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?

[ohioWfan]

I oppose rudy with everything i’bve got...but if we have three major candidates in 2008, Hillary wins. That is not an option.

Amen!

[Bigh4u2]

I really almost half expected there would be comments about Reagan not doing enough about AIDS.

But, then I thought, only the left would do that..right?

Sometimes the lines are so blurred, you just can’t figure out who are your true ‘friends’ and who aren’t.

[Crawdad]

Wouldn’t it have been better to post this thread during the Freep-A-Thon instead of just after it ended? I believe much more money could have been raised.

[Cold Heat]

So please do not paint them as innocent angels in all of this.

LOL! So you slam a certain class of people, and then put all the responsibility for getting insulted and pissed off on them and then pat yourself on the back..

How conventional!

This forum has gone through these little tantrums dozens of times since I've been a member. What it is, is one faction purging another because of impurities.

This is a little factoid that is never seen or acknowledged by the perps, and I find that to be significant and telling about a mindset that has infected the Conservative ranks of the party.

I suppose there are reasons this has happened, not the least of which is a response to the far left. But it shows you the truth about the extremes of both political view points, and what they are willing to do to their own members.

And so it goes......

[Bigh4u2]

I’m not really sure that would have made much difference considering JimRob has been posting threads like this for quite while.

It just seems that the reaction to this one just seemed to bring out the worst in some people.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Actually, her sin was to, for reasons known only to her, become increasingly bitter and personal in the past couple of weeks (I had said week but I’ve seen others say more), and fall into the trap of making negative personal attacks on other freepers, while defending a person most of us think is too liberal to be the choice of a conservative site like this for President.

Her “grave” sin was to post, after being warned to stop, an claim about Ronald Reagan that had been debunked, in support of her liberal candidate.

Even if her comment wasn’t inaccurate, she had already made the point several times, and the owner of the site told her to stop, and she decided her “free speech rights” to repeat the information ANOTHER time should trump his right to control the site.

Since earlier in this thread she specifically asked him to ban her if he had to, it looks to me like she was trying to get banned, although I don’t know that and I’m sorry she got banned. Several people suggested she just go to bed and come back in the morning, and I wish she had done that instead of pushing and pushing.

I feel about her like I feel when I have to punish my kids with a harsh penalty because, knowing the penalty, they refuse to obey or back down and continue to misbehave.

Peach did not have to be banned. The entire thing was in her hands. She knew she was going to be banned if she posted again, and she posted again.

As to the name-calling, I don’t like it from either side, but Jim was responding to a specific post she made that was an unintelligent post. (That’s how I would have said it, as I like to attack the message, not the messenger).

Since the history is here, I won’t repeat it, I’ll note that it was in the first couple hundred posts where the “idiot” came out, so it’s not hard to follow that aspect.

I think your anecdote backs up something I and others have said, that for some long-time Freepers there is what I think is an unhealthy obsession with Hillary that is driving support for a liberal that in normal circumstances would be the laughingstock of this site.

Just to give an example of why I say that, look at Chuck Hagel. Chuck has a very good ACU rating. In some circles, he is considered a far-right conservative, I know people are laughing right now. It’s just one or two issues he went off the “republican” reservation, major issues of course, turning against the war, and now we all laugh at him.

But Chuck Hagel is 5 times the conservative Rudy is, even on fiscal issues. Hagel is a good fiscal conservative, a good social conservative, and he’s trashed daily on this site, even worse than Rudy (not in volume but in words), because of his position on the war.

I firmly believe that if Rudy was polling at 5%, and if Hillary wasn’t running, the only Rudy threads here would be ones making fun of him for thinking he was a republican.

[68 grunt]

You’re wrong. There are people here to do nothing but divide. I’m thinking you should be on that list, too. EVie is here to do nothing but alienate, repudiate, divide and disrupt. What the hell are you here for grave dancer?

[wagglebee]

Many of the Rudy Rooters have openly expressed liberal positions on EVERYTHING with the exception of the War on Terror and taxation since I’ve been here.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Yes, I remember reading you said that, and thinking that was also a rational possibility, so I should have mentioned it in my response. I apologize.

I certainly don’t take pleasure in any of the recent bannings.

[Bigh4u2]

“Many of the Rudy Rooters have openly expressed liberal positions on EVERYTHING with the exception of the War on Terror and taxation since I’ve been here.”

I know.

My eyes have been open for a longtime now.

[Mr. Silverback]

Will FR embrace Hillary instead, removing any chance of getting another conservative on the court?

First, given his past behavior on the abortion issue and pretty much everything he's ever said about judges other than "I'll appoint strict constructionists," all we have to indicate he'll appoint a conservative is his word. Well, he's a politician, so I need more than that.

