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?

[BykrBayb]

"but I'll support the party's nominee no matter what"

I tried a similar approach last weekend, when shopping at the flea market. I found an adorable relish tray, for only $4. I asked the vender "Would you take three?" Before he could answer, I told him "I'll pay whatever your price is, no matter what." I got it for only $15. I'm beginning to think that's not such a good strategy.

[Sam Hill]

“It really ain’t all that different from 1999.”

Yes. In May 1999 I and others were banned for defending the Bush family and the CIA from absurd charges by JimRob.

At that time, JimRob vowed he would lead an armed revolution if George W Bush was elected President.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>So, I would submit that you're being dishonest in your assertions about your own motives here.

IMO, he is an extremely dishonest poster and his motives are to see a liberal in the WH come Jan2009. Rudy is his guy!

You're familiar with my posting the analysis and critique of Rudy Giuliani`s final record as Mayor of NYCity. It was created by Edmund J. McMahon of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. After posting it for the last eight months and getting no more then a few futile attempts to refute the facts contained therein. DH comes along and says I'm misrepresenting the facts of the article.

Could he refute the facts as they're listed in the analysis? Of course not. He never even attempted. The good, the bad and the ugly of Rudy`s fiscal record as Mayor of NYCity stands on its own. A record only a liberal could see as a great achievement of fiscal conservatism.

[mkjessup]

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.

I hear crickets chirping Dirtboy.

I wasn't even going to mention to our nameless friend that I've been around since 2003, but since you've pointed out his relatively short time here on FR...

What the heck, he's going to start screamin' again anyway. LOL

[justshutupandtakeit]

PKMom saw what happened last election in Oklahoma and drew the conclusion that Rudy was the man to answer some of those loses. She also saw how being more conservative than thou was a certain path to further losses. When she became involved with Rudy’s campaign is neither clear to me nor or much interest however I doubt it was longer than a couple of weeks.

It is amusing to hear your concern about truth and integrity when your side makes every effort to distort Giuliani’s positions and blacken his name at every opportunity. And some just flat out lie about them and his supporters (well anyone not willing to declare he is WORSE than the Devil actually.)

[Not A Snowbird]

Cowbell or scantily clad women? Hmmmmm

I tried to give the thread a shrubbery a few thousant posts back, but it didn't help.

[Kevmo]

I don’t remember that. Do you have links?

[Sam Hill]

“I don’t remember that. Do you have links?”

You must be joking.

[del4hope]

.....in our increasingly worse than pagan segment of society, women don’t revere life....
Fixed it

[gpapa]

You are thinking too much in terms of present domestic politics and geopolitical conditions, and not to what has occurred in the past or might happen in the future. Some might say the debate on this thread is unhealthy for the conservative cause. I just do not think that is true. The right side of the political spectrum has no problem with vigorous, sometimes heated debate on the issues, and yes, even with regard to potential candidates for office. The left does not generally engage in such debates, as they are more concerned about how to please an ever leftward drifting constituency. Just to be clear where I am coming from I will restate in updated form what I said late last night on this thread, which was probably not seen by more than a few observers. I should note that although I am a relative newbie at FR, I have been observing and/or participating in Republican internal wars for over 40 years, having cast my first vote for President in 1964.

The country has been moving leftward for a long time. Unfortunately, the trend has been the most prevalent nexis in the breakdown of the family, the glue that keeps advanced societies whole. Divorce, abortion, homosexualism, free sex, multi-culturalism and other assorted isms have degraded our society to a point I do not even recognize anymore. Our media and an assortment of politicians promote these ideas relentlessly. The only result of a continuation of these trends is toward a nation that will look like much of Old Europe today. I am too old to see this complete it’s course in my lifetime, but perhaps it will happen soon enough. In the meantime it is worth our while as conservatives to buck those trends with every effort we can muster.

Some seem to have accepted those unhappy consequences as inevitable. I do not. Some of you are perfectly within your rights as a citizen to support a candidate such as Giuliani. However, I think he is not the right candidate for these times or any other. Perhaps my old fashion conservatism is not compatible with some of the other Freepers around here and I accept that, but I will not compromise my principles at the ballot box.

We have too long been presented with choices of candidates for public office where a decision turns on who is the least objectionable from a conservative point of view. It is time to stop this nonsense once and for all. If you wish to see more judicial activism, big government, a culture of death, uncontrolled immigration, a degradation of our military, a foreign policy of appeasement and further shredding of our Constitution you are welcome to do so. I will never be a party to such a travesty.

[pissant]

Shrubbery will get you nowhere. LOL

[del4hope]

In a nut shell, you nailed it.

[madprof98]

When you log on to a conservative forum ... a forum explicitly committed to pro-life, pro-family, pro-God conservative values ... and you can hardly read a thread of any length without seeing those values mocked or belittled ... something has to give.

I'm glad what had to give wasn't the issues in which we believe.

[merry10]

No, because I still know he will be the toughest on law and order. Fred Thompson plays a prosecutor on TV (was he a prosecutor before he played one - don’t know). Did he KNOW all the dirt about Kerik before he pushed for him (somewhat like did all the Republicans know all the bad sh** about Jack Abramoff before they asociated with him?) If you say, well he SHOULD have known, then you can say the same for any President and the people he ends up associating with, or had associated with..they should have known.

Immigration...looks like his policy does not differ that much from the views of President George W. Bush. It also looks like he does not seem to have a plan, so I agree with you on that; however - living in SO CAL for years and years before coming to PA, I think that with immigration, we perhaps SHOULD look at a guest worker program. Because I do not see Americans willing to be bent over from sun up to sun down willing to pick strawberries and lettuce. I just don’t.

[dirtboy]

You also have to realize the conservative movement was mired in the conspiracy swamps back then, just as the lefties are stuck in such swamps now. We've long since mucked our way out. Those on the right who have not escaped the much have fallen to various strata in the seven levels of internet purgatory.

However, the problems with Rudy are political in nature and clearly documented. So the two are hardly the same. Rudy and his boosters want to take the party to the far left of its normal range. Perhaps even beyond. However, the SCOTUS PBA decision last week reminded conservatives just how important a pro-lifer is as the GOP nominee. And I think that was the tipping point for the more aggressive Rudy boosters here on FR.

[tarheelswamprat]

If a party knows it has your vote without trying to earn it, it doesn't have to care about your views any longer.

Yep, it's so simple even a caveman should get it... /grin

[Kevmo]

Nope. I often stay away from rancorous threads, but this one struck me as fundamental to the direction of the social conservative movement. So if I didn’t think the screeching was all that pertinent, I would have stayed away in the interests of time savings.

[SoldierDad]

Your right!! I’d vote for Zell Miller for President. I will never vote for Rudy.

[Spiff]

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.

The election was held on 7 November 2000. L.N. Smithee came up with Sore/Loserman on 11 November 2000 in the context of Gore/Lieberman refusing to accept the results of the election because they were sore losers. IF a domain was registered before that time, it would have had to be in that 3-day window (we didn't know Gore was attempting his coup until late in the monring on 8 Nov). Otherwise, it was for something different and certainly not in the context and didn't hold the same meaning as the idea that was generated here.

Additionally, this is the first time that I've heard that it was "debunked" - let along "countless times".

[del4hope]

I know some folks who have told the GOP NO MORE money until they turn back to conservative values.

I know one who sent them some monopoly money.