SPIFF!! Didn't your Klingon mother teach you not to play with your Disruptor in the house, let alone JIM's House?!?!
You put that Disruptor down RIGHT NOW, do you hear me?!?!
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?
More cowbell.
I'll catch ya later.
It is ironic - a lot of the Rudy boosters turn around and question blacks for their uncritical support of the Dems. And we all know what that has done for them.
If a party knows it has your vote without trying to earn it, it doesn't have to care about your views any longer.
“L.N. Smithee, the guy that came up with Sore/Loserman idea in the first place, posted in this very thread. And it was a slam on Peach.”
This has been debunked countless times. The person(s) who came up with Sore-Loserman even a site registered using that name quite some time before the notion occurred to anyone around here.
Woman’s “choice” usurps God’s creation. Only in a pagan society would women undermine a gift from God.
Never answered my question either.
“but I’ll support the party’s nominee no matter what”,
Exactly right. Why should the RNC pay any attention after you have said that?
Everyone? Even me? Gosh, you’re tolerant. Have a great day.
This scenario appears repeatedly in these threads, understandably so. However, I believe it is a false dilemma,
***Did I hear FALSE DILEMMA? Time for the rudybots to answer their own false dilemma. Here’s one that I routinely post and get crickets.
Hildebeast is eminently beatable, this nonsense about rudy being the only one who can beat her is horse manure and impolite on this socon forum. For example, this article:
“Long Shot GOP Candidate Brownback Just Five Points Behind Clinton”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1798666/posts
We know that it simply means it’s very early in the race and that even no-name candidates are only 5 points behind Clinton. So the rudybots should stop supporting a social liberal on this social conservative forum and pick a real winner, rather than a ridiculous loser liberal like rudy.
The 2 polls on Free Republic put forth an obvious SOCON (only Hunter fits that description given) versus a SOLIB (it certainly fits rudy).
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=171
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=172
Rudy splits the base.
I have noticed time and again that rudy supporters rudely send up the false dilemma of “who would you vote for, Hildebeast or Rudy”. This particularly impolite at this early of a point in the primary cycle. Since this is a socon forum (not even a GOP forum), it is very impolite to ask double-bind questions, especially this early in the race.
Since team rudy is so fond of its own false dilemma, I would expect them to answer this false dilemma.
My contention: If rudy gets the nomination, he splits the base, possibly splits the republican party, and loses the election.
Rudy followers’ contention: If Hunter gets it, he wins the base and loses the election.
Hypothetical to answer the rudy followers’ hypothetical. Both sides losing to Hillary.
Side A: The solib republican splits the base. The MSM turns on him the moment he is nominated. Hillary wins. Republican party is split.
Side B: The socon republican wins the nomination, loses to hildebeast in a tough fight. Republicans are united against the hillary presidency.
Which candidate is best for the republican party, Side A or Side B?
Win-Win false dilemma:
Side A: Solib wins presidency by ignoring the socon base and permanently splitting the republican party.
Side B: SoCon wins presidency by (obviously) relying on the socon base.
Which candidate is best for the republican party, Side A or Side B?
Regardless of who wins or loses, Free Republic and the republican party is better off with Duncan Hunter than Rudy as the candidate. This social liberal candidate is simply not healthy for the republican party nor for FR. And rudy followers are proving to be very impolite freepers.
Duncan Hunter’s campaign website
http://www.gohunter08.com/
Yeah. They say they love debate, but always run from the hard questions. Always.
“Woman’s “choice” usurps God’s creation. Only in a pagan society would women undermine a gift from God.”
Actually, in most cultures that you consider Pagan, life is revered, and women hold an esteemed place as the life givers. In many Indian nations, as well as European cultures, the woman gave the word on going to war.
Sobering.
I have a saying that I often use: “Personnel IS policy.”
You know, I think JimRob could make some money by buying one of those leftist magazines and printing a Free Republic mag. Something to lay around the house for guests, that kind of thing. I can’t be the first person to come up with this idea... has it been thoroughly explored?
Bush is a good definition of center-right. And for conservatives, that is generally an acceptable place. For example, he screwed the pooch on CFR, hoping that the SCOTUS would defang it, but he also realizes the mistake and has not championed further infringements on the 1st amendment, like McCain. For every cringe moment we get with Bush, we can take comfort in his other strengths, where he has furthered Reagan’s vision.
But moving from a center right GOP president to a center-left one makes ZERO political or practical sense. One can reasonably argue that Rudy is better than Hillary (he is) but no one can argue that Rudy is good for the conservative movement or the GOP’s standing as a conservative party. Hence the need to undercut him now.
Cowbell or scantily clad women? Hmmmmm
That's correct. Right now, however, at this stage of our discussion I'm concentrating on getting clear, unambiguous definitions of the terms being employed.
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.