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?

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>That’s such BS I don’t have words for it.

In your book, I don't doubt that is what you believe.

But in my book, you're still no conservative.

[rbmillerjr]

“It’s interesting that Poppy Bush introduced Rudy at an event at this juncture. Says something about how the Bush family views Rudy, I think...”

It probably says more about the Bush family than it does about Rudi. Bush41?...and you’re surprised?

[Syncro]

That would be GREAT if Rudy won the Democrat nomination.

Good suggestion, Dale

[Politicalmom]

Most of them were sickened by Keyes’ support of reparations.

[veronica]

You mean the man who lost the election in 1992 because he abandoned conservatives?

No. I mean the good man who lost the election because some idiots voted 3rd party - and so a Clinton was elected. Sound familiar?????

[stephenjohnbanker]

BINGO!

B U M P

[samadams2000]

By the way I dont think Lesbian couples parading around turkey baster kids are cute, like Rudy does.! Sorry...lets continue....

[montag813]

I miss George Allen.

Why? He was no Reagan. He was a doofus jock fratboy type who proved he does not have the mettle under real campaign pressure. He was not a deep thinker as Reagan was.

[Peach]

Hmmmm - that’s interesting. I’d hate to see Republicans fall for that old trick, but it’s likely they would.

I’m rather hoping that it’s such a cat fight with Kerry thinking about entering the race again and Gore making noise, that the Democrats so beat each other up that they all look dirty to even their own party. Although the Democrats are known to stick with party no matter what.

[CharlesWayneCT]

anti-Rudy crowd will have to suck it up

The pro-rudy posters are getting creamed in the debate of ideas, philosophy, constitution, and what is right for the country.

So they attack other candidates for having traits similar to their own candidate, they multi-post articles with their own peculiar excerpts to spin for Rudy, and then ignore negative comments and move on to the next thread.

Most pro-rudy threads end because someone posts rebuttals to the actual facts in the posted article, and the pro-rudy people move on. Before that, the pro-rudy people post anti-rudy comments in order to complain about how the anti-rudy people will show up eventually and make those comments.

The pro-rudy people have been trolling to try to get banned for a week now. Time and again they post "will we still be able to post", or "I hear there's a purge and we'll get banned".

When that didn't work, some of them made false claims against conservatives, some so bad they had to ask for them to be deleted themselves. And a few did get banned for that.

So now they can run around claiming they are being silenced because the anti-rudy people have no "answer" to their reasoning, something that is clearly delusional if you actually read the pro-rudy threads.

[flashbunny]

Why was there a demand for a third party candidate then, veronica???

Hint: It’s not just because they wanted a president with big ears.

[Registered]

"Many longtime FReepers have been banned in recent days and weeks, for bashing cosnervative candidates and promoting the liberal abortionist Rudy Giuliani. My guess is, there will be more to come."

Spoken like a troll with an agenda.

[woofie]

as I said to someone else ...Good luck with all that ...If JR wants to ban me so be it (since 1998)

[FreeReign]

First you complained that I attacked you.

Don't think there was any complaining from this side... just a bunch of name calling from you..."Up yours, dope, stupid" At least your consistent if nothing else.

Your first post to me was medium-level, snide. So I raised it a notch with my "up yours" response. You then complained to me and I followed up with a complaint to you.

I guess it was so unfair of me to respond to a snide remark, with an insult.

LOL!

Whatever.

[veronica]

It’s best not to practice psychiatry without a license.

[papasmurf]

I would like to discuss it. I am oppossed to it, on Religious grounds, period.

But I do have some confusions about it and the Constitution.

James Wilson was one of only six men to sign both the Declaration and the Constitution, and was a Supreme Court justice from 1789 to 1798.

Recognized as “the most learned and profound legal scholar of his generation,” Wilson’s lectures were attended by President George Washington, Vice President John Adams, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and a “galaxy of other republican worthies.” For this reason, as constitutional scholar Walter Berns states, “Wilson, when speaking on the law, might be said to be speaking for the Founders generally.” So what do the Founders say about the right to life?

He wrote:“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”

I take this to mean, that the Constitution protects life.

The key question then becomes the point at which the unborn fetus becomes an unborn child.

Wilson, in agreement with the limited medical jurisprudence of his time, assumed that life begins with the “quickening" of the infant in his mother’s womb. As taught by Aristotle, the quickening was the point at which the fetus was infused with a human, rational soul. John Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, first printed in 1839, defines the quickening as follows: “The motion of the foetus, when felt by the mother, is called quickening, and the mother is then said to be quick with child. This happens at different periods of pregnancy in different women, and in different circumstances, but most usually about the fifteenth or sixteenth week after conception….”

So, what about it? Does this mean that abortion is accepted, by the Consitution, in what we call the first trimester?

No, why?

Yes, why?

Before I get flamed by others for this, I'm seriously trying to understand, and I am confused by this passage.

:O)

P Run, FRED, run!

[stephenjohnbanker]

Jim Rob is a man who cannot be bought, sold, rented, or leased! Neither can you or I !

Have a great weekend!

[CharlesWayneCT]

When it started being used by Rudy supporters to push rediculous conclusions.

It's like someone saying we should have bombed the trains carrying jews to Auschwitz because it would have been better for them to be killed quickly than to be tortured in the gas chambers.

[SittinYonder]

I would rather have her here arguing, than not.

Me too.

I like Rudy. I think he did a great job as the public face of NYC during 9/11.

Rudy's not my pick for the nominee, but I doubt my pick will ever show beyond single digits in any of the polls. My second choice probably won't get beyond sixth or fifth place.

I've already accepted that I'm not going to like the GOP nominee in '08.

