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?

[flashbunny]

Why was there a demand for a third party candidate then, veronica???

Hint: It’s not just because they wanted a president with big ears.

[Registered]

"Many longtime FReepers have been banned in recent days and weeks, for bashing cosnervative candidates and promoting the liberal abortionist Rudy Giuliani. My guess is, there will be more to come."

Spoken like a troll with an agenda.

[woofie]

as I said to someone else ...Good luck with all that ...If JR wants to ban me so be it (since 1998)

[FreeReign]

First you complained that I attacked you.

Don't think there was any complaining from this side... just a bunch of name calling from you..."Up yours, dope, stupid" At least your consistent if nothing else.

Your first post to me was medium-level, snide. So I raised it a notch with my "up yours" response. You then complained to me and I followed up with a complaint to you.

I guess it was so unfair of me to respond to a snide remark, with an insult.

LOL!

Whatever.

[veronica]

It’s best not to practice psychiatry without a license.

[papasmurf]

I would like to discuss it. I am oppossed to it, on Religious grounds, period.

But I do have some confusions about it and the Constitution.

James Wilson was one of only six men to sign both the Declaration and the Constitution, and was a Supreme Court justice from 1789 to 1798.

Recognized as “the most learned and profound legal scholar of his generation,” Wilson’s lectures were attended by President George Washington, Vice President John Adams, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and a “galaxy of other republican worthies.” For this reason, as constitutional scholar Walter Berns states, “Wilson, when speaking on the law, might be said to be speaking for the Founders generally.” So what do the Founders say about the right to life?

He wrote:“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”

I take this to mean, that the Constitution protects life.

The key question then becomes the point at which the unborn fetus becomes an unborn child.

Wilson, in agreement with the limited medical jurisprudence of his time, assumed that life begins with the “quickening" of the infant in his mother’s womb. As taught by Aristotle, the quickening was the point at which the fetus was infused with a human, rational soul. John Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, first printed in 1839, defines the quickening as follows: “The motion of the foetus, when felt by the mother, is called quickening, and the mother is then said to be quick with child. This happens at different periods of pregnancy in different women, and in different circumstances, but most usually about the fifteenth or sixteenth week after conception….”

So, what about it? Does this mean that abortion is accepted, by the Consitution, in what we call the first trimester?

No, why?

Yes, why?

Before I get flamed by others for this, I'm seriously trying to understand, and I am confused by this passage.

:O)

P Run, FRED, run!

[stephenjohnbanker]

Jim Rob is a man who cannot be bought, sold, rented, or leased! Neither can you or I !

Have a great weekend!

[CharlesWayneCT]

When it started being used by Rudy supporters to push rediculous conclusions.

It's like someone saying we should have bombed the trains carrying jews to Auschwitz because it would have been better for them to be killed quickly than to be tortured in the gas chambers.

[SittinYonder]

I would rather have her here arguing, than not.

Me too.

I like Rudy. I think he did a great job as the public face of NYC during 9/11.

Rudy's not my pick for the nominee, but I doubt my pick will ever show beyond single digits in any of the polls. My second choice probably won't get beyond sixth or fifth place.

I've already accepted that I'm not going to like the GOP nominee in '08.

[flashbunny]

Good summary!

[samadams2000]

Which candidate supports EXTRACTION and airlift drops for illegals?

[Josh Painter]

God bless you, sir.

[politicalwit]

Most of them were sickened by Keyes’ support of reparations.

I thought Keye's take on reparations was interesting. The way I read it was that if you were black and worked you got a marginal tax break for a few years. If you didn't work you didn't get squat. Reparations complete now shut the hell up.

[SittinYonder]

Tancredo

[Hawk1976]

It is really very simple. A Rudy victory with or without conservative support will totally destroy the conservative movement.

If conservatives support Rudy, then we are willing to prostitute our vote and sell out our beliefs. We will be no better than the Americans with darker pigment than other Americans are in the Democrat Party’s Calculation. There is no good reason for us to do this. Not even Hell on the horizon would be good enough.

If Rudy wins without conservative support, we lose but our movement remains intact. Rudy’s fiscal conservatism will lose every time against his social liberalism, regardless.

Rudy is not the only electable candidate with an R by his name. He is also no 80% ally of mine.

[Hawk1976]

It is really very simple. A Rudy victory with or without conservative support will totally destroy the conservative movement.

If conservatives support Rudy, then we are willing to prostitute our vote and sell out our beliefs. We will be no better than the Americans with darker pigment than other Americans are in the Democrat Party’s Calculation. There is no good reason for us to do this. Not even Hell on the horizon would be good enough.

If Rudy wins without conservative support, we lose but our movement remains intact. Rudy’s fiscal conservatism will lose every time against his social liberalism, regardless.

Rudy is not the only electable candidate with an R by his name. He is also no 80% ally of mine.

[veronica]

Why was there a demand for a third party candidate then, veronica???

Because the concept of loyalty eludes some people - selfish people, that is.

[Delphinium]

Theres been freepers on both sides banned. Wish that wouldn’t happen, we all are here because we like to argue. Makes it more fun that way.

[SoCalPol]

The WA board looked like maligant narcissism.
It makes for some good laughs

[Peach]

I adore Sen. Cornyn and think he’s presidential material but he’s not running and since he has little name recognition and maybe not the stomach to take on the Clinton machine, then I’m going with Rudy who has guts to spare. Which is a trait I admire almost more than any other trait a candidate could show me at this point.