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?
I don’t know what a reflection thread is...
If conservatives say, "I won't vote for Rooty, but I will vote for Rooty if he wins the nomination,"
1) How serious are they actually?
2) How seriously do you think the political establishment will take them?
The answers are easy:
1) Not very serious at all.
2) Not at all.
His post was not about Libertarians.
You certainly have the right to feel that way.
Thanks! I was actually looking for that very post, more than once. I could not find it because this thread is so unwieldy.
I’m copying it here again so I don’t have to remember who wrote it (which was one reason I couldn’t find it last time).
Good Post, Iwo Jima.
To: RobFromGa
I think that where this is leading is that those who have used FreeRepublic to push something fundamentally contrary to the concept of conservatism have lost their springboard for pushing their views. They will have to go to some other forum to advocate their positions.
I am a libertarian who votes Republican most of the time and identifies with conservatism most of the time. Posting on FreeRepublic has never been a problem for me because, to the extent that there is any divergence between my libertarian views and the prevailing conservative views of this website, I do not use this forum to advance any contradictory positions.
That’s really not so hard to absorb, is it?
9,728 posted on 04/25/2007 4:59:17 PM PDT by Iwo Jima (”Close the border. Then we’ll talk.”)
You're incredibly generous.
What does a libertarian have in common with a social conservative? What issues are they in agreement with Jim Robinson’s vision of this site as it pertains to social issues which is where Rudy fails the test?
I find it offensive that you would suggest that I am using the troops in any way, shape or form. I feel very strongly about our military and that leads me to feel very strongly about who the next Commander in Chief will be. That isn't the only issue I care about, of course, but it is a major one to me.
There are going to be Conservatives and Republicans that if Giuliani is nominated (I feel confident he won’t) will go in different direction. I won’t vote for him, others may vote 3rd Party,others will vote for Giuliani, others may write in, others may go on vacation during election time.
Good conservatives and Republicans are going to debate these issues if the “last resort” candidate wins. I think we have room for differences on this after the Primary. But, if one supports a candidate that is the most liberal in the Primary...then I personally question that a conservative could make that choice. But that’s just my opinion on it.
Once again, you’re lying.
In case you didn't see it.
>>>>>>I could vote third party as a way of protesting, but by doing so I would also be helping the Democrats and hurting the Republicans, our military men and women, and our country’s security and future.
Over 70% of FReepers have said they will vote 3rd party, stay home, leave blank or write-in a name. Those 70% of FReepers are hurting the GOP, the troops and America's security... according to Chena. That is an insult to all conservatives who will never vote for Rudy.
Ask someone who cares, like a Libertarian for instance.
I thought what started "this" was the battle between Giuliani supporters and others. The questions I asked earlier needed to be asked. If this forum is now saying that only those who either decide not vote, or vote third party, if Giuliani does end up on the ticket, are now considered enemies of conservatives, that is a very important piece of information that needs to be posted for all to see. We cannot move forward very well if we don't know what the new rules are.
I agree with your last post.
We really should stop the bickering over the hypothetical.
After the long battle for the nomination, there will be plenty of time to discuss what the proper choice is in the general election. Plus there could be many unforseen things that happen between now and then in the world that will affect those decisions.
For now, we should be doing our best work to see that the most conservative candidate that can be elected gets the nomination. That person is not Rudy Giuliani IMO.
Not at all. It's simple common courtesy, and a polite response.
Your post that you love so much was written by someone who says they are a libertarian, and they have very little in common with social conservatives which is the very litmus test that is the topic of this thread.
There is no need to debate this hypothetical, is there?
You say Rudy isn’t your best choice for the nomination, concentrate on that and just hope/pray the hypothetical never needs to be addressed.
LOL. Common sense--definitely a liablilty sometimes.. or is that a casualty? I've watched this darn thread from the beginning and just can't help but chime in every once in a while. I don't think anyone wants more gnashing... it's just that folks keep posting things that trigger a response.... to which someone else disagrees and feels compelled to answer.... which triggers....
Okay... I see where this is going. I'll shut up now. :-)
When I asked for answers to what I consider two very important questions, I did not intend for yet another flame war to begin.
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.