Posted on 04/20/2007 9:51:11 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
I hate to say it again, but guess it has to be said:
Free Republic is a conservative site.
As a conservative site, we are pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty, pro-America.
Like-minded folks know immediately what this means and why we will never "move on from abortion" as Rudy Giuliani and his supporters ask us to do.
Think about it.
You might as well be asking us to deny God. To deny the Creator that gave us life and liberty. To give up our children. To surrender our country to the left. To give up our freedom. To give up our faith and our belief in God's Word.
Why insult us like this?
IMHO, the root difference between conservatism and liberalism IS our belief in God. For the most part, we conservatives defend our Christian/Judeo founding and our God-centered traditional American society and family values system, and the belief that our most fundamental rights were bestowed upon us by our Creator. Rights given by man can be taken by man. Rights bestowed by God are unalienable rights.
Liberals, on the other hand, especially the Marxist/socialist liberal leadership and the big leftist feminist, homosexualist, abortionist, anti-religion organizations deny God exists. They deny our Christian/Judeo heritage, work overtime to destroy our traditional family values, and seek to destroy our freedoms, including, and especially our right to the free exercise of religion.
Our deeply rooted conservative belief in God and refusal to roll over for feminism, abortionism, homosexualism, socialism, etc., is the only thing stopping the left from completely overwhelming us with their godless, socialist perversions and completely wiping out our traditional Christian/Judeo God-centered free society.
If we cave-in to the left by nominating a supporter of abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, illegal aliens, etc., as our candidate for the presidency and de facto leader of the Republican party, then we will have destroyed our own pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty movement and will have destroyed all of our prior pro-life, pro family, pro-liberty work. The Republican party will have made itself a joke. It'll be left standing for nothing. Worse, it'll be left standing with NARAL, NOW, the ACLU, and every other feminist/homosexualist Marxist/socialist communist group.
Surrender to the abortionists? Not on your life!
This is Free Republic. We ARE the dissent! We fight for life and liberty! We fight for our traditional American family values! We proudly and diligently defend our Christian/Judeo heritage, our country, our constitution, and our right to be free and to freely worship our God!
IMHO, those of you who cannot or will not understand these simple truths will never understand what FR is all about, what the pro-life movement is all about, what conservatism is all about, or even what freedom is all about.
Hear, here!!
Did you miss the “John McCain is the devil” threads. :)
Whether you have a right to keep and bear arms is currently being debated...does that mean you might not have that right?
Late to the party here, but I couldn’t agree more!! Thanks for posting this, I wish everyone would take it to heart!
Perhaps that should be a clue for you as to just how bad Rudy is for the party.
Oh, yeah? Who are the folks who wanted to ban Internet gambling and let Bush get away with stuff that Clinton would’ve been impeached for?
Endorsed by: David Vitter; Steve Forbes; Andrew McCarthy; Bill Young; Bob Naylor; Bill McCollum; Ted Olson; Charles Boustany; John Podhoretz; George Radanovich; Ed Royce; Jerry Lewis... the list goes on.
You may not like the man. The idea that he has been PNG'd out of conservative circles simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
Now, your candidate? He's a pro-abortion extremist. Sorry, but that's reality.
I know that Reagan’s message of back-to-basics conservatism was the main reason for his win-but the fact is that any halfway decent Republican candidate could have won in 1980. Everybody knew that Carter sucked.
One of the reasons Reagan was able to gain the vote he did was that Carter was so terrible, truly terrible. The economy under Carter was the worst it's been in my life time. His "foreign policy" was absolutely useless and very dangerous. He was so bad, even the Dims who normally voted only for dims could not vote for him.
So perhaps we should start to support a real conservative, give him a leg up, and let the dims try to carry the country for just four years. They've already failed to produce any positive, helpful, meaningful legislation with their control of Congress. Just maybe, a complete failure on their part will mean salvation for the country in the long run.
I do truly believe that we can no longer stay on an out-of-control bus. We keep driving toward that precipice. And if we don't make the time, energy, financial sacrifice and maybe even the political sacrifice to bring our nation back to sanity, we may forfeit its glorious history and awesome people power. Our enemies have us surrounded. They have infiltrated the castle. We must rethink what we've been doing and come up with a better, more lasting solution.
This all sounds overly-dramatic, but I've never known such ugliness as that which exists in America and the world today.
And if it didn't start with Roe, then that "decision" gave a giant boost to the cause of evil in the world.
Rudy will be solid on the war, IMHO. But otherwise you’re right. If we’re planning to run a northeastern lib against a northeastern lib, we can bet we’ll have a President who will owe liberals a lot.
Clearly your snitching...
***Interesting choice of words. “snitching”? JimRob STARTED this thread. I have a legitimate question — is it within protocol to ping people you know would consider it as bad news. If so, where is the protocol? If not, why not? If anything I would be getting Spiff in more trouble than you, even though I agree with Spiff. Geez, you really need to ligthten up.
This somehow shows that I “have no tolerance for either an honest opinion or a simple request that protocol be followed”? How is that? It’s a straightforward question. Where is that protocol posted? I’ve been here for a while and I only check the protocol/lexicon stuff rarely, so if it’s been updated it would be helpful to have that pointed out so everyone can follow the right protocol.
he has decided that we are sub-human
***Time for some decaf, You Dirty Rat.
Spiff and friends clearly smell blood in the water and would like JimRob to have a mass purge of all Rudy supporters.
