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?
And then many of them have had the gall to come in here and deny it.
Unlike Hillary, he hides his balls under a dress.
I could tell you why, but then I might have to go to rehab.
btw, my “low opinion” is framed around a picture of you.
I said her banning happened right after the 3 deleted posts. I don't know what was in the posts, so I can't assert they were the reason. Someone else had raised the question of how she was able to "delete" her posts, as she claimed -- but it is possible she was simply using poor grammar, and she had her posts "deleted".
In the absense of other information though, the posting of comments that you find necessary to ask to be deleted suggests something was wrong with the comments.
And her final post combined several items in opposition to Fred, including links to two previous threads she had posted which were attacks on Fred for other matters than Abortion.
The thread still exists, her posts she didn't have removed still exist, so there's no point in us arguing over our interpretations.
What Mia Said about me and other pro-lifers: What does it mean to be pro-life"
And if you help to elect hillary clinton, you must bear the responsibility for all the deaths of all the children, unborn, living, and not yet even imagined that will flow from that election... MORALITY: Nothing less than morality undergirds my argument. What I am disputing are not your moral underpinnings--I admire them-- but rather your failure to acknowledge that your solution is no less (and I would argue, far more) immoral than the alternative.
Here is the "reference" to Fred Thompson in the thread: So, you'll be voting for Fred Thompson then? First sensible thing you've posted on this thread This was in response to Mia saying we needed "citizen-legislators" (odd because Rudy is anything BUT a citizen-legislator).
Post 126, In response that post.
Response to her: Look at Thompson's lobbying history -- it is universally in favor of deregulation, period
Her response I guess was: Deleted by Moderator
as was 134, they were both responses of some kind by Mia. Then 135 was deleted, it was a response to Mia's response. Mia said she'd try again. I still bet she said something false in there, that attacked Fred Thompson. I can't prove it.
... In any case, Thompson is hardly a 'citizen politician.' He is very much a part of the DC power structure.As for his winning attributes, listen to Lamar Alexander: EARTH TO LAMAR: FRED THOMPSON LOOKING THE PART AIN'T ENOUGH (41-second video FLUB)
What if Thompson's sole purpose is to give McCain the nomination by skimming off just enough conservatives from Rudy? (NB: gross is net, i.e., McCain has no conservative support to lose.) FRED'S GREATEST ROLE?: an alternative theory of Senator Thompson's not-yet candidacy
She makes three attacks on Fred, NONE related to "pro-life". Further, two of them have nothing to do with what the poster said about Fred. And the 2nd two are links to previous threads she posted in the past week attacking Fred.
Mia Vanity about Lamar's Hardball Interview: In this Vanity, Mia says:
Lamar Alexander on Hardball, pushing Fred Thompson for president confirms the obvious: Fred's top asset is his stage presence, followed closely by his presidential and other executive experience... on film. Fred's geography and ideology seal the deal for Lamar, the former being pure South and the latter, pure enough Right.
This is not simply quoting Lamar from hardball, Mia expresses her viewpoint about Fred using Lamar. And look carefully, she ignored his 8 years of legislative experience.
She later tried to claim it was Lamar's view: "This is a report on Fred's promoter's opinion, not mine.", but her words were HER opinion about Lamar: "confirms the obvious". "Obvious" means MIA's opinion about Fred's qualifications. Mia then says "Personally, I don't view being a senator especially relevant", which was obvious because she ignored it in giving her opinion about what was obvious about Fred's experience.
Fred's Greatest Role -- By Mia T This is a vanity by Mia, it's her own opinion:
To add to the real-virtual complexity, what if Thompson is not planning to jump in at all? What if this is just another role? What if Fred is playing Perot for his friend, John McCain, (who, in this analogy is clinton to Rudy's Bush 41)? That is, what if Thompson's sole purpose is to give McCain the nomination by skimming off just enough conservatives from Rudy? (NB: gross is net, i.e., McCain has no conservative support to lose.) ... This theory would explain Fred's unwillingness to declare. Of course, if the plan doesn't work, then Fred may jump off the stage and into the race for real.
