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?

[Alia]

not the least of which is a response to the far left.

Or a joining. Still to be assessed, IMO.

[Just sayin]

A person is either 100% opposed to infancide or they are in favor of it.

I cannot say I agree with that statement. I think it is deeper than that simple statement.

Do you agree or disagree that a person can be 100% opposed to Abortion as it pertains to their own choices and still understand that everyone else's choices are their own to make and to be accountable for? Do you agree or disagree that removing choice, in general, is a bad thing?

Personally, I would like to see a day come where a pregnancy can be removed from a female who does not wish to remain pregnant without ending the pregnancy itself. I find this to be an outcome where both sides of this seemingly endless debate can gain what it is they truly seek. Would this not be a good thing?

Maybe then, every election and apointment wouldn't have the litmus test of Abortion postion. If all Abortion is simply outlawed, then the debate will remain as it is right now just in the reverse. Rather than remove choice entirely, I prefer to seek another choice.... a better choice.

I just can't subscribe to the idea that removing choice entirely is the best way forward. In fact, I oppose that action.....like say, smoking bans in eateries and bars for instance. I much prefer a solution that opposing sides can agree on. An alternative choice rather than abolition of choice.

If preserving life is the base of your stance and a pregnancy could be removed from a female, who does not wish to remain pregnant, without destroying the pregnancy and thus seeing that pregnancy come to term in another female or even in a lab, would your opposition as it stands today be addressed to your satisfaction? It should right?

Likewise, a female not wanting a pregnancy should find this solution viable right? After all, what a female seeking an abortion today really wants is to not be pregnant right?

Keep in mind that what I am talking about is a possible future solution in idea. Setting a goal that two opposing sides could work together to bring about, rather than just fighting the same old fight over and over and accomplishing nothing but wasting time and creating hard feelings and division among our own countrymen.

In the not so distant past, we as a society could not remove an organ from one person and make it function inside another person. Today, we can with great success. This is the model process, in idea, I am talking about in terms of pregnancies and abortions.

I am sure flamings will be sent my way by folks who aren't really interested in anything other than what they see as valid. That is fine. I am not saying folks have no right to do such a thing.

I am Just sayin that such action shows true colors. My true colors are a positive outcome for all involved. Is this postion not honorable?

I am Just sayin that I think there are ways to change this hate-filled subject by injecting something positive where opposing sides can both be afforded that which they seek on the bottom line. Not all that unlike our founders did when they came up with Electoral College.

Two sides of a heated and heartfelt debate brought differing yet valid positions to the table, both also brought valid downsides about the other as well. Yet still, a workable position was found where both sides got some of what they were seeking. In that action, I believe our founders taught us how to settle serious differences. Seek out an alternative that affords both sides that which they seek rather than simply disallow one position entirely.

I believe that same thing can be done in regards to this very heartfelt subject. That is, if people on both sides would be willing to admit that there will never be agreement between the two sides as the debate stands today. In order to move forward without doing harm one way or the other a new alternative is in order.

I said at the start of this post that I disagreed with your statement. I said that because I am against all options put forth on this subject today. I am against abortion and I am also against removing choice (in general, not just abortion). What I am for, is an alternative that sees a pregnancy removed from one who does not want it in a way that does not destroy life.

Do you find this position to be without merit or objectionable? How does my position fit with your statement? Should my position proclude me from participation on this website? Would you shun me as an 'aboritonist' because I refuse to just remove choice entirely and call that proper....because I seek another way forward instead?

[Miss Didi]

Well, he did have his plan to scoop and dump the dead firefighters into a landfill until public outrage made him back off.

That's the sickest comment I've ever read.

[Cold Heat]

And if you get your way, the presidential election will be a choice between a Republican liberal and a Democrat liberal.

No.....It will be between a Stalinist lefty and a Moderate.

The pendulum moved left, and you have to acknowledge it, or lose and lose big.

[wagglebee]

Your claim was that ALL Rudy Rooters would fall in behind Thompson, then you claim that the 10% who won’t aren’t relevant. Which is it?

[CharlesWayneCT]

I think JR also lost patience with people who were attacking him here while they had set up their own site to use for discussions. It’s kind of disloyal to argue you love this site while you are off badmouthing it in your own competing site.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would suggest that the “bannings” were part of the plan, and their hope is to generate enough sympathy from non-rudy supporters who are long-time people to move over to their site.

If I was even MORE a conspirist, I would say that explains Peach’s sudden turn to negative personal stuff. She was never that way, but she really likes Rudy, and maybe they convinced her that, if she got herself banned, being beloved and all, it would really help Rudy by making FR look vindictive.

I’m probably all wet, although the result of her getting personal and attacking Jim was that she got banned, and her banning HAS invoked sympathy from some other non-rudy Freepers, and a few HAVE said they are now quitting and some may go over there and say bad things about FR.

So if it wasn’t their intent, it’s how it’s going down. Maybe they aren’t clever enough to have planned it, but it couldn’t have gone much better if they HAD planned it.

[NittanyLion]

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.

Some time back I was quite agitated about the leadership (or lack thereof) displayed by the Bush Administration and GOP. I was running all over threads blasting them for CFR, the Farm Bill, Prescription Drug Plan, etc.

