Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?

vanity | April 21, 2007 | Jim Robinson

[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?

[bjs1779]

If you're willing to lie about my position in the Schiavo matter, what else are you willing to lie about?

Could you show me a post of yours that objected to starving her to death?

[Miss Marple]

Perhaps I didn’t say anything because I didn’t see it, which is the truth. I don’t condone that either.

[Iwo Jima]

WOW! Are you saying that there was or was alleged to be a lesbian relationship between any of the women that we have been discussing? I am totally disgusted by your attempt to insert such a vile element into this discussion.

No matter what disagreements I have had with the ladies in question, I do consider them to be ladies, and I resist your insinuation that they are lesbians or accused of being lesbians.

[dirtboy]

Do you think it’s possible to be a conservative and an atheist?

Nat Hentoff is not a conservative.

However, his pro-life essays converted me to a pro-life mindset.

Wisdom is where you find it.

And wisdom is sorely lacking in the Rudy Guiliani campaign. Heck, Rudy is shilling his wife as some kind of bioterror expert because she was in pharma sales for a few years.

[gondramB]

Imagine if the court interpretation was consistent...

Freedom of speech work require the government to suppress speech on public property.

Freedom of the press would forbid the press to report from public property.

The absurdity of such rulings would be seen by all but somehow the Court misses the irony of using the freedom of religion amendment to restrict religious freedom in public.

I apologize for thread diversion and I’ll stop now - its just that this topic is beyond a pet peeve of mine.

[Miss Marple]

Oh, please. That's too much codswallop for anyone to swallow. I just explained why it sounded like that is what mkjessup was saying.

Now if you want to pretend that saying "hot troll on troll action" wan't a sexual inference, go right ahead. It will sound like "the meaning of is" but if that's how you want to sound, by all means go for it!

[mkjessup]

Disingenuousness doesn’t become you. “Hot-troll-on-troll action” referring to two women is not innocuous, and you know it.

The comment in question could only titillate someone in the troll community, and could only offend someone looking for a reason to be offended.

[BykrBayb]

Typical troll tactic. Is Howlin writing your script too?

You asked me in Post #15,380:

If WA was started before this thread, then why would you call it an anti-Freeper site?

I answered you in Post #15,389:

Because it’s an anti-freeper site, not an anti-this-thread site. There were other anti-freeper sites before this thread too. LOL

You replied to a completely unrelated post, to make it difficult to track back, in the hopes that lurkers would just give up, and believe your lie. But the truth is, I answered your question.

WA has been proven, over and over, to be an anti-freeper site. I don't wish to debate whether planets revolve around the sun, whether The Bill of Rights is a real document, or whether WA is an anti-freeper site. None of those things are a matter of opinion, or up for debate.

If you wish to continue defending an anti-freeper site, go ahead. I look forward to seeing how that goes for you.

[Iwo Jima]

Answer the question, troll.

Are the Minuteman "vigilantes," or are they not?

When President Bush called them "vigilantes," did you agree or disagree?

[FreeReign]

Are you referring to the fact that the WTC was a KNOWN TERRORIST TARGET and that the biggest danger would be the lack of a viable evacuation program...

You still haven't backed up your claim that there was no viable evacuation program.

What is your source on that? Is it PBS, the NY Times...what?

Here's a link that says that there was an evacuation plan.

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/magazine/41/evacuat.htm

[Miss Marple]

Give it up, mkjessup. I can’t believe you are trying to make me believe such silliness.

[Jim Robinson]

As far as I can see, the religious right joins with the conservative movement in general and the Republican party in particular (it’s in the GOP platform) in its efforts to overturn the liberal activist Roe vs Wade decision and restore to the states and the people their constitutional right to legislate or reinstate their own moral standards at the state level when it comes to abortion, murder, etc. The religious right also joins with the GOP in objecting to extra-constitutional gay rights and unconstitutional first amendment violating “thought crimes,” etc. Same goes for the general objections to the atheist effort to remove all mention of God, prayer, religious symbols, sayings, quotes, verses, etc from our public life. Again, just conserving our American heritage and traditional family values and constitutional freedoms. Other than that, I don’t see any great push to legislate Christianity or any other religion.

[mkjessup]

Oh, please. That's too much codswallop for anyone to swallow. I just explained why it sounded like that is what mkjessup was saying.

It only sounded like that because you were apparently looking for some sort of sordid meaning that wasn't there in the first place.

Now if you want to pretend that saying "hot troll on troll action" wan't a sexual inference, go right ahead. It will sound like "the meaning of is" but if that's how you want to sound, by all means go for it!

What do YOU think trolls do when they get together?

Hint: take a look at the debris tray in the FR Bug Zapper in this thread, there is no sexual innuendo except for those desperately seeking one.

True or False:

Is 'innuendo' an Italian suppository? ;)

PS - thanks for the ping.

[Miss Marple]

Well, I know who sounds silly on this thread, and I don’t believe it’s me. Good night.

[mkjessup]

Give it up, mkjessup.

I don't know you that well yet Miss M.

I can’t believe you are trying to make me believe such silliness.

Ahhh, so you are beginning to acknowledge that it is all silliness?

Exactly. And NO reason to be offended.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

As a religious person, or a non-religious person, you are then free to live your life as you wish as long as you do not violate any laws. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HOW `BOUT A "SPESHUUL" Law For the Head-Huntin'Cannibals from New Guinea ?!?!?!?!...;0)

[mkjessup]

Well, I know who sounds silly on this thread, and I don’t believe it’s me. Good night.

Will you return my 'Trolls Gone Wild' tape in the morning?

Please? ;)

[DCPatriot]

I’m going to work for other folks. I’ll cross that bridge of what if when and if the time gets here

Exactly what I expected you to say. And take it as a compliment please?

[Mo1]

Answer the question, troll

Or what??

[Billthedrill]

Yes indeed, and I don't think it's hijacking the thread (impossible at this point anyway) and actually somewhat pertinent - that was a perfect example of what happens when principle is sacrificed on the altar of practical politics. You end up paying dearly later. But if it hadn't been, mightn't the War of Independence have failed and things have worked out less well for all concerned?

There is no good answer to that, which is precisely why the current controversy and this thread exist. Can we in good conscience sacrifice the principles in question which conservatives hold dear and Giuliani does not, in favor of the overall practical objective of avoiding another Clinton presidency? And if we do, what price will we pay for it? And if we don't, what price will we pay for that?

Broadly speaking, when in doubt, go with principle, because that's what principles are for. I think what bothers a lot of people is the prospect of a general election wherein those principles are already lost no matter which way we vote. That's what this ruckus is all about. IMHO, of course.