Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?

vanity | April 21, 2007 | Jim Robinson

[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?

[beltfed308]

I miss Travis. He was a good guy and I liked his book.

[mkjessup]

Frankly, I've always been grateful for the existence of the "zot threads." They give the true knuckle-draggers around here something to do while the grown ups talk politics.

Soooo while the grown ups talk politics, what are you doing?

If you know how to write an opus, why not get on with it? The only reason you're still around is because JimRob apparently wants to provide us with some more target practice.

[Registered]

Maybe “PSYCHO-FREEP” is “high bitrate” at that other site. LOL

Personally, it wouldn't surprise me to see that it is actually you RM playing the role here to "help Jim along". I hope he zots you soon for the troll you are.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason.

Cicero

[flashbunny]

Don’t worry, pukin dog will be back, if not under that name under a new one. He has too much of a hunger for attention to stay away.

[CharlesWayneCT]

quidnunc:

For conservatives I guess the choice is between getting 75%-80% of what we want or getting nothing.

Like it or not, the candidates preferred by this board — Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Duncan Hunter, et al — are certain losers.

Jim:

I’d long for 75%. Hell, Rudy isn’t even 25% of what I want and he’s 100% of what I outright reject!

And quidnunc, "laying out the case for his candidate", responds by explaining how Rudy is actually 75% of what Jim wants, getting him banned.

No wait, that's not what happened. What happened was quidnunc responding with:

So you prefer Hillary, then?

Now, to be fair, that's probably the best quidnunc could DO to make a case for his candidate: "Vote for Rudy, he's not Hillary" (she looks better in a dress).

But if I questioned your opinion of your candidate being "80%" conservative, and you responded by telling me I wanted Hillary to be president, I'd be tempted to respond belligerantly.

People who have tried to defend Giuliani honestly, or raised honest issues about other candidates, are still here posting away, or at least not banned (a few simply stopped posting, but are still active).

People dissenting from the purges, dissenting from the arguments of conservatives, dissenting from the supposed mob, are still here, because they haven't been too uncivil (you are still here).

Jim took some real time to write a long and articulate vision of what HIS SITE was going to be. quidnunc ignored it, and attacked Jim for not being willing to throw out all those principles he just articulated simply to keep Hillary out of the white house. And he did it by calling Jim a Hillary supporter.

[presently no screen name]

that clearly unbalanced behavior

You are TRULY the last one who should talk about 'unbalanced behavior'.

jumped ship

What was her main reason for 'jumping ship'?

you can tell MThatcher we all said "PFFFFFFFFFTTTT!!!!"

I'm not in communication with her so you can be rude on your own.

Don't you go invoking that whole 'Godly principles' .

So you 'pick' what Godly principles you stand on? That's not the way it works. However, when someone has their own agenda and doesn't want to be held accountable to what 'they profess' - they pick and choose what applies.

shame on you for defending the indefensible.

Don't YOU EVER TELL ME what is indefensible or REPRIMAND me! More so, when you are claiming you are standing on 'Godly principlies' you don't even WANT THEM MENTIONED!

[tarheelswamprat]

"Critical mass" came after 50 posts?

The 'chain reaction' had been in progress long before this thread.

[cicero's_son]

When I'm not talking politics with the other grown ups, I like to swat little gnats like you.

As for Jim banning me, I doubt it. I haven't violated any terms of service. I've not criticized Reagan or any other conservative candidates. I've even said I'd take a look at Thompson if he enters the race.

That said, if he does, he does.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

You CANNOT be honestly pro-life and support Rudy. If you are doing that, then you have compromised your pro-life position, and said the unborn and the vunerable don’t really count as much as fear.

You may still consider yourself pro-life, but you have made a deal with the dark.

[Reagan Man]

The 2003 California recall election sent FR headed off on the wrong track and in the wrong track. A slow moving leftward grind that continued until recently. JimRob has applied the brakes to this downside motion and said, enough is enough.

Many of the same FReepers who jumped on the anti-conservative Arnold Schwarzy bandwagon in 2003, are the same FReepers who are supporting and promoting Rudy Giuliani today. No doubt about it. Purging FR of these determined liberals and left leaning Pubbies who’ve been undermining FR`s stated conservative mission, has been the right decision.

[Politicalmom]

You mean he’s an “attention deleted”.

Can’t finish it. Don’t want to get Imused. :)

[rbmillerjr]

“Dear idiot,

The “asswipe” comment came at just 56 posts. Everything that happened after post #56 is immaterial to that particular episode.”

Dear reading comprehension challenged, your initial post states in general that “all they did was stand up for their convictions...”

You are a weak boy. You’ve used moron,idiot and knuckledraggers all in your last 5 posts lol. I think we know how you percieve conservatives at this point.

[Reagan Man]

Correction:

"The 2003 California recall election sent FR headed off on the wrong track and in the wrong track direction.

[Delphinium]

there are LARGE numbers of pro-life people who quietly support him

You mean they might just be kinda pro-life?

[Registered]

Many of the same FReepers who jumped on the anti-conservative Arnold Schwarzy bandwagon in 2003, are the same FReepers who are supporting and promoting Rudy Giuliani today. No doubt about it. Purging FR of these determined liberals and left leaning Pubbies who’ve been undermining FR`s stated conservative mission, has been the right decision.

LOL, right out of your own Kos infested playbook.

[tarheelswamprat]

I miss Travis. He was a good guy and I liked his book.

Same here. He has a new book out, but I'm not sure if a link is allowed. Shouldn't be hard to locate.

[mkjessup]

Don't YOU EVER TELL ME what is indefensible or REPRIMAND me!

I just did, and will again.

More so, when you are claiming you are standing on 'Godly principlies' you don't even WANT THEM MENTIONED

I never said I was standing on Godly principles, that's what YOU invoked in your post defending the indefensible MThatcher.

Pound sand you cretin.

[Delphinium]

You are a weak boy. You’ve used moron,idiot and knuckledraggers all in your last 5 posts lol. I think we know how you percieve conservatives at this point.

Before they go, they have all been letting their real true feelings about FR and its conservative message fly.

[cicero's_son]

I think we know how you percieve conservatives at this point.

Conservatives? I love 'em.

Some of you people, on the other hand....