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?

[EternalVigilance]

That's what happens when you are dealing with people who value emotion over reason.

Sorry, but liberalism has nothing to do with reason. And, there is not a thing wrong with adding passion to our love for the truth.

Your post is just one more in a long line of dishonest slaps at conservatives, and it stinks.

[tiredoflaundry]

You promised never to tell!

[Tolsti]

God forbid, IF he becomes the nominee, then what? Do we stay home?

[pissant]

Some of the people who have been banned or opused out I have got along with fine for years. The problem arises when a subject like Rudy comes to the fore.

You will recall that there are many anti-bushies here. In fact, some folks who are aligned with my thinking on Rudy have been VERY harsh to Bush at times. Sometimes deserved, other times not. But when not deserved, I jumped down their throats (politely, of course). I’ve battled Dirtboy and Reagan Man, Paperdoll, and Spiff, Alberta’s child about our current CIC, and I never let up.

The reason that it seldom came to meltdown status in those threads is because while we disagreed about the efficacy of the Bush administration or a particular policy, we did not disagree on the direction the GOP should always strive for.

The problem I see now is that some of the Rudy fans do not just support Rudy because they think he can win and would be a good CIC, and therfore can overlook his past liberalism. They are trying to obfuscate his record and call that liberalism conservatism, and, think that those of us who oppose him because of his past are idiots.

IMO, and I will venture to speak for many here, there are 4 issues that MUST be met in a GOP nominee: winning the war against the islamo-slime, pro-life credentials, support for the 2A, and low taxes. In theory, Rudy is good for two of the four. But the fact remains, that if a candidate emerges that is pro-life, pro 2A, but also wants to withdraw from the WOT and raise taxes, he’d be in the same boat as Rudy is in our eyes.

[agent_delta]

Yes you do.

[agent_delta]

[Brad’s Gramma]

I'm sorta sorry.

[Tolsti]

Can you imagine any scenario that even a Dan Qualye purely anti-abortion can outlaw it outright?

[tiredoflaundry]

hmmmmmmmmmmm ;o)

[pissant]

Hey newbie, shouldn’t you be cutting your teeth over in the chat section? LOL

[presently no screen name]

but the man couldn't tell you who the vice president of the US was if you asked him.

Yet, we are commanded to pray for our leaders for Godly wisdom. Wonder how he does that? But I'm sure his hands are clean and isn't slamming people just for the sake of slamming.

While there is a great need for correction; there is no reason for condemnation. And that's the problem here - posters are condemning posters every chance they get with name calling, etc. - even after they can't or won't post any longer. How does that fit it with Christian beliefs? How can one demand 'Christian values' from anyone while they don't even portray them themselves?

make the devil smile without shame clearly has something wrong

Exactly. Hypocrisy makes the devil smile and it is alive and well on this thread.

[mkjessup]

"Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms— everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . .

"The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.

"The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a highpowered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. . . ."

A straightforward abortion is MURDER, but anyone, ANYONE who thinks this is a perfectly acceptable medical procedure is a monster on par with Charles Manson

Rudy Giuliani didn't think such a procedure should be banned, he agreed with Bill Clinton in opposing such a ban, but that ban included a provision for protecting the life of the mother (the provision Rudy said a ban had to have), but he opposed it anyway. But now he's trying to wrap himself in the SCOTUS decision last week banning that particular version of infanticide.

Rudy Giuliani is on record as saying that the murder of an unborn 'fetus' (as he insists on calling it) is not as serious as murdering a child that has already been born.

Rudy continues to believe that federal funding should be provided to any woman who is lacking the money necessary to murder her own child in the womb.

Anyone supporting Rudy Giliani is if not endorsing, they are condoning the same murderous policies that would result from him being elected President.

That is the truth, and there is no way to spin it otherwise.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Undead Thread

[Dominic Harr]

I haven't been here very long (maybe a year) but I don't really think FR has become all as bad as you think.

The level of flames just use to be much, much lower.

I've been on net discussion sites since the early days of Compuserve. What made FR so special, to me, was that it was moderated. Other sites were always overrun with mob-mentality types, mostly teenagers in those days, who would flame everyone who disagreed with them.

FR use to be like that.

Now, I get called names every single time I post on a political thread. I'm a political conservative, but I'm not pro-life, and I'm not against gay rights. Therefore I'm a blankety-blank-blank liberal.

And I'm not so worried for me, I've been flamed by the best of 'em, oer the years. But I'm worried what that does to lurkers. It chases away folks who may have something to contribute but don't want to risk flames.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

LOL! Looking for my magnifying glasses....

[Brad’s Gramma]

*DUH*

I’ll leave now.

[Brad’s Gramma]

It was a non-apology on my part. ;)

[CarolinaGOP]

“I want to know...HOW IS RUDY GIULIANI TOUGH ON TERROR?”

That is something I have wondered for a long time. Those who support Giuliani say that the WOT is the most important issue in the upcoming election. We are now 5 1/2 years past September 11, 2001, and most of an entire political party wants to believe that there is no war on terror. So, what exactly is Rudy going to do? What are his plans for dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq? How is he going to handle a nuclear Iran? How is he going to be better, tougher, stronger than the other candidates?

[Wormwood]

God forbid, IF he becomes the nominee, then what? Do we stay home?

That depends of the timing of the promised 'swift boating', doesn't it?

[mkjessup]

Hypocrisy makes the devil smile and it is alive and well on this thread.

Thank goodness you haven't engaged in any of that.