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.
The fact there are no conservative Democrats currently in Congress, does not mean that they don’t exist.
LOL!
And the fact that someone is a registered Republican certainly doesn’t make them a conservative.
You do realize that I never said that all Republicans are conservative, right?
Amen, JimRob.
God bless you, and thank you for Free Republic.
Bump!
I’m holding off on backing a candidate until Fred Thompson runs. Then, I’ll be 100% behind Fred Thompson, who would be the most electable candidate in the GOP field (and is as strong on national security and fiscal issues as Giuliani, plus a solid conservative on other issues as well).
According to a May 7, 2006 e-mail from U.S. Army Major General Jack Gardner, "He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces."[1] Gardner continued, "The information available establishes that he has relationships with insurgents and is afforded access to insurgent activities outside the normal scope afforded to journalists conducting legitimate activities."
Oh, and you might want to read < href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004976.htm">Malkin's coverage, which is eye-opening to say the least. Some how I don't think Bill Clinton would have been impeached for this, or that any FReeper would have called for his impeachment on this basis. More to the point, even if Hussein was detained improperly, the President would not be remotely liable for it.
Now...I'd like an explanation from you. Did you know about the terrorist sympathizer evidence on this guy? If so, why did you present him to me as a political prisoner? If not, doesn't that indicate a high level of prejudice in your thought process regarding the President? I mean, somebody says to you (in effect) "George W. Bush is locking up innocent journalists in Iraq" and you just believe it without evidence?
Which one happened here and why?
I’ll love to see some replies to your post. I really don’t understand it, though I do think it may just be the image of Julie being tough on 9/11. They see him as a protector figure; a purely emotional choice is my guess.
That would also explain the rantings of “hater”.
That showed an amazing lack of wisdom. I will watch Fred and may vote for him ultimately but I like him better as Senator than President unless he proves himself.
I will wait. Lots is going to happen in the next months and I believe it's naive to get too gung ho about any candidate yet. There may even be one who has not yet appeared.
So now you’re going to attack our founding fathers is some misguided attempt to bolster your abortionist candidate? That’s lower than whale snot. Something I would expect from a leftist lib troll.
That works!
Who said I'm attacking them? First of all, much of this is well-known history. However much you respect them as founding fathers, it is inaccurate to present them as moral exemplars. Frankly, the fact that not all were saints gave them a far better understanding of humanity than they would have otherwise. It leads me to respect them more than I would otherwise.
As for abortion in general, my objection is not to you being down-the-line pro-life. My objection is to defining a religious, morality-based conservatism as the only true conservatism.
It is not. There are other types of conservatism and other concerns that people have. And, frankly, my personal study of history leads me to consider religious-based conservatism to be rather out-of-line with the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Good bye.
Why is it then that you "other type" conservatives are perpetually pushing liberalism?
The war on terror IS NOT a conservative issue; by definition, national security is removed from politics. The fact that nearly all conservatives support the war on terror and nearly all liberals oppose it makes it SEEM like a conservative issue but it's not.
All of the Rudyites keep blabbing about "single issue" voters when the truth is that Rudy is running a "single issue" campaign. His political views are virtually identical to Joe Lieberman's and he is actually to the left of former 'Rat leaders Daschle and Gephardt.
I guess Celtjew won’t be responding to what I just posted to him!!! :-)
Uh, no.........and Rudy is to the left of Gephardt : )
I thought I said that Rudy was to the left of Gephardt. Gephardt’s NARAL rating is 30%.
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Dick_Gephardt_Abortion.htm
I chose my words poorly. I meant to say that I agree with you.
And, pray tell, just who gets to decide what all those principles are? You?
You'll forgive me if I look to Ted Olson, Steve Forbes, and David Vitter for clues as to the true nature of conservatism rather than you.
And if you're going to discuss such matters in the field of politics, you might want to examine the possibility that the attitude of "adhere to all my principles or get the F*** out" is a choice way to lose elections. That is if you want to be taken seriously.
Then stop defending him. Simple as that.
I'm guessing Voltaire doesn't mean much to you, does it?
I still haven't had anyone give me a reason that Rudy would be tougher than Hunter, McCain or Thompson on the war.
Hunter - Because he's polling at less than the margin of error...
McCain - Because he's an old man without the necessary vigour to run a war...
Thompson (I'm assuming Fred) - Because he's not running for POTUS (yet).
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.