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 see you still have a penchant for wild eyed falsehoods. LMBO
God forbid, and rudy is her opponent, will you set aside your Christian conservative principles and vote for him?
You're obsessed and have a hair trigger temper, and you use Reagan's name to beat up Bush with........ad nauseum.
Just because you're behaving yourself on this thread doesn't mean that your history of beating up the President for no rational reason has been erased.
btw, the tombstone for Peach upthread had Reagan's name on it. Apparently some thought that she was banned for that reason.
You will not find a single post of mine supporting Rudy, OTHER THAN if he is the only person standing between EVIL and the White House.
That is my principled, conservative position.
Like everywhere else, you pay for what you get. When a place is in demand, you pay for it.
Gosh, I just learned that popularity = taxes, and that's a good thing! NOT.
Thanks for just outing yourself as a big time fiscal liberal!
No. I would rather see Hillary win the presidency than Giuliani. It has been said repeatedly by others, as well.
If Hillary wins, we have a united GOP fighting against her with all our strength. Her bad policies will be DEMOCRAT policies.
If Giuliani wins, nobody will fight him, the GOP will split, many people will leave the party, and his bad policies will be “Republican”.
I was only joking about the name but didn’t you just say on another post that if someone refuses to pull the lever for Rudy, that they are responsible for electing Hillary?
Evil is evil in God’s eyes. We can’t support evil regardless of the party label. Agreed?
FairOpinion was gone when she posted (from a source in error) that Fred gave money to Hillary Clinton in 2006 (it was actually Van Hileary).
That, following on the heals of her claim that Thompson was a mormon, repeated in the thread after it was made clear she had found the wrong web site, did her in.
Jim is cracking down on false claims made by rudy supporters against conservative candidates.
Whoever it is, it must be someone that can win the general election. There are only 2-3 in this race (or potentially in this race) that can realistically expect to compete in a year when the current public opinion has moved away from ours. FR people are not 51% of the population, so we must consider what scenarios will lead to the best outcome for the next ten years. One thing is for sure, Hillary and Obama do not get us closer to any ONE of the goals of this site.
For starters, you are wrong.
I defend Rudy's conservative accomplishments -- I criticize Rudy's liberal positions on abortion, 2A, immigration.
I have stated numerous times that I will support a pro life conservative in the primaries such as Fred. I have also said numerous times that I would support Rudy in the General if that was the choice.
Finally, I have said, that having a Rudy as our nominee will most likely cause conservatives to split resulting in a Hillary presidency.
My record is clear from numerous posts on this forum. I believe most posters understand it. You have seen my posts because I have posted many times to you.
Apparently, you are slow to get it.
My seven-year-old is forcing me off the computer so he can play “Toon Town”. Goodness...
No, I don't, and I don't expect to in the foreseeable future. Given that certainly less than half the electorate actually views this as a desirable goal (probably a LOT less than half), it's simply impossible for a candidate to be viable if s/he openly expresses an intention to do this, or has a history of actions suggesting s/he will do this. The very best we can hope for is a candidate who, deep down, understands that this should be the goal, and understands that while no direct action towards that end is politically possible at this time, there are subtle choices that can be made to gradually shift the electorate in that direction in order to help make real government-shrinking a viable political platform at some point in the future.
The insidious aspect of socialism is how it ropes in people to support it, even when they philosophically disagree with it. It starts with emotionally appealing pitches to help the most unfortunate in our society, and the emotionally appealing lie that all those people languishing at the bottom can actually be transformed into responsible productive members of society. This gets hard-working, responsible people to agree to a certain amount of taxation for redistribution. The pitch is then incrementally shifted to define more and more people as unfairly disadvantaged. The people near the top, who have the most money and influence, and therefore control the selection of candidates, are for the most part easily persuaded that a family making $50,000 a year "needs help" to send their children to college, and feel arrogant and heartless if they sense their thoughts moving towards "Do their kids really NEED to go to college? For four years, full-time, right out of high school? . . . Like my kids?" And then of course there are the pitches about the elderly, and their "need" for huge amounts of expensive medical care and prescription drugs, and how morally bankrupt we would be if we let a single elderly person go without medical care that would extend their lives for a few more months (at a cost of a few hundred thousand dollars). The Great Depression brought us Social Security, which is by far the most devastating piece of this whole monster, but which was well-intentioned, and brought into being by an electorate which had grown up in a society where self-sufficiency was the norm, and where very few people were willing to accept any sort of hand-out unless they had really exhausted their own avenues for self-help and were truly desperate. My late grandmother always refused to take the Social Security checks for which she was eligible, on the grounds that it was supposed to be only for the very needy. Never mind that she had to keep her thermostat set at an unhealthy low level through the Iowa winters, in order to make ends meet without that check. These were the people who voted in the Social Security program during the Great Depression and its aftermath.
