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?
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”
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?
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?
You ding Fred Thompson for having cancer but you appear to forget that the other front-runners have had cancer.
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.
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.
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.
“Did it ever occur to you that most by far just dont 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.
Every single one of these Rudy supporters who talk about how crucial it is to defeat Hillary would be supporting Hillary if she merely had an ‘R’ next to her name.
The Republican party is not the conservative party. It’s more conservative than the Democratic party, but it’s not the conservative party and hasn’t been for decades.
The Republican party is a coalition of factions - fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians, moderates, and liberals.
You can’t be a viable party and win major elections if you drive out all but the social conservatives.
I did not even reference what they call themselves. I have no fear of Democrats, but I'm concerned about their leftward lurch.
Politics are always in flux. You can't make it so, by declaring it so. You must realize that opinions differ, and that difference is substantive, between the two fringes. It the middle, it is muddled, mixed and it (the center) shifts, back and forth. The reality of that shift dictates the politics employed to win National elections.
This is why McCain led in the early polls, and why Rudy has so much support.
Denying that this does not exist, is pointless and dangerous. You do so at your political peril.
I hate to break this to you but even after an abortion, that memory remains regardless.
If an unborn child is removed as I ponder, to them, it is gone. That is something they have to accept as the life of the unborn continues without them.
To whatever extent number three has any truth to it, that too can be directly traced to the dealmaking you’re so hot on.
“but its not the conservative party and hasnt been for decades.”
Then maybe it’s time that changed.
Moral character is what will hold your country together. Just bumping up your post. One of the best I’ve seen on this thread. It is not just about National Security. That is only a part of a bigger picture.
“You cant be a viable party and win major elections if you drive out all but the social conservatives”
You can’t win EVER if you run a Rudy, who is to the left of many democrats.
Why is the abortion lobby against abstinence education?
Why are they against information pamphlets which explain adoption as an alternative to abortion?
Why are they against showing the pregnant girl ultrasound images of her unborn baby?
I am not sure if you are disingenuous or naive. Abortion is a form of population control.
I will ask you the same thing I ask others who make the point you make. Wasn’t organ transplantation considered “pie in the sky” at one time too? You bet it was. Be honest with yourself and admit that.
I fully understand what the choices are right now, that is precisely why I seek another one. Am I to think you only want to leave it as those choices and not seek another?
Fine. You’ll have a party with far less than 50% of the vote. Try winning elections that way.
"Social conservatives" are the majority in the GOP, and are its ground troops. They are also its conscience.
Ignore your conscience and real bad stuff is going to happen to you. And, as a political party, stiffing your base is the fastest way to lose elections.
“I hate to break this to you but even after an abortion, that memory remains regardless.”
Nope. You’re wrong.
I know of more than one woman who has had an abortion that wouldn’t even think twice about the loss of life.
It isn’t anymore ‘memorable’to them than taking a pill in the morning to ensure their ‘fun’ never ends.
Your ‘moral’ convictions aren’t theirs.
You respect a woman who chooses vanity over life? If her figure is that important, that she would kill for it, why can she not give up sex for it?
“Fine. Youll have a party with far less than 50% of the vote. Try winning elections that way.”
The first step is usually the hardest.
If all choices are valid then it is contradictory to at the same time assume that a choice to refuse to concede that all choices are valid is invalid. A statement that violates its own terms may rightly be considered as self-refuting and incoherent.
Am I not taking a position of supporting choice and supporting life and seeking to end abortion? By your own statement I would be in the correct forum.
What about my position would put me in the wrong forum?
Here are excerpts from Mr. Hensy's opus. It was post #4838 and it was pulled. It confirms that he DID intend the Nazi and the Big Brother references.
Hey dopey, I'm 6'4'', 250 lbs., and if you spoke to me in person in the manner in which you have in this forum you'd be picking your two teeth off the sidewalk.I only implied the truth. Jhensy confirmed that I was right and showed himself the door.
...Now run like a little brownshirt to your master and get the bad man purged.
To Jim Robinson: ...I'm sorry it has to end this way. Free Republic has been my homebase for years now. So long folks!
Mr. Robinson, you said, "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." You cited numerous examples of how horribly off-course the direction of our nation has become. You also stated that the root causes of the problems you identified was expanded socialism and tyranny. Furthermore, you correctly observed that it was "liberalism" that promotes socialism and tyranny.
You also said, "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?"
The only misstatement you've made is using the word "if." It becomes increasingly apparent with each passing week that the republican party continues to ease closer and closer to the left while assuring their membership that they are actually acting in the best interests of conservatism and demanding trust, support and cash donations. The ship of conservatism, personal freedom, and constitutional representation has sailed and the gop was seen standing on the dock waving good-bye.
Of course the democrats are far worse, but both parties DO share one particular position without compromise, that the OTHER party is the real enemy and everything THEY do is so unacceptable that they would never support their position no matter what.
