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?

[stephenjohnbanker]

: )

[BykrBayb]

That’s my understanding too. If you read through the posts, there is a clear distinction between conservative freepers who love FR, and liberal members of WA who are either zotted or waiting to be zotted. There are a small number of exceptions, but it’s almost across the board.

[mkjessup]

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.

That is completely understandable.

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.

You are absolutely correct. I think that after the eight years of the amoral Emperor Billigula, we were more than justified in expecting the incoming Bush Administration to restore the dignity and integrity to the Oval Office and to the Presidency that had been utterly ravaged and ravished by the Clintons, an administration that had more scandal, investigations, resignations, indictments than any other in history, even over and above that of Nixon.

Unfortunately, there was that underlying naive quality in George W. Bush which actually believed that he could 'change the tone' in Washington, and we can see now that the 'Rats and leftists were never going to so much as give him a chance, 9/11 or no 9/11. There are many many qualities in President Bush that I admire, and I voted for him in the primaries of 2000, and in the general elections of 2000 and 2004. I am however perplexed at his insistent refusal to tighten up our southern border and stop the Mexican/foreign invasion that continues damn near unabated.

Be that as it may, I think that most conservatives can agree that while GWB has certainly been more conservative than the globally warmed-up Al Ghoul, there are areas where conservative philosophy has been tossed out the window. I don't need to give a laundry list, everyone knows generally what those areas are. But he is our Commander-in-Chief, and I support him, and when he says that there is no option but victory in the war on terror, I believe him, and I back him on that. And I applaud him for the nominations of John Roberts and Sam Alito, because THAT is the reason that we've seen the barbaric state-sanctioned murder of nearly born babies banned, NEVER to return.

But to return to topic:

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.

The real emotions that such people are feeling are certainly human and understandable. But those emotions must be put aside for the greater good, i.e., we as Freepers may have great friendships either online or offline with other posters who are NOT social conservatives, who happen to be in the camp of the Rudyphiles, and that unfortunately leads to a conflict of divided loyalties. One must choose if their personal relationships with liberal RINOs, RudyTooters, and faux-conservatives are more important than staying true to the principles of real Reagan-style conservatism, and specifically to the principles that are on the front page of FR, the same principles that JimRob has reiterated time and time again, i.e., we are a conservative website. We are not a Rockefeller Republican website, we are not a RINO website, we are not a Rudy4Ever Website, FR is (one more time) a conservative website. If someone can't handle that, if someone finds themselves compelled to beat their liberal heads against a conservative brick wall, they need to find themselves another online home, both for their own good and for the good of FR.

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

I view the departure of the varied collection of RudyBots, trolls, liberal-RINOs, WideAflakers, whatever you want to call them, as more than sufficient grounds to be cheerful, not because I take glee in the idea that people may be saddened by the loss of online friends in this forum, but let's have a reality check here: those online friends who are no longer on FR are STILL ONLINE!

Yes, they are not truly dead, not exiled into some netherworld without dialup, DSL or cable connection, they're living still on websites like the aforementioned WideAwakes, DarwinCentral, et al, and if Freepers who are missing their old buds want to reach out and say hello, all they have to do is email, IM or phone (if the relationships have reached that degree of familiarity).

My cheerfulness about this housecleaning operation that JimRob has undertaken is based upon the realization that FR will be stronger as a result, it will not be constantly disrupted and taken off course by various Rudy-agitators who seek to undermine FR, and a liberal, gun-grabbing abortionist like Rudy Giuliani will hopefully be denied the GOP nomination because of the hell raising that is going on here today, and will be going on in the future because I believe JimRob when he says that he is going to work tirelessly to deny Giuliani the nomination, and once the former Mayor of NYC realizes that his candidacy is on it's way down to join the Titanic, he'll hopefully withdraw and the GOP will be able to nominate a candidate who won't make a mockery of the Party of Reagan, nor the beliefs and principles that Reagan carried with him to his grave.

That's where I'm coming from, and that's where I'm going.

[Nick Danger]

I’ve generally found that those who are the most critical of the founding generation’s shortcomings in this area are themselves hypocritically doing something far worse: they are empowering the killing of 3 - 4000 American babies every day through abortion.

Rb ver. 2.0, I have no idea whether this is true in your case. I don’t know you.

Pedophilia is a horrible thing.

By the way, I have no idea whether you are a pedophile or not. I don't know you. But I do know rhetorical sleaze when I see it, and that was the sleaziest dump of innuendo so far on this thread... and that is saying something. You need to start slithering toward the light, holy man. It's your turn.

[Jim Robinson]

What’s your point?

[little jeremiah]

“When a narrow subset of one religion starts making laws based on their interpretation of whatever, then it starts to impinge on others religious freedom. The way to alleviate this is to maintain a government based on secular values which do not favor one religion over another.”

Your statement makes no sense, unless by “religion” you mean, for instance, the witchcraft beliefs of aborigines whose practices involve ritual sodomy, amputations, and cannibalism (thinking about Papua New Guinea). All monotheist religions, and Buddhism (I include Hinduism in the monotheist religions as that is my particular field of study) all have the same basic moral values based on religion.

For your statement to make sense you need to supply evidence supporting it. The sentence “When a narrow subset of one religion starts making laws based on their interpretation of whatever...” needs elucidating. What exactly do you mean?

Additionally, a government based on “secular values” is a government which is choosing atheism as the standard over relgious based values. The only system I can think of that has done that is Communism. And what are secular based values, anyway?

[metmom]

What no reply yet?

[KevinDavis]

My point was I thought we supported a small limited government....

[DCPatriot]

I just checked in from time to time so my post isn’t worth much.

The heck it isn't. You've made my day! ;^)

[gpapa]

The passage you cite from Article 6, has nothing to do with separation of Church and State. It had to do with overriding the laws of several of the States which required a profession of a certain faith to hold office in their respective jurisdictions as well as the federal government. I welcome any arguments to the contrary.

[metmom]

I never thought I would be ashamed of this site, but I am now.

Then why are you staying on it and continuting to post?

[Mo1]

boo ... I’m scared

[mkjessup]

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.

Interesting how you choose to rise to the defense of two departed turncoats now alive and well over at WideAflakes.

My comment was nothing but humorous, and only someone looking for a reason to be offended, could be offended by what I posted.

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

So who do you miss most, Howlin, or NoPartners?

[EternalVigilance]

In your experience, are those who downgrade the unalienable, God-given right to life generally pro-choice or not, Nick?

[stephenjohnbanker]

Well, I for one am pleased that we had a housecleaning. It got to the point that we couldn’t have a rational discussion
about the candidates....just recent sign-ups who praised Rudy, and trashed conservatives, and conservatism. Now I don’t have Luis Gonzales and PRND21, and about 18 others to streetfight with anymore : )

[KevinDavis]

Right....

[gondramB]

I’m obviously not Jim and he may feel differently but I’ll just mention I threw my two cents worth in on that issue in post 15,476 so I won’t be repetitive.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, yeah. We do.

[Jim Noble]

Maybe, but he knows about Quidam. People who know about Quidam have creds. Do you trust the turtle?

Rudy is on the fencepost.

Pass it on.

[gpapa]

And your argument is....