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?
Actually, JR, I don’t expect you to.
Is it possible to find a fair way to favor discussions that support the positions you espouse?
Why not?
What is moving Rudy's candidacy is his law and order, and National security views. His social liberalism makes his candidacy appealing to many moderates who want a strong national defense without the social intricacies that some candidates from the conservative ranks espouse.
Social conservatism is not going to win this election. It is a national negative, and candidates on the Republican side who try to embrace and mollify the segments of the base who demand that government get involved in the societal lives of people will find that they have screwed their chances Nationally.
That's just a fact of this particular election cycle, and there is no getting away from it.
Many Republicans understand this and are willing to support a more moderate candidate to retain the White House.
As for my views, I chose Romney, but would vote for Rudy, if he makes it through the primary. I also put my money where my mouth is.
I anticipate that if the social conservatives are successful in damaging Rudy as a front runner, they will simply move to the next one on the list, and that would be Romney.
If successful in damaging all the moderates who have a chance to win, they will assure a loss and the 100% control of the government by the liberals.
So you see, Rudy is important in this coming election, and wining this election is paramount to any personally held social beliefs. No of which are the purview of the president in any case, because once elected, they represent all believes of their National constituency, and cannot or will not take on any of them to any degree that would cause disruption of the social fabric of the nation.
As to SCOTUS picks, there is not a single possibility that any "true conservative" as you may call them, will have a chance of getting through committee in the Senate. That's just a reality.
Better to keep the White House, then to throw any chance of wining away by pushing another social conservative into a national election where he/she will be repudiated by the now pissed off electorate.
That's how I see it, and I don't see any reason to change my opinions. On the contrary, I see more and more affirmation every day. The general voting public would like very much to divide the government if possible, so lets not make that choice impossible for them to make. It is our only chance of retaining the executive branch.
I said on another post that the problem that Rudy supporters have is that they can't argue for Rudy as a conservative candidate on an issue by issue basis. They only have their contention that he is the strongest candidate on the WOT and he can beat Hillary.
In an effort to TRY to argue on an issue by issue basis they were having to contort to get anything conservative out of his liberal stances that they could. In abortion discussions the only truthful answer for Rudy's position is that he is pro-abortion. In threads on abortion I've seen his supporters say that Rudy was only a little pro-choice, that Rudy was more pro-life than he was pro-choice, and the ever popular, Rudy will be better than Hillary on abortion. All of those statements are just absurd.
If you run down the line of conservative issues - abortion, gun control, immigration, gay rights, etc. all we were getting were absurd versions of Rudy's views in thread after thread. Rudy's supporters would be much more accepted and respected if they would just be truthful about their candidates positions.
Most of them will tell you that the only reason they are supporting Rudy is because of the WOT and fears that he is the only one that can beat Hillary, so why don't they just run with that and be truthful about the rest of his positions? They would have gotten a lot less grief around here for sure.
You know the Ron Paul supporters don't have an easy row to hoe on this forum, but at least they are truthful about his positions. They will just out and out say yeah he doesn't believe in the war, then launch into to telling you why he takes his position. They don't say he had to take that strong view against the war because of his constituents, they don't tell you he is only a little anti-war and they don't tell you that his position is going to soften when he is actually President because we were so nice to vote him in. I can respect them for being truthful and not making absurd assertions just to get support.
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=178;results=1
There seem to be a bunch of you Rudy Rooters who support a liberal no matter what. And if you get your way, the presidential election will be a choice between a Republican liberal and a Democrat liberal.
Thank you, CWT, you saved me another angry post. If you go back and look at the “research” that conservative in nyc did, you will see that quotes were twisted.
If you will look at my post #4476, you will see the facts. Look at the link in post #4454, you will see how “it went down.”
The subject was MCCAIN..!! Not Rudy, not Hitlery.
I think it's simply a transition time for this site. While we all like to think that freedom of speech somehow extends to this site, or that our opinions are more valuable than others', or that our contributions or tenure entitle us to continue posting, it just isn't so.
