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?

[doug from upland]

We will continue the good fight, JimRob. It looks like the best shot may be Fred Thompson. There will never be another Reagan, but he is a good man.

[Peach]

I’ll miss his posts too, but I think the ban is permanent.

[flashbunny]

So calling attention to you playing the “cheney’s daugher is a lesbian” card is a personal swipe?

[Peach]

Hi, Joe. Given that this forum was largely behind Keyes, I can see that neither of us is worried that they’re freaking out now over Rudy’s national frontrunner status :-)

Time to say goodnight.

[NonValueAdded]

Case in point: Giuliani Criticizes a U.S. Crackdown on Illegal Aliens

[conservative in nyc]

I can tell you for sure that Giuliani’s appointees will be less liberal than any of Hillary!’s. Hillary!’s appointees will be just like her husband’s - another Ginsberg and another Breyer. 0 for 2. No thanks.

At least Giuliani might rely on folks like Ted Olsen to help him make nominations, and most nominees will likely be Republicans, making it more likely that they will be strict constructionists. Hillary! will not.

If (as most of us hope) Fred Thompson enters the race and wins the primary, we ultimately might not need to have this conversation.

[Jet Jaguar]

One is Thompson and the other is Gingrich.

Bump

[PhilDragoo]

Hillary is a flat out communist in most respects.

Hillary interned under Robert Treuhaft and espouses to this day the "tell any lie for power" of radical activist Saul Alinsky.

Hillary is on record as being out to take things from us for her version of the common good, precisely the Marxist from each according to his ability to each according to his greed.

Hillary was complicit in the treasonous sale of U.S. defense secrets for ChiCom campaign cash--and will repeat this treason.

There is no one in either party remotely as dangerous as she.

There is no one in the Republican party in the same universe of treason, treachery and totalitarianism as she.

Self-immolators to the contrary notwithstanding, there is a clear and present danger and it is She Who Has Advertised Her Surrender In the War Against Islamofascism.

Then comes sharia law--as is the spreading trend in pockets of France, England and elsewhere in Europe.

She proudly demands more treasonous negotiations with those who would behead all of us infidels.

A stay-at-home in the coming contest against Hillary and the Seventh-Century Death Cult is a vote for the onset of the New Dark Ages.

There is only one bastion left--Tony Blankley, Mark Steyn, Melanie Phillips and a host of others are sounding the alarm.

To give it up to the party of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is to bow before the beheaders.

An undervote is an underwriting of the Mission to Damascus--and more grovelling, more abasement, more appeasement.

Socialism? Human Events, John Fund, George Wills, Steve Forbes all find Rudy's fiscal conservatism in NYC nothing short of miraculous.

The Reagan policy was the economic and security counter to the Carteresque malaise. Anything else is revisionism.

Further this deponent sayeth not.

[rottndog]

I agree with you about quid.....a good diversity of perspectives is critical for healthy debate, and it’s important to have discourse with people you disagree with, even if it just serves to sharpen and strengthen your own positions.

[Quix]

FWIW, overall, It’s more like California than it is like FR - simple reality.vvv

= = =

Too true.

We must have an ELECTABLE CONSERVATIVE . . . as close to one as possible.

[Pan_Yan]

I will not join a third party and cause a fracture in the Republican Party.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."
-George Washington (The REAL George W.)

This is what you get when you support the party instead of ideas.

[Luke21]

“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.”

I don’t know any of us who knows anybody else here well enough to take true personal swipes. Just have fun, Veronica. Smile when you type at your opponents. Especially me.

[IndySecurityMom]

Your points are well made. One step forward, two steps back is better than annhilation at the hands of Hillary or Obama.

[Elyse]

There comes a time when you have to draw a line in the sand. Rudy’s supporters on this board have insinuated that FR only represents the view of a minority of “conservatives”. If our views are in the minority on the subject of Rudy, I think it is only because we are more informed.

What Rudy’s supporters can’t deny is that we are a strong voice in the conservative internet community and we receive a fair share of media coverage outside the internet. I’m all for using that voice to just say NO to Rudy and his liberal views. The Rudy supporters need to hear loud and clear that we just aren’t going to stand here and be run over by them. Conservatives need to see that someone does really believe that we can win with a conservative candidate before the lie that our only choice is Rudy or Hillary is so firmly embedded that it becomes truth.

I see you drawing a line, Jim and I’m standing behind you.

[Kevmo]

I see from your page that you’re a friend of Bill Wilson. Then you know the main reason why most people fail the program is because they’re not honest with themselves. If you are truly a truth_seeker and are honest with yourself, you will investigate rudy’s actions after the OTHER Islamic terror incidents in NYC. After the Statue of Liberty ordeal, he called for gun control. He supports a sanctuary city for illegal aliens, and it just so happens that several of the 9/11 hijackers were illegal aliens at the time of the attack and would have enjoyed sanctuary in his city. Honestly, really honestly, rudy is not as strong on WOT as other candidates and if that is your main plank, you will look elsewhere.

[glasseye]

"Give me a Conservative or give me death."

Unfortunately, if history is a guide.....FR will support whoever the republican party gives us to vote for.

I truly hope this is not the case.....

IMHO

[veronica]

I don't get your point. Some FReepers also post at Lucianne.com.

This all gets back to the same question that I posed earlier. The personal preferences of the owner of this site aside, are pro-Rudy posters to be allowed to post here????

If so - then the anti-Rudy crowd will have to suck it up, debate the issues, defend their candidates of choice and see how it all pans out.

[rottndog]

No way. NO WAY would Tom McClintock have beaten Bustamante. I know CA voters.

Sorry, I do not believe that even California voters would elect such a blatant racist and completely moronic buffoon.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

OK, I’ll take your word for it. Just please don’t send me a picture.

[RichInOC]

I'm curious. Since when did the prospect of Hillary in the Oval Office (and Bill in or anywhere near the White House) stop being that troublesome for some Freepers? Because it would still be very much troublesome for me. I lived through Bill's two terms. Without benefit of FR, by the way. I didn't register with the site until during the post-election mess in 2000. I didn't start posting regularly until the next summer. In any case, eight years of those two and their mob was enough. More than enough. Way more than enough. I'd had enough by Election Day '92, frankly. I'd have been a lot happier never to have seen them again after that. Asking me to see Rudy Giuliani as a bigger threat than Hillary Clinton (and Bill, and company) is, essentially, asking me to forget what I remember of Team Clinton. Sorry, folks. I won't do that. I can't do that. No. Hell, no. Not now. Not ever. And any Freeper who knows anything about why this site was created in the first place should know better than to expect me to.