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?

[dirtboy]

It's odd to see the Rudy boosters deny the clear problems Rudy would have holding the base together, given the rancor his candidacy has generated to date. Heck, Rudy's even changed my mind on McCain - I thought I could never vote for the guy in the general, but if the choice were McCain or Rudy, I'd pick McCain now. That's saying a ton right there.

They somehow believe that Rudy could make up for lost socon votes by running leftward. However, as long as Rudy remains pro-war, he can't do that and make up the difference.

So if the Rudy boosters are so concerned about holding the White House in 2008, why do they persist in pushing someone from the far left of the GOP who clearly would not be able to hold the party together? Duncan Hunter is my first choice, but I'm not naive - he hasn't gotten traction and probably would be too far right to win in 2008. So I'm willing to be pragmatic and support the GOP centrist Fred Thompson.

But many of the Rudy boosters seem largely unwilling to make the same move now.

[NautiNurse]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I was not aware that people were trashing Fred Thompson in order to make Rudy look better. Unfortunately, I have seen Fred Thompson criticized in an effort to promote Alan Keyes in this thread. I didn't particularly like it, but it stands for what it is--a FReeper expressing his opinion.

With the Rudy supporters whittled down to ten or so talking points--that is progress. I still favor intelligent persuasion to sociopathic bug zappers invoking God.

[Jim Noble]

But many of the Rudy boosters seem largely unwilling to make the same move now.

I've said over and over that I would switch IF I were convinced that the "split the party" concept were a fact.

I must say, though, that what has gone down on this thread has made me more inclined to believe that the people who will stay home if Rudy is the nominee are a small faction.

Loud, convinced they are right, passionate - but small.

If your estimate of the size of your group proves correct in the primary season, I will admit I was wrong.

[DvdMom]

The reason you’re being attacked is because of JEALOUSY !

Nautinurse you are So Respected by just about everyone !

Your hurricane threads are Legends , & You Support our troops 100 %

You have made FR the place to be !

Howlin , & Peach were also Vital to the Fr board .

All I had to do was type find posts by users Howlin or Peach & I had great reading ahead .

Getting Rid of Howlin & Peach is Like going to McDonald’s & finding out they NO LONGER will serve Big Mac’s !

I believe alot has to do with the Terri Case , & Old Grudges ....

Yes , there is alot of glee of the demise of Peach & Howlin by Terri Supporters

My thoughts on Terri ??? Terri’s husband tried to murder her once , ( through strangulation ) he Failed , So he LIED Said he would use the insurance $$$ for rehab purposes another known LIE ! Terri’s husband called her a female dog in front of nurses , & said when will this **** die ! All stated in front of nurses . Terri husband is a Murderer , & he got our gov’t to kill his wife ! I think Terri’s husband should have a seat on the electric chair , & I would with Pleasure Pull the Lever

To me Terri’s husband & OJ are from the same ilk

I wasn’t on the Terri threadS but grudges & grudges are being dwelled upon .

[Melas]

Thanks Melas...for articulating what many of us feel.

Thank you, and I'll explain why I thought that post was important. I'm pinging Jim, because I'm going to lay it on the line about a couple of other Freepers, and I'm not the cowardly sort to do it any way other than in plain sight.

I was going through Eternal Vigilance's posts when something dawned on me. Despite being abrasive, he actually meant well. In all honesty, what I took for the longest time as outright bellicosity was passion, and a geniune concern for the unborn. I don't feel nearly as strongly about these particular issues as he does, but the more I read the more I respected his positions. Hence my post to EV just laying it on the line without being combative. In short he earned my respect.

Now Jim, I can't say the same for some of the real trouble makers operating under what they percieve as your umbrella of protection. Dear God, Reagan Man [sic] actually posted to me, "Has this thread taught you nothing" as though I'm a freakin' child who can be scolded into political compliance. That would have been almost funny if hadn't been identical to 1,000 other posts by him and others exactly like him.

Jim, I'm not your enemy, and I never was. I think you know that on some level. All I'm asking here is that you take a look at some of the baiting, flaming et al going on and do something about it.

[dirtboy]

A lot of the Rudy boosters who were banned were trying to make it seem like Fred was pro-choice because of one vague article from 1994.

What was pathetic about that was the fact that they are supporting a guy with a 100 percent NARAL rating and who thinks public funding of abortion is a right. If they don't care enough about abortion to keep them from voting for Rudy, what gives them the standing to try and question Fred's bona fides, when he has goose eggs from NARAL and Planned Parenthood?

It was that kind of two-faced nonsense that ended up getting a lot of them banned. It wasn't like JimRob didn't give warning after warning.

[T'wit]

>> ...sociopaths referred to human beings as bugs to be zapped.

>> I have witnessed some of the most vile sociopathic behavior in my life the past week from people who are claiming to be pro-God, pro-life, pro-Liberty, anti-liberal Bug Zappers. The hypocrisy and insanity of their behavior is astounding.

It is wrong for others to joke that human beings are insects but fine for you to seriously call human beings insane, hypocritical "sociopaths"?

[NautiNurse]

I am interested in your take regarding another of my points, specifically the sociopathic gangbanger behavior of chest thumping bug zappers. Do you believe it is representative of the types of personalities FR wishes to promote and attract?

[NautiNurse]

I am clinically describing the bahavior displayed by several people here over the past week.

[EternalVigilance]

For the record: I have serious doubts about Mr. Thompson’s core beliefs on abortion myself. I agree with you concerning the rank hypocrisy of the Giuliani supporters in this regard, but that doesn’t change the way I see it.

[Dad yer funny]

17,171 ,..oops , justa twitch

[dirtboy]

That cuts both ways. A fair number of the banned would literally stalk eternal vigilance from thread to thread. Some of them personally attacked me as well.

I imagine they would be celebrating just as much if the shoe were on the other foot.

Was some of the rhetoric on this thread over the top? Sure it was. That's the nature of much of internet debate. Heck, have you ever seen the flame wars on the Wunderground blog forums? They make this thread seem tame, and that's just friggin' weather weenies, not politics.

[dirtboy]

For the record: I have serious doubts about Mr. Thompson’s core beliefs on abortion myself. I agree with you concerning the rank hypocrisy of the Giuliani supporters in this regard, but that doesn’t change the way I see it.

You've shown that pro-life is a core aspect of how you judge politics. Any concerns you may in turn express about Fred's pro-life bona fides therefore stems from wanting to get to the truth, instead of trying to just engage in crass political duplicity typical of Clintonista tactics.

[EternalVigilance]

Thank you, dirtboy.

[dirtboy]

I must say, though, that what has gone down on this thread has made me more inclined to believe that the people who will stay home if Rudy is the nominee are a small faction.

Bryon York had a good article today about Rudy, abortion and pro-lifers. He cited estimates that 9 to 13 percent of the electorate is single-issue regarding abortion - with the strong majority of those on the pro-life side.

That's a fairly signicant bloc when you consider that Bush won Florida by 500 some-odd votes in 2000 and even in 2004, his winning percentage over Kerry was far less than the pro-life block - and exit polling showed a key bloc for Bush in the swing state of Ohio was pro-life Dems.

I really think anyone who believes the GOP can win the White House in 2008 with a nominee with a 100 percent NARAL rating is completely deluded. Look at the rallies every year on the Mall on the anniversary of Roe. Where else do you ever see more than a handful of conservatives show up for rallies?

And that's just the pro-lifers. Now, look at the force in politics the NRA has become and tell me that Rudy's gun-control record also will not present problems.

[processing please hold]

Great post bump, NN.

[EternalVigilance]

The secure borders bloc, while it may be politically somewhat disjointed, is nothing to sneeze at, either. To them, Giuliani is poison.

