Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?
vanity | April 21, 2007 | Jim Robinson

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?


TOPICS: Extended News; Free Republic; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Alaska; US: Arizona; US: New York; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 2008election; abortion; alaska; aliens; arizona; banglist; bernardkerik; bugzapper; bugzapperinventor; bugzapperthread; byebyerinos; bzzzt; classicthread; damties; dragqueens4rudy; election2008; elections; fr; freedom; freepercide; freepersturnedtroll; freepicide; giuliani; globalwarming; gojimgo; greatzot; gungrabber; herekitty; hizzoner; homosexualagenda; howlermonkeys; howlermonkeyzot; howlinzot; hsw; immaturity; johnmccain; jrrocks; julieannie; julieanniebotsmad; lemmings; liberty; lookatmenow; massresignation; newt; newyork; newyorkcity; no; nonopus; nopiapspleez; onepercentersgone; onepercentersrule; opus; opuscentral; peachcompost; piapers; pridegoethb4; prolife; propertyrights; propiaps; rabidfringeshame; realmenofgenius; rino; rinorudy; rinos; rossperot; rudolphgiuliani; rudy; rudygiuliani; rudyhasalisp; rudyinadress; rudymcromney; rudytherino; ruhroh; runfredrun; sarahpalin; savagegotitrite; selfimmolation; senatorjohnmccain; senatormccain; socialism; socialist; springcleaning; springhousecleaning; stoprudy; stoprudy2008; suicidebymod; supo; sweepuptime; takingoutthetrash; thanksjim; themanwhosavednyc; thtoprudy; travesty; undeadthread; vikingkitties; weneedfred; wideawake; wideawakes; zap; zapper; zot; zotbelt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 4,821-4,8404,841-4,8604,861-4,880 ... 18,461-18,465 next last
To: Lurker

fine, your answer is the honest one.

But don’t doubt for a minute that there are alot of people, who will be looking for a federal ban on first trimester abortions after Roe is tossed. They won’t be satisfied with the progress the States making on banning it (few will) - South Dakota couldn’t even pass a non-binding law on it.

They will be looking either for judicial activism on their side of the issue (the same thing the left is guilty of), or a constitutional amendment (which would be the only legitimate way of addressing the issue federally).


4,841 posted on 04/23/2007 10:02:38 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4414 | View Replies]

To: gpapa

Can President Fred Thompson do anything about gay civil unions in the States? yes or no. Here’s a tip - if he tells you yes - he’s pandering.


4,842 posted on 04/23/2007 10:03:38 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4282 | View Replies]

To: Just sayin

Perhaps you are arguing on the wrong forum. Freepers are not anti-choice, we are pro-life and against abortion. The whole term pro-choice was inveted by liberal because the couldn’t stand to hear they were pro-abortion.


4,843 posted on 04/23/2007 10:04:27 AM PDT by CharacterCounts (Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4836 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
It's not principle, it's opinion mixed with religious dogma and has no place in politics.

Keep typing. Your true issues with conservatives continue to expose themselves.

4,844 posted on 04/23/2007 10:05:08 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Laws that infringe on unalienable rights are not laws at all...they are in fact lawless edicts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4834 | View Replies]

To: Just sayin

You are just starting to babble now. You tried to make us look stupid for being pro-life and make Rudy look so wonderful for giving women a choice. Your post was just a bust because it wasn’t as clever as you thought it was, so just give it up.


4,845 posted on 04/23/2007 10:05:15 AM PDT by Elyse (I refuse to feed the crocodile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4818 | View Replies]

To: ABG(anybody but Gore)
I'm upset that good FReepers, for years, many longer than you, were banned because they chose a candidate against the main train of thought around here.

That hasn't happened even once. It's amazing how many times that has been posted. Tell a lie enough and people will believe it. A liberal tactic.

4,846 posted on 04/23/2007 10:05:24 AM PDT by Syncro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3876 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

“That means making deals.”

And yet democrats don’t ‘make deals’ to forward their agenda’s.

They push it for all it’s worth and get the RINO’s in Congress to come over to their side.

Sorry. But deal time is over is the conservative party is going to survive at all.

Sometimes you have to fight back no matter what the outcome.


4,847 posted on 04/23/2007 10:05:37 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4830 | View Replies]

To: Just sayin
WHy is it too late? Because you say so?

Because you can't unring a bell and you can't unstart a life.

It seems that the reason to oppose abortion as it stands is life, Once again i will state I agree with that position.

Then, you agree that the choice of abortion AS IT IS TODAY should be banned?

If life is maintained, where then is the opposition? It seems that the reason would then change and become that an unborn must remain and be carried to term where it began.

What you are describing is not an abortion. To abort something is to terminate it. What you are describing is more akin to a high tech caesarian birth.

4,848 posted on 04/23/2007 10:05:54 AM PDT by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4813 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

is = if


4,849 posted on 04/23/2007 10:06:03 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4847 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; Cold Heat; Jim Robinson
Perhaps, EternalVigilance, if you could oblige me an answer, if you know?

A number of months back, in a thread, I was told by a poster that due my dissenting view from his/hers, I was now on "his/her list". That my name just made the "list". And this "list" jazz cropped up in threads/debates.

I made sarcastic reference to "the list" in another thread, in my belief that this "list" was a "bluster" by the poster -- that he/she was using to simply write off my comments, and not debate my points.

Do you know anything about this "list" stuff?

4,850 posted on 04/23/2007 10:06:16 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4733 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

It’s important to be able to make deals, however the GOP congress people spent too much. They were more interested in getting reelected by delivering pork to their districts / states.

There were other factors in why we lost congress:

— Inability to articulate why we should be in Iraq.

— Losing the swing vote 2-1.

— Stay at home “conservatives”


4,851 posted on 04/23/2007 10:06:42 AM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4840 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

no, I didn’t say Thompson was pro-choice. He isn’t. I simply said, he isn’t going to be as vehemently pro-life as some of the people on this thread are. And he isn’t going to promise to be able to wipe out gay civil unions as decided by the States - because can’t. And what’s going to happen once he’s vetted in the primaries, and that becomes clear? Are folks here going to bail on him too?


4,852 posted on 04/23/2007 10:07:14 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4239 | View Replies]

To: fatima

Well, sure. Scott Peterson is a good example. He is where he belongs. Were the idea I take on as my position were available today, every woman having an abortion as they are performed today could join him as far as I am concerned.

Did it ever occur to you that most by far just don’t want to be pregnant and that abortion is the only way out they have today? Maybe that they would much rather not be pregnant without losing a life?


4,853 posted on 04/23/2007 10:07:15 AM PDT by Just sayin (Is is what it is, for if it was anything else, it would be isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4825 | View Replies]

To: kellynch
Duncan Hunter is unelectable (nobody outside of the most hardcore partisan has ever heard of him). Newt is unelectable (talk about an unsavory private life!). Fred Thompson has lymphoma, and that could keep him from running. Romney's religion means that even some Christian conservatives won't vote for him.

You ding Fred Thompson for having cancer but you appear to forget that the other front-runners have had cancer.

4,854 posted on 04/23/2007 10:08:06 AM PDT by higgmeister (In the Shadow of the Big Chicken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4494 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
Can President Fred Thompson do anything about gay civil unions in the States?

In concert with the Congress, he certainly could, if he was disposed to do so.

After all, if the national legislature and executive had nothing to say about these matters, they couldn't have forced Utah and several other Western states to forever forsake plural marriage as one of the main criteria for entering the Union in the first place.

4,855 posted on 04/23/2007 10:08:44 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Laws that infringe on unalienable rights are not laws at all...they are in fact lawless edicts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4842 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

How can you say death of the child is the desired result?

Why is it not that the desired result is just not to be pregnant? A life need not be taken to accomplish the “not be pregnant part” were we to advance science.

Your premise may need to be revised.


4,856 posted on 04/23/2007 10:09:09 AM PDT by Just sayin (Is is what it is, for if it was anything else, it would be isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4827 | View Replies]

To: Alia

Nope.


4,857 posted on 04/23/2007 10:10:19 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Laws that infringe on unalienable rights are not laws at all...they are in fact lawless edicts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4850 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

and another part of the answer to your question is - let’s get Thompson into the race NOW so this vetting (soundbites aside) can take place. GET IN NOW! This delay doesn’t help at all, it hurts actually.


4,858 posted on 04/23/2007 10:11:13 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4542 | View Replies]

To: Just sayin

“Did it ever occur to you that most by far just don’t want to be pregnant and that abortion is the only way out they have today?”

That comment is absolutely silly and untrue.

You mean birth control doesn’t work?

How about ABSTINENCE!

There are other CHOICES that can be made.


4,859 posted on 04/23/2007 10:11:19 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4853 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Thanks, Charles!


4,860 posted on 04/23/2007 10:11:59 AM PDT by Slip18 (Fred Thompson for POTUS 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4526 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 4,821-4,8404,841-4,8604,861-4,880 ... 18,461-18,465 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson