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?
Hih? When did I ever call you or any other conservative a treasonous liberal? I remember the thread where it was being discussed, but it wasn’t started by me and I don’t think I ever said any such thing. I did try to reason that the poster meant Rudy supporters were “betraying the conservative cause” (as in 2. below) or something such, but I didn’t call anyone “treasonous liberal” that I can remember.
1. Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
You must be a speed reader. I’m having the hardest time getting through this thread!
I’m only up to post #551! (and the thread keeps growing! lol)
I knew you were alone alot.
If you weren’t, somebody would have told you by now that you’re not funny.
No idea. But, while we are on the subject, ca someone please explain how to read her posts? For many years now everyone has talked about how great her posts are. Yet, I can't figure them out. It seems to be pages and pages of disjointed ramblings and graphics. I can't even ever figure out what the posts are about, or how they relate to whatever the headline is.
Um...I guess you can't read very well. I think he's made it clear.
If the Republican Party betrays all of its foundational, core principles and nominates a liberal like Giuliani, then they don't want the conservatives' votes. They'll have made that clear too. Why give them something that they don't want (or deserve) anyway? That is illogical.
I apologize. I didn’t mean to.
And you fail to mention 2nd amendment voters in your little screed. Gun rights voters AND social conservatives make up FAR more than one/third of the party.
Your post was, at best, very wierd.
Are you too stupid to read a tagline?
Yesterday I was arguing with one who was praising Giuliani for violating the NY State ban on giving welfare to legal immigrants in country for less than a year.
The poster really and truly believed that it was a good and necessary thing.
I have two theories:
A. They are liberals who call themselves conservatives just to try to promote their liberal candidate in the GOP primary.
B. They are ex-liberals who have been mugged by the reality of 9/11 and think that because they believe in national security, that makes them conservatives.
Perhaps it is a combination of both.
And I apologize for snapping at you; you and I agree on more than we ever disagreed on.
If you really think that way then post your opus and hit the road. In the meantime if you're going to talk about him why don't you post to him?
Maybe you should consider making a Ghouliani_Republic site and see what you get?
No, but you do kind of remind me of her. She's a tough old bat too.
Amen! Everything will hinge on the primary.
With a child like you, it’s a wonder she’s not in a psych ward.
Has nothing to do with terrorism, but he was the mayor, not the police chief. And when the police chief who accomplished most of the miracles Rudy took credit for got top billing in Time Magazine, Rudy fired him.
He was articulating the Islamist threat way before any pol I can think of. Way before 9/11. That was one of the reasons he kicked out Arafat despite the shrieks of the NYTimes.
I asked for facts. Point me to a speech he gave about the "islamist threat", and then explain how that speech prevented any deaths on 9/11. Tell me how kicking Arafat out of a theater stopped the terrorists from bombing our embassys, or solved the Israili/Palistinian crises, or prevented any terrorist attack. Don't just say "he's strong on terror". I already heard that, I want some proof.
His response to 9/11 despite what others say was heroic.
What did he do? He ran his city. He didn't personally run into the building and rescue people. He didn't put his own life in danger. He reacted well when you wanted him to react well.
Meanwhile, ordinary citizens were sacrificing their lives on a plane over Pennsylvania, firefighters and police were running up the stairs of a building doomed to collapse.
Donald Rumsfeld was running INTO the burning pentagon. Firefighters from all around DC were rushing to a place that could be hit again, to rescue people.
Sure, some people wouldn't have done so well, but he didn't really do anything. He did get on TV though.
Provide 3 specific examples of things Rudy did on 9/11 that were extraordinary either in bravery or in action. Should be easy for you. Again, I didn't ask you to repeat the assertions, I want facts. What did Rudy DO on 9/11 that showed him to be far above anybody else? What did he DO that was more than what any competent manager would do?
His speech following 9/11 slapping around the UN was fantastic.
Words are not deeds. A lot of people can say the right thing. I could make a speech that would run rings around Giuliani, and I'll never be presidential. A speech is not an act against terrorism. And everybody whose anybody can slap the UN around. What did he actually DO? What acts did he take that showed the terrorists wouldn't win?
Watching those buildings collapse around him and attending all those funerals....he more then any other pol knows the nature of the enemy...hes qualified.
He saw the building collapse? We all saw the buildings collapse. That's the "he was there, so he is tough on terrorism" argument. In what way does watching the buildings collapse make him no more than "any other pol" the nature of the enemy? Romney doesn't understand? Gilmore (who was the Governor of the state in which the Pentagon was hit) doesn't understand? McCain doesn't understand the nature of the terrorist threat? What has Rudy done to show he knows the nature of the threat more than any other pol?
