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?
Really? I doubt it’ll get to 6,000 by Friday.
“Whatever happened to all those FReeper Conservatives?!”
Some of us are still here.
Oh man, I didn’t see lightning in the weather forecast! BWAHAHAHA!!!!
Sorry for the typos in my last post. I get aggrivated when people straight up lie about things I write. My bad.
The ONLY choice the pro-aborts care about is that infanticide continues.
Persuit of happiness? You mean like not being pregnant? That kind of happiness?
Huh? If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she should keep her legs closed.
The fact you say I advocate taking a life PROVES AGAIN that you are NOT reading the post and you are diectly telling an UNTRUTH. So Stop your LYING.
You said that women should be allowed to "choose" abortion.
Very well said.
I read what you said and found it intriguing.
How do you terminate a ‘pregnancy’ without terminating a ‘life’.
The answer is. You can’t. You can only terminate a pregnancy with a birth, or an abortion.
There is no other way to do it. Other than a woman not becoming pregnant in the first place.
Yet NONE of you can come up with any real evidence that Giuliani will fight terror any better than the other GOP candidates, except that Giuliani did some grandstanding.
This is not a situation that policing can clean up like squeegee men. This is a MILITARY situation.
I am so humbled.
FWIW, your writings were being extolled by a poster upthread who agreed with every word that Jim Robinson wrote at the top of the thread.
What the heck are we arguing about?
I don't care what else you wrote, you wrote this:
Do you agree or disagree that a person can be 100% opposed to Abortion as it pertains to their own choices and still understand that everyone else's choices are their own to make and to be accountable for? Do you agree or disagree that removing choice, in general, is a bad thing?
This is the same thing that ever abortion advocate has said for 34 years, the net result has been the loss of 50 MILLION LIVES.
Well, I never said he could, so I don’t know what you are blathering about.
I understand there is no way to dothis currently. I addressed that point when I talked about organs. Was that not sci fi speculation at one time too? Indeed it was.
WHy is it too late? Because you say so?
It seems that the reason to oppose abortion as it stands is life, Once again i will state I agree with that position.
If life is maintained, where then is the opposition? It seems that the reason would then change and become that an unborn must remain and be carried to term where it began.
Then one must admit that is the true goal now. Fine if it is, but it should be admitted.
This upcoming election, by my estimates, will be about citizens voting "pocket-book" issues.
As a poster most astutely observed up this thread (para) Californian's contribute the most money to FR. Is this not a pocketbook assertion?
Additionally, this is Mr. Robinson's forum (and he is in California) -- his rules are the rules of the house.
You say, and if Mr. Robinson agrees that Cold Heat's post constituted an absolute "certain defeat" for "conservatives", then, I suppose those are the definition of terms as to how the "house" is ruling, why you pinged Mr. Robinson to my post -- to point out Cold Heat's and my posts. Or just mine. You are vague on this point.
Core principles are essential. It’s also essential to be realistic. Real conservatives know that they are not the only people in the process. They know that they need to work with others, whom they might not agree with 100%, in order to actually accomplish something.
>Whatever happened to all those FReeper Conservatives?!<
>>Some of us are still here.<<
Whew! That’s a relief. :o)
Until, such time as this possibility exists, what is your response to your own question?
Even if such a procedure existed, do you think the pro abortion crowd would be happy with your idea?
There you go lying again. I presented an idea where no end of life occurs. So then, why do you keep saying that in relation to what I wrote?
A woman should kep her legs closed you say? Yeah, that’s right, a man plays no part in the process huh? Sheesh.
Post where I said a woman should be alloed to choose abortion. Copy it and paste it. Let’s see it.
I think my post was pretty clear
Terminate the pregnancy in one female and continue it in another female or a lab. The termination of pregnancy was meant in relation to the female, not the unborn.
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.