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?
The Banning of Quidnunc elevated the average IQ of the entire Forum in one fell swoop. Best FR News in weeks. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Besides which, "Ass" is a King James Bible Word. There are several passages of Scripture I couldn't even post without employing the term.
Are you saying that Jim Robinson should Ban himself for once using the word coarsely, on his own Forum, in ejecting a Gun-Controlling Jack-Boot like Quidnunc?
Oh please, he was the freaking mayor of the city that suffered the worst ever attack on US soil.
What do you expect from him?
Face it, you hate him, I get it. Others don’t, and they have the right to support him and vote for him. Its that whole liberty thing.
Sounds like someone is a little wound up out there. The last words of the Lord Jesus Christ applied to this is a bit, uh, out of proportion, imo.
This is true, but the only challengers were MCCain and Buchanan. The basic problem of being anti rudy and anti mccain now is who is the challenger ?
Well, fine, but when you lose to Hillary or Obama because you couldn’t elect someone with broad support, don’t come whining back to me. I don’t want to see another Bob Dole candidacy.
I don’t know where you found those remarks by Ronald Reagan, calcowgirl, but I thank you for posting them.
Great find!
Thank you for the consideration. I agree, it’s much easier to just admit to what your candidate is, and defend why you will still vote for him.
I don’t understand the fixation with Reagan from the 60s. I hope but don’t hold out much hope that peach will consider your offer, but again I appreciate your willingness to make it.
Of all those gone, she is the only one I’ll particularly miss, even though I am rarely joyful about a banning of someone I’ve agreed with in the past (the troll zots are of course always a welcome and enjoyable occurance).
We either pick someone who can actually win or we get KLINTON as president .. That is the only way it’s going to come down . Extremes on either side , left or right , never win .
Tell why. Are there supposed to be Untouchables" around here? From what I read of the thread (pls ignore tagline) she received a fair warning.
I can’t speak for Jim, but Peach wasn’t zotted because she didn’t agree with someone. She got zotted for breaking the rules. She was warned again and again to put a stop to it. She was doing everything she could to get Jim to zot her last night and she finally succeeded. Jim is not the one to blame here, Peach is did this to herself. Don’t mischaracterize why Peach isn’t here any longer. Go back and read her posts and you will see clearly she got exactly what she wanted.
Well, I am not a lefty by any measure [even my nasal septum is deviated to the right]. And as a taxpayer I would much rather fund $500 abortion than $100K welfare case [over 18 years, plus ancillary costs like law enforcement]. Of course, I would much rather not fund anything, but $500 is better than $100000.
I hope that some conservatives who are grudgingly supporting Rudy will take the word of people in the movement they have long respected, and realise how devisive he really is to a minority but important part of the conservative movement, a part that the republican party can ill-afford to alienate, even IF it is true that Rudy himself might win without them (which I doubt).
The question rudy supporters need to answer in addition to the myriad of questions I asked last night is this — is defeating hillary worth destroying the republican party?
#1952.
Who , other than Rudy , has a chance to ACTUALLY get the votes to beat an extremely powerful Dem onslaught ?
Ah, the Cindy Sheehan "moral authority" complex. Just like Sheehan has the ultimate "moral authority" to attack President Bush and the WoT because her soldier son died in the war, you're saying that Ted Olson is the ultimate "moral authority" on conservatism and conservative candidates because his wife died in one of the planes on 9/11.
So, if Ted Olson threw his support behind Barrack Obama, would you still be making this same argument?
Olson impugned his own conservative credentials when he sacrificed them to support the most liberal GOP presidential candidate in United States history. What he once had, he has no more. Just like you.
I don't know about "M.Thatcher", but "Veronica" normally sticks to the Israel threads.
As a Zionist (yes, it's possible to be both pro-Zionist and Pro-Ron Paul... you can support Israel without supporting Unconstitutional Foreign Aid; yes, indeedy), I hope that she is not Banned.
I've often enjoyed her postings on the Middle East threads and hope that she will not throw away her valuable Pro-Israel contributions to this Forum for the sake of a Gun-Controlling, Homosexualist, Pro-Abortionist like Rudy Giuliani.
But, JMHO.
Yes, just like when conservatives voted for that nut Perot and put that joke Clinton into office.
That’s a great idea.
John
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.