To summarise, he's strong on terror because he employed more cops than the next 4 cities combined just to get a 20% better crime rate, he kicked Arafat out of a theater in a pique of authoritarian rage, he watched the towers fall, and he made a good speech.
I'm sorry, but I am unimpressed.
A lot of people came here to escape religious persecution. oddly enough, many of them turned around and began perscuting others. So you would say that anything that occurred between 1492 and 1776 weren't part of our national heritage? If you really want to strictly define "national" to exclude anything leading up to the American revolution, I suppose that's your choice, but that overlooks a lot of our history.
With Giuliani's position on illegal immigration you might as well get used to it.
Howlin, Tell me what ‘BLUE DOG” democrats ran on if not gun ownership and tough immigration positions? Yup, conservative values. It most certainly wasn’t ‘free’ healthcare amnesty for illegals, gay marriage and gun restrictions.
You think you know what IS is kind of like you think you know what humor is. You attack anyone who disagrees with you in the tinyest way.......just like Pelosi and Reid. You spare no expense and take great lengths to tear down good people trying to have straight forward dialogue.
You are part of what is WRONG with FR.
That's funny - she says that a lot too - are you sure you're not my mother?
I do tire of looking things up and they refuse to read it. They just slink off to another thread and post the same crap you just refuted!
I can say you have much more Patience that I would have with my thumb on the ZOT button.
But I still love FreeRepublic!
The current administration ran on social conservative platform. It was also supported by and elected by social conservatives. They won in 04 by pushing the marriage amendment and by the lameness of Jon Kerry. By that point it had become clear that fiscal conservatism or promoting the idea of small government was not on their radar screen. In fact with earmarks and pork bills like the farm bill, the energy bill, the highway bill and the medicaid billAt this point I’m unclear how socons are fiscal conservatives or believe in a smaller less intrusive government. If I’m wrong...tell me. I’d like to believe that.
thank God I’m not your mother, but it sure sounds like she knows what she’s talking about.
“Thanks NU. Its an interesting thread.”
The thread has created a couple of “undocumented freepers” already.
What an absolutely stupid post.
The Giuliani supporters have a habit of lying and distorting his liberal record to try to convince us to vote for him. It has the effect of our discounting the good things that he has done.
Let’s not make the same mistake. Rudy was a great Mayor, and he is up on the Arab threat. He did a good job on 9/11.. well, people like you and I who govern ourselves with logic don’t see what the big deal is, but apparently the country thought so.
There is no need to diminish the good job that Rudy did as Mayor. The fact is, however, that basically he is a liberal and not fit to run our country.
But if that candidate can't win you are not voting for your values. You are voting for a candidate who can't win.
Shove it up your butt, punk.
No, it’s as in: conservatives who support liberal positions like abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, etc, are “betraying the conservative cause.” I do not see anything incorrect in that statement. Do you?
LOL! I am going now - enjoy your howl.
You are right, but how the hell is voting for a guy that voted for Mario Cuomo the answer?
Like in this case, your reply to Jim where you said:
Ditto with mentioning that Reagan used to be a Democrat and signed what at the time was the most liberal abortion legislation in the nation.
Now, you were saying that if you couldn't say things like that about Reagan, Jim would simply have to ban you. My question is, why do you feel you need to say that about Reagan? Because you think he was right, and therefore Rudy is also right to support abortion? Or because you think Reagan was wrong, but he later changed, and you think Rudy will change as well?
Or is it just that you think that if you point out Reagan had a flaw, but we supported him, we will have to support Rudy even though he has flaws?
What is the point of bringing up the fact that Reagan signed an abortion bill in the 1960s? Why do you bring it up?
That is my question, and your response was non-responsive to that question, and I'd really like to know the answer.
Not only do I not expect you to do that, I would shoot my computer if you ever did.
You want it both ways: you justify calling me a treasonous liberal but can’t defend it.
“I will never forgive you for calling me a treasonous liberal as long as I live.”
BOO hoo hoo...
You have no one to blame but YOURSELVES for supporting a candidate simply because you’re afraid of Hillary. If Rudy gets the nod, and Hillary beats him, YOU will be to blame. Period.
How old are you, 12?
You’re wasting your rant; he was banned.
How do you determine who can and can’t win? I thought we had elections for that? Oh yeah, I guess we should believe anything the media says and vote for who they say can win.......One poll matters and is valid, th one one voting day......in ‘writing’ by registered voters.
Nope not me. Like I said, I am voting Hunter because he has earned my vote with his actions. Maybe your predominant value is winning? Good for you, but for me other values come first win or lose.
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.