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?
Everyone can see you and your buddies have just been pushing as hard as you can tonight. You are a disgusting idiot.
I’m well aware of what kind of site this is. Thanks anyway.
B/S. We are conservative in every way. Fiscally and socially and any other way you can dream up.
Welcome to Free Republic. Don’t be a stranger!
Thank you thank you thank you for addressing this, Jim. Rinos and Libertarians are always trying to claim FR for their own, and some have actually balked when I said FR was for conservatives.
I’m a disgusting idiot? I think you’re a brown noser. So I guess we’re even.
Believing that human life begins at conception is a religious view. A more pragmatic scientific view would be that human life begins when brain waves begin to function.
Rudy doesn’t get more than 40% of the republicans to support him in any of the polls, and he’s barely hanging 30% these days.
Pretty bad given his universal name recognition.
Sure, Rudy has crossover appeal. Some republicans WILL cross over and vote for Rudy.
“If the site is cleaned of all views but those held by you, it will be a pretty lonesome site.”
You are insulting the owner of the site in disrespectful ways - it’s not about debate - we have plenty of that and I relish it.
If you’re going to dis the owner of the site, don’t whine when you are on a zotmobile.
Name calling is a sign of liberalism. Get help. Soon.
Good post. Bump for later reference. Note that the supreme court decision in RvsW weighed heavily on the viability of the fetus, and even Ginsburg this week was talking (incorrectly) about a pre-viable fetus. Suffice it to say that when abortion was performed at those times they probably did not think they were killing a human life.
I'm more or less speaking in generalities, but I do think that sitting out the election because the nominated candidate isn't everything you want, to be somewhat a dereliction of duty.
I'm really just trying to engage in conversation here, not to name call or throw insults. Being a former left leaning independent who is now 90% conservative (based on various quizzes and opinion polls) I remember liking Bill Clinton. The first time I ever voted was in 2000 for GWB because I really didn't like Algore, not because I liked GWB.
Now after educating myself here and through talk radio et al, I understand what Clinton and his kind are and want to make damn sure they don't get back into power by any means necessary. I'm switching parties from registered independent to (R) for the sole purpose of voting in the primary for the most conservative candidate available, preferrably Newt, but I'll do my research on the candidates when the time comes. I will not vote for Rudy or McCain in the primary.
I believe that if a (D) wins the White House in '08 that also means more House and Senate seats will go (D) increasing their majority and marking open season on Conservatism. I'd like to declare war on them with a c-130 gunship of a candidate like Reagan, but as far as I know he's still dead so if I have to use a stick named Rudy to do it...
I don't see the logic in starving because there's no steak on the menu, I don't like fish and the chicken comes with a side of rice. Hillary, Obama and their ilk stand against evrything I've come to believe, Rudy, Romney, and McCain at least have some beliefs that resemble mine... lower taxes, no gay marriage,...
Sorry to ramble on, and I do respect your convictions of belief. Maybe someday I'll be conservative enough to starve.
For a second there I thought you were talking about the hildabeast, they're so much alike.
“Did you live in California then? I did.”
I did too (some) and I remember “Ronald Raygun” as being known as a right winger.
“They nominated him for Governor of California in 1966, and he was elected, defeating two-term governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown. In Reagan’s campaign, he emphasized two main themes, “to send “the welfare bums back to work,” and in reference to burgeoning anti-war and anti-establishement student protests at the University of California at Berkeley, “to clean up the mess at Berkeley.”[
I’ve seen your posters, points, and views ad infinitum on just about every 2008 presidential thread. They haven’t convinced me; in fact, they’ve driven me away from the candidates you might support. You’re broken Reagan’s 11th commandment so many times that I can’t begin to take you seriously.
He looks better in a dress. She has a more pleasant voice. Plus she never evaded the draft nor dumped her spouse.
Welcome to FR.
“Sure, Rudy has crossover appeal. Some republicans WILL cross over and vote for Rudy.”
"Never attempt to catch a whale with a minnow."
Rudy's the minnow.
evil is good, and good is evil.
All he did was reverse the 1.8 billion tax increase that his predecessor had just enacted. Not quite the accomplishment everyone wants to pretend it is. So, Dinkins added an average of $225 in taxes annually to each resident. Giuliani gave it back. $225! That won't buy a New Yorker much Latte. Obviously, you're easily impressed. I'm not.
bump til now to see what 900 posts have to say
Facts are facts. Get over yourself. Get help. Liberalism is a mental health crisis.
Neither is survivable.
Jim allows a incredible range of free debate on his forum. If he says that Rudy is intolerable, then perhaps it would bear for us all to listen.
If you're so concerned with national security, why would you support someone who created the first sanctuary city (NY) for people who have entered our country illegally?