Second, the "only Rudy can win" argument is a load of crap. You may think that we can win by running a northeastern lib against a northeastern lib, but I have yet to see a convincing argument that it would work, much less that it's the only thing that will work.

Third, here's a picture of your argument so you can color it and hang it on the fridge:

[Jhensy]

I’m just back from vacation, and have read through a good chunk of this thread.

It is deplorable. And embarrassing for this 7-year Freeper.

I knew it was coming to this. Good folks getting purged for supporting the ‘wrong’ GOP candidate. Mind-boggling.

Well, I better keep quiet up here in my hiding place, and listen for the inevitable footsteps coming up the stairs. My bags are all packed for that little train ride to the countryside... maybe I can still learn to love Big Brother...

[Politicalmom]

Second amendment voters will NOT vote for Giuliani, and he loses pro-lifers, plus the people who can’t abide his pushing the homosexual agenda, marching with NAMBLA, and his serial adultery.

Any of you who think that those of us who are totally opposed to Giuliani will suddenly turn around and vote for him are delusional.

[LexBaird]

The whole uproar about Rudy is nothing more than a game of chicken: are there more than enough centrist Democrats to offset lost SoCon voters?

No. The fact is that the greatest "issue" difference between Rudy and Hillary/Obama lies in support for the WOT. The typical "centrist Dem" is going to side with the mainstream Dems on this, so no soup for Rudy. Meanwhile that very agreement between Rudy and the Dems on the social agenda will sink him with SoCons.

What "centrist Dem" group do you anticipate Rudy will pull? Hard core Union? Farm subsidy dems? Southern traditional yankee haters? American Idol watchers?

If it weren't for the front loaded primaries occurring in Feb, the traditional grass roots approach of vetting nominees would probably still be valid.

Which is why the fight's getting bloody now, 10 months out from that. Frankly, I think it's going to depend much more on who the Dems are likely to nominate. If, 8 months hence, Hillary has imploded, Obama has gotten spanked for inexperience, and the Dems are pushing a current Dark Horse like Richardson, then the Fear Factor support for Rudy will tank.

[RabidBartender]

"So you slam a certain class of people, and then put all the responsibility for getting insulted and pissed off on them and then pat yourself on the back.."

You deliberately misrepresent what I said, by ignoring what I put in my post: (which does not condone any insults made against them).

I put responsibility on both sides for the insults. Folks trying to make martyrs of the banned are depicting them as innocent victims in all of this.

[Miss Didi]

But she got really mean all of the sudden for some reason. A lot of the women did, it was uncharacteristic. I suspect Rudy has some magic potion or spell, which would also explain why he keeps getting pretty good women to sleep with him.

It's his Hai Karate Cologne that has turned us all into Stepford Wives...that's it, really.

[No Blue States]

" It's Jim's site and he can resist liberal agenda takeovers as he wishes."

Well said. Its good to have leadership from the top on this important issue.

I cant vote for Rudy, and have no idea what to do because Hillary wont get my vote either. Hopefully someone better than either will rise to the top because staying home isn't an option either. unghhh.

[Bigh4u2]

“Good folks getting purged for supporting the ‘wrong’ GOP candidate. “

Apparently you didn’t read far enough.

That was not the reason they were banned.

Jim Rob even specifically stated that people who supported Rudy just needed to be honest about it. But the problem was, in their zeal to support Rudy, they also began to bash conservatives such as Ronald Reagan.

So before you slink off in abject fear, maybe you should read more and then make a determination of WHY they were banned.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I will say that Mia T’s last thread was an insult to me personally, and to all those who value human life. And she posted false attacks on a conservative that had nothing to do with the topic of her thread.

IF she was a generic poster, she’d have been slapped down for those acts. At some point, you don’t get a free pass to attack others just because of your history.

IT seems that people still get deference if they’be been a round a while, but not if their attacks are the same as those we would endure at DU.

I’ve seen some harsh attacks go unpunished when they were based on fact, and about conservative principles. But don’t make false attacks on conservatives to support a liberal, or apparently you will get banned.

We all watched Peach forcing a ban on herself. Maybe Jim shouldn’t have threatened it, but he told her exactly what would get her banned, and she did it. If I wanted to stay at the site, and was told not to post something, I wouldn’t immediately post it. I also wouldn’t dare the site owner to ban me like she did.

I hope she comes back, but I’m not faulting JR for banning her, given her actions on this thread. It’s sad to me, but understandable.

[La Enchiladita]

Do you know what a disclaimer is? That is a disclaimer and, as I said, it was lame.

Now, my FReeper name is on a “list” to be bandied about and lied about. No matter that I actually said the OPPOSITE...!!!!!

Thanks to you and your smarmy “research.”