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?

[ansel12]

I’ve been reading this entire thread and EV seems to be doing a better job than most of us of staying on topic, defending and promoting social conservatism and reasserting those principals while committing to defeating the primary campaign of the liberal ex-Mayor that threatens our cause and country.

[EternalVigilance]

If you don't like her "attitude," simply ignore her.

Sorry, but you're not the posting police. If she feels free to make a smarmy remark about posters here, I have the right to respond in kind.

Instead, you provoke anyone who doesn't embrace your ideas.

I guess you've kinda missed the point of this whole thread.

That's not the FreeRepublic I've known, loved, and supported for 9 years.

Nobody is forcing you to stay here and whine.

[EternalVigilance]

Thank you for that.

[Skywarner]

Wow. Just wow.

[EternalVigilance]

Yeah. You’re undoubtedly correct.

[chasio649]

You’re a great Freeper...enjoy your posts...clear and concise.

[chasio649]

We got Bush as the nominee in 2000 because he was the “anointed one.” He was selected by the PTB (whoever the hell they are) and proclaimed “frontrunner” and de facto nominee by the media and all pundits before anyone else could even get out of the starting gates. He was ramrodded through over the objections from the grassroots. Kind similar to what’s going on now, but it’s even starting earlier.

---

I am so glad to see this posted by you....i haven’t forgotten how he was annointed...it seems like many on FR either aren’t aware of it or choose to ignore it.

[Madame Dufarge]

None of this is even remotely in any way "new,"

Indeed.

To wit, an archaeological dig's produced this FR classic from 5 years ago:

Buckaroo's Death Spiral

[sodpoodle]

Just dropping by for a head count;)

On another thread and there is confusion about Howlin being banned/suspended (which I caused).

It is a shame that posts of the departed cannot be left up for a few cycles so that the content of their characterizations can be viewed.

IMHO
sod

[StarCMC]

Looks like “Deerfield Observer” can be added to the self-immolated.

Which one? *tongue in cheek humor*

[calcowgirl]

What’s the new freepers banned list at ? I noticed Howlin is gone ...

Question:

Did you read the post you are responding to?
If so, what did it indicate to you?

[rockrr]

Congratulations!

See, all it took was a little commitment, some concerted effort, a bit of cooperation, and a touch of luck (kinda like winning an election ;’}

[ansel12]

“Thank you for that.”

You are welcome of course, but I wonder why social Conservatives even need defending.

[calcowgirl]

did you update the list yet ?

Deja vu.

[bjs1779]

" you all have had your foot on our necks for too long. "

.

"*Snort*"

[ansel12]

LOL, and I love that quote.

” you all have had your foot on our necks for too long. “

[EternalVigilance]

You are welcome of course, but I wonder why social Conservatives even need defending.

Yeah. FR is almost "safe for conservatism," but not quite.

[rockrr]

Of course we’re all thrilled to know that, although not an early adopter of LOL, you’ve finally joined the team (lol).

Instead of a smartazz (by a half) comment, perhaps you could enlighten us all as to why you feeeeel that capitalist229’s comment failed to meet your objective standards?

[Skywarner]

"Yeah. FR is almost 'safe for conservatism,' but not quite."

There's a right way and a wrong way to accomplish one's goals. The goal of bringing Free Republic back to its conservative base is refreshing.

However, if being "safe for conservatism" means at ANY cost - and that's sure the demeanor it's taken here lately - then I'd just assume not be part of it.

[EternalVigilance]

"We as Republicans are going to have to decide again, as we had to decide in the past, whether we shall only speak of justice and speak of principle, or whether we shall stand and fight for them! Whether we shall quote from the words of the Declaration of Independence with real conviction, or whether we shall take that document and throw it on the ash heap of history as we adopt the message of those who say that we can stand silent in the face of injustice!

When it comes to deciding whether we shall stand by the great principle that declares that all human beings are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with the right to life, there is no choice for silence!

There is no choice for silence!!

- Alan Keyes

No choice for silence