[flashbunny]

Good summary!

[samadams2000]

Which candidate supports EXTRACTION and airlift drops for illegals?

[Josh Painter]

God bless you, sir.

[politicalwit]

Most of them were sickened by Keyes’ support of reparations.

I thought Keye's take on reparations was interesting. The way I read it was that if you were black and worked you got a marginal tax break for a few years. If you didn't work you didn't get squat. Reparations complete now shut the hell up.

[SittinYonder]

Tancredo

[Hawk1976]

It is really very simple. A Rudy victory with or without conservative support will totally destroy the conservative movement.

If conservatives support Rudy, then we are willing to prostitute our vote and sell out our beliefs. We will be no better than the Americans with darker pigment than other Americans are in the Democrat Party’s Calculation. There is no good reason for us to do this. Not even Hell on the horizon would be good enough.

If Rudy wins without conservative support, we lose but our movement remains intact. Rudy’s fiscal conservatism will lose every time against his social liberalism, regardless.

Rudy is not the only electable candidate with an R by his name. He is also no 80% ally of mine.

[Hawk1976]

It is really very simple. A Rudy victory with or without conservative support will totally destroy the conservative movement.

If conservatives support Rudy, then we are willing to prostitute our vote and sell out our beliefs. We will be no better than the Americans with darker pigment than other Americans are in the Democrat Party’s Calculation. There is no good reason for us to do this. Not even Hell on the horizon would be good enough.

If Rudy wins without conservative support, we lose but our movement remains intact. Rudy’s fiscal conservatism will lose every time against his social liberalism, regardless.

Rudy is not the only electable candidate with an R by his name. He is also no 80% ally of mine.

[veronica]

Why was there a demand for a third party candidate then, veronica???

Because the concept of loyalty eludes some people - selfish people, that is.

[Delphinium]

Theres been freepers on both sides banned. Wish that wouldn’t happen, we all are here because we like to argue. Makes it more fun that way.

[SoCalPol]

The WA board looked like maligant narcissism.
It makes for some good laughs

[Peach]

I adore Sen. Cornyn and think he’s presidential material but he’s not running and since he has little name recognition and maybe not the stomach to take on the Clinton machine, then I’m going with Rudy who has guts to spare. Which is a trait I admire almost more than any other trait a candidate could show me at this point.

[Kryptonite]

This weeks Supreme Court judgement on PBA was fantastic. We would not have something like that with doo-doo-onme Giuliani nominating judges.

That was really great news. We can thank everyone who helped seat Alito and Roberts for that, from the swift boat vets to the Federalist Society.

With Rudy, everything will go awry.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

Papasmurf, I love your graphic. Consider it borrowed.

[CharlesWayneCT]

They are defeatists, who think conservatism is dead, that america just won’t support the right way, and that the best we can hope for is to trick them into voting for a candidate of ours that will do at least a little of what is right for the country.

[Peach]

I didn’t understand your question, woofie. Probably because I’ve been up since 5:00 a.m. :-)

[garv]

It’s interesting that Poppy Bush introduced Rudy at an event at this juncture. Says something about how the Bush family views Rudy, I think...

Did you notice that the speech was at the G.H.W. Bush Library? I guess you also missed that Romney and McCain had previously spoken there as well.

[Jet Jaguar]

You have done great work.

I will let you know, I disagree with you very much about Rudy's history, qualifications, and ability to beat the Beast.

We need a Conservative to beat the dem nominee. (It will not be the Beast. IMHO)

[stephenjohnbanker]

“It is really very simple. A Rudy victory with or without conservative support will totally destroy the conservative movement”

Stop right there......

We have the post of the night!

[flashbunny]

“Because the concept of loyalty eludes some people - selfish people, that is.”

Do you mean “loyalty”, as in “poppy” bush being disloyal to the conservative base that gave him a landslide first time around?

Loyalty is a two way street - if you get it based on promises you made, and then fail to be loyal by keeping those promises, you can’t whine “gee, why aren’t they loyal to me???!”

[Hawk1976]

A wonderful post and dead on accurate.

[pollywog]

Please reinstate posting priviledges for Fierce Allegiance.

I second this, Trussell

[Jim Robinson]

You are such an idiot.

[mkjessup]

By the way I dont think Lesbian couples parading around turkey baster kids are cute, like Rudy does.! Sorry...lets continue....

Maybe another time, I'm trying not to picture the National Geographic special on 'Lesbians of the Wild and the Turkey Basters who Love Them'.

[FreeReign]

Which candidate supports EXTRACTION and airlift drops for illegals?

I give up, who?

[Txsleuth]

Test

[veronica]

Did Poppy Bush introduce them too?

[CharlesWayneCT]

You don’t convince the country that conservatism is the only correct path by giving them a non-conservative for President.

[Jim Robinson]

And a liar to boot.

[AntiGuv]

The answer to your question is: Yes, in the America of the Founding Fathers life was held to begin at “quickening” - which was roughly the fourth month of pregnancy. Ergo, abortion was not illegal in the first trimester and was frequently performed.

[Peach]

I don’t mean to be flip, but I’ll give it serious thought the second freepers make serious posts about why we should consider social issues more important than national security and fiscal restraint issues.

If this nation isn’t secure from jihadists (Muslims are breeding at a rate 7 times that of the rest of the world population), within a decade or so, we’re not going to be talking about abortion at all because we’ll be too busy dodging truck bombs at Home Depot.

If this nation doesn’t get a handle on entitlement spending (that battle has already been lost, imo, but Rudy just might be the man to take it on), then France is going to look like a paradise compared to the US in terms of socialist spending.

[Peach]

What am I lying about?