Before you know it, more than half the country is enjoying one or more types of handouts from the government. It's VERY hard to find anyone who thinks that public schools shouldn't exist in something very similar to their current form. The idea that children whose parents can't pay for their schooling and who can't entice some private charity to pay for it based on high ability and character, ought to get a basic 3Rs education through about 8th grade, in spartan facilities, with no sports/music/drama facilities and programs, and kicked out of even that if they aren't actually studying and learning, is simply unthinkable to about 95% of our society. The entire elderly and near-elderly segment of our population has paid into Medicare and Social Security all their lives IF they actually worked (but if they didn't, you can be sure they have also not been donors or volunteers for political campaigns), and are not in a position to even consider advocating the near-term shutdown of those programs, much less to consider helping pay for their grandchildren's educations beyond the huge sums in property taxes that they're already paying to help educate everybody else's children AND grandchildren. A large majority of college students are receiving some form of government-sourced financial aid. Just who do you imagine is really going to campaign and vote for a prompt and dramatic rollback of socialist programs?
So how do we start the rollback? In much the same way as the monster got its foothold -- quietly, craftily, with a long-term plan. You can't tell me that approach didn't work :-) Here's a starter: deregulate medical care. In the guise of promoting "personal freedom", start eliminating the prescription-required status for drugs, one by one, eventually eliminating the prescription requirement for all but those few which are truly dangerous to people OTHER than those who voluntarily take them (think vancomycin, Rohypnol). Hmmm, lots more people won't be going to the government-reimbursed doctor every time they come down with some routine illness they or their family members have had before. Make basic medical self-care a part of the public school curriculum (in the guise of promoting "public health" for the disadvantaged -- and of course, it will have that effect, but it's far too early to let on that that the plan is for the "public health" to become the responsibility of the individual members of the "public"). Make sure kids are learning how to diagnose and treat their own routine illnesses by going to the Internet for information. Make sure the cause-and-effect relationships between lifestyle and attention to routine medical care, and health outcomes are driven home loud and clear -- it's a quick hop from grasping that concept, to realizing that a great deal of people's health problems are the direct result of their own stupid or lazy choices.
Medical care is by far the biggest-ticket piece of the socialist monster, and the fastest-growing one, and the one that is most easily sustained by emotional appeals (children are dying! mothers with breast cancer are dying! helpless old people are dying! all because you greedy people won't give the government enough money to pay their bills!). It's also ripe for attack with a pitch of "You can do it! You should be free to make your own choices!" Get a generation raised in the idea that medical care is as much an area for personal free choice as shopping for clothes and music, and the electorate's receptivity to the idea of reducing, rather than increasing government involvement will shift tremendously. Doing this would involve shifting, not cutting, federal government funding of public schools -- in the short run, it wouldn't shrink government, but in the long run it would. In the short run, shifting rather than cutting is the best we can hope for, across virtually all parts of the monster. In short:
WE MUST CO-OPT THE MONSTER. We don't have the strength to kill it, and can't afford to kill it (it would just rise back up again even stronger), before we have forced it to do our bidding. Quit looking for candidates making preposterous claims that they will kill the monster -- they don't even have the strength to cut off its pinky finger, but they'll make it plenty angry by trying. Vote for candidates who hint at carefully-veiled plans to co-opt the monster.
I understand that some can't see the difference, but as I said to another, we are arguing a hypothetical that personally, I don't think is going to be happening.
I don't think Rudy, warts and all, will make it through the primary process.
JMHO
Back to the Oprah thread on Anna Nicole, and fine use of the FR $$ in Bandwidth...
LOL.... I don't like wife cheaters either but let's get real, Clinton was a groping, scumbag RAPIST. It doesn't matter who you support, Clinton was a RAPIST. Get it?
If my choice is between one guy who’s for abortion vs. another guy who’s for abortion, I will pick the least damaging of the two. If I vote 3rd party, that would be like voting for one of the abortionists anyway, because I take a vote away from the least damaging one, and I might as well have voted for the more damaging.
Because our entire political system is based on 2 party structures, that’s how it works on national level elections.
By choosing not to vote, I let my vote against the worst candidate not matter.
By choosing to vote for a candidate who has no change of winning at all, I let my vote against the worst candidate not matter.
I cannot do that.
Hillary will jump in and try to kill as many babies as can be killed during her presidency, just as her HINO did.
If I can do anything to stop that, I will.
C. They are like what rudy’s mother calls him: “He thinks he is conservative, but he isn’t”. They’ve infiltrated the ranks and, like Judas Iscariot, will betray the movement at the first chance. They are Iscarepublicans.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!
Now we need one of those “If these two people had a kid...” pics.
Hmmm. Do we have any pics with Helen Thomas with her eyes bugging out?
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.