Vanity: Is protecting Constitution no longer goal of Freerepublic.com?

Me

[libertylady]

I have recently noticed that the home page of Free Republic no longer has the icon at the top which states that one of the goals of this website is protecting our freedom and our Constitution. Can anyone help me shed some light on this? I would hope that this is a temporary change and not an official declaration made by the staff of this website. With the lack of articles and lack of alarm posted on this website about the Draconian Patriot 1 and Patriot Act 2 I have began to wonder about whether this site really does support the Constitution.

[sweetliberty]

"Then why is CulturalJihad still around?"

LOL! I guess there has to be a few on every forum....for balance you know.

JERK

Jerk is sarcastic, mean, unforgiving and never misses an opportunity to make a cutting remark. Jerk's repulsive personality quickly alienates other Warriors, and after some initial skirmishing he is usually ostracized. Still, Jerk is very happy to participate in electronic forums because in cyberspace he is free to be himself...without the risk of getting a real-time punch in the mouth.

[Cold Heat]

That which fails to grow, dies.

Unfortunately, this law applies to governments as well. We do well to reign in the costs and keep them at the rate of growth. This should be a priority, always.

[Lancey Howard]

It is the Democrat Party which believes the Constitution to be a "living" document, a document which must be adjusted from time to time to reflect the chic political correctness of the day. Ideally, they see the judiciary taking over the legislative function of imposing taxes and income/wealth redistribution schemes (socialism) on a largely reluctant populace.

The Republican Party is the only viable alternative to the scumbag Democrats, and so I believe that two important aspects of Free Republic's mission should be:
1. To replace as many Democrats as possible with Republicans
2. To replace as many liberal ("moderate") Republicans as possible with conservative Republicans.

I hope this helps clear up your confusion.

[HairOfTheDog]

Look. The answer is simple math. One person does not a 'movement' make.

The right fringe only has a hope of guiding the discussion once people who lean right are in charge. You will bounce right off the left, and accomplish nothing. The left is half the country right now. When they take one step to the right, you can encourage them to take the next one.

[VaBthang4]

"By the way, I'll put my trust in the Lord. My vote goes to the Republican."

BTTT

[HairOfTheDog]

Oblivion? - No.... I don't see oblivion, I think we have a great country.

But it will always have one flaw. People. I acknowledge that we have to work with them. I am not sure you do.

[Bahbah]

But,..but, FF, how many years were the liberals in control? And then Newt and the group swept into power and I was elated. He was driving the money changers out of the temple, speaking truth about Medicare, adoption, etc. He was crucified. I am hopeful that the weapons are less blunt this time. More strategery going on. We need another 4 years. Then let's talk. I can admit the error of my ways.

[Cold Heat]

(22 percent in only two years,

Your saying the budget has increased by some 250 billion per year in two years!

I do not think so.

[Steve Van Doorn]

The Republicans are the lessors of two evils. But they are both evil. The lessor of the two evils needs to be influenced into an even lessor evil. That is why I have been voting Libertarian when I can.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

LL, most people will not be honest about how they feel about the changes at FR because they will be banned. It is disturbing that there can not be frank discussion of the unConstitutionality going on by the Bush Administration. I am not worried about Bush abusing these new laws, but I am deeply concerned about the next Clinton/Reno combo that comes along. Therefore I completely am very concerned that this administration is inadvertently causing our demise as a free nation.

[Cold Heat]

The Bush administration has proposed a 2003 budget of $2.1 trillion—a 3.7 percent increase—that includes a $48 billion jump in military spending and an additional $38 billion for homeland defense. Meanwhile, these increases combined with last year's $1.3 trillion tax cut translate into significant reductions for social development and human needs programs.

Bush has asked for major cuts in job training, hospital funding, highway spending, and labor department oversight of worker safety and minimum wage compliance. In addition, he has called for a five-year spending freeze on childcare, social service block grants, and funding for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

Congressional Democrats have countered Bush's proposals by seeking to loosen time caps on welfare assistance, restore benefits to legal immigrants, and increase funding for child care, while Republicans have largely supported reduced social spending by arguing that welfare caseloads have fallen by more than half since reform was legislated in 1996.

[VaBthang4]

"Jerk is sarcastic, mean, unforgiving and never misses an opportunity to make a cutting remark."

Then Cultural Jihad isnt one of them. Your definition.

"Jerk's repulsive personality quickly alienates other Warriors..."

Any "Warrior" alientated by an outspoken member of his group should check his own "warriorness" instead of besmirching someone elses willingness to say things in a manner that offends others.

"Still, Jerk is very happy to participate in electronic forums because in cyberspace he is free to be himself...without the risk of getting a real-time punch in the mouth."

Peculiar how "the jerk" doesnt imply a desire to hide but the critic does.

I am not coming at you as much as I am coming to the defense of Cultural Jihad. He is a legitimate member of this site and a Conservative American. He isnt a prefabricated arguement cut & paste artist or a person given to warped logic.
Many of us have just come to the conclusion that engaging some of the more shall we politely say Big "L"ibertarians is a complete and total waste of time and bandwidth considering that facts and reason hold zero [0] sway when discussing subject matter with them. Mockery therefore becomes legitimate. We all do it to die-hard Liberals and it is acceptable when engaging die-hard anti-authority, contrarian Big "L"ibertarians who pose as Conservatives.

[sweetliberty]

It wasn't my definition. I merely posted what was on the site.

Flame Warriors

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the Freeper fanboys. It's OK to ignore the Constitution if it's a Republican president and majority that does it. It's only when the liberals do it that they complain.

Patriot Act? That's almost biblical, didn't you know?

[tpaine]

[Playing the same old 'two party' political game was being discussed]

Jim Robinson:
Well, do you have a viable alternative?


"Principle before party."
85 OWK

Great idea, only it won't work. There are over 100,000,000 people who don't and won't vote that way. And I doubt you will ever get enough people to switch to the Constitution or Libetarian party (or whichever party of the moment is considered to be the "principled" party) to gain a working majority.
-94-
And, in the meantime, you surrender it all back to the Democrats and socialists.
96 -JR-
__________________________________


But, -- playing the game in the old way is not working. And, -- we now have a viable alternative, -- a method to get people to think about principle over politics.

JR, - you made a good start at it with the establishing of the RLC forum.
Republicans need to be made aware that the principles behind their party should be directly opposed to those of the socialists.
The 'position' of the RLC, as you posted, is a good starting point to effect a constitutional restoration of those principles within the republican conservative movement, imo.

Can you agree?

[VaBthang4]

Nevertheless...