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?
I believe her tagline was “not banned yet”. Or something like that.
Of course she wanted to be martyred for the cause.
Pinch me as I'm surely having a nightmare. IMHO we lost two freepers (MiaT and Peach) who did incredible research and added so much to the forum. Let's hope, once cooler heads prevail, it will amount to a short suspension and we'll get back to insuring Hillary will never set foot in the WH unless invited.
I don’t think there is any ‘misrepresentation’ about it, because most of these posts are deliberate.
It’s one thing to disagree with others choices. And quite another to totally ‘rebel’ against the sites owner in a way that is deliberate and contrived.
These have not been ‘accidental’ postings.
They are very purposeful in their statements.
I found Mia’s posts hard to load and hard to read, but I have no idea why she was banned. But Peach did everything she could to get the ax and had it coming.
That is not news. I did the math back in 1979 and figured it out. Considering that he did the right when it happened, didn’t repeat it outside of marriage, is now deceased and not running for office, this topic is not relevant.
When did Hillary get nominated? Are you aware of the overwhelming historical unlikelihood of Hillary even getting the nomination, much less winning the election?
Why is there a desire on the part of some (18 as best I can tell) to DESTROY CONSERVATISM just to get a liberal in the White House with an "R" after his name?
Evidentally it was the last thread that Mia had posted.
If we elect Rudy, she'll have an open invitation. Won't that be loverly?
But it is up to Duncan Hunter to get people to notice him. Seriously, if Duncan can’t get over 1% in the polls, I blame him, and think it raises questions about his ability to run for and be President.
***Wasn’t John Kerry at about 4-5% in the polls at about the same time, and there were really only 2 in the race? Hunter has time, and the debates will be his chance. Part of his problem is that his humility seems to cause him to forego self-promotion behavior. Duncan has won some strong indicators such as the straw polls in Arizona (beat McCain in his own back yard) and came within a statistical 3-2ay dead heat in Spartanburg, did well recently in Iowa. He may not yet translate into percentages in media polls nationally, but he wins when there is a real poll afoot. I’m going to ping his son, Sam Hunter, to see if he has anything to say here to rally the troups and help us get out the name recognition. In this latest FR storm,
Duncan Hunter’s house is standing on solid conservative bedrock and Rudy Giuliani’s house is slipping away into the sands.
A candidate has to be able to lead, and part of leading is to be able to make yourself the important issue, to force people to pay attention to you.
***This area is not my particular forte’, so I choose not to comment on it. I simply don’t know how much that conveys the truth of the matter.
Where was Duncan Hunter on Tuesday after the VT shootings, giving HIS condolences and showing he wouldn’t use the issue for his own gain?
***That would be doing EXACTLY what we accuse others of doing wrong in this whole debacle.
Maybe Duncan should have had a visible press conference thursday denouncing Jim Moran for his using the VT tragedy to push gun control.
***Yes, I agree that would probably be a wise use of Duncan Hunter’s time. What do you think, Sam?
Peach used to be Steynfan at the site where all the liberals have scooted off to. Now she's Peach.
Peach (Member)Anyone else notice a pattern here? They run off to MadIvan's temper tantrum induced site, post for a month or so, then they finally pull their opus stunts and intentionally get themselves banned here. Bizarre behavior.
Account Created Mar 10th 2007 Last Active 18 minutes ago Visit Count 144 Discussions Created 9 Comments Added 206
Look at the description of the site and their stated principles. The word "conservative" doesn't appear. Very telling. I hope that all 160 of the bitter liberals have lots of jolly fun over there. I just don't know why they have to keep bothering us and disrupting our stated mission over here.
“Why is there a desire on the part of some (18 as best I can tell) to DESTROY CONSERVATISM just to get a liberal in the White House with an “R” after his name?”
Because the loss of 2006 was devastating to some and the rush for ‘anybody but hillary’ is based on hysteria, and not logic.
They won’t do that. That would be the PRICIPLED way to leave.
They work to be zotted so they can blame FR. Typical lib behavior.
DRAT. “PRINCIPLED”
and who happens to be the candidate that is ALSO the biggest Clinton DEFENDER,,,and MOST VOCAL Clinton apologist!! (And she did this BEFORE the nomination of that Clinton apologist. A bit too much hypocrisy for me)
For all of you Thompson supporters caught up in this thread... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1822196/posts
“we lost two freepers (MiaT and Peach) who did incredible research and added so much to the forum. Let’s hope, once cooler heads prevail”
Hugh, cooler heads, how about coolin down that Peach cobbler. She was warned and was over the top...she literally begged to be zapped. I don’t think Peach is ready to reform herself based on her vitriol.
“Typical lib behavior.”
And the sad thing is, they don’t see it.
Hence my tag line.
Because we, and our mission, are in their way.
What was in it besides her usual hundreds of graphics where Hillary looked like the “Bride of Frankenstein?”
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.