Skip to comments.
Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?
vanity
| April 21, 2007
| Jim Robinson
Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 18,461-18,471 next last
To: veronica; Jim Robinson
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.
Don't kid yourself sugar, if FR cleans house, based upon member poll results, it will mean nothing but the loss of 9.9 percent of FINOs who won't be posting that Rudy-drivel day in, day out, and it quite frankly WOULD have an undetermined impact on Rudy's already swirling-the-bowl candidacy, because if FR purged itself of all the RudyBots, THAT is the kind of story that shows up in the political blogs, gets picked up by the news outlets, and while it might not be the final nail in Rudy's political coffin, it would be a significant nail.
.... 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.
Works for me!
281
posted on
04/21/2007 7:51:57 PM PDT
by
mkjessup
(Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
To: Jim Robinson; dynachrome; Old Sarge; rockrr; Salem; Grizzled Bear; SJackson; yonif; Simcha7; ...
"Do you really expect me to do that?"
No sir. The men and women of FREE REPUBLIC should continue to do what they have always done and come to represent in the Conservative world ... patient and persistent, aerticulate and eloquent, no compromise agitation from within, for all the principles you have stated.
282
posted on
04/21/2007 7:52:06 PM PDT
by
Salem
(FREE REPUBLIC - Fighting to win within the Arena of the War of Ideas! So get in the fight!)
To: Choose Ye This Day
Look for yourself. “Nobody by that name”. He wasn’t just banned or suspended. He was deleted. Same with Mia T.
To: Jim Robinson
For everything you mentioned in post #1, I'll bet a good and honest historian could find one or more of the founding fathers engaging in one or more of those very same ills you defined. Or at the very least they would attempt to temper them with the reality of the moment.
Honetly, if the founding fathers suddenly showed up today, there would be much they would be proud of and there would probably be much they would be disappointed in. But if I recall, they held many long and spirited debates during the time of the founding documents. I'm quite sure that many walked away very proud of some things and very disappointed in others.
To: Finny
Rudy Arnold would be worse. He's not a fraud, he's mostly liberal. He'd do what Jim Robinson eloquently describes -- deeply erode the main-message Republican values. They're values that appeal to thousands of Democrats who don't know that they're really Republicans, but they know what they like when the see it. Republicans don't need to go left to win.
Arnold is doing exactly what we all fear Rudy would do, exactly what you described that Rudy would do. I would rather have California destroyed by a Democrat, instead of a Democrat who is disguised as a Republican.
BTW, I really think McClintock would have beaten Cruz BustaMeCHa handily, which is why Arnold got into the race to begin with.
285
posted on
04/21/2007 7:53:17 PM PDT
by
rottndog
(American First, Conservative Second, Republican Increasingly Reluctantly...)
To: veronica
...If it's Hillary vs. Rudy - what happens then at FR??
Excellent post, veronica. Wondering the same thing.
286
posted on
04/21/2007 7:53:43 PM PDT
by
Miss Didi
("Good heavens, woman, this is a war not a garden party!" Dr. Meade, Gone with the Wind)
To: dynachrome
Sp you think he’d side with the dims while trying to clear up the issues I mentioned? That wouldn’t be possible....he’d need the base.
To: Jim Robinson
During WWII, when we lost at Kasserine Pass, when we were pushed back at the Battle of the Bulge, we did not fall back all the way to the beaches. We went back as far as we had to, gathered our forces and then went forward again.
As I recall there was some discussion a few years ago about support for the Republican presidential candidate by FreeRepublic. As I recall the discussion was about whether or not FreeRepublic would become known as a Republican web site instead of a Conservative Web site. Since that time there has been a lot of support for Republican candidates at FreeRepublic, not because they have been so good but because they have been so much better than the alternative even when they were bad.
Undoubtedly, FreeRepublic has drawn some Republicans, in contrast to Conservatives, because of that. Something might need to be done about that. Letting the debate continue among the posters might serve you best, at least for now.
But that does not mean you have to let the name "FreeRepublic" be associated with candidates of whom you disapprove. Instead let it be associated with opposition to candidates of whom you disapprove even more.
Most of the time my vote has not been "for" someone for president.
Most of the time my vote has been "against" someone.
I consider the person in favor of whom I cast my vote to be the lesser of two bad choices.
Sometimes it's a matter of taking a step in the wrong direction as opposed to a leap in the wrong direction.
You don't have to step out in favor of someone of whom you disapprove in order to step out against someone of whom you disapprove even more.
