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?

[Iwo Jima]

Well, yes, it is you that sounds silly on this thread. Although “silly” is far too benign a term. Just like when I told you about my personal experiences with respect to Harriet Miers and you said that you had lost an IQ of 10 in just reading my post. If you lost ten points in reading any of my posts, you could probably be considered to be 50 points less than my IQ, which is considerable. But that's beside the point.

Now, your approach to Ms. Miers was silly, and so many other things which should have been taken into account regarding Harriet Miers' lack of credentials to serve on the Supreme Court, were not.

If we Freepers had not derailed Miers' nomination, we would never have have the recent Supreme Court ruling against partial birth abortion. But I guess that that would have been just A-OK with you.

[DCPatriot]

[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?

I answered your question...

You never answered the question. Instead you continue to lie.

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...

Blah, blah, blah, you are haunted by Howlin aren't you....booo!

And I’m not the first one on this thread to recognize her tactics in the posts defending her new home.

As I said above, it's called looking for the truth. Not too complicated a concept....except apparently for you.

I've spent over 8 years defending this website and I continue to do so. You with your smear attempts -- lie.

[metmom]

How would being pro-life and pro-family translate into larger government?

I fail to see the connection.

[KevinDavis]

What happened to be pro-small government???

[stephenjohnbanker]

I got curious, and tried to pull up WA, and all I got was a rock group : )

How do you pull it up?

[Iwo Jima]

Or everytime I see you post anything, I ask you, "but what about the Minutemen?"

Every Single Time.

[KevinDavis]

When government gets involved in issues such as abortion...

[BykrBayb]

The truth is already out there. Your lies won’t stick. Your troll tactics don’t work anymore. Your whole world is crumbling around you. LOL

[stephenjohnbanker]

B U M P!

[bjs1779]

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

In other words, you can't. Jim, am I hihacking the thread?

[sissyjane]

Pardon me for interupting your convulsive posts, but could you be any more obnoxious?

Your comments about Howlin and NoPardons were demeaning, insulting and just plain disgusting. I guess the mods let the” bug-zappers” post absolutely anything now.

I can NOT believe what this forum has become. It is beneath contempt. It’s nearly as bad as the posts at DU.

[Brad’s Gramma]

NO ONE will be banned for asking that.

Sheesh.

[BykrBayb]

How do you pull it up?

I don't. I read copies that other freepers provide. I've seen links to it on this thread, somewhere in the last 15,000 posts.

[little jeremiah]

The basic moral principles which (used to) be the foundation of law are universal, the exact opposite of any kind of narrow sectarianism.

Laws against murder, assault, kidnapping, theft (which includes robbery, embezzlement, etc), lying (which would include lying under oath, slander and so on), rape, molesting children, sexually abusing animals, animal cruelty, adultery, sodomy, and so on are all based on religious principles.

You don’t like these laws? I realize that laws against adultery and sodomy have gone by the wayside (except in the military code of justice) but most conservatives will agree that the Lawrence vs Texas decision legalizing sodomy was a very bad decision.

[gondramB]

>>How would being pro-life and pro-family translate into larger government?

I fail to see the connection.<<

That’s really more a dividing than unifying issue - incenting pro-family behavior versus small government.

Its one of the natural divisions and stresses for conservatives. There are others like the line between minding our own business and isolationism.

But I don’t see being pro-life as a divider. I think there is a clear right to privacy. Other conservatives may disagree. But surely we all agree that the right to privacy does not include the right to harm others others, particularly innocents.

[DCPatriot]

Eternal Vigilance and ReaganMan catching a little break...
...can't make out the one ducking his head though...
mkjessup? Is that YOU??? LOL!

[stephenjohnbanker]

Then it isn’t worth it. It sounds like a haven for zotted FReepers.

[BykrBayb]

You’re just keeping the generator fueled, so the bug light doesn’t fizzle out. Keep up the good work.

[jdm]

LOL!