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?
In the end, you've made the decision to support a liberal named Rudy Giulaini to be the GOP standard bearer. You will support a liberal for POTUS. You're on record. Thanks.
Well if you think that "in the end", Rudy will be our nominee, then your statement applies. I however, don't think that will be the case. But I'm sorry to hear that you are on the record saying such a defeatist thing.
If you agree with Rudy 75%-80% of the time, you're a liberal.
Entitled, yes. But a POV based on false allegations such as "the GOP as currently constituted believes that it their duty to impose “Judeo Christian” values" *and* "One of the reasons the GOP has been losing elections is exactly that" is a bunch of MSM hooey.
I'm sorry, guess I did misinterpret your post.
Part of the communist idea to infiltrate America was to get control of one or both parties. They have one of them, and I guess people like us want to keep them from getting both.
You clarified it and we are in agreement. I am sorry if I flamed you.
Passionate conservative, you know!
No surprise.
There have been a handful of FReepers who said they would VOTE for Hillary! if Rudy is the nominee. For example:
To: pissant
If someone were to hold a gun to my head and say vote for Hillary or Rudy, I’d vote for Hillary. If we have to have evil in the WH, let it be of the other party.
I will never vote for turning the party over to the likes of Rudy Guliani.
26 posted on 04/20/2007 8:06:33 PM EDT by JRochelle (Al Sharpton: Its hard out here for a race pimp.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1820904/posts?page=26#26
To: zarf
Actually, if Hillary! supported the war, I might vote for her. We KNOW she’s a ruthless b!tch - if she used that against our nation’s enemies like she does against her own, we might finish this war up with a total victory...
22 posted on 04/12/2007 9:54:32 AM EDT by Little Ray (Rudy Guiliani: if his wives can’t trust him, why should we?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1816089/posts?page=22#22
Researching something like this is NOT easy, and requires wading through hundreds of Google search results.
Like the majority of FReepers who have largely been avoiding the [insert name of Republican Presidential candidate here] bash-a-palooza threads, I am sick and tired of the personal attacks coming from ALL sides. Unfortunately, they have been spilling over onto threads that have absolutely nothing to do with Rudy, Romney, McCain, Thompson, Hunter, etc.
It makes very little sense to me to cannibalize each other. I simply don’t get why people can’t disagree without descending into personal attacks.
You are correct. I don't recall this sort of flaming even with the Buchanan or Keyes candidacies, only when the Rudy Giuliani group jumped in with an attempt to force everyone to go along with him "because only he can win", then promptly tried to redefine the meaning of "conservative" to include abortion, gun control and other issues that offend peoples' principles.
Caption: “How did I get stuck sitting next to this guy — and on his LEFT, for God’s sake”
Gotta go out.
Yeah like you! Goodbye toots!
I assumed so. Rudy supporters have no sense of writing style, sarcasm, or hyperbole.
Exactly. And that makes me think there are too many liberals among the PTB. Way too cozy. IMO, it's the almighty $ (or whatever symbol the globalists will ultimately choose to represent their income from the peons).
Yes, you are absolutely correct. This is one of the reasons why Rudy appeals to so many Republicans. They think the democrats and MSM will be less harsh on republicans if the party becomes more “moderate”. Not a chance. Too many conservatives are drinking the MSM kool-aid and beginning to believe their lies. If a lie is told often enough people begin to believe it.
Many people aren’t willing to stand up and fight for what they believe in because they don’t want to pay the price (persecution). I often say, “Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die”. Well, there is no other way to get there—you gotta die first. If conservative principles are worth having, we better be willing to pay the price. Persecution comes with the territory, and as the saying goes, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Sadly, that’s exactly what many republicans have been doing--because they aren’t willing to pay the price.
B U M P
It's not what I would do. But there is still a distiction. For example there are third party candidates that would benefit from such action.
We all have to hang together, or else our rights will all hang separately. (And no, I can’t take credit for that line, but I ripped it from a very respected source.)
The kids in the classroom may be dazzled by your boundless ego and your ceaseless pretentiousness, but the rest of us already BS'ed our way through your class, got the grade we needed, and moved on to real life.
I don't care about your classroom antidotes, your reading list, your godless enlightenment or your twisted rationalization of the practicalities of barbarism. You're a ghoul. A ghoul with a few degrees and tenure, perhaps. But a ghoul, all the same.
Yeah, about that...
Sorry to all of the old-timers, but - hey. You snooze, you lose.
