Posted on 04/20/2007 9:51:11 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
I hate to say it again, but guess it has to be said:
Free Republic is a conservative site.
As a conservative site, we are pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty, pro-America.
Like-minded folks know immediately what this means and why we will never "move on from abortion" as Rudy Giuliani and his supporters ask us to do.
Think about it.
You might as well be asking us to deny God. To deny the Creator that gave us life and liberty. To give up our children. To surrender our country to the left. To give up our freedom. To give up our faith and our belief in God's Word.
Why insult us like this?
IMHO, the root difference between conservatism and liberalism IS our belief in God. For the most part, we conservatives defend our Christian/Judeo founding and our God-centered traditional American society and family values system, and the belief that our most fundamental rights were bestowed upon us by our Creator. Rights given by man can be taken by man. Rights bestowed by God are unalienable rights.
Liberals, on the other hand, especially the Marxist/socialist liberal leadership and the big leftist feminist, homosexualist, abortionist, anti-religion organizations deny God exists. They deny our Christian/Judeo heritage, work overtime to destroy our traditional family values, and seek to destroy our freedoms, including, and especially our right to the free exercise of religion.
Our deeply rooted conservative belief in God and refusal to roll over for feminism, abortionism, homosexualism, socialism, etc., is the only thing stopping the left from completely overwhelming us with their godless, socialist perversions and completely wiping out our traditional Christian/Judeo God-centered free society.
If we cave-in to the left by nominating a supporter of abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, illegal aliens, etc., as our candidate for the presidency and de facto leader of the Republican party, then we will have destroyed our own pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty movement and will have destroyed all of our prior pro-life, pro family, pro-liberty work. The Republican party will have made itself a joke. It'll be left standing for nothing. Worse, it'll be left standing with NARAL, NOW, the ACLU, and every other feminist/homosexualist Marxist/socialist communist group.
Surrender to the abortionists? Not on your life!
This is Free Republic. We ARE the dissent! We fight for life and liberty! We fight for our traditional American family values! We proudly and diligently defend our Christian/Judeo heritage, our country, our constitution, and our right to be free and to freely worship our God!
IMHO, those of you who cannot or will not understand these simple truths will never understand what FR is all about, what the pro-life movement is all about, what conservatism is all about, or even what freedom is all about.
You’re doing a great service, Jim. Keep it up!!! You’re on the RIGHT side of all the issues.
No sorry, I really didn’t know that you were referring to Rudy. Anyway, my apologies to you. Also, I’m sorry to say that in some places liberal Republicans do win so we need to at least acknowledge their concerns. There’s something about Rudy that has them charged up (for now anyway). I just wanted to explore what that was.
Good job Jim,
Keep up the good fight for our belief in GOD.
Like most of us, Jim doesn't really care about the polls at this point. He is telling you to take Free Republic at face value and to abide by his rules and regulations. Stop promoting the abortionist Rudy Giuliani on this conservatism forum. Free Republic doesn't exist to advance liberal candidates or the liberal agenda. Free Republic exists to advance conservative candidates and the conservative agenda. In this case, pro-life conservatism.
Who’s more liberal? Rudy or Arnold?
1. A strong foreign policy/national defense (which was my main issue at the time).
2. Low taxes; low domestic spending.
3. A government that stayed out of the life of individuals.
I'm flummoxed. Why didn't you join the Libertarian Party? Even you recognize that's where your sympathies lie.
Jim's statement is correct. He does understand what "conservatism" is.
I believe that in the past he may have hoped that the Republican Party was conservative enough; and I must admit, that in many ways they seemed to be the only choice. However, as time goes by, it becomes more and more clear that supporting the lesser of two evils is no longer a good option. 2008 may be the year we all have to make a very painful decision. We may actually have to vote for a candidate who we don't believe can win, but who best represents our beliefs.
“Also, I’m sorry to say that in some places liberal Republicans do win so we need to at least acknowledge their concerns.”
