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?

[gondramB]

I’m only spot reading this thread and I didn’t see those bannings so I don’t have an opinion on the mechanics.

But I feel sad when someone who was here long before me and who made me welcome and who has been kind and civil with me even when we have disagreed leaves or is banned.

And I also miss a bunch more who were less perfect.

But I do think what is happening is natural.

With Bill Clinton serving 8 years and both Al and Hillary itching to follow, it was pretty easy to build a big tent of opposition.

It is always easier to unify against a common enemy than to hold together after.

I do wish it wasn’t so wrenching for the long term members. There are real emotions here because people have known each other and invested here.

That’s a long winded way of saying I don’t understand viewing this separation as a cheerful thing.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

I do! (((hugs)))

[FreeReign]

I looked at the mission statement of WA. Nowhere do I see that it's a anti-Freeper site. Why do you say that it is?

Typical troll tactic.

No, typical troll response by you with your first grade level name calling. You never answered the question.

The question remains unanswered by you.

Is Howlin writing your script too?

LOL, no...but you seem obsessed with Howlin. Jim removes her from the forum, yet you can't stop thinking about her.

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

I wasn't defending anything. I was asking you a question. You seem very defensive. You have come to the conclusion that it was an anti-Freeper site. So I ask you how you come to that conclusion.

How dare I ask such a question, right?

That's called looking for the truth. Not too complicated a concept....except apparently for you.

[gondramB]

Just a quick plug. That list you mentioned, the Founders Daily Quote by The Invisible Hand is the one ping list I find uplifting every single day.

[JCEccles]

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.

Bump.

[vox_freedom]

I agree with little jeremiah.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

[Dog Gone]

When freepers started flocking to Duncan Hunter, you said that, given the front-loaded primary schedule, that someone had to be a contender sooner rather than later.

I'm perhaps being disingenious, but only if you think it's important to make up your mind in April instead of October.

Even December isn't too late. If you're undecided at that late date, it's not like you've been contributing or campaigning for anyone.

So, I think I can have it both ways.

I know the primaries are frontloaded, and I'm not going to let anyone here bully me into supporting a candidate.

But frontloaded doesn't mean they're moved to May 2007.

I'm also not going to be bullied into supporting the candidate du jour at FR. I'll figure out who that is on my own timetable. It's not today.

I'd actually like to have the trial over before rendering the verdict.

If that's disingenious, I'll just live with the label.

[EternalVigilance]

Dang. You’re hitting on all eight cylinders!

[vox_freedom]

The glee in stifling dissent and the herding of long time members to the bugzapper is unprecedented at FR.

hint: don't fly towards the light.

[BykrBayb]

I answered your question, and even posted links to your question and my answer after you lied about it. Your troll tactics are just too obvious, and too much like Howlin’s tactics for anyone not to notice. And I’m not the first one on this thread to recognize her tactics in the posts defending her new home.

[metmom]

Not really sad about them not being here, but they should not be banned from this site for expressing their views. I would rather we all be here together, hearing all our conservative voices,

Someone who lays down ultimatums to the owner and then demands he comply of *STFU* is asking to get banned.

Or *just sayin* who would simply not get of the pro-abortion bandwagon.

There were many FReepers who were warned by JR himslef or other FReepers that they were on thin ice and they chose to ignore the warnings.

JR has made it clear what this site represents and if your pro-homosexual marriage, pro-abortion, pro-gun control, etc., yeah you are going to get banned. Those are not conservative views. So no one got banned for expressing their conservative views.

[new cruelty]

It’s LL that asked for the bugzapping to stop in the interest of fairness. So, what does fair mean, exactly, if he only asks one side to cease fire? It all happened right here on this thread, and I didn’t go anywhere else other than free republic to highlight his inconsistency.

ROTFLMAO, and yet you were anxious to find out what Lando might have said at (the fictitious) babysonthehalftip.com.

All that aside, focusing within the boundaries of this site, where along with anything negative that you can muster up about him, Lando has also said that he has "expressed sadness and regret about this purge. Here and 'over there'". I realize that you won't want to believe that such a proclamation could possibly be a part of his message, so here is a link that you can click so you can verify it for yourself... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=14567#14567.

[backtothestreets]

"And as Americans will reject most proposed amendments out of hand, that would automatically prohibit all of the unconstitutional socialist clap trap that the liberals/progressives/socialists et al have either legislated in or unconstitutionally adjudicated in via the liberal activist judiciary."