This site has been so divided as of late that it's unable to accomplish much of anything. Jim clearly has a vision for its future, and he likely felt that the only way to achieve it is to articulate his philosophy and remove those who insist on subverting it. Note that I said "subverting" - not merely disagreeing respectfully and honestly.
Let's fave facts: the folks who are now gone understood Jim's vision and decided to actively work counter to it. On his own site. Who would we think he has an obligation to allow them to continue that behavior?
The person that Jim called an ‘asswipe’ was quidnunc.
Maybe you should read his posts to find out why, and why he was banned.
As for myself I vote my conscience in the primary for the most conservative person i can find. If my guy loses then i look at where each candidate stands. Now if it is Rudy against say Hillary i at least agree with Rudy on the military, taxes and crime. With Hillary there is not even that to agree with. So it would be a “hold my nose” and vote type of election. That being said i would be very disappointed if Rudy were the nominee as i dont agree with him on most other issues especially gun control. Supposedly he is flip flopping on that but i do not trust it one bit
10%. You’re worried about 10%? I haven’t even seen that poll. I don’t do polls. I think they’re counter productive.
That description fits me to a 'T'. I'm a single issue voter - I can't stand Democrat political grandstanding on the WOT. I will vote for any R who advocates victory in Iraq.
It’s okay I appreciate the information.
I agree with you that some objection is to the double-standard. I don’t defend the double-standard, but as I said several times earlier, two wrongs don’t make a right, and no person can justify bad behavior by saying that others are doing it. And the fact that one person is bad and doesn’t get banned doesn’t mean it is WRONG to ban someone else for being bad.
I wish nobody would call anybody any names. The official rules of the site say nobody should personally attack other freepers, and I think that’s a good rule, even for obnoxious people. That’s what the abuse button is for, so you don’t have to get into a personal attack battle.
Obviously the abuse button won’t help if you are being “abused” by the owner of the site. But a smart person would realise that and not launch personal attacks at the owner. You come into my house, and call me names, my reaction might be a little different than if you do it on the street corner.
I don’t want anybody banned, but if someone IS going to get banned, and there are two people who are equally offensive, and you have to choose one to ban, I would agree that we should choose the one who is being offensive to conservatives in support of a liberal, rather than the other way around.
It’s a double-standard, but if you are going to have one that’s the way it should be on a conservative site like this.
I hope the bans turn into simply suspensions, but frankly I think a lot of the “banned” have been planning this for a while, have been agitating to get banned, have been complaining for weeks that a “purge” was coming so that they could claim to be attacked for their support, because tehy all want to go somewhere they dont have to defend their statements.
That’s just a personal opinion, and I hope it is wrong.
Am I allowed to call you an asswipe?
Well said.
Call me anything you like.
I don’t own the site so I can just ignore you.
Anyone who thinks that Duncan Hunter can beat Hillary or Obama is off his rocker.
I know exactly why. If you had any perception of what has been going on here for some months, and actually years, you would know why.
But that's OK, cuz I'm not here to lead or follow.
I simply try to put into words and thought, what I see in the public mood and discourse.
What I see is a fight for what is left of the coalition that elected Bush, and the fight for it, is what is destroying it.
Well get back to it, then.
Hildy, I believe you. In fact, if Rudy was at 5% in the polls, I believe a lot of Rudy supporters would attack him and sing the praises of whoever was in first place.
But I, and apparently others, don't want to choose our candidate that way. And even some who do, can't see attacking other conservatives on "positions" when you have no interest in positions, just the "position" in the latest poll.
What I am trying to say is that FR is a conservative site to espouse conservative values, defend them against the attacks of the left, and to sell them to the nation as the only good and right way for our country to move forward.
To have those conservative principles, and their standard-bearers, torn down by people who, by their own admission, only support their candidate because "the tide is in his favor", really rubs us the wrong way.
I'd rather have a real fight over issues with a Hillary supporter, than try to argue principle and policy with people who are only attacking my views because the candidate in the lead holds other views, when the people I'm talking to could care less about what views anybody holds.
done.
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.