In closing, support for a third party at the national level would be a leap in the wrong direction. It is too likely to lead to another 48% president of the wrong kind. Note that I wrote "at the national level". Support at the lower levels is well indicated. Seems to me most third parties want to go for the top position too soon. They don't have a foundation suitable to make them anything but a spoiler.
Finally, "The Constitution is not a suicide pack." Is FreeRepublic? The answer should be "no". Don't let them get you down, you're doing good. And good luck keeping up with all the responses I expect your post is going to draw.
To: Peach
I hope Quidnunc can come back. I have known him for many, many years. He’s an asset to any forum in which he participates. A solid conservative, a good and decent man, and a damn smart one to boot.
To: Artemis Webb
Geeez Jim, Chill Out!!
Uh uh. I say GO JIM GO!
Get 'em all!
290
posted on
04/21/2007 7:54:08 PM PDT
by
mkjessup
(Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
To: DaveLoneRanger
Whoever we put on the 08 ticket, we cant allow it to be Rudy. Absolutely not.
291
posted on
04/21/2007 7:55:07 PM PDT
by
AlaskaErik
(Run, Fred, run!)
To: Jim Robinson
There are only two people that I can think of that are truly conservative AND HAVE ENOUGH NAME RECOGNITION to fit the bill.
One is Thompson and the other is Gingrich.
The policies of the country are supposed to be determined and expressed in one place: The Congress
The president’s duties are to faithfully enforce and execute the laws of the United States.
If Rudy could get elected and follow that plan, I would have no problem. But over the years, the presidency has been changed and we are drifting from the plan.
292
posted on
04/21/2007 7:55:11 PM PDT
by
djf
(Free men own guns, slaves do not!)
To: streetpreacher
Wow....so she is [banned]....my bad.
293
posted on
04/21/2007 7:55:15 PM PDT
by
rottndog
(American First, Conservative Second, Republican Increasingly Reluctantly...)
To: Peach
Jim is on the warpath right now. But I doubt you are going to get banned and neither is Veronica. You guys give as good as you get. This is an honest disagreement. I use a lot of sarcasm in my posts. None of it is personal and I try to keep my more pointed stuff for Mr. Giuliani himself. He can certainly take it, or he wouldn’t be in public life.
The two posters I’ve seen banned today were unique cases. One was one of your Rudy buddies, who accidentally or otherwise posted that Fred Thompson had contributed to Hillary Clinton, rather than Van Hilleary. He/she also had tried to link Thompson’s religion to something it wasn’t a short time earlier.
The other fellow, another of my long time nemeses going back to the last century, made the mistake of ticking off the owner of this site when he was trying to make a point. Very bad timing. We are guests in Mr. Robinson’s house.
As for me, if I didn’t have liberal Republicans to argue with, I might get bored and have to do yardwork. My best to you.
294
posted on
04/21/2007 7:55:46 PM PDT
by
Luke21
To: Peach
Let's see, which President was President Keyes? Oh wait, he didn't win the primary season, but he also ran for a couple of Senate seats. Which state is he now representing. Oh wait, he didn't get anywhere with those either.
I am frankly surprised we haven't heard more from him, but I think he's got his hands full with something else.
To: Jim Robinson
Jim, the Rudybots can’t take the truth and arn’t adult enough to take a challenge so many of them are also
at another site, W.A. so they can feed each other’s egos.
Rudy won’t be nominated so I say, enjoy W.A. Rudybots.
296
posted on
04/21/2007 7:55:49 PM PDT
by
SoCalPol
(Duncan Hunter '08 Tough on WOT & Illegals)
To: Luke21
297
posted on
04/21/2007 7:56:30 PM PDT
by
Peach
To: Jim Robinson
We are no longer a two-party system, so the time will come when Conservatives will have to establish their own party so that we don’t have to choose between the lesser of two evils.
However, I cannot in good conscience do anything that would put either Hillary or Obama in the White House. Rudy may support evil ideologies, but I don’t think the man himself is evil. I don’t envision Rudy finding ways to silence the opposition in the way I am certain Hillary and Obama (as the puppet of the far left) will.
Hillary and Obama are pure evil. I believe they are demons. If the choice is between misguided and evil, I’ll go with misguided.
To: rottndog
BTW, I really think McClintock would have beaten Cruz BustaMeCHa handily, which is why Arnold got into the race to begin with... No way. NO WAY would Tom McClintock have beaten Bustamante. I know CA voters.
To: FreeReign
"If Reagan can win 49 states, why can't Fred?"If you can't see the difference between the two, nobody will explain it to you.
300
posted on
04/21/2007 7:56:36 PM PDT
by
nctexan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 18,461-18,471 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson