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?
Glad to see you are supporting conservative candidates, rather than the prince of darkness.
Kemo, I saw DCPatriot's post and I saw your post. Two things about it.
First, as somebody who doesn't want to see Rudy get the nomination, I think that your post doesn't help our cause. It comes off as paranoid. Do you really think that a long time Freeper is sitting at hope, typing from talking points based on such a silly parse of the word "we"?
Second, in the general election, "WE" all need to be concerned about Hillary in the general election.
OMG, I used either the collective or royal "we".
” It will be very difficult to win this presidential election cycle with a candidate perceived as “hard conservative”.
We _might_ have had that chance, IF we could win exactly the same states that Bush won in 2004. But we can’t, because Ohio is going to be a problem. As someone wrote in another thread recently, the Republican party is in deep doo-doo in that state. It may be impossible for ANY Republican presidential candidate of ANY persuasion to capture Ohio in 2008.
There is also a problem with the [formerly] “reliably red” states “turning purple”. Cases in point would be:
- New Hampshire: seems like the Democrats have been winning this once-conservative state with increasing frequency lately
- Arizona: didn’t they just VOTE DOWN a gay-marriage ban? What the heck is going on there?
- New Mexico: another once-reliable state that is slipping from the Republican grasp.
Hard conservatives aren’t guaranteed these states any more, because the states themselves are no longer hard conservative.
On the other hand, there are blue states that Giulianni could actually WIN. Cases in point would be:
- New Jersey: Rudy is doing VERY well there. I think he could take it (even though he probably doesn’t have a chance of winning New York across the Hudson; it’s just too damned blue to hope Republicans can ever win there again).
- Pennsylvania: Although Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are ‘rat cities, the heartland of PA is red. It’s a battleground state and Rudy can probably take it easily.
- Florida: Rudy could cut through the purple haze to win there, too.
If we can take NJ, PA, and FL, we can sustain the loss of Ohio and win. But there is only one Republican I can see, capable of winning in New Jersey.
Political fortunes ebb and flow, like the tides. I think it’s safe to say that at the moment, the fortunes of the Republican party in general, and of the hard-right in particular, are on the ebb. The war in Iraq is going to be a BIG problem, better not kid ourselves on this. Any candidate we put up is going to have to be perceived by the mushy middle to have “credentials” in regard to “terrorism” (remember that the American public, by and large, still _thinks_ it is supposed to be a “war on terror”, regardless of what this struggle REALLY is about). Rudy has those credentials. What does Fred Thompson have?
There’s no denying that we took significant losses in 2006. How might the loss of BOTH houses of Congress otherwise be seen?
We cannot afford to lose the Presidency in ‘08. We have to be pragmatic, shift tactics if necessary, and DO what is necessary to hold that office.
2008 will be a “defensive” election for Republicans. We must hold the line, try to minimize losses in the Congress (even pick up a few seats), and hold the Presidency (which gives us an edge for judicial picks for the next 4 years, in which Stevens and Ginsburg will have to be replaced on the Supreme Court).
Of course, one can stand hard on principles - NO COMPROMISE. And lose.
Or we can be pragmatic, compromise, and win.
Which is better?
Really?”
- John
343 posted on 04/21/2007 8:07:32 PM PDT by Fishrrman
Excellent analysis of the political reality we face in 2008.
Thank you for posting it. barset
12,975 posted on 04/28/2007 8:00:58 AM PDT by Barset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
The post to which I responded was from Fishrrman. It is, in my view, a realistic analysis of what we face in 2008.
Every state is a “battleground state” in 2008, and depending on how many bridges are destroyed and city centers flattened and how many schoolyard massacres occur, we cannot predict which battleground will be the bloodiest.
Unless, of course, our pols react as the Swedish official has reacted to the depredations of Sweden’s Muslim colonizers, “We must be nice to the Muslims so that when they are in the majority, they will be nice to us.”
“Now, dear man, how does it feel when someone implies that YOU are a Rudy supporter when you know that you are not.”
Wow, that would be like calling my mother a horrible name. Anything but that.
“”””If Howlin’s banned, it’s pretty hard to read her posts, isn’t it?””””
They were always hard to read and even more difficult to understand;) For example, her diatribe to me. After other Freepers let her know that she had misread my post, she never apologized.
Posted by Howlin to sodpoodle
On General/Chat 03/13/2007 10:12:11 AM EDT · 1,543 of 20,471
You know, I don’t think I’ve ever been on one of these threads with you where you didn’t cause some kind of disruption.
These threads aren’t about you. Lots of people are reading them and most don’t give one damn about what makes you mad.
Grow up.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1,515 | View Replies
Or are we all supposed to ignore that?
I think we all have a tendency to see the worst in the posts which argue against our points of view and be forgiving of the posts that agree with us.
