Posted on 02/19/2007 1:14:04 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Edited on 02/19/2007 2:20:11 AM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
I was told earlier this evening that it's impossible for a conservative to win the general election against Hillary Clinton. That the socially liberal Rudy Giuliani is the ONLY Republican who can (a) beat Hillary and (b) win the war.
How many FReepers actually believe this hogwash? If we have no faith in our own conservative principles and values why do we call ourselves conservatives? How can we possibly hope to advance our conservative causes if we tuck tail and run when we should be fighting as if our very survival as a free people depends upon it. Because it does.
We cannot advance conservatism by running a social liberal for the office of chief executive. If you want proof, ask Arnie, the socially liberal Republican governor of California. No thanks. You can have him and the socialist horse he rode in on.
We cannot defend life, liberty or nation (see below discussion on securing borders) with a social liberal at the helm.
I'd like to build a winning conservative platform with a dozen or so hard hitting no nonsense points that we can all agree on that would help us focus on our best potential primary nominee and one that can defeat Hillary, et al, in the general.
Here's a starter list and it's open for discussion, cutting, consolidation, expansion and detailing:
Would a conservative platform focusing on victory in the war, national security, national defense, securing the borders, deporting illegal aliens, sound fiscal policy and defense of life, liberty, property and individual rights be a winner over Hillary's treasonous platform of surrender, weakness, open borders, socialist fiscal policies, "abortion rights," "gay rights," global warming, continued government abuses and subversion of our rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to keep and bear arms and private property rights?
Expanding on one issue, for example, I'm pushing for increased border security. I used to be in favor of some sort of temporary worker program, but not one that has a fast track to citizenship. I'm now coming around to the point of view held by the majority of Americans regardless of political party affiliation and that is we MUST secure the borders immediately. It's obvious that this war against Islamic fascism is going to grind on even after we put down the nasty business in Iraq. We must secure the borders against terrorist intrusion and infiltration. We must tightly control ALL immigration to the US.
It's also becoming more and more obvious that Americans are not happy with illegals taking jobs in an ever growing number of industries. They're no longer just doing field labor and or menial low paying tasks. They're creeping up the uskilled labor and union scale, only they're competing unfairly by accepting low wages and under the table payments.
We also need to seal the borders against drug smugglers, weapons smugglers, criminals, terrorists, etc. Catch them, try them and lock them up.
Americans are also tired of footing the bills for illegal alien health care, education, welfare, auto accidents, crime, disease, etc.
It's way past time to call a halt to this nonsense. I say we catch them at the borders and deport them. If we catch them again, place them in a work camp. If they want to work, fine, let them work in a work camp for their keep. Nothing more. And no illegal families or children or anchor babies. If it takes additional laws on the books, fine let's get it done. If it takes a constitutional amendment to stop the anchor babies, let's get the process started.
We should also catch and deport them when they show up at the DMV, voter registration or voting booth, unemployment line, bank, building permit office, welfare department, social security office, hospitals, free clinics, schools, jails, auto accident or traffic stops, etc. If they can't speak English and they don't have valid identification, then we need to hold them or call in the INS.
If we're going to secure the nation we must secure the borders, control immigration and stop pandering to the illegals or their enablers. Employers who willingly and knowingly hire illegals should be punished. If they pay their workers under the table and fail to withhold taxes or social security, they should be dealt with as felons.
So, we win the war, secure the nation, build our defenses, return to a sound fiscal policy, cut spending and taxes, and defend our rights.
How many states would go for this platform as opposed to Hillary's that is exactly opposite?
I think we'd even pull in California.
What say you?
I’m not even sure I have point of view in this fight. As far as I’m concerned, there was plenty of time for discussion and debate about all the candidates before anyone had to support one, contribute money to one, or much less, vote for one.
Best I can tell, there was some perceived need to change this forum from a conservative site into a distinctly social conservative site to the exclusion of any form of conservatism in opposition to that.
That’s fine, but that’s different, and depending on how things play out over the next year, it may transform this site into an adamantly anti-GOP site.
I’m not okay with that. But that’s what I think is going to happen. Perhaps some conservative white knight will ride in to save the day for the GOP, conservatism, and this forum. Let’s hope so.
But what if that doesn’t happen? Are we prepared for the consequences of that? I’m not.
I may have more guts than sense, but that's where we differ, even though I think the world of you as a person!!!
Only you would have the nerve to tell the Waspman that I reminded you of Yosemite Sam!!!
The new forum, for instance, has a strict policy against promoting third-party candidates and has banned people for doing such.
***By the “new forum”, I take it you mean Wideawake. What would they do if rudy lost the nomination and went 3rd party? Those rudybots love hypotheticals — who would you vote for hildebeast or rudy? — but I’ll bet you’ll never see that hypothetical on their website.
If the GOP goes abortionist, gay agenda supporting, gun grabbing, illegal alien backing liberal, you can bet your life FR will be anti-GOP!
