Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by 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?
LOL!! Yep!
Right up there with a Moose biting my sister. Series.
Great post....pretty much sums it up for me...
“And if he had a (D) next to his name instead of an (R), most of those defending him here would be attacking him for his positions.”
I would say ALL of them would attack his positions.
Rudy IS a socialist. The very fact that he wants to limit my 2nd amendment rights deems him to a government control guy.
“Heck, all Ive noticed since 9/11 is a tighter noose around my neck as I see noncitizen rights increasing and expanding.”
That is a good point and one i couldn’t argue with....if i stayed honest.
That's pretty funny. After 200 years of constitutional review we are now to believe that sexual deviancy and un-natural sex acts should be given "equal protection" and "rights"? What about those who practice bestiality? Are they "equal" too?
Let's be clear: Homosexuals and lesbians deserve no "equality" on issues such as marriage, job protection, health care, housing, adoption policies, discriminatory practices, or other "rights." If they stay in the closet and shut up about their sinful practices it would be preferable, but instead we and our families are constantly exposed to "in your face" activism that demands we accept their un-natural behaviors and acts.
nice!
After re-reading, you are correct, you did say that. My apologies sir.
|
Giuliani | Clinton | Dem Platform | GOP Platform |
---|---|---|---|---|
Abortion on Demand | Supports | Supports | Supports | Opposes |
Partial Birth Abortion | Supports Opposed NY ban |
Supports | Supports | Opposes |
Overturning Roe v. Wade | Opposes | Opposes | Opposes | Supports |
Taxpayer Funded Abortions | Supports | Supports | Supports | Opposes |
Embryonic Stem Cell Research | Supports | Supports | Supports | Opposes |
Federal Marriage Amendment | Opposes | Opposes | Opposes Defined at state level |
Supports |
Gay Domestic Partnership/ Civil Unions |
Supports | Supports | Supports | Opposes |
Openly Gay Military | Supports | Supports | Supports | Opposes |
Defense of Marriage Act | Opposes | Opposes | Opposes | Supports |
Amnesty for Illegal Aliens | Supports | Supports | Supports | Opposes |
Special Path to Citizenship for Illegal Aliens |
Supports | Supports | Supports | Opposes |
Tough Penalties for Employers of Illegal Aliens |
Opposes | Opposes | Opposes | Supports |
Sanctuary Cities/ Ignoring Immigration Law |
Supports | Supports | Supports | Opposes |
Protecting 2nd Amendment | Opposes |
Opposes | Opposes Supports bans |
Supports |
Confiscating Guns | Supports Confiscated as mayor. Even bragged. |
Supports | Supports Supports bans |
Opposes |
'Assault' Weapons Ban | Supports | Supports | Supports | |
Frivolous Lawsuits Against Gun Makers |
Supports Filed One Himself |
Supports | Opposes | |
Gun Registration/Licenses | Supports | Supports | Opposes | |
War in Afghanistan | Supports | Supports Voted for it |
Supports | Supports |
War in Iraq | Supports | Varies Voted for it |
Supports Weak support |
Supports |
Patriot Act | Supports | Supports Voted for it 2001 & 2006 |
Opposes | Supports |
Well, my beeper is stuned over all that Freeper culture...
” It will be very difficult to win this presidential election cycle with a candidate perceived as “hard conservative”.
We _might_ have had that chance, IF we could win exactly the same states that Bush won in 2004. But we can’t, because Ohio is going to be a problem. As someone wrote in another thread recently, the Republican party is in deep doo-doo in that state. It may be impossible for ANY Republican presidential candidate of ANY persuasion to capture Ohio in 2008.
There is also a problem with the [formerly] “reliably red” states “turning purple”. Cases in point would be:
- New Hampshire: seems like the Democrats have been winning this once-conservative state with increasing frequency lately
- Arizona: didn’t they just VOTE DOWN a gay-marriage ban? What the heck is going on there?
- New Mexico: another once-reliable state that is slipping from the Republican grasp.
Hard conservatives aren’t guaranteed these states any more, because the states themselves are no longer hard conservative.
On the other hand, there are blue states that Giulianni could actually WIN. Cases in point would be:
- New Jersey: Rudy is doing VERY well there. I think he could take it (even though he probably doesn’t have a chance of winning New York across the Hudson; it’s just too damned blue to hope Republicans can ever win there again).
- Pennsylvania: Although Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are ‘rat cities, the heartland of PA is red. It’s a battleground state and Rudy can probably take it easily.
- Florida: Rudy could cut through the purple haze to win there, too.
If we can take NJ, PA, and FL, we can sustain the loss of Ohio and win. But there is only one Republican I can see, capable of winning in New Jersey.
Political fortunes ebb and flow, like the tides. I think it’s safe to say that at the moment, the fortunes of the Republican party in general, and of the hard-right in particular, are on the ebb. The war in Iraq is going to be a BIG problem, better not kid ourselves on this. Any candidate we put up is going to have to be perceived by the mushy middle to have “credentials” in regard to “terrorism” (remember that the American public, by and large, still _thinks_ it is supposed to be a “war on terror”, regardless of what this struggle REALLY is about). Rudy has those credentials. What does Fred Thompson have?
There’s no denying that we took significant losses in 2006. How might the loss of BOTH houses of Congress otherwise be seen?
We cannot afford to lose the Presidency in ‘08. We have to be pragmatic, shift tactics if necessary, and DO what is necessary to hold that office.
2008 will be a “defensive” election for Republicans. We must hold the line, try to minimize losses in the Congress (even pick up a few seats), and hold the Presidency (which gives us an edge for judicial picks for the next 4 years, in which Stevens and Ginsburg will have to be replaced on the Supreme Court).
Of course, one can stand hard on principles - NO COMPROMISE. And lose.
Or we can be pragmatic, compromise, and win.
Which is better?
Really?”
- John
343 posted on 04/21/2007 8:07:32 PM PDT by Fishrrman
Excellent analysis of the political reality we face in 2008.
Thank you for posting it. barset
Rudy is a socialist and would be far worse than Hillary in that he would complete the transformation of the Republican party to socialism effectively giving us a one party system with two names.
I believe someone else brought this up but it bears repeating.
Howlin is a tough woman. That’s all. Hardly a bully, just an opinionated lady who didn’t take crap from people. Does that scare you?
Oh, horsecrap. Howlin was notorious for being an abusive poster.
Don’t matter anymore. She’s gone.
No. He's a dangerous leftist, and I'm not going to cut him any slack whatsoever.
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.