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 would like a statement from you that genuine conservatives, in working through the important issues of our day, can disagree. We can come to different conclusions. Our analyses may differ. We can make our best cases to persuade each other without resorting to "you're a treasonous liberal" BS.
Or, I would like you to politely ask the Giuliani supporters to leave, since our efforts contradict your desires. I would heartily respect either position.
But calling Giuliani supporters names is disgusting.
That doesn’t refute the facts as stated. Despite his budget and tax-cutting prowess, when he left office New York had the highest tax burden of any major municipality. Their taxes when he took office were so high that he could cut it by large amounts and still have higher taxes than other cities (like a 300-pound man losing his first 10 pounds is a lot easier than a 150-pound man taking off the last 10).
And while they projected a surplus in the first outyear, that was based on a proposed 2 billion tax cut that had no chance of passing, and in fact the ACTUAL deficit 3 years later was billions, in part because borrowed money which Rudy used to fund the government in leu of taxes came due while the economy he thought would pay it off collapsed due to 9/11, because Rudy had no plan for economic downturn.
It is widely acknowledged that Michael Bloomberg is a better financial manager than Rudy was.
You made the point that he was pro-abortion when he was Governor of CA. OK. When he ran for president, he was pro-life.
So is your point that if Reagan was once wrong on something then it is OK that Giuliani is wrong on it now? Or is your point that Giuliani is pro-life now?
Thank you for proving, once and for all, precisely what many of us have suspected about you all along. You've exposed your true nature. We were right about you and we're likely right about everyone associated with you here.
ROFL. Excuse me for not typing more, but I'm laughing so hard I can barely see the screen.
In what universe is a mayor who endorses the "sanctuary city" nonsense strong on national security?
And that was being strong on terrorism how? I bet he got a real good deal?
When Reagan changed from a Democrat to a Republican and pro choice to pro life, he was embraced. When other Republicans do it, the “perfect conservatives” on FR call it pandering.
placemark for next time
Or fail, if the moderates turn their backs on a conservative nominee the way they did in 1964.
And come to think of it, Bob Dole wasn’t my choice in 1996. I originally backed the Phil Gramm!
But I sure as hell voted for Dole/Kemp.
I looked it up out of curiosity: New York City's GDP (457M) is exceeded only by California (1622M), Texas (989M), Florida (673M), Illinois (560M), the rest of New York State (501M), and Pennsylvania (489M).
Name 3 things he did on 9/11 or afterwards that were "heroic".
There’s a freeper on this thread who said that very thing. It’s amazing. And management is fine with that position.
But support a Republican that management doesn’t like, and oh my, all heck breaks loose.
Stepping back for a second: In what universe are "strong on national security" and "social conservative" mutually exclusive? Only in the twisted mind of a liberal trying to elect a liberal in the GOP primary.
What’s that you say? Oh, you wish to have a primary fight? Sorry, that’s old hat. If you’re not for the frontrunner, you’re an ignorant fool and you just want to give the election to Hillary. Whatsa matter? You don’t believe in national security or what?? Squaaak!!
I find that argument annoying and have said so on more than one occasion.
Thanks for looking that up.
“Is there some new rule I missed tonight about people who support one candidate not being allowed on other candidate’s threads?” Instead of asking dumb questions you already know the answer too, why don’t you try and comprehend what I wrote? You support Thompson. You get one vote in the primary. That means you won’t be voting for Rudy Giuliani if Thompson is in it when the caucus/primary date rolls around in your respective state. So why do conservatives on this site who strongly oppose Giuliani gets your granny panties in such a wad?
If Hillary gets in then your tagline will be the mildest version of what I can imagine happening. John Ross may have just been prescient.
When did Giuliani become pro-life?
“And you ARE a punk. Always have been, always will be.”
Yep, you’re all class, howlin.
Like the time you insinuated that I was on drugs and gay because I dared disagree with the mier’s pick.
I have never seen you be able to back up any of your posts with facts. Just blaming people for not being loyal enough like the good little GOP lapdogs you’d like us all to be. And when that doesn’t work, you start insulting people on the board.
You’ve noticed that I haven’t done the same name calling towards you - I’ve merely pointed out your pattern of behavior I’ve seen for years. You, on the other hand, easily slip into calling everyone you don’t like a name. And when you get called on it, you resort to the “Are you threatening me?? Are you trying to get me banned” act.
You’re as predictable as clockwork.
You call Giuliani a Republican? LOL. Guess the joke’s on you.
Why are you asking stupid questions? Rudy has been moderating his position on abortion, saying it’s up to the states which, last I knew, conservatives endorsed states rights.
All this crazy, late night, internecine FR IN-FIGHTING could be SOLVED.
If just DAN QUAYLE would step in.
Well, that happened in 1964, 43 years ago.
Since then, it's been the "real, true" conservatives turning their backs on the Republican Party whenever they don't get their way.
Name 1 thing Rudy has done to keep our nation secure. Provide evidence of one piece of legislation he has sponsored, or one act he signed, or something specific with references that his companies have done since 9/11 that secure our nation.
At one point, he was a federal prosecuter, and in that role you could say he was helping to keep our nation secure by going after the bad guys. But what has he done in the last 15 years or so?
That’s sad. It hurts to lose a dog.
I’ve never said that or anything like that. It is utterly inhoherent.
Everybody here knows you wouldn't recognize class if it bit you on the butt.
I understand the truck bombs, but why will we be dodging WalMarts? I don't understand, are they good or bad, and what is Rudy's position on Wal Mart?
The next election will establish what is to become of the U.S.A. The next primary will prove if the Conservatives are the Republican Party or just its right wing. I’m with you on this.
"moderating" is not the same as "pro-life". For example, Mitt Romney has recanted his pro-choice past and says he is pro-life. When you have a pro-choice record as strong as Giuliani's, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect him to actually say he is pro-life if he wants the pro-life vote.
Of course, I rather remember the same thing happening with Bush and freepers who supported him. You remember, he was a cokehead and all.
“When Reagan changed from a Democrat to a Republican and pro choice to pro life, he was embraced. When other Republicans do it, the perfect conservatives on FR call it pandering.”
Reagan said he didn’t leave the demcratic party, the party left him.
Meaning he had conservative ideals and the democrats had moved away from what he believed in, so he found a home with the GOP.
Rudy has liberal ideas by and large. He has for years, and he still has them. Trying to act like he is “home” in the GOP, or is some kind of conservative, is a joke.
Let's get a reality check here, folks.
We are in the 21st Century and no longer in the 19th Century when "the Party" selected the Presidential candidates in smoke-filled rooms.
No "Party" selects a Presidential candidate any more.
The selection is made by primary voters like you and me and all the Sheeple out there ...... mostly the Sheeple.
Sheeple are ignorant by nature or by choice. They were created that way. By sheer numbers, they have more political clout than we do.
We may hate that but that is the way it is.
We, on the other hand, should use our brains.
In this coming election, the combination of the liberal news media and the Democrats and, IMHO, George W. Bush's unwillingness or inability to be a Great Communicator or even a Mediocre Communicator has gotten the Sheeple spooked.
The Republican Presidential candidate the Sheeple pick might not be to our liking this time around.
Them's the breaks.
In 1980, Jimmy Carter got the Sheeple so spooked that they took a chance with Ronald Reagan.
In 2008, the Sheeple may be so spooked that they may take a chance with Hillary Clinton.
If the Sheeple pick a less than desirable Republican candidate to run against Hillary or Obama, the choice of people with brains will be to ensure that the greater of two evils is not elected or ensuring that the greater of two evils is elected by splitting the Republican vote as was done in 1992 when we ended up with 8 years of William Jefferson Clinton plus a Hillary with ambitious hopes for more Clinton years in the White House.
Come November, I will NOT split the Republican vote and I will NOT help Hillary or Obama become the next Commander-in-Chief.
I care more about the safety of America than I care about being pissed off at a "Republican Party" that has absolutely no control over who will be the Republican candidate for President.
Uh, I give you the NJ Governor's election in 2002, and Ollie North's Senate campaign. The moderates even tried to sink Reagan in 1980 when Anderson ran for President.
If we must set up a third party and run a Ronald Reagan type candidate, so be it.”
What do we have to lose? America is on it’s way to becoming a third world country the way things are going now.
I don’t have to explain to you why I am on any thread, bucko.
Entirely too sensible a position to be adopted by a lot of folks on this thread, but I support your position.
Why don't you link that very post, flash.
I'd love to see it.
And Howlin is sent in, wearing her Honk if you love Fred t-shirt, to run interference in the thread.
“Everybody here knows you wouldn’t recognize class if it bit you on the butt.”
Ah, I forgot, you seem to think you speak for the board.