|
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?
You’re welcome. And, I appreciate your contributions as well. :-)
Per the arguing with myself...there are people in the small town I spent part of my childhood in that have debated on calling out the guys in white coats! LOL I spent many hours walking in town, talking to God and myself!!
Blessings, PNSN.
Yes, you did miss that. If you’re looking for marching orders from me, you’re wasting your time. Yes, you are indeed floundering around out here. While acknowledging your floundering, I will go the distance and suggest you might go do something productive.
Hey EV, just a quick note to say hey!
Your #16,753...you might ask the mods to pull that one if you can’t follow through.
I wouldn't oppose a few more federal mandates on sentencing. We've had 50 years of Democrat-appointed judges, and our wonderful /sarc legislature keeps vetoing our current governor's picks. Of course I worry about too much federal law enforcement, but things have gotten so slack at some levels I wouldn't oppose things changing direction for a few years. I am really trying to not be smarmy, but from I have seen, the JulieAnnie supporters have put on their emerald slippers, tapped the heels three times while chanting "he's tough on terror" and {poof} its true.
Up till the "JulieAnnie" comment you were arguing with some common sense. Why do you need to name call? Particularly other Republicans. For starters the refusal to accept funds from the Arab Sheik. Haven't seen many politicians in my time turn down money from anybody without getting caught at it. Rudy talks tough and has the strength of his record in the city to back him. No, but he is a social liberal. As much a social liberal as any 'rat running.
He says he'll appoint judges in the Roberts and Alito genre. I have no reason not to believe him. And I'm a social libertarian, so while the gun issue worries me slightly, it certainly wouldn't be any better under any of the Democrats. As to your other social issues, you can't convince me that a newly fertilized egg is the same as a baby. I'm willing to compromise with the far right on the issue but they (at least some of the folk at this site) aren't willing to compromise at all, even with measures that would decrease the number of abortions. It seems they're almost as bad as the Democrats who refuse to budge on Social Security reform so that they have the issue come next election.
Gay marriage? Again I'm a social libertarian. Two people should be able to write a contract together that is honored at all levels - particularly hospital visitation, passage of property and the like. I don't particularly care what they call it.
I appreciate your calm discussion without the threats some of the others have been throwing about. I've only voted for one Democrat in my life, and that was in the last primary here - the only race that had a chance of changing anything was at the primary level between two Democrat House candidates (Case and Hirono). I voted for the more conservative of the two. My Republican credentials are solid - I just don't have the same exact priorities and agenda that some here have.
I appreciate the folk on this board and go elsewhere as well. We agree on more issues than we disagree, and I'm not trying to change anybody's mind on their religious beliefs. The vitrole on this thread, however (NOT you specifically), has been particularly sad, and we've lost a lot of the good people who contribute a lot to the site. Take a look back through the thread at the nastiness exhibited by those gloating over the zotting of the person they just tattled on.
Sad.
Rudy has given you reason to not believe him. After saying that he would appoint strict constructionists, he then redefined the term in his view to allow a strict constructionist to uphold Roe. Which basically obliterates the meaning of the term.
And I'm a social libertarian, so while the gun issue worries me slightly, it certainly wouldn't be any better under any of the Democrats.
Heck, after the 1997 Empire State Building shooting, Rudy was calling up Carolyn McCarthy for a presser to call for more federal gun control. He was also Handgun Control Inc.'s favorite pubbie. I would say he did more damage to gun rights than Dems because he allowed them to claim gun control was a bipartisan issue.
You’re being a hypocrite now. You’ve NEVER admonished any poster on a hurricane thread for hotlinking graphics under 50K. But the end result is the same - someone else has to pay for the delivery of the images to FR.
But having watched you pull this "EV Steals Bandwidth" crapola, I'd say you ain't any better than what you are decrying here.
“It’s an issue...because you’re the devil incarnate.”
That is so funny, and yet SO TRUE! Thanks for saying what many of us here feel! LOL!
Listen Freepers, sometimes you win exchanges on here and sometimes you lose. Some of you who lost need to let it go, you’re looking desperate.
If anyone had hotlinked the shining light of God, a cemetery, gravesite, and our brave soldiers while taunting and belittling people in a hurricane thread, you can bet your keyboard I would say something.
It would be, and has been defined as a mortal sin in my neck of the woods, whenever there is a choice of candidates, to vote for someone who is clearly pro-abortion, pro-Euthanasia, and related areas.
There are clear theological reasons that I agree with this definition; infanticide has pretty much been anti-Christian and considered heinous most of the history of Christianity.
Moreover, it’s not a case of pick and choose. If it’s murder (i.e., the immoral taking of life), it’s murder and my voting for someone who publicly states that in his opinion, it isn’t that bad, and the government ought to pay for it would be assenting to the immoral taking of life by the auspices of the government.
It’s not a case of “today this will be less sinful than tomorrow or it was yesterday.” If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. There is no fudge room.
You are asking me to commit a major wrong for political expediency. I don’t do moral relativism, or I try not to, any way.
I am not going to commit a mortal sin to keep the GOP happy. That’s all there is to it.
Ah, so the issue is the content, not the fact that they are using someone else's bandwidth.
More hypocrisy.
I see all kinds of hotlinked images on old hurricane threads. I've never seen you get after anyone for doing that, other than keeping the size down below 50K for performance reasons.
Hypocrite.
Answer the question.
Did you pay the AP for the permanent use of the image that was on your homepage of Hillary Clinton?
“I’d say you ain’t any better than what you are decrying here.”
There’s a word for it—BITTERNESS.
|
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.
I see you have found another girl to beat up. Biff! Bam! Pow! One fist of iron! The other of steel! You defeated the mighty sissyjane! Perhaps now you can run off NautiNurse. This forum needs you a lot more than it needs her, right?