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?
Sorry, overall, Giuliani is too far left [not a fiscal conservative either]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821920/posts
NewsDay
4/23/2007
Points brought out in the article:
- Giuliani was big on doling out corporate welfare.
- He loved offering huge taxpayer subsidies to sports teams for new stadiums.
- Total expenditures rose by 30 percent during Giuliani’s term in office, or almost double the inflation rate.
- He deserves credit for cutting some taxes, including the city’s hotel and commercial rent taxes.
- But he also worked hard for high taxes.
- In 1994, Giuliani endorsed Gov. Mario Cuomo, a Democrat, for re-election against then-challenger George Pataki, the Republican. Why? In part, it was because Giuliani opposed Pataki’s proposed tax cuts.
- In 1999 Giuliani fought against the State Legislature’s repeal of a commuter income tax.
- Giuliani’s rather smallish tax cuts were swamped by his tax increases.
- New York City’s personal, corporate and unincorporated business income taxes, on top of state income levies, have long hampered entrepreneurship and economic growth, chasing away individuals and businesses.
- Giuliani’s budgets called for continuing a temporary personal income tax surcharges when they were to expire.
- In 1998, Giuliani reneged on his promise to eliminate the commercial rent tax and opposed the Democrat-led city council’s effort to allow one of the income tax surcharges to expire as scheduled. He wanted to use the commercial rent tax revenue to build new stadiums for the Mets and Yankees, and was holding the income tax surcharge hostage to get the city council’s support. That surcharge expired, despite Giuliani’s opposition.
- So much for Rudy the tax cutter.
Conclusion:
As for Giuliani supposedly being the only Republican able to beat Clinton, the contrary case can easily be made. With a liberal Giuliani leading the GOP ticket, conservative turnout could be quite low, making it easier for Clinton to win the White House.
So, given this political reality and Giuliani’s lefty record on many social and economic issues, one again wonders why any conservative would support him for president.
So I'm the wrong class now??
Indeed.
It seems that for some the only "pragmatic" solution is surrender of all core values so you can win. It doesn't matter if Rudy is not conservative, and is in fact in agreement with Hillary on most of her views, it only matters that he can "win".
No - a different one.
He’s over at WA posting.
Sorry, but third can be 5%, or 25%. It’s a serious difference. Hunter is not an option.
THIS conservative puts the War on Terror above everything else. It's an old baseball maxim for a pitcher to strike out the guy in front of him, and not worry about the guy on base.
The deadly batter right in front of our noses is Islamic fascism, and these other debates, however important they are, will be utterly meaningless if we don't get this one right.
I'd like those back, please.
What about long-time freepers who pay money to help support the site? We're not allowed to voice our opinions anymore, especially if they are dissenting? Or stop posting at all in case someone doesn't like what we wrote and we get banned?
I've seen it happen to a LOT of old-timers in the past couple of days, and it's disturbing.
It's called a "donation". When you give money to a charity, do you show up at that charity and demand they run things your way? If you did, I'll wager they'd toss you out on your ear.
We're not allowed to voice our opinions anymore, especially if they are dissenting?
Voice whatever you like. But actions have consequences. As proof I offer the following:
The Dixie Chicks
Don Imus
I've seen it happen to a LOT of old-timers in the past couple of days, and it's disturbing.
Not nearly as disturbing as the continued cheeleading for someone who thinks sucking the brains out of a living baby is a Constitutionally protected right.
L
I don’t know the circumstances of the FA ban.
I was “at” the FO ban. I would not have banned her, but I’m not the “banning” type except for trolls who join up just to post offensive stuff. I also wouldn’t have banned her simply for her comment that day, because in isolation I would have (naively) accepted that it was all just a mistake, that she just trusted the wrong web site.
But because she had just done the “Fred is a mormon” thing, insisting on continuing it even after several posters noted her mistake, I do understand why FO was banned.
So my opinion isn’t that helpful, since I’m not “supportive” of banning in general. I’m not arguing against the bans though — the only person I petitioned for was Peach, and that is in her hands now.
THanks for the info, I’ll update.
As to “dancing on graves”, I am simply providing the info, I am not happy about bannings, but at the cemetary, they have markers with the names of the dead, to honor them.
That's quite debatable.
"I imagine she was at that dinner because of her volunteer work for the party."
PKM has posted on another site that she is officially working with the Rudy campaign now. It’s not just with the party, she’s said so herself. You ought to know Miss Marple since you too post there. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.) ;^)
“I think she sincerely likes Guiliani.”
That’s an understatement. She’s like those little girls who were swooning for Sanjaya on American Idol. I really worry for her when Rudy comes crashing down—like Dean Howard did.
Thanks. Given the nature of the discussion, I was looking for people who would vote for Hillary over Rudy, and forgot that people might be saying it in McCain threads.
