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?
I agree. We survived eight years of the Clintons, and I think we can survive them again easier than we could survive Rudy. With Rudy, the Republicans in Congress wouldn’t really be able to oppose him, they can oppose a ‘Rat.
Excellent post. I will be doing everything in my power to stop Rudy from getting the nominee.
He said it before Bush signed it. There appears to be NO valid reason for a PBA from my point of view. I am not claiming Rudy has not been Pro-choice.
Or be told how libertarianism is the same thing as conservatism and that the Founding Fathers were really advocating ZERO government.
Howlin has been “intimidating” FR? What a joke.
I notice you didn’t address your comments...
“Each of his (Giuliani) positions is closer to those of the American voters than are yours and the Rudyphobes here.”
So the American people want abortions federally funded. So the American people want open borders. So the American people want radical “Act Up” gays influencing our society and exposing our children to this “accepted behavior”. So Americans want illegal criminals immigrants getting aid and be protected by mayors like Giuliani all over this country?
“His views are not extreme.”
Extremist leftists may agree, or people willing to sell out to win an election.
Exactly. I don't come here seeking to determine whether abortion is right or wrong, or whether the government should be spending more or less money. I know that already. I come here to debate how to change the status quo and poke holes in liberal arguments.
On the political spectrum viewed by the electorate Rudy is a Moderate. On the political spectrum viewed by the Far Left Rudy is a Nazi. On the political spectrum viewed by the Far Right Rudy is a Liberal.
Since the one which matters most, the view of the electorate, will have the greatest effect I don’t really worry much about the other two mirror images of each other.
Your soundbite slams do not reflect anything but your hatred.
Elyse, I am pro choice, but not the way you frame it. I seek an alternative choice to ones that exist today because I find all the choices today to have something wrong with them. That seems to be lost thru this discussion when you try to make A choice be THE choice of abortion itself.
The idea or notion or whatever you want to call it is not about TODAY. It is about solving an ongoing problem in a way that finally ends it as a political football. As it stands there is a stalemate and politicians take advantage of that....never really doing anything productive about it. So things remain as they are. I want something better and I want politicians to move on to other problems that face our nation and our world.
Removing various oppositions to solutions is how to solve a problem, imho. I offer that the best way to remove opposition on the other side is to offer another alternative choice. Likewise removing opposition to a solution on this side is preserving the life. When this is done, the argument made that choice is being removed fails in it’s accuracy in merit, so does the argument of the unborn dying on the process.
I believe the purpose of debate is about finding solutions to problems. What I talk about is preserving what both sides really want. On one side, choice, and on the other life. What is so wrong with that an why is it that you seem so against it?
If a technological advance is made to facilitate such an idea, there would be no need continuing the practice abortion as it is done today. Thus, such a practice could be done away with and harm no ones ability to gain that which they desire.
I guess I will ask you this, do you want to end abortions as they are done today in any way possible or are you more interested in doing it your way, an established way, like a simple outright ban with nothing put in it’s place? Do you honestly think that if a Congress just banned all abortions that the abortion debate ends? Hardly. It would be the same arguments that happen now, just the other way around. In terms of my idea, that would not be the case.
The only argument that could be made in that event would be to directly lobby for the right to kill an unborn by choice when a viable alternative exists. No one is going to gain support for such a thing when there is an alternative that gains them a ‘not pregnant’ status. No one will even listen to that foolishness because the case could be and would be made that an alternative exists and their position has ZERO merit because of it.
It is my position that removing choice is wrong. I don’t think it is productive to remove choice entirely. To me, that is trying to solve one wrong with another. I just seek something better.
One possible reason you are finding it hard to understand me is that you are trying to take my square position on this subject and fit it into a established round hole alrready formed in this long ongoing conflict. Is that a corny way to say it? Sure it is. I think that one reason this has gone on for so long is that the debate has become stagnatn with the same old ideas and talking points.
This is why I have this ‘square’ shaped position. Trying something new to arrive at a day where this debate is no longer needed becasue all concerned gain that which they seek.
“Since the one which matters most, the view of the electorate, will have the greatest effect I don’t really worry much about the other two mirror images of each other”
I’m glad you are admitting that you are not a conservative and more importantly, you don’t worry (or care) about conservatism.