The Media and Politicians think and tell us its the WAR but
“It’s Illegals STUPID”
I've always lived by a simple code:
It can be cold. It can be brutal. But if it's true, you can say it. ;-)
Best I can tell, there was some perceived need to change this forum from a conservative site into a distinctly social conservative site to the exclusion of any form of conservatism in opposition to that.
***It looks to me that if that’s the “best you can tell”, then you have a bit of a tin ear. This forum has always been a conservative site with socon roots. A bunch of CINOs came in and tried to steer it into a more liberal direction. They actively took issue with the core principles which I post below, from JimRob’s front page here on FR. That’s like going into someone’s private house and telling them their daughter is ugly. It may be true or not true, but it is unwise to do so on their property. And to top it off, your statement ends with an exaggeration: “ to the exclusion of any form of conservatism in opposition to that”. That’s a buncha baloney. First of all, the opposition to rudy & some of his followers is because he’s a liberal, he ain’t conservative, so it is not an opposition to any “form of conservativism”. Secondly it is not to the exclusion of these viewpoints. There are still rudybots here, they just finally figured out that they shouldn’t tell JimRob his daughter is ugly.
Allow me also to re-introduce the post that I nominated as the best of the entire 18k+ bugzapper thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=9728#9728
To: RobFromGa
I think that where this is leading is that those who have used FreeRepublic to push something fundamentally contrary to the concept of conservatism have lost their springboard for pushing their views. They will have to go to some other forum to advocate their positions.
I am a libertarian who votes Republican most of the time and identifies with conservatism most of the time. Posting on FreeRepublic has never been a problem for me because, to the extent that there is any divergence between my libertarian views and the prevailing conservative views of this website, I do not use this forum to advance any contradictory positions.
That’s really not so hard to absorb, is it?
9,728 posted on 04/25/2007 4:59:17 PM PDT by Iwo Jima (”Close the border. Then we’ll talk.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9694 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
.
.
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
I'm a small-l libertarian who has most certainly mixed it up with the social conservatives plenty of times in the past, and I feel completely at home here on FR.
Perhaps some conservative white knight will ride in to save the day for the GOP, conservatism, and this forum. Let’s hope so.
Freddy Thompson is running. Bank on it. We'll be fine.
I'm glad I'm not the only one in this boat. Despite being conservative on most things, such as abortion, the 2nd Amendment, taxes and fiscal policy, my views on gays and capital punishment are significantly more liberal than the average freeper.
That said, I respect the fact that Jim's opinion on the direction he wants to move his forum are contrary to mine on these two issues, so I merely keep my mouth shut on them for the most part.
Ever since I’ve been coming to this site it seems to me it was bigger and broader than being only a socially conservative site. It always had that aspect to it, but all were welcome if they fit under the broad umbrella of conservatism.
In fact, if you despised Democrats, that was probably enough to be welcome here.
Several long time posters were openly pro-choice on the forum. That was no secret to anyone here and certainly not to FR management.
But there is a new litmus test in effect that never has been enforced prior to this year on a wide scale. I’m not taking a position at this point whether that’s good or bad, but it does reflect a change. You can call that baloney, but I can’t quite reconcile that with the fact that a lot of people I’ve known for a lot of years and who I considered fellow conservatives can’t post here any more.
Maybe that means that I’m not conservative enough. I’ve been under the impression since I first voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 that I am. But you learn something new every day.
If you recall, there have been other "litmus tests" in the past, most notably that advocating against Republicans during election seasons got one banned or suspended. Frankly, I don't see this latest episode as all that much different than that.
Ever since I’ve been coming to this site it seems to me it was bigger and broader than being only a socially conservative site.
***That’s one thing that social liberals often don’t notice about social conservatives, that they really are very open minded and fair and willing to listen to your point of view. But that stops when we get harrassed , browbeaten, and ridiculed for having such views in our own forum. And at that point this whole thing someone built up in their mind, where it “seems it was bigger & broader”, comes to a quick stop and civility is restored once again. It’s not wise to harrass socons in a site that was originally set up by socons, just like it’s not wise to tell some guy in his own house that his daughter is ugly. It’s common sense, really.
I can’t quite reconcile that with the fact that a lot of people I’ve known for a lot of years and who I considered fellow conservatives can’t post here any more.
***Maybe you should wander on over to the bugzapper thread, find a few that got zotted, and cross out their names. Just read the comments of someone who got zotted to see if it was the right thing to do. Maybe read their post-zot comments over at WideAwake, where at least one of them bragged about how they were trolling since the beginning, for many years. Then when you’ve decided on whether or not it was a fair zot, retreive the names and see who they were. Some of them were your FRiends. And they deserved to go. Simple as that. If you can’t reconcile it, it is probably because you really don’t want to and you want to hold onto a grudge.
So, who do you support/suggest, that wouldn’t be corrupted and has mega bucks to campaign?
Excuse me for failing to detect how fair and open-minded you are, even as you praise yourself for being so.
Fiscalcons, neocons, paleocons, and libertariancons, are second class citizens in the forum that you now rule.
Maybe I’ll just stay away from the thread you lovingly call the bugzapper thread. It gave you great joy to see people either banned or leave of their own volition. I obviously do not share your joy. But perhaps it is permissible to disagree here even today.