[rbmillerjr]

“I really think anyone who believes the GOP can win the White House in 2008 with a nominee...”

Absolutely. No way a GOP candidate can win the General election without Pro-Life or NRA...and that makes sense considering the Planks in the GOP. With the Dems picking up more voters, I’d contend those groups are not just critical but required, for the GOP to have a chance. Why much of the GOP decided to jump on Giuliani’s bandwagon so early in a primary show that the GOP is not under very good leadership.

[mutley]

I have witnessed some of the most vile sociopathic behavior in my life the past week

Oh no...EternalVigilance is really Hannibal Lecter!

[bjs1779]

Is there a reason that you may think he could be pro-abortion?

.

Fred Thompson on Abortion Former Republican Senator (TN)

Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.

Vote on a motion to table [kill] an amendment that would repeal the ban on privately funded abortions at overseas military facilities. Reference: Bill S 2549 ; vote number 2000-134 on Jun 20, 2000

Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions.

This legislation, if enacted, would ban the abortion procedure in which the physician partially delivers the fetus before completing the abortion. [A NO vote supports abortion rights].
Status: Bill Passed Y)63; N)34; NV)3 Reference: Partial Birth Abortion Ban; Bill S. 1692 ; vote number 1999-340 on Oct 21, 1999

Voted YES on banning human cloning.

This cloture motion was in order to end debate and move to consideration of legislation banning human cloning. [A YES vote opposes human cloning].
Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)42; N)54; NV)4 Reference: Motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to S. 1601; Bill S. 1601 ; vote number 1998-10 on Feb 11, 1998

Click here for definitions & background information on Abortion. Click here for SenateMatch answers by Fred Thompson. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Abortion in The Forum. Click here for a summary of Fred Thompson's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other TN politicians.
Other candidates on Abortion:		Fred Thompson on other issues:
TN Gubernatorial: Phil Bredesen TN Senatorial: Bill Frist Bo Heyward Bob Corker Chris Lugo Ed Bryant Harold Ford Lamar Alexander Van Hilleary 2004 Presidential: Pres.George W. Bush Sen.John Kerry Ralph Nader 2008 possibilities: Sen.Hillary Clinton Sen.John Edwards Sen.Russ Feingold Rudy Giuliani V.P.Al Gore Sen.Barack Obama Sen.John McCain 2006 Senate retirements: Jon Corzine(D,NJ) Mark Dayton(DFL,MN) Bill Frist(R,TN) Jim Jeffords(I,VT) Paul Sarbanes(D,MD)	2006 Senate Races: (AZ)Kyl v.Pederson (CA)Feinstein v.Mountjoy (CT)Lieberman v.Lamont v.Schlesinger (DE)Carper v.Ting (FL)Nelson v.Harris (HI)Akaka v.Thielen (IN)Lugar v.Osborn (MA)Kennedy v.Chase (MD)Cardin v.Steele v.Zeese (ME)Snowe v.Bright (MI)Stabenow v.Bouchard (MN)Kennedy v.Klobuchar (MO)Talent v.McCaskill (MS)Lott v.Fleming v.Bowlin (MT)Burns v.Tester (ND)Conrad v.Grotberg (NE)Nelson v.Ricketts (NJ)Menendez v.Kean (NM)Bingaman v.McCulloch (NV)Ensign v.Carter (NY)Clinton v.Spencer (OH)DeWine vBrown (PA)Santorum v.Casey (RI)Chafee vWhitehouse (TN)Ford v.Corker (TX)Hutchison v.Radnofsky (UT)Hatch v.Ashdown (VA)Allen v.Webb (VT)Sanders v.Tarrant (WA)Cantwell v.McGavick v.Guthrie (WI)Kohl v.Vogeler v.Redick (WV)Byrd v.Raese (WY)Thomas v.Groutage	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators House of Representatives SenateMatch (matching quiz) HouseMatch Senate Votes (analysis) House Votes