I Am Reinstating My Previously Witheld Monthly Payment To FR

vanity | 08-26-02 | mercy

[mercy]

Giving priority to what is most important, I have decided to swallow my pride. I had a dustup with a moderator. I lost. Though I think the moderators need a tuneup they ain't so bad really. I depend on them to keep this site from becomming a free for all whacko hate site. I used to push the abuse button quite frequently on my fave undesirables ... anti-semite, haters. I notice they're a bit thin around here lately.

It is most important that Free Republic live and thrive. It is less important that I get things my way around here. Though I do not agree completely with the proposition that it is Jim's site and he can do with it what he damn will pleases ... It's as much our site, collectively, as it is his now. Perhaps Jim does ride herd a bit too hard on this creation he gave birth to. Fact is I don't know. I simply don't have enough information.

But it is a given that FR is the best there is at what it does. If it's only my morning paper and a place to exercise my verbal skills ... it's worth supporting. Now is the time for all level headed thinking FReepers to come to the aid of our wounded friend ... Free Republic.

[Consort]

I was thinking less about a mass-exodus, more like a targeted strike say (one race of little importance per state or just some states) that would be used to get attention.

They are all important if Republicant candidate has a chance of winning. But if it is a shoe-in for the Dem in an anti-GOP destrict, then helping a Third Party may actually prevent the Dem from winning.

Heck the GOP wins when it runs right ('80,'94).

Yes, but voter deomgraphics are changing rapidly and radically.

The fact that the Senate is getting more RINO disturbs me.

Again, yes, but RINOs helped make a a majority in both Houses until Jeffords jumped. Now all the Senate committees, sub-committees, confirmations, the Senate agenda, etc....are all controlled be Democrats. In that context, when it comes to reaching a majority, a RINO is just as important as a Conservative (just don't appoint the RINOs to chair important committies).

[TLBSHOW]

ok thanks for the answer and you most of signed up a lot earlier than I did because as you can see there was no question like that in the email they sent me.

[MassExodus]

I want us to be recommitted to returning us to a Constitutional Republic and to standing up for and returning us to the rights enumerated (but not created by) the Bill of Rights. I want the forum to -- at least at the top level -- stop the blind fealty to a man (GW Bush) and reaffirm fealty to the ideals of Conservatism.

Could not be said better.

It AMAZED me that solid Conservative activists could so closely mimic the behaviors that we found so repulsive of the likes of James Carville.

http://auma.pair.com/dmaurer/Johns/sheep.jpg

[M. Thatcher]

Those who have contributed and those who regularly contribute to the ongoing financial requirements of the site definitely have an implied stake and an indirect say in how the site is managed and governed whether anybody acknowledges it or not.

B.S. I refuse to read further because I have a life. Contributions are entirely, one-hundred percent voluntary. A voluntary contribution is an endorsement of sorts of the organization AS IS. If you don't approve of what the organization does, DON'T CONTRIBUTE. When FR receives a contribution it is obligated NOT AN IOTA to the contributor. Jim is polite and kind and does listen, but there is absolutely no legal, ethical, or moral requirement to do so.

You need to study capitalism, and especially the profound meaning of private property. You have no clue.

[Howlin]

***He'd have to crawl over me to do it.***

What exactly did you mean by that? :-)

[Cyber Liberty]

I'd defend that sweet thing to the death (or serious injury, or if I fall asleep). Same for you, darlin'

[Tauzero]

bump

[strela]

How can we work together to stop the socialists when at the same time an equally vocal group is calling me a "cop-hater" which I am certianly not, or a proponent of "anarchism" which I am equally not. What are we to do? Let us remove the beam for our eyes before considering the splinter in theirs, shall we?

Interesting and instructive ping list you've cobbled together for this post. I quite like the company I keep.

So, let me get this straight. You honestly believe that calling somebody a "nazi" is less perjorative than calling somebody a "cop hater?" Described as "the skunk at the garden party of debate," the term and the individuals who use it to describe others are beneath contempt. I look upon those who throw the term around like a discarded chewing gum wrapper as not only offensive fools but losers as well; for they have run out of ideas and are simply throwing verbal feces.

I believe you have the "beam" in the wrong eye, partner. Don't play the role of victim until you have been truly victimized.

[Miss Marple]

As I said when BADJOE left, and I say now with his return, this is Jim's site. He can do what he wishes. We are all free to stay or go (except for those banned).

Now, in the immortal words of Emily Latella

"Never mind."

[tpaine]

There is a big problem with the structure. We are supposed to be working together against the socialist Democrats in power, but a small but vocal group is calling me and others socialist brownshirts because we want to ban pornography, or because we want to encourage personal responsibility in others, and advance conservative family values in our society.
How are we supposed to be working for a common goal?
I want to fight socialists and lawlessness outside, not anarchists and cop-haters inside.

772 posted on 8/27/02 12:11 AM Pacific by Cultural Jihad
_________________________________
Here is the problem, in my view:

This site is primarily dedicated to restoration of constitutional values. Right?
Fine, we can fight on how best to achieve that goal. - And do.

But when the goal is turned to single issues, such as fighting porno, wrapped up in a 'conservative family values' flag, the infighting does indeed get vicious. -- Why?

Because the 'fight' then becomes constitutional.
The constitution is written to protect our rights to life, liberty, & property.
Single issue 'family value' crusades are counter-constitutional in their essence. They urge laws AGAINST certain life styles, liberties, & types of property.

Why is this simple point ignored so completely? -- Because it cannot be refuted.

Thus, -- To work for a common constitutional goal, we MUST keep our focus on the main political issues.
Perhaps we should keep the family value morality issues over in the religious forum.

[Roscoe]

Perhaps we should keep the family value morality issues over in the religious forum.

Perhaps we should keep the Libertarian theology there.

[Terriergal]

And remember, a certain freeper promised to leave if Registered comes back.

Which one? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? ;-)

[Roscoe]

Contributions are entirely, one-hundred percent voluntary.

They're so jealous of what Jim has created and so anxious to rationalize trying to take what isn't theirs.

[Terriergal]

And yeah, compared to you I am humble.

"And darn proud of it, too! So there!"

If I ever leave, or return, I'm not going to write some annoying, vapid, self-centered screed about it. Because why? NOBODY CARES.

"Except, if anyone doubts that I'm humble, I will make sure to repeat that I *am*!"

Thatcher, didn't anyone tell you that if you have to *say* it... you aren't it?

[justshe]

OH! PIP, PIP and a hearty CHEERIO, Margaret!!!

VERY well stated!

[Terriergal]

Perhaps we should keep the family value morality issues over in the religious forum.

I dont' know how you can separate things out like that. Everything is connected somehow. It's like little kids wondering why we have to have MATH in science class.

What about atheists and agnostics who care about family values?

[Terriergal]

I agree completely.

[M. Thatcher]

Thatcher, didn't anyone tell you that if you have to *say* it... you aren't it?

Hey, twit, I AM NOT HUMBLE. Which was my entire point. Let me translate my comment for the reading-impaired: Compared to Mr. Announcement, "I'm ba-aaack," even I, the proud and aggressive M. Thatcher, would seem humble.

Language. Try it.

[Terriergal]

Oh. Ok. Sorry, didn't have time to read all 800 posts.

[Terriergal]

Boy, going back and reading the post again, I still don't see where you made youre point about "not being humble."

Hmm... Usually I'm pretty good at picking up those things. I must not have drunk enough coffee today.