I don’t agree with you but you embrace your beliefs. You’re likely a good Republican, just not a conservative.
Absolute, utter BS. Bush signed the PBA Ban on November 5, 2003.
Rudy's support "evolved" about two months ago.
“With Rudy, the Republicans in Congress wouldn’t really be able to oppose him, they can oppose a ‘Rat.”
That is true, and there would be far fewer Republicans in congress to oppose anything.
When Rooty drives voters to third parties or they just stay home, the ticket will suffer from top to bottom.
Yup, that's the one I quoted.
Of course, the reality is that there is no way that Rudy could win the general election, while any of the others can.
"Terminating a pregnancy" is one such mindless slogan that I addressed in my post to you, which is a little bit like the nonsensical statement that "a pregnancy can be removed from a female without ending the pregnancy itself". Maybe it's just bad writing, but an unborn baby is not merely a "pregnancy". An unborn baby is a separate human being who temporarily relies on his or her mother for life support. An pre natal infant is not some sort of disease or mere appendage of a mother's body.
The liberal left points out what they feel is wrong all the time. Gun bans, Smoking bans, seat belts, helmets, etc etc etc. Their answer is just to ban something without any other solutions or choices. That tactic is opposed on this website and others as improper all the time. And rightly so.
"Choice" is another one of those mindless slogans. It is a subject without a predicate. It is meaningless. Choice to do what?
Suppose I said to you, "There is something wrong with slavery, which is exactly why I seek to find another route. I guess that is beyond you. Please see that just removing choice because something is wrong doesn't solve everything, it only creates other problems. Like slippery slopes."
By what principle could you reject that statement? If you were consistent, you couldn't. You leave yourself no principled reason to reject it because "choice" by itself, being devoid of meaning, forces you to violate your own standard if you do reject something like slavery because you would be "removing choice" from slaveowners who choose to own slaves.
You are on the beginning of the right track by calling an unborn baby what it is truhfully...an unborn baby. You would do well to speak as directly and truthfully when it comes to what an abortionist actually does who cuts off the limbs and crushes the skulls of unborn babies, burns them alive with chemicals, or throws them in a pan to die after they are born; not exactly on par with smoking bans, seat belts, helmets kinds of things.
"Potential life" is another one of those idiotic, oxymoronic catch-phrases that has no basis in reality. But don't get me started on that one.
Cordially,
I think I remember those same type of predictions from the Mid-1960's about the pill and the eventual ban on abortion. Your assertion flies in the face of our experience.
TS
Well, in that case then you would consider organ transplants “a ghoulish medical experiment” too huh? I hope you are happy with that.
Same principle.
That has two problems. The first is that your solution is purely speculative, thus not really a choice. The second is that the word “choice” doesn’t really mean choice in the usual sense in the abortion debate. It is a word of art employed by the Left to disguise an action of moral and ethical evil.
When “choice” is usually used, it implies a rough equivalent of options; one may choose to eat meat or vegetables, turn back or go forward, speak or be silent, etc. However, when options are limited by an outside parameter, such as morality, they are then not truly choices between equal options. When given the option of earning money at a job, or stealing it at gunpoint, the moral person has no option. So also is there no moral option between preventing pregnancy by responsible practices and terminating a pregnancy by killing the living organism created by ones actions. Therefore, the use of abortion as a pregnancy prevention method is clearly immoral, and not a viable choice. Once pregnant, the only moral decision is to attempt to carry to term. Sorry for the inconvenience, ladies, but the life of another depends on you at that point.
Our society has determined certain guidelines for justifiably taking another human life: defense of self, defense of others, defense of nation, protection of society after due process, etc. What pro-aborts are doing is trying to make personal convenience of a pregnant woman grounds for justifiable homicide. Knowing that the barefaced facts would be unacceptable to people, they obfuscate what they are doing by calling it a mere “choice”.
So, to take it back to your original idea, you would be better served by making your proposed medical alternative to pregnancy under a different conceptual framework than the abortion “choice” model. If the alternatives of the future are carry to term, abort, or transfer the fetus, by ceding that the abort “choice” has equivalence you make the solution you propose a mere option.
He has real crossover appeal that could gather all conservatives and leaners back in one group.
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.