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?
Go ahead, threaten me, but I'm happy here just as I am.
Whoa. Quite a few of them have been around longer than I have, and I've been here a while.
That’s what I was responding to.
Doggone it! Somebody must have gone and changed the rules while I was getting chow. So who don’t we get to support?
He supports the president’s policy in Iraq.
He is unafraid of the UN.
He places our national interest ahead of silly moralistic hand-wringing.
Would have been nice to ping me if you were going to dise me, I would give you the same respect.
Funny thing is, we here at FR are not all supporting the same candidate. It is way too early to have our heals dug in anyway. What we ARE trying to say here is that we should all be together in backing a candidate, any candidate with conservative principals....one who is willing to defend his conservative principals. For those who feel that they have to back a liberal republican candidate, are either a liberal in disguise or are compromising their conservative values.
“The poster you were responding to has spent the last 3 months or so on Anna Nicole threads and her intellect has been compromised.”
That was funny.
I don't know about Badnarik, but I know that Paul doesn't support the homosexual agenda.
Let me emphasize I'm not trying to get libertarians banned.
Why would Libertarians get banned?
Their philosophy is nearly identical to that of the GOP with the exception of the WOT and the WOD. I know that some Libertarians support abortion but there is an off-shoot of the LP (much like the GOP has the Republican Liberty Caucus) that's pro-life.
I’m going to have to agree. If she was a Rudybot, that’s her choice, but I see no reason to ban her. She’s always been the most creative Clinton critic, and her posts were always informative and entertaining(once I got cable internet).
Sure it does. Conservatism didn't work hard enough in the last election, that conservatism lost a half dozen candidates in the aftermath of the 2006 elections.
The damage he will do to the conservative movement will be irreversible.
Again, conservatism didn't work hard enough in the last election, that conservatism lost a half dozen candidates in the aftermath of the 2006 elections.And we conservatives will be branded traitors to the GOP when we speak out against him. And we will. Loudly. You think this fight is rough? It's nothing to compared to what's yet to come.
You yell as loud as you want, just don't yell at me or anyone else here when more ground is lost. Lastly, don't lecture me about "being branded a traitor", you've branded so many as such, just for supporting candidates you dislike.
There is no denying we all have a common goal, we're all just reaching that goal from different directions.
He CO-SPONSORED it. He didn’t draft it.
Might want to abandon ship, it's ugly out there.
Because comparing it with Mr. Robinson’s original post, there would be reasonable particulars for banning supporters of Ron Paul and libertarians in general.
“Anna Nicole threads”
Please have mercy, and don’t mention that womans name again........it is tantamount to looking at a picture of Helen Thomas : )
One that has been asked over and over by your side on this thread. Give him a break and read the thread.
That I know (updated again):
Fierce Allegiance
writeblock
Mia T.
FairOpinion
quidnunk
Peach
KATIE-O
habs4ever
Luis Gonzalez
CeltJewLibertarian
central scrutinizer
stuned beeber
liberty4alland4ever
WestVirginiaRebel
Dude, come on, don't play dumb. You couldn't get the answer from the previous 4,000 replies?
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.