Correct, like old Lowell Weicker of Conn., but NOT the Presidency!
Though Shall not Speak Ill of thy Fellow Republican.
.
Once again this is a CONCERVATIVE web sight. RHINO’s to many of us FR’s believe them to be the “Devil Incarnate”. I do however respect your opinion.
LMAO. Let’s see, which is more liberal, California or New York. I can’t imagine either of them as POTUS but they fit very well in their respective states.
Anyone who supports a gun-grabber is NOT a libertarian, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Hey I beg to differ...Nixon was pretty liberal and so was Ford (although he never won). And certainly there are those on this site who'd say both Bush's were way too liberal. The only Conservative we have to point to is Reagan and he danced the liberal dance from time to time too. At least Reagan had the fortune to run against Jimmy after a disasterous 4 years.
Yes they do...Hugely populated states that want more and more nanny government and have loads of electoral votes. I fear all states are heading that way. The rat cage is getting too small and there's little frontier left.
I don’t know how you got my name on your ping list, but don’t post to me again. Got it?
This is my argument against the Mayor. He can't, won't and isn't interested in bringing the Republican Party together. There have been a million ways for him to evaluate his own 'weaknesses' as a candidate. Instead, he has ignored those weaknesses. His "in your face attitude" worked great against the liberals, political correctness etc. This is why he was elected Mayor in NYC. But that 'winning way' was liberal vs. liberal. His 'in your face attitude' is NOT winning over the base or motivating the base in the rest of the country to work for him. He is an elitist candidate whose basic attitude mirror's Rove's: "Where are they gonna go?"
President Bush is as liberal a candidate as we could ever hope to elect. I don't mean W is a liberal. I mean that he is as liberal as we could ever get elected. Rudy is far to the left of the President.
I disagree heartily with Rove's strategery. He has had more access to more money and greater power as an advisor to the President than any campaign manager has ever had. In spite of that he has barely won two elections. 2000 should have been a walk. We were running against Al Gore after 8 years of Clinton Corruption! It wasn't and Karl Rove is responsible. He is also responsible for the lack of qualified conservative candidates not named Bush. Look to California, New Jersey and Pennsylvania for Rove's legacy.
Regards,
TS
The 11th commandment was and is a fallacy. And before you take issue with my remark, I will explain.
FACT! Reagan didn't create the 11th commandment. California state GOP chairman Gaylord Parkinson created that slogan in 1966 during the race for Governor. It was meant to counter the attacks on Ronald Reagan from his GOP primary opponent, liberal San Francisco Mayor, George Christopher. For the next ten years that slogan was dormant in the political arena. To my knowledge Reagan didn't use it once.
The spirit of the 11th commandment may have been inside Ronald Reagan, but in 1976 the conservative Reagan challenged the more moderate Pres Ford for the GOP nomination. Reagan savaged Ford with attacks on both his domestic and foreign policy agenda and rightly so. The Ford campaign slung some mud at Reagan. They called him a cowboy and unqualified to be POTUS. This contentious campaigning went on through the primaries and into the GOP convention. In the primaries, Ford won 15 states and Reagan won 12 states in the closet primary election phase in US history. Ford beat Reagan for the nomination at the GOP convention, 1187 delegate votes to 1070. Reagan lost the nomination by 60 votes!
My point being, criticizing and attacking your political opponent has been the case throughout US political history. That includes the political campaigns of Ronald Reagan. The Founding Fathers were real good at taking down their political opponents too. Look at US history. The political war rages on, and at the forefront of todays battles is traditional conservatism versus social liberalism.
Free Republic is fighting for the winner to be conservatism and the Constitution. A worthy and honest goal.
I'm flummoxed as to which of the three principles isn't conservative.
As for the LP, they don't believe in a strong foreign policy/defense, which was my major issues, when I was 18 ... and still is important enough to me now to have problems with the LP on that.
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.