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 disagree with Rudy’s position on abortion. That’s one of the many reasons I’ll never vote for the baby-killing, homo-loving, gun-grabbing, cross-dressing’ etc.
FR is not a liberal debating society. Arguing a case for abortion will reserve you a place in hell as far as I’m concerned.
Hope that answers your question. Now stop wasting my time.
Which would be quite difficult for Rudy running as a pro-war pubbie leftwards into stronger and stronger opposition to the war.
Which means, IMO, that Rudy would have to come out against the Iraq War to have a chance of winning the general if he picks up the nomination.
And sorry, again, none of those things get to me or bother me. Even the first Bush did nothing about abortion, and he was less conservative than this Bush. While I agree that the President’s views matter, I don’t think he or she is truly able to DO anything about it. I’d be happy with less abortions, but I’m also a realist.
Good Luck with the Duncan Hunter thing. I was wondering if his son would like to be pinged to this thread; would love to have his thoughts and Dad’s thoughts on this whole thread.
The rest are all very important. But w/o those 4 items, you should not even be in the hunt.
I may be wrong, but I have found two interpretations of the rule. One said a candidate has to be on a ballot, the other said that any “legally qualified candidate” would trigger the rule.
The networks tend to go by the more conservative, from what I understand. This is why cable channels usually stick close to the rules so as not to invite regulation. The HBO movie that Thompson is starring in during the latter half of May might be a factor, as well.
Bring something to eat when you come back. We’re hungry here.
More gun grabber education needed.
Have you not noticed that any time “equal” rights are declared, that means a group becomes a federally protected “special” class? We all have God given “equal” rights as God’s children. People of all nations and all tribes and all tongues are part of God’s Kingdom. All we have to do is follow Him. When we resort to a Pagan society, we only have God to fear.
Well, with Rudy, there is also his support of CFR, his second-term spending, his pushing Bernie Kerik for the most important anti-terror job in the country, his trying to pull ads from city buses critical of him, his endorsement of human-caused global warming, his admiration of Ahnold's style of governing, his defiance of federal law and federal court orders to keep NYC's sanctuary city policy, and his fight to keep welfare benefits coming to immigrants against state and federal guidelines.
Anything in that list cause you problems?
I'm relieved to learn that the wholesale slaughter of the unborn over the past 40 years has led us closer to "conservatism".
Good analogy from one of the best posts here. I signed up just a few months after you did, and it wasn't long before the "news"magazines disappeared from our house. We never did have a TV. We still get the newspaper, but I spend 5 minutes max with it. This is where I get news and informed commmentary--along with a bunch of other stuff, but I'd rather it not be leftist "get over your issues" mess.
:-D
Pissant, you know what this thread needs.
That’s absolutely right and I’m 100% positive that he will. He’ll announce that we’ve acheived victory and it’s time to bring our victorious boys home ala Richard Nixon. And then killing fields begin.
!
?
Um -- okay, shall do. Sorry about that, I wasn't aware I was buggin you.
Hmmm = Spiff - member since 1997. You - member since 2005.
Methinks Spiff has a bit more experience on FR than you do. Ain't too many members of the Class of 97 here.
The mob squad here has been doing an 'over the top' slamming of some good conservative long time freepers
Good conservative freepers?
Such as folks saying a president can't do anything about abortion?
Too bad for them SCOTUS upheld the PBA ban last week. It put the lie to that Rudy talking point. And showed just how important it is to have a pro-life president instead of a slug with a 100 percent NARAL rating who addressed them twice and praised eugenicist Margaret Sanger.
Of course, they just went back to claiming Fred is pro-choice, even though Fred has a 0 NARAL rating...
Please don’t take this wrong, but that wasn’t the question. I agree 100% with fighting to keep Rudy from being the nominee. The question, though, was what if (God forbid) August ‘08 has come around and Rudy’s won the nomination, and the Dims have of course nominated some nightmare also. In this hypothetical, what’s your recommendation?
This scenario appears repeatedly in these threads, understandably so. However, I believe it is a false dilemma, and ultimately lands one in a trap.
It is essential to realise that, as far as the RNC and Republican Party leadership is concerned, once you have uttered the words "but I'll support the party's nominee no matter what", then nothing else you have to say from that point on matters to them. You will have blinked first and they will have won the game of "electoral chicken".
The proper response is to let them know who is absolutely unacceptable, under any circumstances, as the leader of this forum has done. This puts the monkey on their back to find and field an acceptable candidate.
It's a dangerous strategy, but it's the only way to avoid being marginalized into irrelevance. Anything else is simply capitulation.
T & A?
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.