Meanwhile the faithful followers of each party continue to send checks and write on blogs and beat their chests over the evil that lurks on the other side of the aisle.
The American people have been divided and are well into the process of being conquered.
You are indeed correct, government sponsored socialism and political tyranny are the enemies, regardless of which letter of the alphabet follows the name of the bureaucrat who wants your blood.
Do I expect you to bow down and accept this fate at the hands of the party who once claimed to be the party of smaller government?
No, I fully expect you to take a stand and to be committed to what is right.
Explain partial birth abortion. The death of the baby IS the desired result.
Explain all the aborted babies who survive, but are left to die alone in a back room.
even the federal marriage amendment would go only so far as stopping the states from using the word or the institution of “marriage” as being anything other then one man/one woman.
but so long as the States don’t use the word “marriage” to define the terms of civil unions, they can still have their own laws on that. it could not prevent the States from passing a law that allowed Harry and Mike to have health care proxy rights, or rights in wills and estates, etc - so long as its not “marriage”.
The bottom line on that is - so long as the makeup of the electorate in a particular state is zoned out enough to accept this, there isn’t much a President can do to stop civil union style rights in the States.
I didn't say you were on the wrong forum, I am saying Freepers already are not anti-choice. and your argument should be made to liberals. I think you would find that most would strongly disagree with you.
I did no such thing Elyse. You did that all on your own because you didn’t take the time to read what I wrote beyond the start, thinking you already knew what I would say thruout.
My post wasn’t meant to be clever, it was meant to seek an end to abortion in a way that observes the rights of all involved. An alternative solution to the endless crap this subject brings to our political debate now.
I guess you have to ask yourself what it is you really seek. An end to aortion on your terms.....or an end to abortion.
Or yours does. For example, the partial birth abortions that are currently the center of the debate are the destruction of viable babies that could conceivably be nurtured in incubators. Their mothers are instead choosing to have them killed and dismembered to make the abortion easier and/or to save their precious figure from a caesarean scar.
Hey, can you give us some stock tips from mid 2007? And what about the 2008 Presidential Race? Will Hildy be moving out of the US?
“Their mothers are instead choosing to have them killed and dismembered to make the abortion easier and/or to save their precious figure from a caesarean scar.”
It’s more than that.
If the choice was only not to have a baby, then bring the baby to term and giving it up for adoption would be the logical result.
That’s not the case. The reason for ‘late term’ abortion is ‘control’ by feminists over ‘their bodies’ and ‘no baby is going to stop that’.
Like I said before. There ARE choices. But abortion is the only one they choose.
Who said anyting about unstarting a life? Not me.
I support putting an alternative in place of abortion as it is today that accomplishes the goal of an abortion today, that goal being “not pregnant”.
I am thankful you recognize that my position is not one of support of abortion. Could you explain that to a couple of other FReepers? ;)
Especially when it's a step backward.
Let's put this another way. I laud your forward-thinking for the long-term. That said, today, at this very minute, do you think the Constitution guarantees the right to have an abortion? Yes or no will suffice.
“I support putting an alternative in place of abortion as it is today that accomplishes the goal of an abortion today, that goal being not pregnant.”
Well, there is one.
No ‘play pen’. No ‘pregnancy’.
You might be the sincerest person in the world, but right now you just sound crazy. Your alternative solution is some medical procedure that hasn't been invented and as we have pointed out isn't really a 'solution' for the women that just want to get rid of the damn kid. Your alternative solution is not an abortion it's more like a glorified c-section and so it has like absolutely nothing to do with the abortion debate. The only end to abortion is to end it, period. There are no terms in which you give someone the choice to murder another innocent human being.
Why would he? He stated right up front that it was a matter for the states to decide.
It maybe backwards to you and some others.
But to me, and many ‘conservatives’ it’s a new ‘beginning’.
It’s called perspective.
One is negative. The other is positive.
There wasn't much more to the post except for a profanity that I did not repost and some other opus-talk. I kept the relevant stuff intact, but did want to repost an entire post that had just been pulled.
ABsitnence doesn’t work after a pregnancy occurs.
My middle son shows birth control doesn’t always work.
What is it you so oppose about what I wrote? Could you lte me in on that? Too many choices a bad thing or what? Has to be your way or the way it has always been? Nothing new can enter the discussion?
I guess I just don’t get what your opposition to what I wrote really is. Could you help me out on that note by explaining it to me?
I gotta bail now, so I will pick up here next time. Laters for now.
Removing a baby would be invasive abdominal surgery. Why would these women agree to that, if they can’t handle just being pregnant?
Rudy won’t get the nomination any more than Ted Kennedy will. That said, a third party means president hillary. NOT an option. That’s how we got Bubba in there.
You have a freepmail on the way