I absolutely agree with you Jim. Unfortunately, the citizens have never had a direct voice in the amendment process. Would the IRS exist today if states had been required to poll their citizens first and cast their state lot on ratification according to the results? I think not. The next amendment to the constitution should require such a process.

For now, Americans are at the mercy of sharks. These are political parties and hacks that know full well they control the destiny of our nation so long as they control government at the state and federal levels to impose their will.

One of the original Supreme Court Justices (I've forgotten which one) stated there was another means of the constitution being amended although not stipulated in the constitution. He wrote that this other means could occur when citizens forced an amendment upon the elected, and thus the government with a constitutional amendment.

We've yet to see such a day, and truthfully may never as the citizenry is too accepting of letting the sharks dictate.

[little jeremiah]

I inaugurated and ran the Moral Absolutes ping list for (can’t remember how many) a few years. Wagglebee helped out and basically took over more than a year ago when I had a lot of other resonsibilities; I’m starting to kick in again now.

One of the main focus points of that ping list is to shed light on the aggressively atheist and God hating legislation and court decisions that are turning the US into a sinkhole.

The basic moral absolutes that are the foundation of law are founded on simple religious based morality. To reject them is to open the doors to hedonist, dog eat dog anarchy, which will then usher in totalitarianism.

If these basic moral absolutes, founded in religion (and, oddly enough, are virtually the same in all monotheist religions as well as Buddhism) are rejected (as we are in the midst of today), the result will be a total hell on earth. Big dog eating small dog, simply because he can.

We are heading towards a culture which actively hates, disavows, and punishes religious believers and denies them any outlet for religious expression, even in their daily lives. Their (I should say “our”) principles and beliefs are trounced, scorned, mocked and destroyed with impunity, while they try to utterly silence our voices. And the God hating, morality destroying and aggressively atheist viewpoints are enshrined as law and accepted public polity.

[Billthedrill]

Many thanks, that means a lot to me. If I might leave with one final word, it is simply this - I think we should stop tearing at one another. There is a bigger fight looming and it’s for all the marbles, and I tremble for the outcome.

[gondramB]

>>If we truly need a new department or function in the federal government, then a constitutional amendment should be proposed, debated, enacted and ratified first. And as Americans will reject most proposed amendments out of hand,<<

One of the biggest challenges we face is the prevailing attitude that the constitution can be changed by declaring the original intent archaic or reinterpreted because the procedure to actually change the constitution is hard.

Its supposed to be hard to change the constitution because its supposed to be hard to take away our rights or to grow the government into new areas.

We are so far behind now that court-creep has kept the states from having to deal with tough issues because they rely on the supreme court to simply expand the federal government a bit more for each tough issue. We’re in a pickle. How do you re-establish proper constitutional limits on the Federal government while getting all the states to step up to ideas like equal rights but no special rights?

Darned if I know.

[little jeremiah]

“We had had a civil war and it’s aftermath which today includes the culture of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton because of [black exclusion].”

Should read:

“We had had a civil war and it’s aftermath which today includes the culture of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton because of ecause of scam artists saturated with Marxist class envy, pandering to ignorance, greed, and envy, and supported by leftists with guilt complexes, who in turn use the “black leaders” to garner votes.”

Result? Misery for many.

[deadhead]

"So no one got banned for expressing their conservative views."

I should have written:

Not really sad about them not being here, but they should not be banned from this site for expressing their views. I would rather we all be here together, hearing all our conservative voices

[Jim Robinson]

You’re missing the point. When I say he’s outta here, I’m saying that I as a human being and free citizen totally and absolutely reject him from any consideration whatsoever as a candidate for the presidency. And it’s because he stands against everything I hold dear and is associated with and lobbies for the very socialist groups and causes that are trying to deprive me of my liberty. He represents the domestic enemy within.

I also extend that rejection to Free Republic. This entity, this pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-country, pro-Liberty conservative forum and conservative activist organization will not be involved in supporting a liberal pro-abort, pro-gay, pro-socialist, anti-liberty candidate for the presidency. Period.

Now, as I suspected when this first started cropping up a couple months ago, there will be a certain number of people who cannot or will not understand why a pro-abort liberal candidate from the GOP is so detestable and repugnant to be rejected out of hand, and so they will probably get upset and leave FR. I can’t help that. FR will never support him and, in fact, will work to see that as many people as possible have an opportunity to view the ugly truth about the man in his own words and deeds.

[Dog Gone]

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

Yeah, I could if I was the slightest bit interested in defending myself from your ridiculous thread hijacking attempt.

I'm not.

If it means so frickin' much to you, pull up my offending posts, or shut the hell up.