Frankly I could not believe it myself. There are (I am sure) other ‘classics’ to be had for the taking.
However, user ID#1, is, has always been, and shall always be, taken.
ROFL! Good comeback.
Welcome to FR.
More revisionist history. Nothing of the kind happened - it was the leftists who became imboldened, and the country club GOP types who never liked RWR in the first place.
It wasn't a conservative who coined 'kinder & gentler America'
Are you implying that a Christ-like Peach was crucified?
Good grief.
> However, I’m going to be perfectly honestly. I’ve grown to hate some of the anti-Rudy crowd so much, because of their own visciousnes.
The rough language on both sides has been pretty heavy.
I think a lot of it has to do with the complete lack of good candidates in the Republican 2008 field, with any traction. I like Hunter but his numbers are abysmal. I like Fred but he hasn’t declared. Rudy and McInsane, the 2 frontrunners, are deeply troubling to me in many ways and I deeply hope neither become the candidate for Prez. I’ve really had to bite my tongue to keep my discussion civil, because I’m so troubled about this upcoming election. Where do we find the man (or woman) who has the stuff to take America into tomorrow, triumph over the liberal decay taking root?
Then WTH is up their butt? I like flashbunny. What is up the butt? A Rudy probe, maybe?
Look, it was a simple thing. A freeper says others are so bad they would VOTE for Hillary. The freeper says that to denigrate and attack her fellow freepers. I made a simple request -- show me where they said it. The freeper declined to do so, and nobody has since found one.
You can talk all you want about "distinctions without a difference", but when the topic was "people who said they would vote for Hillary", there is no "distinction" to be differentiated -- don't point to people who said they would NOT vote for Hillary.
Obviously, TitanAFC and others don't think the distinction is without a difference, or they wouldn't go to such lengths to say they would work against Rudy but not vote for Hillary.
Sir, I supported Steve Forbes. Maybe before your time. There was some kind of awful about Keyes but I was always respectful of him. And this forum fought me tooth and nail about my support of Steve Forbes, but they never EVER told me I had to go.
There, all better.
Even when he later called something terrorism, or broke up a terrorist plot, he didn't connect the dots back to a concerted war against us -- he just kept swatting at flies.
Even your tagline is intriguing... what’s the context of it?
Here's the background -- Giuliani argued in favor of collecting DNA from all newborns. More troubling to me than the issue itself is that the statement shows that this former prosecuter (who should absolutely innately understand how the Constitution works) thinks that the Constitution "gives" us a limited number of rights, that we have no rights beyond that, and everything else is fair game for government intrustion. In fact, as you probably know, the Constitution limits government power, not our freedoms. As Reagan said: "Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which 'We the people' tell the government what it is allowed to do. 'We the people' are free." Giuliani lacks this most basic understanding.
Here's are the links:
Support for collecting DNA from every newborn --
While not actually proposing it here, he defends the idea (and demonstrates a truly flawed view of how the Constitution works in the process): http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5DF103DF934A25751C1A96E958260
Key excerpt: When asked whether all children should have DNA tests at birth, the Mayor said: ''I don't know that that's the proposal, but I would have no problem with that, or fingerprinting all children. We go through a massive effort to try to fingerprint large numbers of children'' now, he said, ''so in case they are lost they can be found again or in case if they are kidnapped they can be found again. There is absolutely no reason why people should be afraid of being identified.''
-snip-
''It's not invasive,'' the Mayor said. ''It doesn't invade any right of privacy. You don't have a right not to be identified. I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified.''
Later, he does propose that the state legislature mandate collection of DNA from all newborns:
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/11/32617
Key excerpt: Many experts believe the FBI's database will be expanded in the future. The International Association of Police Chiefs has asked Congress to require DNA samples from anyone arrested, and New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani has requested that the state legislature require DNA samples from every newborn baby.
Nice thing is, there are many more than you and me!
BTW, this response and others like it, many from rudy people, is exactly what I’m talking about when I said I’m tired of having to watch over my shoulder for attacks from the foxhole.
A freeper accused other freepers of saying they would “vote for hillary”. I simply asked who they were. And I’ve had to spend over a half hour of posting since that time defending my question and the fact that nobody has answered it.
It’s a waste of my time. My question was a simple one — back up your claims.
Apparently some people think they can make claims without evidence, and then ridicule others for wanting the proof. It’s tiresome.