I didn’t realise so many people said they would vote for Hillary over McCain. Some people really dislike McCain.
I’m not going to ping people for comments they made over a year ago, but maybe the more recent people will come explain whether they were serious.
Of course, now that Peach and Katie-O are gone, maybe getting the explanations from the freepers is meaningless. I had hoped to engage them in a conversation with Peach so she would see that the FReepers saying that weren’t as evil as she thought, to try to start a dialog.
Not much use for that since she got herself banned.
I wasn’t being hypertechnical or anything with my previous posts, Peach said there were people who SAID they would VOTE for Hillary, and I just wanted to see their names.
I’ve included all the names (I think) that posted within the last year. If I missed any, it was inadvertant.
That's priceless. Now you're calling for dialog. You're not fooling anyone.
1. I am on record here as saying that, in a theoretical matchup between Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, I'd vote for Giuliani. I had backed off that and changed my mind even before this thread. Not because of his wretched marital record (we have people on our side with unclean hands there), not because he dressed up as a woman at a press dinner (it was to raise money and poke fun at his uptight image and was a takeoff on "Victor-Victoria," Julie Andrews herself was there), but because of his stands on the issues. Not just his past stands on the issues, but things that have been coming out of his mouth recently, and not just on abortion. Bottom line, I simply could not bring myself to support him in any shape, form or fashion and still be able to look at myself in the mirror in the a.m. while shaving. And from the looks of the polls (ignore the media furor about him), it looks like other people are catching on too and IMHO this is in the process of working itself out and will be completely worked out once the primaries are over
2. I am saddened that this thread got so out of hand, that feelings got so heated to the point of people getting banned, including some folks I've conversed with over the years, folks who I don't think are bad people, I don't think are actually in their heart of hearts actual liberals, but who for some reason got over the line in their feelings on this issue and let it overwhelm their usual instincts. I hope that after tempers cool and after a sufficient time of penance, they might be allowed to return even if on probation. If not, the bottom line is that there was provocation involved in what happened to them, I've reread Mr. Robinson's initial post and I don't see any threats to ban anyone if they didn't march in lockstep there, and if you wade through this entire thread, you'll see that he did show some forebearance with people before "pulling the trigger."
3. Why did they get so bent out of shape on this issue? I'll offer my .02. First, while I'm not making light of the threat of Islamic terrorism one bit, it is a major, major, MAJOR issue and source of concern right now. However, I think some folks are so concerned about it that it trumps everything in their eyes, and in their eyes Giuliani is the A-No. 1 candidate to wage a war on Islamic terrorism. Some folks might say "what good is X (insert issue here) if we're getting bombed by al-Qaida?" My response is, "What good is throwing all our eggs in the terrorism basket if we lose our soul as a movement?" Secondly, I think there is a group out there that is so petrified, I mean paralyzed by fear to the point of their bone marrow congealing and their sphincters opening, of a Clinton returning to the White House, that they are thinking about nothing but "we've gotta get somebody to beat Hillary, we've gotta get somebody to beat Hillary, we've gotta get someone to beat Hillary." And again, they view Giuliani as the A-No. 1 candidate to do that. But again, what good is it to put all your eggs in one basket if you lose your soul as a movement? Also, I'm on record here for several years that Hillary Clinton will NOT, I repeat NOT, be the Democratc candidate at the end of the day in 2008, and I'm not backing off on that at all, so the paralyzing fear along those lines is misplaced and could end up being self-destructive in the long run when we end up facing somebody else.
4. I do hope that tempers cool off and that we can re-unify with some of our brothers and sisters because we need a unified movement in 2008 to do what needs to be done, especially with all the roadblocks that are going to be in our way. At the same time I hope that only a fraction of the energy and passion that's been displayed, for good and bad, in this thread can be transferred to that 2008 race, for the purposes of getting a real conservative nominated and elected. If that happens, I think we'll be fine. And it may just be me, but I think directing energy and passion in the proper direction was what the original post here was all about.
5. I'm also on the record here as questioning Fred Thompson's fire in the belly to run for and serve in the presidency. My comment on the morning of April 23, 2007, is ... RUN, FRED, RUN!!!!!
I've always thought that the "you are a paid operative" was somewhat overwrought, because I can't imagine working either for free OR for money for a candidate unless I liked the candidate and would already be saying good things about them.
So I have no doubt she really like Rudy, whether she is a volunteer specifically for him or not.
I think the only time "official" connection is important is that if you are a person whose opinion was respected AS OPINION, your attacks on other candidates might have less weight with others if they know your job requires you to attack the others.
Pew researc used to be tribune research. It was at its founding, and still is, far left. The name was changed from Tribune to Pew in an attempt to hide it’s origin.
La Enchiladita, my friend...How are you?
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.