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?
Nice thing is, there are many more than you and me!
BTW, this response and others like it, many from rudy people, is exactly what I’m talking about when I said I’m tired of having to watch over my shoulder for attacks from the foxhole.
A freeper accused other freepers of saying they would “vote for hillary”. I simply asked who they were. And I’ve had to spend over a half hour of posting since that time defending my question and the fact that nobody has answered it.
It’s a waste of my time. My question was a simple one — back up your claims.
Apparently some people think they can make claims without evidence, and then ridicule others for wanting the proof. It’s tiresome.
Bumpin’ backatcha. ;o)
Of course you would, Reagan Embarrassment, everyone you can divide is your score toward victory and your victory is total FR irrelevance and conservative defeat.
Then obviously you are no conservative. I suggest if you wish to win with a liberal you're in the wrong party. If you wish to win with an abortion loving, gay rights loving, illegal alien loving, gun grabbing liberal you should become a Democrat. We are NOT going to allow you (the collective you) to take the Republican any further to the left. It's way too far left already. We're going to take it back to the right and if you can't live with that, then get the hell out!
We'll go with the least socialist candidate everytime. But since the DEMS have the Urban vote programmed so well, it seems like RG is kind of like sending in a dirty player to save the game and live to fight another day.
I posted a simple comment a few hundred comments ago.
Your response was to respond to me with over 6 SEPARATE comments.
That wasn’t friendly, and it illustrated exactly one of my complaints about the rudy supporters, spamming and multiple posting and making it impossible to have a conversation.
How am I expected to continue a conversation in response to my comment when I’d have to respond to more than 6 different responses? With my luck, you’d respond 6 times to each of those, and I’d have soon spend all my waking hours just trying to keep track of your thousands of comments to me.
Maybe you just didn’t know what you were doing, but I think you are smart enough that you understand that answering each line of a post as a separate comment is a tactic designed for ONE THING, and that is to pretend you are responding but make it impossible to continue the conversation.
Which isn’t a very “friendly” way to respond to a substantive post, for someone who is so concerned about “hate responses”.
And you must have blinders on if you think the attacks are initiated or largely by the anti-rudy side, even though there are lots more anti-rudy people than pro-rudy people.
“We’ll go with the least socialist candidate everytime. But since the DEMS have the Urban vote programmed so well, it seems like RG is kind of like sending in a dirty player to save the game and live to fight another day.”
Sending in rudy giuliani is like sending in a player that has on your team’s jersey, but scores points for the other team.
I know you don't quite mean that literally; hyperbole is not your friend, OldFriend...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=abledanger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=nationalsecurity
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=chicom
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=illegalaliens
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=nationalsovereignty
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=healthypeople2010
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=goals2000
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=communistgoals
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=gramsci
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=codepink
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=un
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=green
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=soros
I didn’t feel friendly.
Long time no see. Hope things are going well with you.
Are you still discussing this? I can’t believe anybody had any trouble understanding you. If you can get away with not spending anything, you will be happy not to.
But if someone is going to be on welfare and cost the taxpayers $100,000, you would much rather pay $500 to have them murdered, because it will cost you less.
The English translation shows the word to mean "miscarriage", though the Hebrew word is "yasa" which actually means "to come forth". The word, itself, does not imply death, though the English word obviously does. So why presume the child is dead? If the writer wanted to imply death, he could have actually chosen the word that does. Moses uses "miscarriage" in other places, why not here? Most likely because the word is implying that the injury brings about the premature birth of the child. In fact the NASB translation, which is word-for-word says,
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide."
So, no, the Lord does not view the unborn child as less valuable than that of someone outside of the womb. In fact, scripture is quite clear in other places of the value God places on the unborn child, and that He is at the very beginning of the process.
And if you hadn’t tried to use Christianity as a weapon, I might have been inclined to answer it.
“Sending in rudy giuliani is like sending in a player that has on your team’s jersey, but scores points for the other team.”
It is tantamount to a real conservative slitting his own throat!
I see you finally filtered it.
Moderating? He advocates that abortions be paid for with taxpayer 'funds'. (The irony of which is that we Conservative taxpayers have no 'CHOICE' in the matter once it is dictated by those we elect to 'represent' us.) Rudy Giuliani speaks with forked tongue, Peach. Like a snake.
Neither of those are applicable. In the first case, you forced them to vote for one or the other. That person wouldn’t have voted for Hillary if you hadn’t forced them to.
The second said he’d vote for hillary if she changed her positions. That doesn’t count — if Hillary started preaching conservative values I’d vote for her over Rudy, even if she had a “D” by her name. But only if I trusted her, which I wouldn’t.
What all these examples being brought up shows is that freepers really DON’T want to say they would vote for Hillary. They find it abhorent to even THINK of voting for Hillary.
And they are pissed that some “conservatives” are supporting a candidate that is so bad that they even have to consider voting for Hillary.
But they won’t vote for Hillary. At least not these two (unless you put a gun to their heads and change Hillary into a conservative).
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.