him names on the view.
In other words, we would have had a weekened of “Duncan Hunter”. At this point, any publicity (other than an FBI investigation) would be a godsend for Duncan.
Sick ‘em, OWF! :) Its a shame to see good freepers (and not necessarily Rudy supporters) get attacked. My personal belief? Some on here are after the DitL regulars, assuming they support Rudy because they support the President. But that’s just tin foil talking.
It's a sign of political ignorance and very juvenile behavior.
But that's just me....
I suppose that on a advocacy forum like this, one would expect to find a lot of single issue voters, but it is a dangerous thing to do, and is easily manipulated by any group wishing to disrupt election outcomes.
sorry, I just can’t get behind Paul .. he’s defense policy of our country sucks and is line with the Dems
But, but, but....people here were singing accolades to stuned beeber, newbie that he was, for his ongoing stirring of the pot.
This thread gets more laughable, ridiculous and disgusting by the minute. All at the same time.
If not for Free Republic, I would have blindly supported Rudy Giuliani. Now I forward a lot of the stuff that gets posted here to family and friends - a lot of them are unaware of Giuliani’s abortion position. I think once some advertisments hit the tv airwaves, he will face some serious backlash.
Sorry Rodguy911, but I still don’t understand.
Please define “Swiftboat” - which you are using above as a verb.
What does it mean? Please exactly define it. I’ve heard the word used, except by a few left-wingers.
Done that. But, seriously, you can skip Timon of Athens.
I never questioned your conservatism. I simply stood up to the insults you were using against users of Free Republic. Anyone can go back through this particular line of the this thread and see exactly what you said. I wasn't twisting or distorting anything. You said what you said.
Voting for someone who can't win is not voting for your values, and is as ineffective for conseratism as voting for a Liberal who can. I think the concept is clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.