"If this time around we’re told don’t worry about abortion, next time it will be don’t worry about illegals, as so on."
I'm already hearing from libs that since Rudy has stated it's a right, and he's a Republican, I must be in denial.
:O)
P
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 am not a collectivist - and I do not like collectivist coercion which would be necessary for your scheme. Voluntary abortions are about as far as one could go.
Whining that she and her other Rudybot cohorts were not welcome on FR. It was disgusting to say the least.
Well said, JimRob!
Suicide by ‘zot’.
Precisely. There is for some a double standard. (Not me). Why am I not surprised that those who support a liberal candidate will give him a pass on a fistful of issues, proclaiming him to be our salvation from terrorists, but will patently dismiss any other more conservative candidate for any alleged infraction or association with someone who has broken the rules (as if that would be avoidable for a member of Congress)?
It has reached the level of a personality cult.
To me, that has dangerous aspects. Think of historical instances where a person either seeking or who had political power had a following who would religiously ignore their failings including the use of that power to selectively uphold (or not) the law, against specific groups of people. Who paid lip service to law and order, and enforced, by edict, the law against some but broke it to protect others.
Somehow this gets distorted into courage to 'do the right thing'. It's okay because he cleaned up New York (Warsaw?), he got rid of the 'squeegee men', he was tough on crime (which only depends on what is a crime today, and for whom), who already looks on the less urbane and avant garde as an underclass.
But hey, that's all right because he will see to it the trains run on time. /sarc
The parallels are there for anyone to see, if they will look.
If someone will abuse the relatively small power of a Mayor's office, in patent defiance of the law of the land, if they will warp the law to their own twisted interpretation all the while they maintain they will uphold it, they have much in common with those we lost 3000 men a day on some days to stop. They have much in common with someone who restored a nation's pride at the expense of its soul, and ended up costing it both.
Lest we, this great nation go there, I cannot and will not vote for Giuliani.
It is so "liberal" to say that you can't question a person's judgment because they had a loss. I don't question his credentials, I question his judgment. I think he's wrong to support Rudy, and I think I have every right to say that even though he lost his wife on 9/11. Being married to a dead person doesn't make you immune from making stupid decisions like supporting Rudy.
Proabortion is not conservative no matter how much a person may try to convince themself it is.
No, no, no... he's a fiscal conservative!
You weren't here when I was stumping for Steve Forbes.
Well said. Duncan Hunter is the only real socon in this race.
I will Vote Duncan Hunter in my primary and I will vote Duncan Hunter in the General even if I have to write his name in.
***So, let’s say you vote a straight republican ticket for the down-ticket races like congress critters & local races, and fill in Duncan Hunter for Pres. That means you voted a straight republican ticket, doesn’t it?
I have never done this and never would.
It’s common knowledge that conservatives voted for Perot and put him in office.
Who else do you think voted for him? Socialists?
John
Ha! My husband and I were Steve Forbes supporters, too. Boy, did we take a lickin’ . . . but kept on tickin’.
“Well, Jim, since most of your polls show that the majority of us DON’T want Rudy the Rino for president I don’t think you have to worry about us embracing socialism. I sure as he** won’t.”
You can’t ignore the fact that Rudy is leading Hillary in all the public opinion polls. I think you’re refering to FR polls here.
if you dared to disagree with his own Jack-Boot definition of "Conservatism", he'd spam the Thread with accusations that you were a "LiberalDoperTarian" or whatever (never mind that the Thread concerned Privacy or Gun Control or Eminent Domain, or what have you).
That does ring a bell.
I think that Jim can probably get away with using the word coarsely, once, on his Own Forum, in ejecting a Jack-Boot gun-controller like "Quidnunc"... without having to Ban Himself.
LOL. But of coarse! (sorry).
I think the comment went beyond a single word.
Thanks again.
Didn't do this either.
incomprehensibility disguising as greater wisdom than you can fathom.
“What beautiful clothes the King is wearing” they said. But he had no clothes.
FR is an good sounding board & excellent forum in which to exercise political debate, but it has no influence on actual politics and/or policy at any level, whether it be local, state or national.
I'm in complete agreement with the criticisms leveled at Rudy & Arnie. Rudy's lack of understanding of what the 2A really means is disturbing, as his lack of appreciation of why family foundation is critical to society's long-term stability.
Yet, at the end of the day, I'll be there pulling the R lever regardless of whose name is there, because quite simply, I can't stand democrats.
Thank you Dr. CWCT
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.