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?

[veronica]

Abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, gun grabbing, sanctuary cities for illegals, etc, are about as far from conservatism as you can get. And, yes, I believe all of this B/S is brought to us by the godless socialists. If you support all this crap, no way are you a conservative.

Well, GWB is pushing an amnesty program for illegal aliens. Is he a conservative?

Dick Cheney accepts his gay daughter. Is he a conservative?

Crime, taxes (and the abortion rate) went down when Rudy was Mayor. Isn't that conservative?

Is Rudy the perfect conservative candidate? No. But as my uncle Ed Linn, who was a long-respected FReeper said when I asked him what he thought of GWB - "compared to who??"

But - I won't convince you of anything. The only question is, will those who support Rudy be allowed to post here.

[Quix]

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.

THANKS TONS for telling it like it is, Boss. Now, what can we do beyond what we've been doing? What we've been doing seems so inadequate to the challenges you've articulated so well.

How do we motivate the troops from the discouragement and maliaise that seems to have descended over so many. Then, what major tasks do we focus on? The liberal globalist tide sometimes seems like a Tsunami. How do we maximize the effectiveness of our efforts in the wisest ways possible?

Thanks for all you are and all you stand for. Thanks for standing in the gap for our Republic and our founding values and Constitution.

Thanks for letting us love you in our feeble flawed ways.

[rottndog]

California is much better off with Arnold than they would have been with a democrat.

I have to disagree with you here. California's problems are going to be much worse, under the leadership of a "Republican".

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

I don’t think it was a delete. More of a “ctrl-alt-face slap”

[Jim Robinson]

If the abortionist, feminist, homosexualist, gun grabbing, illegal alien supporting Rudy Giuliani becomes the head of the Republican party, our fight for conservatism within the party is over. The Republican party will be a joke. It’ll be dead. RIP GOP. Liberalism/socialism will have finally won the battle for the heart and soul of America. RIP American liberty.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I didn’t know Fierce Allegiance was banned. Funny, the pro-rudy people don’t mention that when they bemoan all of the “politically motivated” bannings going on. They got him banned? Who’d have thought that was possible if there was an assault on pro-rudy people here?

[GSlob]

As the definition, it is defecative: any collectivist social system, even if it leaves the private property more or less alone and neither owns nor administers the means of production [it could co-opt the private owners- that’s the loophole] is still socialist - see the national socialists, or 2007 oligarchic russia. I would build the definition NOT on economics but on sociology: absolute primacy of the interests of the group [especially of the preferred, favored group] over those of an individual, with that individual’s subjugation. The group could, and does, become abstract and fictitious, serving as a front for the ruling elite. Hence mass coercion and the development of the nomenclaturists’ “master race”, for whom and by whom the system is run. Now, even non-socialist systems have quite a few elements of this: US nomenclaturist Sandy Berger’s adventures come to mind. Still, one could speak of the degree to which the body politic is infected, and introduce an arbitrary threshold value.

[Fishrrman]

I would vote for a trained chimpanzee if it meant keeping Hillary out of the White House.

At least someone who gets it around here.

I will be doing the same.

There's only one reason this thread exists: as an "anti-Giulianni" thread.

Ultimately - what really will count when it's time to vote is: in whose hands can you put America's security for the next four or eight years.

Regardless of Rudy's "social positions", I will feel a lot more comfortable if that security is in Giulianni's hands, than if in Hillary Clinton's or B. Hussein Obama's.

That's why I will support the Republican candidate, and why I will vote for Rudy, if he is indeed the Republican candidate.

The future counts too much, to do otherwise.

- John

[flashbunny]

“Dick Cheney accepts his gay daughter. Is he a conservative?”

Wow, you just went the “Cheney’s daugher is a lesbian” route ala John Edwards to defend rudy. Classy!

[Artemis Webb]

Hey Jim while you’re off banning people can you let A+Bert come back?

You have to admit he was the ultimate troll.

[politicalwit]

...you were totlly convinced that that person was the best person to confront the Islamofacist. Would you support that person for President?

NO

[mkjessup]

Abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, gun grabbing, sanctuary cities for illegals, etc, are about as far from conservatism as you can get. And, yes, I believe all of this B/S is brought to us by the godless socialists. If you support all this crap, no way are you a conservative.

Exactly. Rudy Giuliani was eagerly (and IMHO, shamelessly) invoking the name of Ronald Reagan at CPAC last month, so how many of Giuliani's positions would Ronald Reagan have embraced?

- Partial birth abortion? NO!

- Restrictions on RKBA? NO!

- 'Special Rights' for Homos? NO!

Those three issues alone demonstrate that Rudy Giuliani is about as far from the conservative principles of Ronald Reagan as Hugh Hefner is from the morals of the Pope.

As you said Jim, true conservatives cannot support any of that garbage.

[Peach]

Murry Mom’s account is still open and Mia T was banned?

[flashbunny]

“Crime, taxes (and the abortion rate) went down when Rudy was Mayor. Isn’t that conservative?”

What did rudy do to reduce the abortion rate in new york?

Let me answer for you: NOTHING. There is no policy implemented by rudy that can be attributed to a declining abortion rate in NY during his time in office. But that doesn’t keep rudy from taking credit for it.

[Peach]

You nailed it.

[ClarenceThomasfan]

I agree. I am voting for whoever is the Republican nominee in 2008. I might switch and vote for Obama in the primary, just to vote against Hillary. But any Republican is better than any Democrat.

We need a winner for 2008!

[trussell]

I believe a couple of Rudy’s supporters accused him of stalking...even though he had asked them to stop posting to him and was told they would post to him if they damned well felt like it!

[veronica]

I am going to ignore any personal swipes taken at me on this thread. I think I am making myself clear to the specific person I am addressing.

[Charles Martel]

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?

No.

[Luke21]

Oh no. I got your message and your attempted deflection. I told you that abortion is not the only reason we oppose Giuliani. You couldn’t respond to that. So you attack my rhetorical style. Bring it on.

I wouldn’t trust Giuliani with a dog, let alone this country. And his ex-wives would probably say the same thing. Now give me one of your anti-Reagan comparisons we are so familiar with.