Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?

vanity | April 21, 2007 | Jim Robinson

[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?

[stephenjohnbanker]

You prove me wrong, and I will quit FR. I’m not spending an hour going through threads as your “boy”
I cancelled Forbes magazine several weeks ago because the chuckle-headed dolt supported Rudy.

No consevative in their right mind would vote for Rudy!

PERIOD!!!!

[NicknamedBob]

"... I had to help my hubby bring stuff in from the car, so I have an excuse..."

It's okay. I have a penchant for long threads.

[KevinDavis]

How is being pro-life and pro-family (which would mean more government) can also be for small government??

[Interesting Times]

Did you know that you have posted at FR more than 870 times in the week since this thread began?

That's quite an increase from the previous week, when you only posted once.

It's hard to imagine how you could hold down a full-time job and also post at that rate. Heck, if each post represents just 3 minutes at FR, that's more than 40 hours worth since last Sunday.

Unless, of course, this is your full-time job.

[SuzyQue]

OK - keep up the destructive stuff. It does make you appear to be sort of one dimensional. Plus the part about helping to destroy a great forum.

[Gumlegs]

Then can we agree on this? For the Gipper's sake, can we work towards common ground -- within the conservative wing of the GOP, of course -- and away from what is disturbingly close to an indiscriminate bloodletting?

I've already posted that I have no intention of voting for Rudy in a primary. I mean that. And I regard Rudy as being about as likely to get the GOP nod as Lieberman (were he running), is to get the Dem nomination. But I'm also trying to think a couple of moves beyond where we are now -- that's the only reason I'm uncomfortable with some of the more extreme anti-Giuliani posts here. We have to be able to unite behind whomever is the GOP nominee in the next election or we're going to see consequences too horrible to contemplate. And systematically squashing anyone who says anything even neutral about Rudy will only make that more difficult no matter who the nominee will be.

I'd much prefer a no

policy when it comes to Republicans.

[Sam Cree]

Yeah, let’s call it a night, I enjoyed conversing with you. We may not agree on what’s going on here at FR at the moment, but based on your last post, I have a feeling we agree on the Republican Party.

[JCEccles]

Everyone's a phony but you. You're rooting the phonies out and making a fat phone book of names.

Did you ever see the Black Adder episode that featured the Witchsmeller?

Very, very funny. There's a strong resemblance between you two.

But people can and do change. I'm willing to hear them out. It's a shame you are unable to do so.

[KevinDavis]

HOW THIS.... A TRUE LOSER WOULD LIKE CAUSE A CANDIDATE IS NOT 100% PURE!!!

[Rheo]

FR was having a positive effect on politics and had become a valuable resource in the fight against the left. It is now well on its way to becoming a laughing-stock, and fulfilling the preconceptions of an uninformed and potentially hostile public. <<

IMHO...that is the goal.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

LOL....

[Kevmo]

if FreeRepublic would have had ‘special invitation’ threads...aka known as anti-Rudy threads...none of this would have happened.
***This entire WEBSITE is a ‘special invitation’ place, where the owner states up front his mission statement, which is all about social conservatism. Some rudybots came into JimRob’s living room and started to think it was their own, denigrating socons for their beliefs and pushing a solib candidate. If they would not have done that, none of this would have happened.

[rbmillerjr]

“Your reading comprehension and ability to place things in context is severely lacking then.
I’m clearly referring to the size and power of the respective voting blocs....no other comparison.”

Find a better comparison. Your problem is you think everybody on here is a narrow cultural conservative/RR only conservative...and you’re so wrong.

You are so bored that the fish aren’t biting any more aren’t you?

Your nuts, I try to maintain a family with a 2 and 10 year old and run a small business. I have better things to do. If your reading this thread you’ll see I’ve posted 3 times that I thing the hard core of libs/Giuliani supporters so willing to throw themselves off a cliff are nearly done. IMO what is left are some social friends of the libs/Giulianis, and some Giuliani people who aren’t strong enough in their beliefs to come out and either 1)abide by Jim’s rules or 2)opus out. My contention is that they aren’t dedicated enough to worry about.

[mutley]

HOW THIS.... A TRUE LOSER WOULD LIKE CAUSE A CANDIDATE IS NOT 100% PURE!!!

???

[KevinDavis]

It should say that is A TRUE LOSER LIKES TO LOSE CAUSE A CANDIDATE IS NOT 100% PURE

[Bigh4u2]

I think the word is supposed to be ‘lie’.

Although, I could be wrong.
:0)

[CAluvdubya]

I thought I was the only one that didn’t get it. :)

[ansel12]

““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.”

There is clearly a large, loud and persistent number of people here that are in opposition to much of that.

[EternalVigilance]

No, actually he never supported reparations, which are payments from the Treasury. Some of his enemies, inside and outside the Democrat Media have misrepresented that. Sorry to see you propagating it, too.

Here’s Keyes himself on this subject, during the 2004 Senate race:

KRESTA: I want to ask you about reparations. I think in the past when asked about reparations you’ve said, well, we’ve had reparations, it was called the Civil War and blood was shed. Have you changed your position?

KEYES: Well, no, actually I have written articles and talked about this before, and have always made the same point.

I don’t think there can in fact be reparations for the injustice that was done in slavery. I think Lincoln was right, that the judgment about that was in fact involved in the Civil War, his famous second inaugural address that is so beautiful, regarding that the “judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.” He presented the Civil War as, in essence, a judgment from God about the evil of slavery. And I think that’s correct.

The issue that’s involved in true reparations—and when I have written about this, I’ve put the liberal proposals in quotes because I think what they were doing was a form of extortion, just trying to go to court to get some money out of people’s pockets so they could put it in something they controlled, and so forth, and pretend that this was going to be requital for injustice, when in fact injustice can’t be requited in that way, by one generation trying to do something about a sin committed by a previous one, when in point of fact that sin has already been requited by the previous generation.

http://www.keyesarchives.com/media/interviews/04_09_09kresta.htm

[Bigh4u2]

Ooops.

I was wrong.

Oh, well.

Time to bookmark for later.

See Ya!