You must've missed the '06 election &/or most of the anti-Rudy threads in News/Activism...
Posted on 02/25/2007 2:46:59 PM PST by wagglebee
We all know about "limosine liberals" and "San Francisco liberals" and "east coast liberals" and "Hollywood liberals" and we all say we are against them. So, why is it that we seem to have a new breed of liberalism that is festering on a conservative forum?
By my calculations it is a small number (only about 15%) of FReepers that seem to be supporting a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, thrice-married (once to his cousing) gun-grabber for the office of President of the United States of America. And I'll be the first to admit that many of them are supporting Giuliani because they think he is the only Republican who can win. However, what about those FReepers who seem totally comfortable with Rudy's liberalism? In her book Treason, Ann Coulter describes in detail how communists infiltrated the Democrat Party and my fear is that decades from now, someone will describe how liberals infiltrated and destroyed conservativism in the name of pragmatism.
We all know that there are liberals here and I'm pretty certain that they aren't going anywhere. As a conservative, I know that conservativism consists of a belief in a strong national defense, fiscal conservativism and social conservativism, so to call these FReepers conservatives in name only (CINOs) would be incorrect because many of these FReepers don't even claim to be social conservatives. So, my question is this:
WHAT SHOULD WE CALL FREE REPUBLIC LIBERALS?
Adultery isn't good. I don't care that Klintoon already did it.
If he had a problem with his wife, he should've divorced her FIRST.
As far as "sounding like judgemental nit-pickers", so what?
Isn't that exactly what we need - no more PC pablum nonsense that gets us nowhere? Conservatives shouldn't be afraid of being "judgemental" - in fact, they should be proud of it. Meanwhile, liberals are wishy-washy pukes, although they don't hesitate to be "judgemental" when it comes to damning anyone who opposes their commie views.
anti-abortion and...agenda...oops!
Nice, but notice the 1 quote talks about "SPEAKING ill" - undoubtedly in public.
The other indicates that 1 could still work to ensure real conservatives get in, and fewer of the "moderates".
No. The differences are at first glance superficial. Closer examination proves those differences are also fundamental. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms for instance.
The Constitution isn't a list of suggestions. It isn't some outdated document. It IS our Nation. We cannot continue on a course that oversees the erosion of our Republic. We need to stop pandering to some ever Leftward "middle" and start hauling this country back to the Right.
Rudy doesn't do that. He maintains the status quo of Leftward movement.
Not what we need and not at all the Same.
Let's see, communists, Hillary supporters, anti-American baby murders, that's tame. Much better on most threads
Stealth representatives of the everwar mideast country. But that's been used. As has stealth DU posters.
I've seen their sexuality and that of the candidates besmirched. Bunch of gay loving, transvestite, crossdressers that they are. Too late to suggest that one.
I've seen it suggested they wear the identification for homosexuals used in the camps. That's creative, but already used.
I've seen it suggested that they allow dogs to hump their legs. Beastiality, creative too, but used.
I'm at a loss, but I'm sure a "true conservative" will come up with something.
Raises the level of political discourse as you know.
And keeps the focus off the issues.
Bush has done as much as any president can do to limit abortion, he vetoed embryonic stem cell research and he opposes homosexual marriage.
Rudy DISAGREES with all of this. His statement that he would appoint originalist justices is totally meaningless and transparent. What president would knowingly appoint a judge whose views are totally inconsistent with his own?
The conservative extremist wing in here has taken on the persona of the Taliban.
They insult and question veteran Freepers because they happen to pass on drinking the Koolade every time it's offered.
Freepers too ignorant to realize or admit that no CIC will ever be in a position to repeal Roe V Wade or the 2nd Amendment and instead SHOUT their unhappiness with a candidates history on said issues. As if Tom Tancredo will ever be elected POTUS going against the Clinton machine....but I digress.
Also, the illegal alien residents inside this country...exactly how many are there? Nobody know. And it seems nobody cares....'nobody' meaning local county, State or Federal officials.
The same 'nobodies' that find themselves getting re-elected term after term after term.