I don’t disagree that some of the bannings were justified. A couple of my friends were practically begging for it in the heat of the moment. That’s not even the point.
My point is that FR has changed. You think for the better. I don’t.
That is the point.
Again, I cannot speak for anyone else, but as a "libertariancon", I do not, in any way, feel alienated here on FR. I get several pings every day from traviskicks from his libertarian list.
It's worth noting that several freepers who moved on were the same ones who clashed with us libertarians, using such terms as "loserdopian" on a regular basis. Ironically, some of those guys were the ones who I got to "know" and ended up developing friendly relationships with on non-political threads.
You're like a freakin' broken record. Your opus has lasted longer than any other in the history of FR. If you hate it so bad and all your liberal buddies got banned, then why must you continue to hang around and bitch and moan about it?
As Norm pointed out to you earlier, during the Recall when so many grassroots conservatives were feeling totally ripped off on the Recall we started, here were suddenly a bunch of dismissive FReepers who descended upon us like locusts and wouldn't let up!!!
A lot of us felt right then that a lot of the FReeper "family" had turned against the conservative "movement" and was "stoning" us with boxes of rocks because they were convinced we were dumber than a box of rocks for supporting some colorless conservative "because he didn't have a chance and we were gonna screw everything up and might as well be supporting the Devil himself!"
They even recruited the owner of this site to their point of view, although he was never anywhere as abusive or intense or offensive or oppresive or insidious as some of our offenders who really got way out there and drove a lot of "us" away or into just lurking. You know my skin is tough, but like you, I lost many FRiends around that time and I still miss all of them, as you do yours.
In fact, I miss some of those recently dismissed, or who withdrew just as you had done for a while. I don't know about you, my FRiend, but I'm old enough to remember that back in my parent's day, people didn't talk religion and/or politics in polite company as everybody KNEW they were the two most volitile subjects among humans. I'm a non-practicing Amateur Radio Operator and traditionally, those two subjects are taboo!!!
FR is almost all about religion and politics and it's just amazing to me that there are so few flame wars, purges and hurt feelings! It is truly a marvel!! So please thicken your skin and stick around so we can enjoy each others company except on those subjects we disagree to the point of losing our manners to some extent, ok?
Excuse me for failing to detect how fair and open-minded you are, even as you praise yourself for being so.
***It’s not about me. It’s about socons in general. And yes, I think you do miss the point.
Fiscalcons, neocons, paleocons, and libertariancons, are second class citizens in the forum that you now rule.
***That’s a real overexaggeration. I/we/socons don’t rule anything. Some of us just got tired of being beaten up on a forum that we helped start. It’s just common sense and common courtesy.
Maybe I’ll just stay away from the thread you lovingly call the bugzapper thread. It gave you great joy to see people either banned or leave of their own volition.
***Another thing you got wrong. I got no joy from it. I didn’t mind seeing some of the more mean-spirited jerks take a hike, I have to admit. But I wouldn’t call that joy. Read my comments on the thread if you don’t believe me.
I obviously do not share your joy. But perhaps it is permissible to disagree here even today.
***You sound a little bit drama-queenish here. Try to get a grip.
I don’t disagree that some of the bannings were justified. A couple of my friends were practically begging for it in the heat of the moment. That’s not even the point... My point is that FR has changed. You think for the better. I don’t. .. That is the point.
***I agree that FR has changed. There were so many solibs beating up on socons that some socons left, possibly never to return. The entire nature of Free Republic had become different, and I can only speak for myself that I almost went back into lurker mode. But JimRob decided that the situation wasn’t right and he did something about it. I do think that it was for the better. I’m actually glad that there’s a place I can send obnoxious rudybots to, so they quit bugging us here. They’re probably happier over there, certainly while the have nice, pretty poll results to ogle over until the primary season starts. What they don’t have is a forum where they can mistreat socons, and if that’s what you miss, something is wrong with you to the point where you should feel free to join them. Free Republic is a noticeably better place without the more obnoxious rudybots, and I am glad they left.
...during the Recall when so many grassroots conservatives were feeling totally ripped off on the Recall we started, here were suddenly a bunch of dismissive FReepers who descended upon us like locusts and wouldn’t let up!!! A lot of us felt right then that a lot of the FReeper “family” had turned against the conservative “movement” and was “stoning” us with boxes of rocks because they were convinced we were dumber than a box of rocks for supporting some colorless conservative “because he didn’t have a chance and we were gonna screw everything up and might as well be supporting the Devil himself!”
***Yup, sounds like the same thing happened again, only this time on a national scale. I was one of those supporters of McClintock. The situation today for president is very similar to the situation right before aRINOld entered the race for guvner. He won the state because he had the media in his back pocket, and Fred probably has the same advantage once he jumps in. But just because we’re gonna see a whole buncha repubbies jump on the fred bandwagon doesn’t make him the best candidate. I’ll continue to support Hunter through the primary season. He’s the best one out there.
Shut up Spiff. You represent the very worst of FR today. I haven’t opused and don’t intend to, and if that makes you unhappy, good.
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.