***That’s true, it’s human nature.
I see the anti Rudy posts as being the most rude, for you it’s vice versa. Could be the truth is in the middle, could be one of us is right, like me ;-)
***If you’d been on the rudy threads for the last few months you would see it differently, that is, unless you’re “forgiving of the posts that you agree with”. If I went over to a liberal forum and started telling them they need to adopt conservative values, it would be rightfully considered as rude. It’s kinda like if you see 2 people arguing, both of them rude and one of them is sitting on his own private property, the other guy who’s a visitor selling Amway is by default MORE rude. Keep in mind that this is a socon forum. Why is it that socons supporting a socon candidate on a socon forum have to face this kind of hostility, as shown in the thread below?
Duncan Hunter, RRRINO: Reincarnated Reagan Republican In Name Only
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1798412/posts
I saw the above post go by, but don’t see how it’s an offensive post, how it is a non conservative post, or that it identifies the poster as a non conservative. If you’ve a mind, would you explain to me how it is any of those things?
***Did you see some of the responses? Some folks said they would be committing a cardinal sin if they followed that request. That’s just one example. It’s an open admission that they are trying to separate socons from their socon beliefs. And if they can’t separate from their socon beliefs, they want right wingers who can “hold their noses” vote for him rather than allow a Clinton to run this nation again.” That is the classic rude false dilemma. Here is my standard response to that false dilemma. Please do answer it.
IF HE BECOMES THE NOMINEE...
That’s a BIG if. It’s also a false dilemma, especially during the primary season.
Since you’re so focused on this false dilemma, I would expect you 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.
Reagan Man, for once and for all, I AM NOT A RUDY GIULIANI SUPPORTER!! Perhaps you could write that on a chalkboard 100 times until you get it right. Saying that I would vote for him as a LAST RESORT against the DEMOCRATS is NOT the same as being a supporter of his.
Reagan Man, I wish someone you do respect, perhaps Jim, himself, would tell you to stop implying that I am a Rudy Guiliani supporter by twisting the meanings of my comments to mean something that they do not.
I have told you before and I’ll say it again, I am hoping and praying that Fred Thompson announces his candidacy and when he does, I will support him. I am on the Fred Thompson ping list. Duncan Hunter is also on my list of favorable candidates. Giuliani is at the BOTTOM, as a LAST RESORT against Hillary or any other DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE. Personally, I don’t think Giuliani will get that far once Fred Thompson announces that he will run for President.
I wonder if JimRob is going to continue his spring cleaning, then.
Today, I'm simply going googling. Fregards, FV
LOL! :)
>>>>>Do not try to imply that because I would vote for Giuliani as a LAST RESORT ...... ~~~ Chena
>>>>>However, when push comes to shove and the Republican candidate is chosen in the primaries, I WILL support that candidate with everything I've got. ~~~ Chena
They don’t get it wolf24. “Self-immolation” isn’t in their pocket dictionaries.
That was the first time I went over there and I didn’t even bother to finish reading. It turns my stomach.
I wrote a little java-routine which looked at the first 14,750 posts and counted the posters. Apart from the 30 banned/suspended, there're another five who seem to be nuked:
renka
danger
jimbriddle
erpapers
sjg2490
capnjim
FWIW, the routine counted 831 posters (incl. Admin...) and the following distribution of the number of posts:
| #posting | #freepers |
|---|---|
| 1 | 279 |
| 2 | 99 |
| 3-4 | 97 |
| 5-8 | 107 |
| 9-16 | 82 |
| 17-32 | 65 |
| 33-64 | 47 |
| 65-128 | 28 |
| 129-256 | 21 |
| 257-512 | 4 |
| 513-1024 | 2 |
- Bill of Rights author George Mason, at the Federal Convention of 1787 as recorded in the Official Records of the Convention Secretary James Madison
"The fact is unquestionable, that the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of Virginia, were drawn originally by George Mason, one of our really great men, and of the first order of greatness."
- Thomas Jefferson to Augustus B. Woodward, April 3, 1825
How FAR the Democrats have fallen...
"Too few Americans realize the vast debt we owe [George Mason]. His immortal Declaration of Rights in 1776 was one of the finest and loftiest creations ever struck from the mind of man. George Mason it was who first gave concrete expression to those inalienable human rights that belong to every American citizen and that are today the bedrock of our democracy. Our matchless Bill of Rights came directly from the amazing wisdom and far- seeing vision of this patriot. Those first ten amendments to our Constitution, which we call our Bill of Rights, were based on George Mason's great Declaration of Rights. That is why I say that George Mason will forever hold a special place in our hearts. I sincerely hope that his home, Gunston Hall, will in time become a symbol of the rights of man and a mecca for all liberty-loving Americans."
- President Harry Truman to Edward Boykin, October 5, 1949
To them it is
They'd rather sell our country down the drain before they would give up their principles
Oh and before anyone jumps on me .. I'm not a Rudy supporter either
Though I highly doubt some will pay attention to that part
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.