***Clearly? Well, yes I do smell blood in the water. But that is the blood of rudy’s campaign falling apart as we predicted. But a “mass purge”? Prove it.
To construe my firm demand not to abuse the ping lists as a request for removal from Free Republic is pretty lame.
***Well, it looks like you got back to decaf on this comment. The way I see it with the rudybots is that they simply jumped the shark when they decided not to answer posts of substance about their candidate and generated crickets on so many threads that folks like Spiff got frustrated with that game. So I’m interested in knowing if JimRob considers it an abuse of the ping list, which is what you just wrote.
Some posters, however, are clearly afraid of these posts and desperately want all Rudy supporters banned. That’s hilarious.
***If it’s true that some posters “desperately want all Rudy supporters banned” then I agree with you and it IS hilarious. But your statement is so full of exaggeration that it’s nonsense. I would be willing to bet that Spiff doesn’t want “all” rudybots banned, but that they would be politely required to defend their candidate on the issues.
If you cannot deal with political discourse within the relatively narrow confines of FR how do you expect to do so out there in the general population?
***This is a non sequitur. Political discourse is done by those who choose to engage in it, whether here on FR or in the general population. If rudybots cannot deal with someone pinging them on a subject in a political forum, what does that say about them and their candidate? I personally think the rudybots are simply rude, pushing a socially liberal candidate onto this socially conservative forum using false dilemma tactics and obfuscations. But that doesn’t mean I think “ALL RUDYBOTS SHOULD BE BANNED”.
The DUmmies don’t know their a** from a hole in the ground, so I wouldn’t worry about what they say.
Well then, they have a pretty crappy way of showing it.
Sure, IMHO Rudy will be solid as a rock on the WOT. But with the exception of the traitorous Ron Paul, there is not a single GOP candidate who is going to lay down for the Islamofascists. Not one. So if their real priority is the WOT, they should be happy as clams because we'll have a fighter no matter who wins the nomination.
I still haven't had anyone give me a reason that Rudy would be tougher than Hunter, McCain or Thompson on the war. All they want to talk about is how Thompson is really a pro-choicer, or how we can only win if we run a lib. The only time they talk about the war is to bring out the President Hillary boogieman.
Benjamin Franklin fathered a child out of wedlock. His common law “marriage” to Deborah Read was not really legal. Her husband had abandoned her and fled to Barbados, but he was still alive when she took up residence with Franklin. Apparently, there was no divorce. Franklin apparently carried on amours, when stationed in London (and still married), before the Revolution, as well as when Ambassador to France.
Gouverneur Morris, who wrote the final draft of the Constitution and is the probable author of the Preamble (”We, the People...”) cut a wide swathe through the women of the U.S., as well as France — there was one woman who was simultaneously a mistress of both Morris and Talleyrand.
Alexander Hamilton, when describing his ideal of a wife, wrote, “She must believe in God and hate a saint.” Whether or not his wife was such a woman, he found time to have an affair with her sister. Another affair with Maria Reynolds wrecked his political career — and he paid her husband off in attempt to keep it secret, while continuing the affair — but it didn’t keep him off the $10 bill.
As a young man, James Madison nearly got thrown out of The College of New Jersey (now Princeton) for writing Ribald verse. As Secretary of state, he hired prostitutes for an delegation from Tunis, who was demanding “concubines.” He paid the prostitutes out of state department funds and listed it in the books as “Expenses for foreign intercourse.”
Certainly there were founding fathers, who were more up to moral snuff. George Washington, most likely (though his growing hemp might be frowned on today) and John Adams come to mind.
But to cast the founding fathers as universally — or, even, in the main — as exemplars of strict morality is historically incorrect. They were men of a wide variety of habits, practices, and religious beliefs. Many were, shall we say, men of the world.
What they had in common was a genius understanding that no man has perfect understanding of God. And that, therefore, He who created the universe created Humans with rights, so that one man would not be bound by the state to commit another man’s error.
These men, various in morals and practice, managed to write the greatest collection of political writings and construct the greatest political system that mankind has seen — perhaps the greatest that mankind has ever seen. But they did not do it, because they were of one moral accord. They did it because they recognized than no man is perfect in understanding.
So it was that Gouverneur Morris wrote the Constitution. So it is that James Madison is the Father of the Bill of Rights.
It is admirable to live a religiously moral and conservative life. It is necessary that such a morality be preached — if for no other reason than that the widest range of ideas and ideals may be presented for consider.
But to demand that a conservative religious morality be basis of American law is not conservative in a political sense. And it is definitely not conservative in an American sense.
Spiff:
We were talking about you in this upline post and I should have pinged you. I still don’t know if it’s considered the right thing to ping JimRob when we talk about JimRob, but DirtyRat didn’t, so I won’t.
You're missing the point. The debate on abortion is not -- or ought not, at least -- be a debate over whether a right exists. It is a debate over at what point in development does a fetus have rights.
Foreign intercourse indeed. (ok, I’m going to hell for that)
But let's say that you and I have equal evidence. Wouldn't we want to err on the side of caution? Going by your measure, if you're wrong, means about a million dead kids a year.
If so, then this is not really a conservative site — certainly not the broad-based one it was, when I signed up in 2000. Rather, it is now a specifically social/religious conservative site.
***I’m pretty sure the same words were there when I signed up in 1998 and were there when you signed up in 2000. I don’t think the site has changed, nor has Jim Rob, nor have socons for the most part. Perhaps it is your perpsective that has changed.
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.