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?
Your 169 is a great post. Thanks for putting to words what I too have been thinking.
“Hey Jim while you’re off banning people can you let A+Bert come back”
Har! USS Liberty, USS Libery.............
That’s it in a nutshell:
Pro gay agenda.
Pro abortion
Anti-gun
Pro illegal alien
What does he have, except a few weeks in office as standing up well in the public eye as a lame duck mayor dealing well with a major disaster?
It doesn’t matter if he can rise to the occasion in a crisis if he screws up and rolls back everything many of us have fought for.
We don’t need a daddy who will comfort us when we are crying. We need a statesman who understands the stakes and will stand up for and fight for and work hard for the things our nation needs.
Making conservatives feel welcome? Which conservatives are those? Certainly not fiscal conservatives. Or law and order conservatives. Ooh, ooh - wait. You mean making social conservatives feel at home.
You mean those social issues that were barely mentioned last year by freepers who were so ticked off at the big spending by Congressional Republicans. Or those social issues that weren’t mentioned at all in Newt’s Contract with Americ.
To begin with, lemme state that, as things stand, I'll be reasonably content with any of the potential nominees except for the dimwit nutjob McCain. And, I certainly think Rudy supporters should be given the opportunity to argue their case on FR. I even think McCain supporters, no matter how ignorant they must be, should have full opportunity to argue whatever ridiculous nonsense they might come up with.
But that being said, I take issue with both points you raise about Reagan.
First, I remember the mid-80s quite well, and there's no question in my mind at least that the perception of illegal migrants and their role in America was very different than it is today. More importantly, Reagan did not have the luxury of hindsight that we have: He could not know that the enforcement mechanisms in the bill he signed would be ignored by future administrations (i.e., Clinton and, even more so, GWB). Finally, Reagan had to compromise across the aisle in order to get anything done. It seemed rather clear to me that the bill he signed into law was diluted from what Reagan would've enacted if he were a dictator.
It's misleading to judge Reagan policies by the same yardstick that one might judge GWB, for instance, when the latter had a GOP House and Senate to work with for most of his term.
As for abortion, this is what Reagan himself wrote on abortion in 1983: Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.
The fact of the matter is that Reagan had a mea culpa, and the Reagan of the 1950s was hardly the same Reagan that won the presidency in 1980. Strom Thurmond and Phil Gramm had once been Democrats as well, but no one confused them for being liberals. By contrast, Rudy has given no indication that his position has shifted on the topic of abortion. Aside from some trivial semantics, his position is unreservedly the same as it's always been.
And, as for me, I'm reserving judgement on Rudy until I have a clear sense of his policy on illegals.
“Only until management decides they want to please the whiners.”
LOL.
By California standards compared to national standards, yes.
Peach, you're not going to get anywhere explaining the fine conservative points on what Rudy did for NYC. I appreciate what he did, some others here do appreciate it as well, but most won't.
Besides, it not like Rudy isn't pro abortion "rights" and anti gun rights. He's on the wrong side of both those issues and that's the problem. I also believe that if he's the nominee, there will be a real danger of third party candidate splitting the conservative vote.
I politely urge you to support Fred Thompson if he enters the race.
Regards.
Oh,please,that is a really ignorant attempt to slur Jim. You people just get lower and lower.
Ron Paul is looking better and better .
At least someone who gets it around here.
I will be doing the same.
Hey, i've said some bad things about Rudy, but even I haven't called him a trained chimpanzee.
You’re not making sense.
The list of electable choices we get in a given election year reflects the profile of the electorate. The political party leaders aren’t stupid. They identify what positions the electorate requires in a candidate, and then provide candidates who either actually do, or can plausibly claim to, hold those positions. The important work of shifting the views of the electorate doesn’t occur at the ballot box. You shift the views of the electorate first, and subsequently you get a choice of candidates that reflect the shift.