Then Jim posted a thread stating that this forum would be used to support the GOP in that election cycle. At that point I had a choice: continue to post my views or respect his wishes. Well, I wasn't arrogant or deluded enough to think that I could get defy his statement and stick around for very long. Nor was I about to post things I didn't believe.

Since I happen to enjoy participating on this site, I opted to limit my comments to threads that didn't relate to those issues. It's a shame the pro-Rudy folks couldn't manage to do the same. And it's ironic that many of the people now banned were cheering Jim on when he made those comments.

[Spiff]

Well, we’ll have to disagree then because he is a fifth columnist disruptor, intent upon nothing but dividing us and making FR completely irrelevant.

I've thought precisely the same thing about you.

[NautiNurse]

mkjessup: If throwing spears was a conservative trait, you would be the most conservative person in the universe. Otherwise, we'll just settle for your self-appointed position as Minister of Conservative Purity. Put that on your profile page.

[princess leah]

Will voting 3rd party help our troops if Hillary gets to be President? We are clearly seeing the democrats attempts to “RAISE THE WHITE FLAG” during the most difficult and brutal world conflict in history. We need someone who will take it to the enemy and not be afraid of what people will say. If this means Rudy, then yes, as a conservative I’ll vote for him. I’ll back whoever win the Republican nomination because America cannot afford ANY democrat who would cry FAIL and WITHDRAW from the world conflict and our troops cannot be denigrated under a possible 2nd Clinton regime.

[SoldierDad]

I’ve just come upon this thread due to a private message I received regarding the outcome of a FReeper’s comments about President Reagan. I’m aghast that someone would try to taint President Reagan’s record on being Pro-Life while boasting about Rudy’s record for his extremely liberal positions. No matter who winds up on either the DemoncRat or Republican Tickets, I will not every vote for Rudy for President. If Rudy were to win the nomination (a highly unlikely occurrence) I will change my party affiliation and vote independent in the General Election.

[Cold Heat]

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.

What you are not acknowledging, or understanding, is that the center has shifted left to a great degree, largely because of the war and the newer voters moving into the system.

To hold on to old definitions of what is conservative right, center and left is a mistake.

The momentum is in the other direction, and to swim upstream like a doomed salmon in a National election is problematic at best. The 2006 results should have warned you to this new reality. The liberal bear will be gleefully eating your quivering carcass in 2008, if you persist in fighting against the flow.

To some, to capitulate would be a abandonment of principle, but there are no principles in politics. There is only political realities and compromises.

[wagglebee]

A person is either 100% opposed to infancide or they are in favor of it.

I cannot say I agree with that statement. I think it is deeper than that simple statement.

Well, I think you're wrong.

Do you agree or disagree that a person can be 100% opposed to Abortion as it pertains to their own choices and still understand that everyone else's choices are their own to make and to be accountable for?

I totally disagree. It's like saying, "I wouldn't commit murder/rape/arson/armed robbery, etc., but I think it would be wrong to tell someone else not to."

Do you agree or disagree that removing choice, in general, is a bad thing?

Let's see, abortion claims as many American lives EVERY SINGLE DAY as the terrorists killed on 9/11/01, so yes I fully support removing the "choice" to murder innocent Americans.

Personally, I would like to see a day come where a pregnancy can be removed from a female who does not wish to remain pregnant without ending the pregnancy itself.

Women already know how not to become pregnant. We don't need to do any Mengele-style experimentation for "alternatives."

As far as the rest of your post, my position on abortion is well documented here. I WILL NOT EVER CONCEDE that 3000+ murders a day is something to negotiate about.

[Elyse]

Do you agree or disagree that a person can be 100% opposed to Abortion as it pertains to their own choices and still understand that everyone else's choices are their own to make and to be accountable for? Do you agree or disagree that removing choice, in general, is a bad thing?

Oh Oh! I'll take that one, it's easy! The only time you should have a choice is when GOD gives you a choice between the life of the mother or the life of the child. Any other time you make a choice on your own you are making a choice to commit murder if you choose to abort the child. Giving people the choice to murder a child is a very very bad thing.

[malos]

On what basis do you say that in a contest between Fred Thompson and Hillary that Fred has NO chance of winning? Show me any evidence that liberalism is preferable to Americans to conservatism. Given a candidate who can put forth pricipled conservatism (and defend it in a debate)conservatism will not lose.

[wagglebee]

Take a look at the FACTS and explain to me how Hillary is a foregone conclusion:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=4548#4548

Secondly, what make you think for a minute that Hillary would not pursue the war on terror? The woman is a Stalinist, not a pacifist. She would love to win a war if she could get the credit for it.

[CharacterCounts]

Do you agree or disagree that a person can be 100% opposed to Abortion as it pertains to their own choices and still understand that everyone else's choices are their own to make and to be accountable for?

If it is a human life, there can be no choice.

[Cold Heat]

He cannot respond to your query, His thoughts were determined to be illegal here.

[DCPatriot]

Hi...figured asking you since you appear to have a good handle on this thread

I can't seem to find the post or sequence of events that led to the suspension or banning of 'stuned beeber'.

He was the 1 week-old Newbie who seemed to have an awful lot to say about the banned old-timers...to the point that his posts gave me a pain in my chest. (No I'm not thinking of suing...LOL)

I asked him what his previous moniker was but he wouldn't admit to being a recycled poster.

Any info would be appreciated.

[68 grunt]

When I start encouraging people to leave you’ll have a point. Until then you’re typically fos.