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?
You are right,very right. And if it happens then the republicans can thank themselves for that. I only need to remember what Rudi said,there is not much difference between him and Hitlery. If either one is elected then I can see more death and sorrow down the road. Our enemies must fear us from the strength of our faith,not by what they think they see coming from hollyweird or Nancy Pelosi.The enemy told us that we would fail because we are soft and have no determination and they see us as infidels. But for me I shall place my faith in Jesus our Lord to save us from ourselves and our enemies.
Fortunately, that is up to the Republican voters, whose intelligence I thank God for daily.
A classic Limbaugh style reply. Just what I’d like to have said!
As far as the movement is concerned, our real election is the Republican primaries. If Rudy wins, the movement has already lost for 2008 and we will no longer be represented by a true Republican in the generals. Well actually we will not be represented, period.
However the question then becomes are we willing to vote for the lesser evil of two Democrats, or will we never vote for a liberal socialist on principle. That's a serious question because in relative terms a lot is at stake. One would abashedly, unapologetically and unrestrainedly nosedive the country into Marxism...and the other would at least er hesitate a little.
How right you are on all points. :-)
“To: Jim Robinson
Ill give you a chance to play tough again you 2-bit grifter, Ban me so your mouth breathers can go down on you again.
928 posted on 04/21/2007 10:32:12 PM PDT by Texasforever (I have neither been there nor done that.)
You have been a canker sore on this website for too long!!
Man....I’ll hold that against him/Sarc.
With any luck hopefully he could be so lucky to do the same in Washington regarding spending.
If you find JimRob’s Founders Statement on FR`s homepage so outrageous and replusive, why continue to hang around here?
***Something I’ve noticed lately and can’t get any good answers from the folks I have asked. The most I get is something like, “I don’t have to explain myself to you”. But maybe JimRob doesn’t want to take that crud any longer.
Nah, we keep asswipes like you around for target practice.
You’re one stupid Texan!
Add me to that list.
It absolutely does. There is not a shred of evidence to say a fetus is not a life-form. It needs a mother’s womb for awhile, but it is a life. It is not a tumour. It is not a wart on the mother’s uterus. It has a dna that is only half hers. Although it needs her to live, it is alive. It grows. It moves. As it develops, it plays in its environment. It senses things going on to some degree. Any other description of it is a political choice, to say that the baby in the womb is less than a life.
You may think infanticide under certain conditions is ok, and that is something you are free to think. But it doesn’t change the reality of what IS.
And when you modify what is acceptable to do to life by ignoring its value, then you lessen all lives, by making exceptions under what conditions life is allowable. It’s just a hop from well, the baby is a fetus, and isn’t really alive, to the severely brain injured aren’t really people to the sick aren’t really having a quality of life, to well that person is old and can’t work and when we get her to the hospital, we’ll just release her from her pain with a little injection.
This is happening in many parts of the world. Life isn’t life, an individual isn’t something of value for his or her own right. It’s being replaced with a socially acceptable definition of what is worth living, and the individual loses all value except for what the ethicists can convince the state a life is worth. A cog in the machine that has no intrinsic value except for what the state gives it.
This is not the American image. But it’s fast becoming a European norm, and the first feelers are certainly here in this country.
“The fact is, were it not for 9/11, Rudy would never even have been considered a serious candidate for the presidency.”
And if he had a (D) next to his name instead of an (R), most of those defending him here would be attacking him for his positions.
Maybe you need to watch the Juannita Broaddrick-Clnton Rape interview. Protecting and praising Hillary Clinton is a DISGUSTING thing to do in any context.
Disgusting and profane.
I see that you are disappearing.....
I really wish Mayor Giuliani would have run against Hillary in ‘06. At least he could have had 2 years to try to reshape his image.
“Nah, we keep asswipes like you around for target practice”
That and/or an independent CONSERVATIVE to split the GOP vote. Easy to do when a real conservative is not on the GOP ticket. This scenario could have the Dems win too just like 1992. Of course in 1992 we did not have the new media. That’s why people like HRC would like to see it go away. If she wins it won’t be with my vote, and I believe we will see people revolt in this country if she is elected. She can not legitimately win the presidency. She knows it and so do her buddies in the MSM. That’s why they are giving us these sorry excuses for candidates.
Lifelong republicans are blinding themselves into thinking that National Security is more important than any other issue. Heck, all I’ve noticed since 9/11 is a tighter noose around my neck as I see noncitizen rights increasing and expanding. I believe my tag line says all you need to know about where I stand. I hope Rudy is not our candidate. If he is, I will do my darndest to support an independent 3rd party conservative candidate. I pray every day for that candidate to stand up.
You are becoming creepier every day.
I like and support a lot of people, it doesn't make me attack people personally or make up stuff about other candidates.
I understand though the problem, they can't figure out what nice things to say about their candidate that won't expose him as rather unconservative, so instead they attack other candidates for being a little bit like Rudy in one aspect or another.
McCain did McCain-Feingold (Rudy fully supports it).
Romney said he was pro-choice in his race in 2002 (Rudy says it today).
Romney said he'd be a friend to gays in 1994 (Rudy lived with Gays and marches in their parades and would vote special government support for gay couples).
Fred Thompson was a lobbyist (Rudy is a lobbyist)
Hunter has "questionable associations" (Rudy recommended Kerik (now a convict) to run Homeland Security -- He was Rudy's partner).
Romney appointed some liberal judges (Rudy only appointed a couple conservative judges)
Gingrich had an affair before divorcing his wife (Rudy had an affair and announced his divorce publicly before telling his wife).
Fred's been married twice (Rudy's been married 3 times, once to his cousin)
Time after Time after Time, Rudy supporters post "negatives" about the other candidates that are precisely what Rudy believes. Many times they are WRONG about the other candidates, but even when they are they simply don't see that each candidate has a flaw or two in common with Rudy, but Rudy has them all.
Ask a Rudy supporter to name one flaw a candidate has that their candidate does NOT have. Then they move to the next pro-rudy poll thread. Or try to say that Thompson is a mormon, or that Romney misquoted Castro thinking it was a pro-liberty phrase.
We expect to have to fight the lies and hypocrisy of liberals. It hurts when your own troops are shooting you in the back.
I see another is wiping his chin.
I didn't say that was your position, did I? Why, no. No I didn't. I just went back to doublecheck.
And you may think that Rudy's social positions disqualify him for the job. Rudy's frontrunner status tells me that conservatives and Republicans across the nation disagree with you. But there's plenty of time for you to make the case for your candidate.
Facts bother liberals.
comprises = compromises
I plan to vote for Fred Dalton Thompson
Sloppy thirds I see
I’d like to catch you alone and have you say that you punk!!
“Youre the one threatening a 7-year FR”
lmao...that’s not a threat. I simply warned you, since you seem to think that insulting the owner is fine, to be careful of your ignorance.
No, if it were a threat, you’d know it sweetie.
I have stayed off the FR political threads because I don’t find food fights enlightening, and certainly not entertaining. Hence I have no idea what your position has been on Rudy.
But I have seen you on many other threads, and always valued your opinion and input.
I assume you are supporting Rudy (sorry if I got that wrong). If so, I can see why. He is, in fact, our most charismatic candidate. And he is, in fact, trying to woo the conservative wing of the Republican party. So far I’m unconvinced, but I’m willing to listen while he tries.
When this fratricidal war is finally over, I’m also hoping that all the Rudy, McCain, and Romney supporters can swallow their disappointment and rally round whoever it is we actually nominate.
You miss the humor. Sorta like dwarf tossing.
I didn't call you an disgusting idiot for supporting Rudy. You are trashing Jim, you are trashing the whole website over and over. You have made it abundantly clear that you aren't here because you like the webmaster or the website anymore you are here because you think that Peach should be able to say whatever she damn well pleases and we should have to listen to it.
Well, who the hell were you talking about then when you replied to M. Thatcher above about some guy called “Jim Robinson.”
I do support Rudy. And I’ll vote for whichever candidate gets the nod, unlike some freepers here who sound like Democrats by saying they’ll vote for Hillary before they vote for Rudy.
This gal is not from Texas.
Who has said they’d vote for hillary?
When this fratricidal war is finally over, Im also hoping that all the Rudy, McCain, and Romney supporters can swallow their disappointment and rally round whoever it is we actually nominate.Not possible. If the baby-killer wins, those of us who are conservative bolt. If a conservative wins, those who want babies dead bolt. It is a divisive issue and that is a good thing. sheep's and goats need division.
He really said that?
There is one it's called the Constitution Party. Their only plank I don't care for is the relatively isolationist stance but they are a lot better than the Libertarian Party.
Think I’ll take cover...
This is a war-of-words zone....
Although either would be a disaster IMO, Rudy would be worse because he will pull the whole country to the left.
Conservatives will unite against Hillary or Obama.
I am sincerely afraid to vote for a man with cancer, no matter how not serious, when Pelosi is third in line.
“The rumor of Sadaam with any type of weapon’s was too great to overlook. “
The ‘rumor’? It was well documented that Saddam did, indeed have weapons. What were those Russian trucks doing crossing the border into Syria just before we attacked?
What was the purpose of all those U.N. resolutions if Saddam’s weapons were only a ‘rumor’?
Why were the weapons inspectors thrown out of Iraq in 1998?
And the U.N.’s buddy ‘Hans’ as an inspector was a joke.
“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)?”
Why do you separate ‘security’ from ‘civil’ when it comes to conservatives?
It’s not an ‘either’,’or’ situtation. It’s both, including ‘fiscal’. You cannot say that true ‘conservatism’ is one or the other.
It’s ‘all of the above’.
I think my tag line says it all about people who want to believe the ‘rumor mills’ instead of using intelligence,research and common sense.
You know what it is. These folks aren’t full fledged conservatives. Period. They don’t agree with Reagan’s old coalition of social and fiscal conservatives. You remember that coalition. It was the one that gave the GOP some serious historic election day victories in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2000 and yes, even 2004!
Today it would appear the liberal Republicans are making a move to hijack the GOP and take back in time 30 years. Back to time of Rockefeller Republicanism. In the process, these Rockefeller Republicans want to make sure one of their own gets the nomination. Rudy Giuliani is perfect example of a liberal Republican —— the epitome of Rockefeller Republicanism.
Reagan was a good president. Reagan also signed an abortion friendly bill as governor of California, that he later said was a mistake. No one, save Jesus, who has walked this Earth has ever been perfect. We should try to learn from the mistakes our heroes made while remembering their accomplishments.