You also have to deal with the reality that you’re never going to persuade a majority to agree with you on all the issues you feel are important. That’s been the big flaw in the overall strategy of the various forces desiring to roll back socialism. Quite frankly, the single-minded anti-abortion crusade (with related issues like embryonic stem cell research) is likely to ensure that the march of socialism continues. A large percentage of anti-abortion activists seem perfectly happy to throw their votes away on unelectable fringe party candidates, or just not vote at all, in order to avoid voting for any candidate who doesn’t share their belief that the government has to end legal abortion. This issue drives huge numbers of fiscal conservative and libertarian voters into the arms of the Democratic Party (which might as well be called the Socialist Party) even though they’re not really comfortable with the degree of socialism there. It also forces the Republican Party to accept a lot more socialism than many of its leaders really want, because after losing all the abortion-is-the-only-issue voters by being only moderately anti-abortion, and losing the many fiscal conservative and libertarian voters who can’t stomach the idea of government controlling people’s reproductive activities even “moderately”, they can’t afford to also lose large blocks of voters who fear cuts in Medicare, Social Security, student loan subsidies, etc. (even though many of those voters philosophically don’t like socialism, they’ve already paid a bundle into the system, and therefore can’t afford not to get their share back out again — an imminent need to keep getting your needed medical treatment and keep having a roof over your head, quickly blots out any idealistic notions of basing one’s votes on “philosophy”).
The political reality is that an anti-abortion vote is a pro-socialism vote, notwithstanding that most anti-abortion voters also claim to be anti-socialism. There is nowhere near a majority of our electorate who are both committed to paying their own bills and keeping charitable activity a strcitly private concern (i.e. truly against socialism), and committed to having the government make women have babies they don’t want and in most cases can’t afford to raise without taxpayer assistance. And don’t bother with me with the tired line about “if they don’t want to have a baby, they should keep their legs together” — they DON’T want babies, and they DON’T keep their legs together, and the Constitution does NOT permit the government to have taxpayer-salaried agents run around forcibly keeping women’s legs together.
The most effective way to reduce both the number of abortions and the number of babies born to parents who send their bills to the taxpayers, is to roll back socialism one step at a time, and let ther resulting cultural shift towards self-sufficiency and personal responsibility take care of the rest. For both social and technological reasons, abortion is never going to go away. However, the current phenomenon of large numbers of women using abortion in lieu of contraception over and over and over again, and women just not bothering to get their abortions until the second trimester (or beyond!) CAN be made to go away. These women are products of a society where self-sufficiency and personal responsibility are largely foreign concepts. But socialism has to go away first, and that’s not going to happen until the anti-socialism forces can band together and agree that rolling back socialism needs to be the number one political priority. We’re currently allowing ourselves to be divided and conquered by the socialists, despite the fact that our numbers don’t even constitute a majority BEFORE we’re divided.
“I will NEVER vote for Rudy, or any other liberal/RINO!”
Read my lips.........
No new RINOS!!!!
Hey, I’m one of the oldtimers here but I’m one of the “unappeasables.” I wear that title with pride.
“For once a Repub didn’t apologize”
There is one of the big problems of the Republican party as it stands now. Craven caving in to political correctness, while the dims get a free pass. “Compassionate conservatism”
Did not every conservative wince when they heard that one/
Well said.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
>>>>>Feel free to check in on my Rudy posts. I’m delighted by his front runner status nationwide..
Rudy is not popular on Free Republic, nor is he popular with conservatives in general, and never will be. If Rudy was a conservative and not a liberal, he'd be pulling in more then 6.5% of ALL FReepers, or 168 members of FR, in the current FR poll.
>>>>And like I said before, it was NOT a few trouble makers largely supporting Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan in 2000.
I never said a few. A few is three or less. In 2000 Keyes and Buchanan were pulling together from the troublemaking rightwing, about the same amount that Rudy is pulling from the GOP`s troublemaking leftwing today. The thing you both have in common, you're both a BUNCHA BIG MOUTHS.
Giuiliani is more liberal than any of the presidents who gave us those left wing wonders. He may try to conjure up the ghost of Karl Marx to nominate if elected.
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.