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.

[justshe]

Registered was NOT banned. He was given a one week suspension. He is free to post here. It is my understanding that he chooses NOT to return to FR.

And why the personal attack on others, Uni-Poster? ("...because others lied about what he posted and he was a victim of those lies and one particular whiney freeper?")

You didn't post your question in the hope of receiving an answer, did you? Not with THAT double-barreled agenda.

[tpaine]

I dont' know how you can separate things out like that.
________________________________

It is already being done.
- Mods could let a thread become established on the main forum, then switch it to a more appropriate forum later. -- And, imo, most threads of this devisive nature belong in the 'backroom', not in religion.
Or the list of exisiting forums could be expanded:

Campaign 2002
General Interest
News/Activism
Religion
RLC Liberty Caucus
The Smokey Backroom

[Roscoe]

I fail to see the rationale for using this.

Those who support tpaine's agenda are honorable, those who don't aren't. :)

[Uni-Poster]

I did recieve an answer, and I don't remember asking you the question. Good enough for you?

[tpaine]

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

Of course it can be refuted. "Banned in Boston" was not the name of pre-MTV musical group. You may think you have discovered some new Constitutional protection for private acts which are nonetheless harmful to society, but thinking so and saying so doesn't make it so. - CJ -
_________________________________

"Boston"? -- You've abused that lame line to death.
-- And the rest of your comment is equally inane.
Thanks, - like roscoe, you've proven my theory. - Your only agenda here at FR is to rock the boat.

[justshe]

Of course. And you are correct, you didn't ask me the question.

[ClancyJ]

It's the 'new day Republicans'

This term was just made up to distinguish the Republicans working to go forward from this point in our country from the Libertarians and ultra conservatives that want nothing but immediate return back to the beginning.

No president would be electible or even be allowed to stay in office if he came in and immediately did away with Social Security, the education department, the War on Drugs and all the other stuff you expect him to do.

If he is not electible with that agenda does that tell you anything? Maybe voters don't want to give up Social Security, education et al. Just who is running this country anyway - the voters or those who want total return to the beginning of this country?

IMHO your only hope is to convince those voters that return to the constitutional starting point is to their advantage. You won't get there by tearing down any conservative person who does not agree with you. You won't get there by destroying the administration of the most conservative person we have in office at the time.

Like Bush said - "change one heart at a time". There is a lot to be said for that simple statement.

All that happens with the battles is hate and hate does not draw people to your way of thinking.

[ClancyJ]

You know - I almost wish we had respectful discussions with liberals here. It would be very interesting.

We have Hannity & Colmes and the sound bite debates but wouldn't we all enjoy trying to get through to the liberals and maybe you liberals would even think you could convince us (fat chance!).

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

....and in other, late breaking news, Winston Smith announced today that he loves Big Brother.

[tpaine]

You have, in a classic fashion, 'humbled' only your own foolish self.

[ClancyJ]

By the way, glad you are here. You sound like a person understanding what has happened to the democrats.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

You didn't post your question in the hope of receiving an answer, did you? Not with THAT double-barreled agenda.

What just made me think of the O.J. jury?

[Liberal Classic]

Well, in my opinion it is better for the forum to have some focus. Completely unmoderated discussions tend to get bogged down in endless flamewars. Endless flamewars are like cotton candy: they are temporarily entertaining, but have no real substance. Just empty calories.

[Liberal Classic]

You have, in a classic fashion, 'humbled' only your own foolish self.

LOL

May I post your private message to me? It more clearly makes your point.

[justshe]

ROFL!!!

And you'll note........the point of the question was ignored.

[tpaine]

Read his posts over a year or so.
--You would see the 'rationale' behind them. They do not honor constitutional principles.
Their only agenda/rationale, imo, seems to be in the baiting of conservative positions.

[Liberal Classic]

By the way, glad you are here. You sound like a person understanding what has happened to the democrats.

Thank you very much. I am glad to be here, even though I had to take a break. Sometimes you just have to step back and put your priorities in order.

[tpaine]

Those who support tpaine's agenda are honorable, those who don't aren't. :) - roscoe
_________________________________

Exactly. My 'agenda' is honoring our original constitutions principles.

What's yours?

[Uni-Poster]

The original question was not to you. So any answer you would like to recieve will not be given.

If I do have a question for you, I will address it to you. Why I would have a question for you is beyond me, but I will let you know when I do.

[headsonpikes]

"...working to go forward..."

I guess it's this concept which is troubling. If going 'forward' means making more efficient the engines of Socialism, then I think that is misguided 'conservatism'.

Of course, if things are as bad as you say, it's Socialism that the voters want.

Only a generational change can help that, and it will not be pleasant to go through, imho.

I agree with you that 'one heart at a time' is the way to proceed, and I support your President against his enemies. I just don't think Ron Paul and similar spirits are 'enemies'. ;^)