Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BlackElk
50+ million butchered babies vs. Campaign Finance Reform. That one's a no brainer: each murdered baby is infinitely more important than all the nervous Nellyism over Campaign Finance Reform.

 

False choice.

The First Amendment, and by extension, all of our liberties, are on the block. And conversely, abortion isn't.

Rudy will PROTECT the unborn (and ALL the children) by his selection of judges and by his prosecution of the war... as opposed to the only other real alternative in our 2-party system, hillary clinton, who will imperil them. If you reject Rudy, you will be helping to elect hillary. That is the choice. It's really that stark.

Look. In the end you may decide to help elect hillary clinton, but at least do it honestly, with your eyes open.

But if you do decide to place your de facto vote for the clintons, don't preach morality to me. To my mind, there can be nothing more immoral than knowingly, willingly helping the clintons retake the White House.

117 posted on 04/16/2007 5:19:10 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]


To: Mia T
Look. In the end you may decide to help elect hillary clinton, but at least do it honestly, with your eyes open. But if you do decide to place your de facto vote for the clintons, don't preach morality to me. To my mind, there can be nothing more immoral than knowingly, willingly helping the clintons retake the White House.

I keep seeing this sentiment, and I find it frustrating. Various social and libertarian conservatives have said they cannot vote for Giuliani. If you think he cannot win without those votes, then YOU are electing the democrat if you chose to nominate Giuliani anyway.

I'm not going to criticize others for weighing the options and making the choice they believe is in the best interest of the party and the country. But this pre-emptive blame being served to anti-Giuliani voters seems weak. If you want to gamble that somehow Giuliani will pick up enough votes to make up for the GOP votes you have been told he will lose, then at least own your decision.

194 posted on 04/17/2007 11:26:31 AM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]

To: Mia T; airborne; ElkGroveDan; EternalVigilance
Mia T: How many moons are in your sky and what color is that sky? Whatever planet you may inhabit is certainly not Earth.

I repeat the essential choice: 50+ million slaughtered infants to date and counting vs. McCain Feingold as somehow a restriction on "free speech" rather than on free spending. Poor Mr. Zillionaire not being allowed to buy elections under PACs but having instead to go to allllll that effort to set up 527s instead to buy elections and to buy the elected!!!! Puhleeze, this is NOT a cause to die for and it is not a limitation on any cognizable form of "free speech" as even SCOTUS has noted in a rare decision following the actual text of the Constitution.

Your speculations notwithstanding, technology or no technology, abortion is still going to be an issue so long as the sun may shine and the rivers may flow and so long as Margaret Sanger will rightfully roast in hell, whether abortionists and those who would protect their homicidal work like it or not. So will basic personal morality still be an issue whether the immoral and amoral like it or not. Whether or not perversion will somehow be "legally recognized" as though it were a legitimate expression of "family" sexuality will also continue to be an issue whether that discomforts the perverted or not.

If "privacy" becomes a wall of protection for such evils, then "privacy" is less important than is the destruction of civilization by those who would slaughter infants, by those who despise moral standards, by those who confuse the questions of what body parts belong where and why. If you then wind up missing "privacy", blame the pro-aborts, blame those who despise moral standards, blame those who would deconstruct marriage to play or to facilitate others in playing lavender make-believe.

Rudy won't be protecting anyone or anything except insofar as he does so as Attorney General (without input on judges or social issues) because he won't be nominated much less elected. Hillary is no sure thing to be nominated. At the moment, I would bet she loses to Obama but she won't be elected even if she is nominated.

You persist in posting that baloney about Rudy protecting ALL the children. First, he has absolutely no intention of protecting the unborn if he is so eager to pay the fees of the babybutchers who kill them and to pay out of tax money. Second, unless you and I are "children", the notion of protecting "born children" is meaningless in this context. Rather than nominate and elect an babykilling enthusiast, as a Republican no less (and thereby permanently surrendering the babies' lives for the pie in the sky bye and bye of Rudy protecting me and mine (not a morally acceptable alternative in that I would have to sacrifice other innocents to save me and mine), I am happy to look out for myself and my own. Third, we who are born can protect ourselves. The unborn have no voices of their own. With all due respect, I have seen many of your posts but not the slightest credible suggestion that you oppose abortion.

I reject Rudy as a presidential candidate unless and until the GOP might be so suicidal (for party and nation) as to nominate him. Keeping the GOP united means keeping social conservatism now and always in the ascendancy. That is not inconsistent with a militant military and the vigorous use thereof to which most social conservatives are quite dedicated. Nor is it inconsistent with gun rights. Quite the contrary, actually, since social conservatives tend to be strong on guns. There is room for those who regard themselves as "constitutionalists" and those who favor lower taxes and less non-military spending.

Ronald Reagan led us out of the mental midgetry, spiritual desert and moral wasteland of Gerald Fordism and of Main Street boosterism and of the wimpy foreign policies of isolationists and internationalists alike. Reagan led us back into caring about moral considerations and forming a society to which he referred in saying: America is great because America is good. If America ceases to be good, it will cease to be great. We are NOT going back.

We (conservatives who are conservative) shall do things in their proper order. First, we are going to defeat Rudy's expressed ambitions and with it his attempt to have the GOP irretrievably abandon morality, the babies and marriage in favor of the lifestyles of Studio 54. Then we shall defeat the Demonrats by pinning the tail on the donkeys as that tail has not been pinned during the last seven years. I like Dubya but "compassionate conservatism" has had its day, along with Rockefellerite surrender monkeyism, elitist windtunnelism, and Northeastern "Republicanism" generally. You will be very surprised at just how obsolete Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist has truly become even in her own party. I expect to be a bit surprised at how effectively we will drop Osama bin Obama and/or the faggoty Breck Girl.

You seem to be a glutton for punishment. Okay, we will, in that one respect, do it your way. Killing babies by the tens of millions or even individually is a lot more evil than even electing a Demonrat. Fortunately however, THAT is the false choice. The GOP will maintain its social standards and, because it does, the GOP will defeat whatever the Demonrats nominate.

201 posted on 04/17/2007 12:13:55 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson