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?
I have wondered if it could happen again too.
That’s why it is OUTRAGEOUS that any JulieAnnie apologist would EVEN BRING IT UP!
Giuliani couldn't afford being elected to the US Senate. He did not want any evidence of a Senate record to hinder his run for president.
I didn’t check the signup date.
The post was disturbing enough.
Good point!! And so far you are correct—that strategy IS working for him (at least for some of his apologists).
You continue to misrepresent what Mia T said. What Mia T said is this:
1- Mia T said Thompson has no EXECUTIVE experience, not no experience. (playing president onstage doesn’t count.)
2- Mia T said Fred is part of DC power structure because in addition to serving as Sen. for 8 yrs. he was a WASHINGTON LOBBYIST FOR 18 YRS.
3- Mia T didn’t claim he was running to take conservatives from Rudy; she said that it was A PLAUSIBLE THEORY AND THAT THE RECENT POLL RESULTS DEMONSTRATE THAT EFFECT AND, AS SUCH, ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY.
4- Mia t didn’t bring up Thompson on her thread. kevkrom did. kevkrom suggested Thompson was an example of a citizen politician. Mia T’s answer refuted kevkrom’s erroneous claim.
Oh, another thing. You are running around saying that Mia T’s 2 deleted posts are the cause of the banning. Not so. They were about relatively benign stuff about Thompson, deregulation and the S&L débacle.
Two deleted posts are Mia T’s and one belongs to kevkrom. Mia T misread kevkrom’s prior post and posted a wrong answer in those 2 posts, immediately realized her mistake and requested deletion so she could correct, which she did. But before they were deleted kevkrom answered Mia T’s erroneous answer. So Mia T asked kevkrom to delete the response to her (Mia’s) erroneous response and wait til she posted a correction, which kevkrom did.
BOTTOM LINE: THE 3 DELETIONS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BANNING. The deletions were simply a result of Mia T misreading kevkrom’s post. The corrected posts followed.
Why do you persist in posting these lies?
It is telling that you never debated Mia T when she was there to respond.
Now you gave away the secret plan to cleanse our site :-)
As soon as I saw this note, I knew the person you were responding to was zotted. And I was right.
The lesson to posters — don’t make up stuff about Ronald Reagan, especially to promote Rudy. You will be zotted.
Look at the description of the site and their stated principles. The word "conservative" doesn't appear. Very telling. I hope that all 160 of the bitter liberals have lots of jolly fun over there. I just don't know why they have to keep bothering us and disrupting our stated mission over here.
Also, Jim Rob knew what he was doing when he started these threads. House cleaning!
I have no doubt that sweet little Rudy would do the same. That’s what Mitt did in the senate run against Teddy Kennedy, and why he deserves the door also.
I don’t recall seeing one Viking Kitty in this entire thread. Did I miss something or is this a new record?
Maybe folks are just tired of the joke?
Howdy stranger ;)
Hmm, I support a Giuliani-F.Thompson ticket, so that make me a "Rudy Rooter", yes? You use that term as if it is an evil thing.
Why don't you go to my homepage and peruse the links section, where I've collected more than 1000 articles in the last 6 years. Articles critical of human-caused global warming theory, race victimization mindsets, racial tribalism, abortion, helicopter parents undermining what's left of discipline in schools, antiwar groups' treason, gay groups' historical revisionism, the politicization of science and medical research, the lies of the 'green' crowd, antisemitism, the double standard against Christians, hate crimes legislation, CFR, China, Putin, CIA treason, the Plame Nonsense, Wesley Clarke, and the scams that funnel public dollars to the networks of liberal groups. Articles defending capitalism, gun rights, President Bush, the WOT, tax cuts, entitlement reform, welfare reform, cultural conservatism, conceal carry and refuting lie by lie the claims of the gun control crowd. And that's just through "C", plus links to articles by Coulter, Steyn, and hundreds of articles chronicling liberal media bias, Democrat corruption, and cases of Democrat vote fraud.
Collecting those links are only useful for two things: Using them later as facts and sources to refute specific lies and to provide historical documentation/accumulated evidence. If I am a leftist, why on earth would I accumulate so many sources and examples that refute leftist claims, lies, and ideology? Why would I preserve so many examples of media bias or Democrat corruption or voter fraud? If I were a liberal, wouldn't I be trying to let it fade away or at least be indifferent, instead of proactively chronicling all the flaws, lies, crimes, and treason of the left?
Given my 6 years of efforts to defend conservatism, as witnessed in one form by that collecting of documentation for use against liberal arguments, how on earth can anyone logically call me anything but a conservative, unless they are on a witch hunt?
Pragmatism in the face of imperfect choices is not a sellout that defines and overrides all other factors. All the car companies donate to gay and other leftist groups, does that mean that I and others can only remain a social conservative if we no longer buys cars? I can find a bicycle or tricycle maker that doesn't subsidize leftists, but those just aren't going to get the job done for what I must accomplish. Do I stick with principle, go without a car, and lose my job? Every conservative makes pragmatic compromises every day, whether they admit it or not.
The New Testament tells us the life of Jesus, in part to give us examples of how to live and make choices. Jesus went among sinners, saying that they are who he came to help. He didn't shun and withdraw from them, but rather conversed and reached out to them, while refraining from engaging or endorsing the sinful behavior. That doesn't mean that "Jesus endorses Rudy" (I won't speak for Jesus in this election) or that political decisions are always clear-cut either way for a Christian, but it does suggest that an "Isolation from the Unclean" mindset may not always be wise. Jesus took a lot of criticism from the Pharisees for dining with the unclean, because some thought such compromising and pragmatic action amounted to condoning the behavior of the immoral. But it was necessary for him to gather with the sinners to accomplish his goals. YMMV.
Politics is the art of compromise, and the conservative that gets some or most of what he is trying to accomplish is more effective than the purist who accomplishes nothing. That doesn't mean that supporting someone other than Rudy is taking a defeatist purist position, in fact it may turn out that supporting someone other than Rudy will be the best choice a conservative can make. Or not. That is what healthy debate is for, but it is both ridiculous and dishonest to have some of the long-time conservatives here with a proven track record suddenly historically revised into liberals simply because of a single pragmatic judgment they have made, especially since no votes have been cast yet.
Not only no viking kitties, but very few graphics at all. I suspect everyone’s being nice to those on dial-up. We wouldn’t want anyone to miss out on such a good thread.
I do remember at the time, thinking that Patti could have been a preemie. I know a few people who had preemies 7-8 months after marriage.
I guess I should not say he did the right thing, when they may have not been forced into marriage from the get go.
One thing for sure, and most important, they both had a lifetime of devoted love for each other.
Yeah, well now he’s played the Pied Piper and all of the other ‘Rats have followed him to their new forum where they can trash FR and conservatives in general in secret.
You should go over their and do a search of their members, it’s a “Who’s Who” of current and former FRiberals.