This make absolutely no sense.
You can't have national security, and on the other hand support people who enter the country illegally.
We have freepers defending the Clinton machine and Rudy supporters are called RINOs. Well, they’re called worse than RINOs actually, but you get my point.
No way, Jim.
the 11th commandment attributed to reagan is merely a hiding place for liberal republicans to avoid having their liberalism brought to light.
If you really want to talk about what reagan felt, read this:
“I don t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, We must broaden the base of our partywhen what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.”
“I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”
Praising Hillary for anything should be instant removal from FR. Period.
ROFL!!! Geesh, listen to yourself. This isn't about Rudy and the election. It's about Peach can say anything she damn well pleases. Good luck with trying to keep that up on this website.
I believe the media is trying to shape the Republican nomination. Several have come forth that ‘they’ find acceptable and there is one conservative they fear so much they refuse to even talk about him or give time to him.
That man is Duncan Hunter. They cannot demonize him with anything used against W or other conservative republicans in the recent future.
I refuse to vote against anyone. That is a wasted vote. I am voting FOR someone. For the values my candidate represents and backs up with his actions.
I will Vote Duncan Hunter in my primary and I will vote Duncan Hunter in the General even if I have to write his name in. You see, I value my vote and no media, no blog, no FReeper will scare me into voting for someone just by claiming they are ‘electable’. Nor will they convince me to vote a certain way to vote against someone. Like Hillary or Obama. Neither has any real merit and even the MSM knows it.
If more people actually stand their ground based on values and voted their values instead of who the some say is ‘electable’, Duncan Hunter will be our next President.
MSM is scared of him and lack of coverage proves that imho. FReepers who claim he is unelectable, if they are claiming to be conservatives, are only spiting what they claim are their own values. They should all be ashamed of themselves for comprimising their own values for party power.
That, my Fellow Freepers, is how Democrats Operate. Enough already.
Stop talking conservative and vote conservative.
Vote Duncan Hunter ‘08... Because he is Right for America.
I see you are the first with the kleenex
..and Rudy went against the advice of the police commissioner’s report concerning where Command and Control should be located pre-9/11, NOT at WTC “Ground Zero” as it was referred to by the commissioner even before that fateful day, but Rudy wanted it within walking distance of city hall, at WTC, which was even more expensive to do so. We all now know what deadly problems that decision cost. Rudy did not listen to his own ‘Military’.
Facts are facts. Get over yourself.
“Liberalism is a mental health crisis”
For the cerbrally-challenged
The mentally obtuse
The America haters/the wealthy with a guilt complex(Hollywood)
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, “The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits...”
...Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Only when the human spirit can worship, create, and build, only when people are given a personal stake in determining their own destiny and benefiting from their own risks, do societies become prosperous, progressive, dynamic, and free.
Gasp. You mean, like support a candidate you don't like? Oh sure. That's never been done here before. /s
Total B/S and nothing but lies. Show me a single post where I approved of big spending or caving in to national security threats. I'm a small government, small spending, small tax, kind of guy. I'm also a nukem till they glow guy against our foreign enemies and a round them up and hang them guy when it comes to domestic enemies and traitors.
The fact that Rudy Giuliani is unqualified to be the nominee from the Republican party because of his liberal/socialist positions is not relevant to anyones positions on fiscal restraint or national security. It simply disqualifies him from the job.
Yes but invading the womb with a scraping object isnt cool by any measure, right?
You’re the one threatening a 7-year FR poster who voted twice for Reagan, in fact never voted for a Democrat, who followed her husband through his Army postings, who continued to be strongly pro-military despite his two tours in Korea, with banishment. At least as I’m typing this, Jim hasn’t threatened me, and if it gets to that point that he bans me, then there probably isn’t much use in my hanging out here, occasionally learning good and bad from people with stronger viewpoints than my own, occasionally posting things I do feel strongly about (such as separation of church and state).
I said, listen, is Franklin right, or is Bush right?
That's a serious quexion. I doubt that any one of us has a good answer to that one.
The thing that disturbs me the most is tha the provisions of the Patriot Act have no sunset provions. I guess that we just trust in Congress to be eternally vigilant, in that they could recind portions, part and parcel or the entire Act in one fell swoop if somebody gets out of line, eh?
I believe that Jim Rob's lack of response would make the issue pretty much clear as to where things lie. If Jim Rob recieved NSL letters, he can not say.
The NSA can request from Jim Rob information pertaining to posts. However, depending on what Jim Rob tracks, he is compelled to sumbit the raw data for not just the single person the NSA is interested in, but the raw data for the thousands that this person may be part of class.
My question is and remains: do we need "conservatives" looking out for our best interests (security), or "liberals" looking out for our best interests (civil rights)?