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?

[Choose Ye This Day]

How do you rank Romney?

[Choose Ye This Day]

How do you rank Romney?

[Strategerist]

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: ‘sO-sh&-”li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

[flashbunny]

“And up to the post number here, there has not been one single word in this thread about national security, world terror threat”

Ah, the last fall back of the rudy supporters. He’ll be tough on terror, yada yada yada.

However, besides kicking arafat ouf of a concert, what foreign policy experience does he possess?

Rudy was mayor of NY on 9/11. That’s his big selling point. However ot’s not a qualification to be CiC.

[nctexan]

Jim, I don't get the point of the post... I understand the importance of the conservative priciples... and I agree with most of the positions you laid out.

Just not sure if your intention is to kick out any differing views here on FR.

Also thought the timing odd, right after hitting the campaign mark.

I don't support Giuliani. However, I see 'anyone' LEFT of Duncan Hunter painted as a left wing, RINO, commie Marxist by some on FR.

I personally appreciate Freepers making their case for their candidates. All too often turning into a negative slam fest and name calling.

And I will vote for whatever REPUB candidate that goes against Hillary/Obama.

[do the dhue]

Because that's the choice you know; a not-so-socially-conserevative Republican or another eight years of the Clintons

Sorry to but in, but I don't think Hillary is as bad as she thinks she is.

Besides, if we could find a person who can convey the Conservative message like Reagan did, that person would probably win as many States as Reagan did.

It is about the issues. The person who can convince the American people that he/she can protect those issues, that person will win the election.

Hillary, Hussein, or any other Goreish candidate can not and will not protect issues like Security, Guns, God, and babies. This is what separates the liberals from the Conservatives.

If you don't give the Conservatives a reason to go to the voting booth, they my not show up. Check the '06 election and Border Security.

The media is about as right on Rudy as they were on Coward Dean. It is OK. Relax. Do not fear Hillary that much.

[cripplecreek]

[Choose Ye This Day]

Sorry for the doubledouble postpost.

[CharlesWayneCT]

This is the clinton derangement syndrome. You’d rather have a TRAINED MONKEY running the country than Hillary Clinton?

I’d vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, and probably over Al Gore. Maybe even John Kerry.

I think I’d go for Bill Richardson over Hillary, and I might go for Edwards over Hillary.

Focus on the PROBLEM. It’s not Hillary, it’s the republican party abandoning it’s principles in the attempt to hold power, and as a result losing both.

Power comes from a firm commitment to sound principles that resonate because they work.

Reagan won NOT by becoming what the country wanted, but by making conservatism WHAT the country wanted.

The possibility of Fred Thompson is that he might be able to convey the conservative message in a way that will again convince the american people to embrace what is right, and good, and proper — strong conservative values.

Don’t be a defeatist. Don’t run to the front of the mob and pretend you are leading them. You lead them to their death. Instead, illuminate the truth, show them the right path, lead the way.

If we choose Rudy, we will be betraying the country, by leading them in the wrong direction. To do so just for ephemeral power is wrong. Better to have Hillary, at least we will have done what we could to lead people in the right direction.

Say no to defeatism.

Say no to those who claim conservatism has no power, that people are too stupid to see what is right.

Say no to those who say we must settle for a pro-abortion candidate to stop another pro-abortion candidate.

Say no to those who say the american people have abandoned conservatism and we must get used to it.

Say no to those who would surrender without a fight.

Say no to a false compromise which leads the country in the wrong direction.

Say no to defeatism.

[conservative in nyc]

The same pseudo-liberal (George H.W. Bush) that gave us Souter also gave us Thomas. Even Ronald Reagan gave us Scalia, but the less reliable moderate conservatives Kennedy and O’Connor.

Would you rather go 1 for 2 or 0 for 2 on Supreme Court nominees? That’s the practical issue we’re going to face if Rudy becomes the nominee and faces Hillary!, Obama or Edwards. And, unfortunately, I don’t see any viable conservative presidential candidate except for maybe Fred Thompson - who so far, isn’t running.

[flashbunny]

Don’t worry, Murry Mom’s account is still open.

[KATIE-O]

“....If you disagreed with a canidate on many issues but you were totlly convinced that that person was the best person to confront the Islamofacist. Would you support that person for President?....”

In a New York minute. I know the famous words by Ben Franklin, but the founders could never have imagined an enemy as brutal and relentless as these murderous thugs who had just as soon cut off our heads as spit on us. Yes, I would vote for Attila the Hun, if he was a strong leader and would fight the IslamoThugs with all his might.

[stuned_beeber]

“So you prefer Hillary, then?” -quidnunc (Since 1998-09-15)

...”Up yours asswipe.” -Jim Robinson

...”This account has been banned or suspended.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[veronica]

If every poster here who supports Rudy, or is considering supporting Rudy is banned, it would mean ZIP in regard to Rudy's candidacy, but would instead, IMO, only negatively impact FR.

.... if they are promoting ANYTHING favorable to that stealth-'Rat/RINO-Rudy, they've got no business here...

Well, if Jim wants this to be a "Rudy-free-site" or an "anti-Rudy-site" - he should state that policy and apply it.

[Kevmo]

quidnunc

This account has been banned or suspended.

---

Okay

JimRob is doing some spring cleaning. Kewl.

[Pan_Yan]

I appreciate your point of view, but by that logic what is to prevent the candidates from becoming more socialist as time goes by?

That is what is happening now. How do we change the course of our our electorate if we don't vote our convictions?

How does it help to educate the electorate and then only give them the choice between liberal and not-quite-as-liberal?

Right now, there are very few politicans who are truly public servants. They are there for their own good, both democrat and republican. And the parties only exist to be in power. When was the last time the Republican party cut off funding to a liberal incumbant?

[Peach]

Click on his post or name; he’s banned.

[truth_seeker]

“I was about to ask if there was a single person on this thread that had even the vaguest idea of what the actual definition of “socialism” was.”

On FR it means anybody that is not a total religious social conservative.

Barry Goldwater, grandfather of the conservative movement, would not be popular on FR today. He came from the western libertarian faction of conservatism, like Milton Friedman.

[Artemis Webb]

Geeez Jim, Chill Out!!

Fred Thompson is coming to save the day!

(I hope)

[Peach]

Bump to your post.