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?
You are welcome!
I fail to see how supporting Duncan Hunter enters into any of this.
“Plus the Republican brand would be meaningless as an option to fight liberalism in the future.”
So true. Blurring the lines is meaningless to values, principles, and beliefs.
What if the unborn baby doesnt want to be moved from one womb to another?
What about her right to stay where she was planted?
True in 1980, true today:
I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose. We have come together here because the American people deserve better from those to whom they entrust our nation’s highest offices...
Ronald Reagan
He added: and we stand united in our resolve to do something about it.
Let US stand united in our resolve. This is my prayer. This is my pledge, to join with those like minded to be united in resolve to do something about it.
You say you against abortion. Why? If you believe that a baby is being killed, then you cannot be for letting people have choice in the matter. Why would we give people a choice to end another innocent human life? That is murder. Are we solving one wrong with another when we prevent a murder from taking place?
If we are talking about solving one wrong with another then we are talking about a pro-choice viewpoint. They seek to solve the wrong (accidently pregnancy or rape) with murder.
I agree. I would love to see Duncan Hunter as the nominee, but I am realistic enough to see that Fred’s name recognition and charisma will be major benefits.
What about the placenta which is coating the inside of the womb etc? And the child’s separate blood supply? Have you considered the logistics of transplanting everything to do with the child?
How much easier just to leave the child in the first womb and allow her to retain her womens’ rights?
Sorry you think that equality is a copout. Laws are repealed, judgements are overturned. What ROE is, simply put, was judicial activism and the WRONG way to go about law making. Many times it is SCOUTS who punts, in this example I think Congress punted.
I thought I answered such a question on this thread already?
Multiple Congress’ allowed something to go forward that was beyond the scope of the Judicial branch of government and should have addressed it in LAW long ago. They could do so today.....if they were forced to actually do their jobs.
I don’t generally support outright bans, per se, because that precident is easily and often abused. I prefer alternative choices that accomplish the goals that are desired by all parties concerned. That principle is what brought me to the position I hold today.
A woman’s *right* to do with what she wants with her own body does not trump the life of another. It does not give her the *right* to murder another human being. Everything a person does has some influence on others. When your actions infringe on those of another person’s, no, you do not have the *right* to do as you please.
Hey junior, too bad conservatives can't win without 'em. Keep on alienating 'em, junior, and conservatives won't even be able to win dog-catcher.
You haven't put any of your nonsense on your homepage, most apropos, your state flag. In most states, (I think), you have to be registered within the party for which you hope to effect change in the primary. That stung me when I changed my registration outta disgust for the empty scrutum'ed republican senate in the late nineties. I had to change back so that I will be able to vote for DH in the primary.
No, I wouldn't and your argument is totally insincere.
For what it's worth, there are some MAJOR problems with the organ harvesting industry, but in theory it is good. Organ tranplantation generally involves taking an organ from a corpse and transplanting it to a living person WHO WOULD LIKELY DIE WITHOUT IT.
And I have now made up my mind that YOU ARE A TROLL, so please do not post to me.
What about the baby’s right to life? Doesn’t the baby’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, overrule the mother’s alleged *right* to kill it? Why are you favoring one person’s rights over another’s?
“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.”
We have never had this experience, the female pill gave total power to men if women used it, so they didn’t.
The male pill gives men total power and they will use it, so women will have to try something else, and I think that something else will be to rediscover withholding sex from men.
I just can’t see a world where once men are totally protected from the consequences of sex, that single women will simply accept that world.
Like I said, you can’t control mother nature when it comes to the sexes.
Cheers!
There are several good ones we can support after the liberal puke Ghouliani is knocked out of the news.
Sorry, I’m confused. I see you refer to my #8587, which has nothing to do with Huxley. I did quote him in #8547. I also touched on some of the bizarre possibilities of transplanting fetuses. Is that your reference? But those were in re: live surrogate mothers, not one bit like the Bokanovsky’s Process incubators in Brave New World.
The promise starts with the words ‘Life, Liberty and the PoH’ Without life, the other two are mute. A woman has no right to murder a child, regardless that its in her body just as we have no right to murder a deserved scumbag.
“””The right to her own body and decisions about what happens to it. We all should respect each other’s right to our own bodies. Wouldn’t you agree?
A woman’s body changes drastically as a result of a full term pregnancy. A female has no right to govern those changes to her own body? You govern those decisions? I do? Government does? Why would a unborn baby have the right to do that when a female should not? Would this not be the very right you just said should not be violated? Keep in mind I seek a solution where no life is lost.”””
He is a pro abortion troll, and he is pretty good at it.
He isn’t really selling the abortion view, he is just good at chewing up a thread.
It’s looking that way. I like them both. Both are heads and shoulders morally above Rudy.
Part of our problem today is we don’t expect/demand/call for virtue in our leaders. When that’s the reality, we get things like the gay agenda forcing our kids towards an understanding that what we believe is immoral is just perfectly natural, and many other things.
James Madison wisely noted: “There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent an sudden usurpation.”
And William Penn stated: “If thou wouldst rule well, thou must rule for God, and to do that, thou must be ruled by him....Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.”
The totalitarianism of the PC movement is a prime example of that.
John Adams warned us in 1776:
“The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.”
Virtue, a well-defined moral sense of natural law and a willingness to see behind the screeds of those who want to call good bad and bad good counts.
Pelosi, Reid, and even Guiliani show by their past and present actions that they are quite deficient in these areas.
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.