Montgomery County, Maryland...one of the wealthiest in the nation now is a monolithic government where there is not one single Republican to be found. Not one.
They could care less about conducting a public census on how many illegal aliens reside and work in the county because they are potential democratic voters.
These ignornant Freepers...and you all know who you are...treat anyone that elbows their way to a seat at the table as lawbreakers and insults and slanders them...rather than turning their anger upon the politicians that coddle and protect them.
The conservative movement is not dead but is in...dare I use the term... a Terry Schiavo coma.
The successful campaign by our MSM and the Democratic leadership who get the daily soundbites have been relentless in turning the average voter against all things Republican.
So..how come all you so-called intelligent posters can't accept that in order to WIN in 2008, we may have to put up a candidate that can actually beat somebody?
Bingo.
Bush has been at best moderate. He's a good man and I appreciate that he holds to his convictions, too. But, his convictions seem to include some wrong 1s.
I should've known when Bush was showing off speaking Spanish during his campaigns.
Despite all the ballyhoo, Bush is no Reagan.
You must've missed the '06 election &/or most of the anti-Rudy threads in News/Activism...
Well... It's hard to argue this point when his family spent summers with her and her family, and her nickname was "little cousin". I think a stranger omission from his official biography are his two teenage children from his marriage with Hanover. It isn't as if his being previously married is a secret.
I don't think there's such a thing as a Free Republic liberal. Everyone waxes a little liberal on one issue or another, but to call someone a "liberal". That's just cold.
If, however, at the end of the 2008 Republican National Convention, this party has chosen Rudolph Giuliani as its nominee, I absolutely will campaign for him and vote for him. And I make no apologies for that and if some consider me a drooling idiot for this mindset, bully for them, I really only have to please one person on this earth politically (the Mrs. could care less about politics although her heart and vote is in the right place), and that's me. :)
I caught that, too. A definite willingness to blame us for an election which is far from over, a year before the primary...
I will not be shouted down by that lot.
There is a definite hostility for exposing the liberal positions of their favored candidate as well.
In February of 1975 the general public had NO IDEA who Jimmy Carter was.
Same goes for Michael Dukakis in February of 1987.
In February of 1991, anybody who happened to know who Bill Clinton was would only know because they remembered him droning on forever at the 1988 DNC convention.
They want to blame us for not supporting a Republican WHO HASN'T BEEN NOMINATED YET in a race against a Democrat WHO HASN'T BEEN NOMINATED YET in an ELECTION THAT IS OVER A YEAR AND A HALF AWAY.
There is a definite hostility for exposing the liberal positions of their favored candidate as well.
I think a lot of this is because they realize that THEY SHARE THESE LIBERAL POSITIONS.
I thought the best way to defeat the Liberals was not to elect one. From either party. Why is that reality so unpalatable? Guiliani is a Liberal. He fails the test on the Border/illegal immigration, on abortion, the RKBA, etc.
His past positions on the issues are only at odds with Hillary on the WOT. WHile that is certainly an important issue, I am sure we can find another candidate who can fulfil the conservative agenda better.
His performance in New York City was obtained in a situation where he could decree it and it was done. The Federal Government does not work that way, nor is the POTUS supposed to have dictatorial powers.
That gives me reason to doubt his effectiveness as POTUS should he be elected, except on those issues where the Democrats' agenda and he are aligned, and those, frankly are the issues I do not want progress to be made on in that way.
I noticed they have Hillary as about a 20 point favorite to win--over Guliani. Seems to me we need a different game plan than trying to out-democrat the democrats.
The evidence of Rudy being a "fiscal conservative" are remarkable similar to the evidence put forward about Ross Perot back in 1992.
No you aren't. You're behaving like a school yard bully.
The level of discourse around here has REALLY sunk to new lows of late. It doesn't even make me mad any more, it's just making me not give a rip what any of you malcontents and bullies have to say. I certainly hope your candidate of choice has more charm and campaign ability than you've shown. The meaner you've gotten, the more people have become attracted to ANYONE else. Rudy's popularity is growing.
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.