Bumpin’ backatcha. ;o)
Of course you would, Reagan Embarrassment, everyone you can divide is your score toward victory and your victory is total FR irrelevance and conservative defeat.
Then obviously you are no conservative. I suggest if you wish to win with a liberal you're in the wrong party. If you wish to win with an abortion loving, gay rights loving, illegal alien loving, gun grabbing liberal you should become a Democrat. We are NOT going to allow you (the collective you) to take the Republican any further to the left. It's way too far left already. We're going to take it back to the right and if you can't live with that, then get the hell out!
We'll go with the least socialist candidate everytime. But since the DEMS have the Urban vote programmed so well, it seems like RG is kind of like sending in a dirty player to save the game and live to fight another day.
I posted a simple comment a few hundred comments ago.
Your response was to respond to me with over 6 SEPARATE comments.
That wasn’t friendly, and it illustrated exactly one of my complaints about the rudy supporters, spamming and multiple posting and making it impossible to have a conversation.
How am I expected to continue a conversation in response to my comment when I’d have to respond to more than 6 different responses? With my luck, you’d respond 6 times to each of those, and I’d have soon spend all my waking hours just trying to keep track of your thousands of comments to me.
Maybe you just didn’t know what you were doing, but I think you are smart enough that you understand that answering each line of a post as a separate comment is a tactic designed for ONE THING, and that is to pretend you are responding but make it impossible to continue the conversation.
Which isn’t a very “friendly” way to respond to a substantive post, for someone who is so concerned about “hate responses”.
And you must have blinders on if you think the attacks are initiated or largely by the anti-rudy side, even though there are lots more anti-rudy people than pro-rudy people.
“We’ll go with the least socialist candidate everytime. But since the DEMS have the Urban vote programmed so well, it seems like RG is kind of like sending in a dirty player to save the game and live to fight another day.”
Sending in rudy giuliani is like sending in a player that has on your team’s jersey, but scores points for the other team.
I know you don't quite mean that literally; hyperbole is not your friend, OldFriend...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=abledanger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=nationalsecurity
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=chicom
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=illegalaliens
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=nationalsovereignty
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=healthypeople2010
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=goals2000
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=communistgoals
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=gramsci
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=codepink
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=un
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=green
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=soros
I didn’t feel friendly.
Long time no see. Hope things are going well with you.
Are you still discussing this? I can’t believe anybody had any trouble understanding you. If you can get away with not spending anything, you will be happy not to.
But if someone is going to be on welfare and cost the taxpayers $100,000, you would much rather pay $500 to have them murdered, because it will cost you less.
The English translation shows the word to mean "miscarriage", though the Hebrew word is "yasa" which actually means "to come forth". The word, itself, does not imply death, though the English word obviously does. So why presume the child is dead? If the writer wanted to imply death, he could have actually chosen the word that does. Moses uses "miscarriage" in other places, why not here? Most likely because the word is implying that the injury brings about the premature birth of the child. In fact the NASB translation, which is word-for-word says,
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide."
So, no, the Lord does not view the unborn child as less valuable than that of someone outside of the womb. In fact, scripture is quite clear in other places of the value God places on the unborn child, and that He is at the very beginning of the process.
And if you hadn’t tried to use Christianity as a weapon, I might have been inclined to answer it.
“Sending in rudy giuliani is like sending in a player that has on your team’s jersey, but scores points for the other team.”
It is tantamount to a real conservative slitting his own throat!
I see you finally filtered it.
Moderating? He advocates that abortions be paid for with taxpayer 'funds'. (The irony of which is that we Conservative taxpayers have no 'CHOICE' in the matter once it is dictated by those we elect to 'represent' us.) Rudy Giuliani speaks with forked tongue, Peach. Like a snake.
Neither of those are applicable. In the first case, you forced them to vote for one or the other. That person wouldn’t have voted for Hillary if you hadn’t forced them to.
The second said he’d vote for hillary if she changed her positions. That doesn’t count — if Hillary started preaching conservative values I’d vote for her over Rudy, even if she had a “D” by her name. But only if I trusted her, which I wouldn’t.
What all these examples being brought up shows is that freepers really DON’T want to say they would vote for Hillary. They find it abhorent to even THINK of voting for Hillary.
And they are pissed that some “conservatives” are supporting a candidate that is so bad that they even have to consider voting for Hillary.
But they won’t vote for Hillary. At least not these two (unless you put a gun to their heads and change Hillary into a conservative).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.