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?
Abortion: Did President Bush do anything about abortion? Did he engineer the Supreme Court to stop all abortion, or even the federal funding of abortion? No. I’m glad about the ban on partial birth, but I’m recognizing that the President can do little to nothing about abortion, unless there is a new make up in the Supreme Court.
Pro Gay? I am not anti gay; I know some gay people who also make wonderful parents. I don’t think they should have special rights but equal rights are fine with me.
Guns? I’ve never owned one. Of the three things you talk about here, the only one that I may be concerned about is guns but do you think Rudy really wants to take your guns?
I don’t have a problem with Rudy’s thoughts on gun control if he is true to what he says here to Sean Hannity.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250497,00.html
Actually, I would argue that there is no conflict between the two, that actually being politically conservative *requires* social liberalism.
Okay. Please explain what you mean by "social liberalism", and then how being "politically conservative" requires it.
I would argue that the conflict is the other way around, being socially 'conservative' means you want govt intervention in private, social matters.
Since your original statement was "I'm socially liberal, but politically conservative", before we can consider the relevance and validity of this assertion, we need to know your definition of "socially liberal" and your explanation of the causal link to "political conservatism". Exactly how does political conservatism require social liberalism?
Research NCC and you will learn everything you need to know.
That don’t make no sense.
I'm sorry, I'm afraid that doesn't help me. Abortion isn't mentioned on the FR home page that I can find.
I only ask cuz I don't want to be rude. I don't want to 'misuse' your site. I agree with you much of the time. I respect you all of the time. I think it's incredible what you've built here -- I'm a Director of IT for a company with a lot of online software, and I think you've done a fabulous job with this site. I think it's the best, easiest to use, most fully featured message board on the web, bar none.
You've always been very kind to me, I've never once in almost 10 years had any complaints.
It sounds like you'd prefer at the least, I didn't debate abortion, didn't defend the pro-choice side?
Boy, that’s the truth.
How hard is it for you to say why you think it's okay to take a tiny child, the most helpless and innocent among us, stick scissors in the back of her head and suck her brains out through a tube?
He’s playing games...
It was her Gramma, I swear (ducking)
First of all, the PBA ban went before SCOTUS and was upheld by SCOTUS because Bush signed the PBA ban and nominated two solid judges.
Clinton vetoed a PBA ban. Rudy supported that veto.
And give the current judges time. I don't know if Kennedy would vote to overturn Roe. But I have a feeling, with O'Connor off the court, that he would vote to uphold some pretty significant state restrictions.
So a president's pro-life views do matter. Big time.
Of the three things you talk about here, the only one that I may be concerned about is guns but do you think Rudy really wants to take your guns?
Gawd, just check his long history of taking guns from legal gun owners and permit holders, calling for more federal gun laws, supporting the Brady Center, and suing gun manufacturers (in the process defining valid reasons for owning a gun as hunting and law enforcement - not self defense).
So please educate yourself about Rudy. I initially thought if I had to, I could vote for him. I no longer feel that way after finding out his long, liberal and sordid history.
Oh, thanks, I do try.
Man, it would be so funny if I flamed you now! :-D
"Your mother sews socks that smell"!
"I have always thought that one of the phoniest claims in California politics is that 'I'm a fiscal conservative but a social liberal,' which always invites the question: 'How do you plan to pay for your socially liberal programs with your fiscally conservative policies?'"
Squaring that philosophy with the Constitution is also an impossible endeavor.
That’s your problem not mine. If you (the collective you) succeed in getting a far left radical feminist/abortionist nominated from the GOP over the objections and warnings of the conservative right (you know, the people who make GOP victories possible) then you’d damn well better have a plan B prepared to get him elected. And it looks to me like your plan B involves trying to pickup support from the left. If so, you’ll reap what you sow.
“Abortion isn’t mentioned on the FR home page that I can find.”
That’s only because you may have missed the ENTIRE statement.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
THANK YOU!
The sooner people who are “prochoice in certain instances” get this, the blinders come off and they will then, “get it”. It’s connect the dots, follow the money, follow the socialists....etc, need I say more?
Like I said, I could increase the list to 15 key points. But the farther you get from the big 4, the more debate within conservative circles arises. For example, immigration is one that no conservative concensus has arisen for a solution - other than stopping the flow as the first step. I want to see all illegals have to return home and apply for green cards (temp workers) or else be deported permanently. And the end of anchor baby BS. But the editorial boards of mainstream conservative publications such as the WSJ, NR, and Weekly Standard have all seemed to align with a version of Bush’s plan.
Actually going to take a break - be back in an hour or two...
Here’s the second paragraph of ‘The Founders Statement’.
“As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.”
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.