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?
No kidding. Several times, I wanted to post "Captain Ahab... Is that you?" to her. But instead, I treated her as an "overly passionate and committed" person, rather than one who was obsessed. I'm still not sure which is the correct evaluation.
So? Clinton pontificates.
Giuliani marches with NAMBLA. Nobody seems to care that that gave an appearance of approval and respectablity to child molestors.
They both want to destroy traditional morals.
“We keep losing freepers like Pukin Dog in this ordeal”
He left on his own accord. He came in and stated he was shocked so many had been banned and then proceeded to say he was gone if it were true.
I guess his Party allegiances are stronger than his conservative allegiances because he didn’t even attempt to track the posts of Peach, in particular. If he would have he would have seen that she deserved her banishment, really long before she got it.
LOL! You might lose that hat in a room this big!
This thread has taken alot of freepers!! but im just playing so i should be safe!
thanks for the well wishes:)
And, sorry, but I can’t think of anything more counterproductive or outright destructive to the conservative cause than having the GOP nominate a NARAL supporting abortionist loving, radical feminist loving gay agenda supporting, gun grabbing, illegal alien welfare sanctioning NY liberal. And I’ll be doubling and redoubling my efforts to see him knocked out of the race. Hope that’s not too offensive to our more stalwart GOP supporting FReepers, but it’s something I must do.
Jane?
I see nothing there to suggest that liberalism should be promoted. I stand by my assessment. There are those whose loyalty is to the party, without regard for values.
logging. Off. now....maybe....If I can....;)
N/M
Fierce Allegiance was a bully and dragged every thread he was on into the mud....hope the door hit him.
I bet God will be surprised when you meet Him face to face and tell Him you’re a perfect person.
“You people just don’t be such obvious suckers, please.”
Did it ever occur to you that maybe you have been the sucker? Does it really seem all that unique that a few people who left here to start another site have left here ranting and raving and looking to get axed?
See ya. You’ll do it, I have faith in ya. lol
When your loyalty is to the party over the values the party says are bedrock, then you can let your party be taken over by those who don’t believe in the values.
And then you will find the party isn’t your party any more, except in name.
But the primary battle split the Republican Party. The press couldn’t acknowledge that because it would mean giving credit to a conservative candidate and the strength of his philosophy, so they said Ford lost because of Nixon, when we had already had an election that punished the GOP for Watergate in the fall of 1974 with huge losses.
Reagan ripped Ford throughout 1976. It wasn’t personal. It was politics. We are ripping Giuliani in similar fashion.
"Your characterizations of the deleted posts are pretty much correct. The third was mine, deleted on my request after I was asked to do so by Mia. I made the deletion request as a gesture of goodwill -- however, I saw no legitimate reason that the original posts of Mia should have been pulled. If she wanted to get her facts straight, she should have done so prior to posting or else post a correction after the fact. I have never, nor will I ever, ask a post to be pulled because I made an error."
In other words, he confirms that her post had errors in fact.
You have NO IDEA if Jim Robinson thought those errors in fact were deliberate, and were an attempt to smear the candidate. If he did, he could well have banned her for that. After all, he banned FairOpinion for making a mistake in fact in a post, even though, just like Mia, FO asked for his own comment to be removed.
Unless you can channel JR, you don't know why she was banned. I said it could be because of false statements made in the deleted posts. I got that from reading kk's comment IN THE original thread, as well as Mia's. I've said I don't know if that is the reason or not, but it is plausible. Nothing you put here makes it implausible, and the referenced statements you link to lend credence to my claim.
Not only that, but kevkrom agrees with me, not you, about Mia's attack on Fred about running to help McCain:
However, on your point #3, Mia was doing more than just stating a so-called "plausible theory" (which I provided a counterargument to), she was using a reference for that theory her own previous vanity. In other words, since she was using herself as a citation, she was endorsing the theory, not just stating it.
Thanks for providing a link to support for both my statements.
I do know what it means to make a "hypothetical argument", and that's not what Mia was doing. She was making a plausible theory argument. She presented it as something that could well be true. And since it could only be true if Fred was lying to people about his real reason for thinking about running, she was calling him a decietful lying politician. And she knew she was doing that, in fact that was the message of her whole set of posts in that thread.
Her arguments were meant to attack his credibility and character. She even linked him with the S&L scandal.
I would have been happy to argue with her at any time I found anything she posted the least bit interesting or worthy. It's not hard to argue with people, and I have no qualms debating even with superior intellects. I've debated Shiavo with nationally recognized neurosurgeons, and debated fine points of the law with top-notch lawyers. Why do you think I'd be afraid to debate someone who copyrights her blog entries?
It's not my fault she got banned. It's not my fault she never wrote anything of interest to me before.
Anyway, I'm not arguing against her points. I'm arguing against YOUR points. God knows why. I don't care why she was banned, someone wanted to know and I offered a summary. Heck, when you offered to send people the "real scoop" about why she was banned, I sent you freepmail asking you for it, but you never responded. So why you NOW think you need to argue it with me in public I don't know. Maybe if you had responded in private, I would have included your information in my summary. I only came to my own "conclusions" because I had no other information to go by.
Are you defending or opposing Giuliani here? He is on the side of the anti-God liberals and socialists you know.
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.