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?
“How do you propose we win the war on terror??”
Why is it that you think Rudy is the ONLY qualified republican candidate who can win the WOT?
This is why, even though the prolifically posting Rudy-bots here are probably not treasonous liberals, they probably are the unsuspecting tools of treasonous liberals. (Or at least tools of gun grabbing, open border, socially liberal abortionists.)
The left is going to be nothing but nice about Rudy, until well after the primaries, because they know exactly how to defeat him. Besides that, even if he manages to win, they'll consider it a win for the left. (And it will be.)
Rudy is the only one who can win the WOT?
You sound as if you are a little star struck in your admiration for this man.
As Delivered
Thank you very much for inviting me to say a few words of welcome. This event shows that people of different political parties and different political thinking can unite in support of choice. In doing so, we are upholding a distinguished tradition that began in our city starting with the work of Margaret Sanger and the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century.
As a Republican who supports a woman's right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here. And I would like to explain, just for one moment, why I believe being in favor of choice is consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. In fact, it might be more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. Because the Republican Party stands for the idea that you have to restore more freedom of choice, more opportunity, more opportunity for people to make their own choices rather than the government dictating those choices. Republicans stand for lower taxation because we believe that people can make better choices with their money than the government will make for them, and that ultimately frees the economy and produces more political freedom. We believe that, yes, government is important, but that the private sector is actually more important in solving our problems.
So it is consistent with that philosophy to believe that in the most personal and difficult choices that a woman has to make with regard to a pregnancy, those choices should be made based on that person's conscience and that person's way of thinking and feeling. The government shouldn't dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.
I think that's actually a much more consistent position. Many Republicans support that position, but you don't hear that as often. For example, in a recent poll by American Viewpoint, 65 percent of Republicans supported changing the plank in the Republican platform that calls for a constitutional ban on abortion. That's 6.5 out of every 10 Republicans. And over 80 percent of Republicans believe that the decision with regard to an abortion should be made by a woman, her doctor, and her family rather than dictated by the government.
[Applause]
In any case, I just wanted you to know that many of my fellow Republicans stand with you on this issue. So I thank you, I thank NARAL for taking the lead in establishing freedom of choice for all of us, and as the Mayor of New York City, I thank you for being here in New York City.
# # #
http://www.nyc.gov/html/rwg/html/2001b/champlunch.html
Thank you for saying that. It almost seems like you have to be a member of a secret club to understand her posts.
Being a Libertarian leaning conservative, I don’t like any of the GOP candidates they are all closet socialists. I am tired of the pandering to the fundamentalist vote. I’m sorry to say that IMHO the “holy roller” issues have no business in government. If you want a party based on theocratic principles, start one.
Please read the rest of what I wrote. I never said a third party would win.
PSYCHO-FREEP wrote: “The country IS AND HAS changed drastically, but not in the way you think. Conservatives are now a very unpopular minority and the for the Democrats, the election in ‘08 is theirs to lose.
The entire image of Conservatism has become unappealing to the American Public. There are many reasons why, and in order to understand what it is that has made this trend occur, we must first look at what image we are projecting to the public, and why we are being seen in such a bad way.”
*
PSYCHO-FREEP, thank you for providing a classic example of why so many FReepers are hostile to Rudy Giuliani’s candidacy. Even more so than Rudy himself, it is his supporters and apologists who are creating so much ill will for him because you come on FR, and without any supporting documentation or data, you try to tell us things that JUST AREN’T TRUE.
1. Conservatives are NOT a minority. According to the most recent Battleground Poll, Sixty-one percent (61%) of Americans described themselves as “conservative” or “very conservative” and thirty-four percent (34%) of Americans described themselves as “liberal” or “very liberal.” These numbers have not varied by more than two percent (2%) either way in the LAST SEVEN Battleground Polls beginning in April 2002.
2. Conservatives are NOT unpopular. The gap between conservatives and liberals is wider than it has been in any of the last seven Battleground Polls over the last four-and-a-half years. Liberals have never been more unpopular than now and conservatives never more popular than now.
The Battleground Poll is the most intensively researched bipartisan poll in America, the only poll that openly reveals all its internal questions, the most accurate poll.
3. Why, then, did the Republicans take such a beating in the Fall, 2006 elections? Because the GOP was largely perceived by the voters as having ABANDONED ITS CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES. Big spending, corruption and a failure to conduct the war in the Middle East effectively were the reasons for the Republicans’ downfall.
The ‘Rats ran the most conservative candidates they could find who could still be called Democrats. Many of them campaigned on such issues as integrity, fiscal responsibility, the RKBA and traditional family values (pro-life and anti-gay marriage).
What conservatives need to do is to take back control of the Republican Party from the moderates and liberals who are running the GOP into the ground. They have taken away the things which make the Republican Party different from the ‘Rat Party.
The great majority of FReepers have have enough of the Rudynistas whizzing on our legs and telling us that it’s raining!
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/10/10/the-greatest-news-yet-in-the-battleground-poll/
Needs dates.
Rino Rudy can’t do that, he cant get those votes. Once conservatives bolt the party in the kind of numbers his nomination would bring.
Unlike you Rudybots, right? Not all of us are kool-aid drinkers like you. Try to be a little open minded about why some of us believe conservative values are important and worth fighting for.
He was strongly pro-life when he signed the "liberal" California abortion statute, as well. I did some research and posted some of Gov. Reagan's quotes from 1967 news coverage here, after a freeper tried to tell me that the majority of GOPers were pro-choice in 1948 on the basis of that "government did not have the right to force a woman to give birth to an unwanted child" and a pro-choice position was consistent with "limited government." Here was part of that post:
In 1967, a democrat state lawmaker (Beilenson) pushed to liberalize the laws for just three reasons: to allow abortion in the case of rape, incest, or where the baby might be deformed. ...Governor Ronald Reagan's first response as "Here's an emotional problem that has so many facets of consideration. It is not only spiritual, but also legal... when does life begin? What right does the unborn life have? What legal right? I'm not prepared to answer now."
In subsequent statements, Reagan took great exception to the portion of the law addressing the possibilty of deformity. "I am satisfied in my own mind we can morally and logically justify liberalized abortions to protect the health of a mother. I cannot justify the taking of an unborn life simply on the supposition that the baby may be born less than a perfect human being... [this kind of thing] wouldn't be much different from what Hitler tried to do."
The deformity provision was dropped shortly thereafter. The final statute permitted abortions in the case of forcible rape, incest, statutory rape if the victim was under 15 years old or if there was a "substantial risk" that continued pregnancy would "gravely impair" the "physical or mental health" of the mother.
The issue then had little to do with "limited government," nor does it now (imo).
No, just checked it again. Copy and pasted it directly into the “view home page, enter name” field. Don’t know why I’m getting that result. I looked at another poster (don’t remember which) and got the “banned or suspended” but when I type quidnunc or Mia T, I get the “nobody by that name” routine.
Rino Rudy is a socialist liberal statist. Deal with it.
You're gonna' miss the fireworks...
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.