She is not quoting someone else's opinion (she doesn't attribute it to someone, and she copyrights it for herself). Her "question" is a rhetorical device meaning "I can't prove any of this so I have to "ask it" rather than "assert it". Note that by the end of her opinion, the question mark is gone: "If THE PLAN doesn't work".
So, to summarize, you said:
Mia T said Thompson had no Executive Experience,
What she SAID was "As for his winning attributes, listen to Lamar Alexander". NO mention of "executive", either in that line or in the referenced thread.
You said: "Mia T said Fred is part of DC power structure because in addition to serving as Sen. for 8 yrs. he was a WASHINGTON LOBBYIST FOR 18 YRS.". I never said anything different.
You said Mia T didn’t claim he was running to take conservatives from Rudy; what she said was "Of course, if the plan doesn't work, then Fred may jump off the stage and into the race for real."
And her question itself was an attack on his character and integrity, suggesting he was playing us for fools.
And those two things had nothing to do with either his pro-life position, OR the comment made by the other poster -- they were spam, meant to attack a conservative, in support of Rudy.
I believe my characterization is both plausible and rational.
I have no idea what precisely got her banned, the 2 deleted comments, her calling pro-lifers supporters of immorality and baby-killers, or her attacks on a conservative in defense of a liberal.
DU troll? ROFL...
Lame, grunt, lame.
But that's not what concerns me. Rudy id not my candidate, but I'm not out there brow beating his supporters. Rudy will sink or swim on his own.
This is more than just a RNC family fight. It looks more like a fight for control, for domination.
That's just not going to happen without the total destruction of what little power base we have left. Your family members are being hurt and dismissed, and there is a cost to that.
I saw this coming back during the Meirs debate when this really began to rear it's ugliness, and it has continued non stop ever since.
When you boil it down to it's lowest common denominator, it is a social thing, and all about abortion.
Most Republicans, if not all, are not in favor of abortion, but there is wide variance on what they are willing to do about it, and where they place this issue as a political one.
That's what this is really about, and you cannot expect to force people to think a certain way. They will always resist and then they will retaliate if it continues.
None of this should have happened. It could have been prevented, but the damage is now done, and the reputation of the entire political party has been damaged in the public eye.
Getting elected to high office for anyone with a "R" will be problematic for some time to come. Many State Party's have been decimated. People often point at the war in Iraq, but the war effort was hurt when Bush was left unsupported and weak. The dem's took political advantage of that, as they should have. But the party is actually responsible.
I doubt you will see too many new politicians asking for any help from the RNC this cycle, and for some time. Why would they?
“Unlike Hillary, he hides his balls under a dress.”
ROTFLMAO!
A little light humor is good for the soul and lightens the tension. Sometimes you just have to take a break from the serious stuff.
Because it is a battle and I refuse to let scumbag demoncrap infiltrators win without a struggle. Phony cowards like you can be expected to give cowardly advice.
And I don’t buy the line that Hunter “can’t win”.
You don’t need rehab, just ethics training in honesty.
Yeah, I know. You've been bitter ever since I called you on your support of that leftist Schwarzeneggar over conservative Tom McClintock.
Not at all!
nose> 7-up>keyboard........ Darn , that stings! lololol
Only until you got through the withdrawals, 5-10 years maybe. That's not even the bat of an eye when speaking in geological terms. lol
“Sometimes you just have to take a break from the serious stuff.”
True. Provided that ‘relief’ isn’t at the expense of someone else’s demise.
But. I generally agree with you.
That picture is more likely from his appointment as Associate Attorney General (#3 spot in DOJ) in 1981, not his appointment as U.S. Attorney for the SDNY in 1983. The Assoc Atty Gen position did require Senate confirmation (I found articles from March 1981 in the NYT referencing the confirmation hearing)
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.