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?

[Knitting A Conundrum]

May he rest in peace, Enosh.

[tiredoflaundry]

I’m so sorry Enosh. May he rest in peace.

[Bigh4u2]

Prayers to you and yours.

[processing please hold]

I’m sorry to hear that, Enosh. You and your family will be in my prayers.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>IMO, and I will venture to speak for many here, there are 4 issues that MUST be met in a GOP nominee: winning the war against the islamo-slime, pro-life credentials, support for the 2A, and low taxes.

Add to that short list, limited govt, opposed to amnesty, no special rights for gays ---- for anyone, no promoting CFR or envirowacko global warming bunkum.

Just a friendly reminder.

“How many times must I say FR is a conservative site? We do not support abortionism, homosexualism, feminisim, environmentalism, gun control, liberalism, socialism, etc, etc, etc. When I say I suspect we will become even more conservative than we already are, possibly via attrition if nothing else, what do you think I’m referring to? When FR starts pushing hard and I mean hard against abortion, gay marriage, homosexual education forced on our school children, pandering to illegal aliens, gun control, McCaine-Feingold type usurpation, global warming, etc, etc, even if supported or advanced by the GOP, then I fully suspect certain types of moderate/liberal Republican supporters are probably going to be a little uncomfortable here. We will be fighting for traditional American conservatism no matter who we have to fight against and I’m afraid that’s going to piss off some folks.”

~~~ Jim Robinson, 3/2/07 LINK

[del4hope]

Now I can put a face with a name?

[Crawdad]

Damn. I go to the grocery store only to return to a tent revival. Praise Jesus.

[stillonaroll]

Apparently you didn’t see our Ohio results in the last election. The solid conservatives got their clocks cleaned. And it was NOT because conservatives didn’t turn out, but because a lot of “middle” or “indies” voted the other way.

Didn't the DemonRats run a lot of pro-life, pro-gun moderates in swing districts in 2006? That will certainly not be the case on the national Rat ticket next year.

[Dominic Harr]

IMO, and I will venture to speak for many here, there are 4 issues that MUST be met in a GOP nominee: winning the war against the islamo-slime, pro-life credentials, support for the 2A, and low taxes.

Well 2 out of 4 ain't bad, in my book. But of course Rudy is being savaged in these threads as worse than the anti-christ.

I've said it a dozen times here. If you oppose Rudy on the positions, I respect you. But if you think Rudy is a 'baby-killing, homo-loving, gun-grabbing, cross-dressing' etc, then I, personally, don't really want to discuss anything with you, and I'll go somewhere that I can find a calm, reasoned debate where they stick to the positions and debate those without flames.

[pissant]

No one has any expectations that a President will outlaw it outright anytime soon. First things first. Stack the courts to kill R v. W and then let the fights resume at the state level.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

Good advice, even today!

[tiredoflaundry]

I’ll tell grammie it was you who was sticking the un popped kernels under the couch cushions!

[EternalVigilance]

Damn. I go to the grocery store only to return to a tent revival. Praise Jesus.

God talk really bothers you?

[Spiff]

Good grief.

Ping to this post.

[politicalwit]

“Rudy Giuliani will destroy the conservative movement”.

Giuliani may destroy the Republican Party but will NEVER destroy conservativism.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

I agree 100%. It’s going to be wall-to-wall ugliness.

[Fiddlstix]

Look at some of the discussions from 1999 as well.

People would flame.

And the mods would holler.

Think back. In 1999 there were no mods.
Jim didn't have the mods till some 3 years later, if memory serves.
J

[Spiff]

You're kidding, right? Search some of Deb's old posts and get back to me.

You go that right. I remember Deb.

[EternalVigilance]

Stack the courts to kill R v. W and then let the fights resume at the state level.

Stack the courts with folks with basic reading comprehension skills, who can understand the simple words of the preamble and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and who will therefore of course rule that persons in the womb are persons. Then you won't have to worry about any "state level fights."

[presently no screen name]

You didn't like that, which is what triggered your premature exasperation.

As usual, you make an assumption and you do it constantly. I DID KNOW THAT and it wasn't premature.

As for whether or not I 'know' MThatcher, that isn't even germane to the subject at hand.

Sure it is. You told me I don't 'know' you so I couldn't make a comment about. So the same applies to you knowing her.

If you wish to defend the indefensible,

I would NEVER defend your posts.

MThatcher might invite you to high tea for your troubles.

Like I said, I don't communicate with her. It isn't necessarily about her. The same has been done to others. This is a 'stand on principle' thread - yet, name calling, slurs, sarcasm is paramount and it's given a free pass. That's hypocrisy, IMO. Your giddiness about when conservative long-time freepers leave willingly or otherwise is very telling.

I could care less that MT threatened you - but I hate to see Jim in the midst of anything because of your disruptive tactics.