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.

[Jim Robinson]

Clearing our own house would be nice. How do you propose doing that without turning the majority back to the Democrats? If you have some viable ideas, I'm all ears. Meanwhile, it's full speed ahead dumping the RATS!

[Joe Hadenuf]

I agree, but then you get the situation where the libs know they can't win as registered Democrats so they register as Republicans. That's why it is dangerous (maybe too strong a word) to blindly vote "Republican".

Or when you have konservatives that think they are conservatives and vote Republican when in reality, they are leftist liberals. I often wonder if it's an intentional thing.

To be truthful, I can't tell many of them apart anymore.

[bizdoc]

But at least here in GA, all of that is changing hee hee hee (rubbing hands together)

Right. We have liberal RINOs wanting to raise taxes. Some progress! We have not had a conservative take over in Georgia. We have had a liberal takeover of the Republican party. It is why Georgia now has the second largest libertarian party in the USA, only behind California the last I checked.

'Doc

[Jim Robinson]

Huh? No, I'm saying that I doubt that the Democrats will change to Republican on a major scale.

[Jason_b]

Like the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, like those conducted at road blocks and traffic stops?

Change your habits/your lifestyle and your friends and those you associate with

I was alone after working a 12 hour shift on Saturday, hungry as hell, not in a good mood, and what do I find? A huge traffic jam outside of the office (I work in a city). In the time it took me to crawl one city block, I could have been home, fed, and asleep. I finally got to the blockage and found that it was not an accident, but a DUI checkpoint. There was no probable cause to stop me or those in the traffic snarl with me. Some made U turns and perhaps those were the drunks. The rest of us rolled down our windows and were asked questions by the cops. In my heart I knew this was abuse of authority and I hated those police and the politicians who put them there. I've cooled off now. But looking back, and this may be a bit of a stretch, I believe my time is my own and of value to me (even greater value when I'm starved) and others and I have a property right in it. That property right was violated that night as it cost me an amount of time significant to me. It also made me feel degraded to have to answer to a cop when I had not done anything wrong. If I am going about my business peacefully, law-abidingly, I want to be left the hell alone.

This time it was not my habits or my friends that was the problem. It was the presumption that the police can jam up traffic and "screen" all drivers in search of the drunk. If they want to catch a minority of drunks they should be driving around looking for the symptoms, not bothering the innocent majority.

[Jhoffa_]

To be truthful, I can't tell many of them apart anymore.

It's true, you can't tell allot of them from the Rats, so I used to just want them OUT, right now and regardless of the consequences..

Then Jeffords jumped and we lost the Senate.. So there's a case for having a numerical majority, even if it does contain some bad apples.

Can you imagine how stymied we would be with Dadchle in charge today?

[ksen]

Huh? No, I'm saying that I doubt that the Democrats will change to Republican on a major scale.

Oh, my bad.

I hope you're right. Have a great weekend, and please tell John he's doing a wonderful job.

Is it 5:00 EST yet?

[Lysander]

As any CASUAL obsever of the Fox Network program Cops will attest (as will those who do ride-alongs with their local cops)...

LOL! Now that is real world evidence.

[_Jim]

and what do I find? A huge traffic jam

Contact your city councilman - there's no excuse for affecting traffic to that degree ...

[MrLeRoy]

A letter to the editor I sent last fall:

The ballot that voters will use in next month’s election will list only Republican and Democratic candidates for many public offices. Several other races, however, will offer voters the opportunity to choose a “third-party” candidate. These candidates, although sometimes propelled by nothing more than vanity, more typically campaign as the only genuine alternative to major-party contestants who have few meaningful differences between them.

Many voters agree about the deficiencies of the Republican and Democratic offerings, but nonetheless reject the idea of choosing a third-party candidate as “throwing away their vote.” A third-party vote, in this view, is wasted on a challenger who has no realistic chance of winning---while that vote is denied to the “lesser of two evils” major-party contender, thus making likelier the victory of the least-favored candidate. This view is seriously misguided.

In voting districts that, at their smallest, include tens of thousands of voters, statistics dictate that it is extremely unlikely for any race to be decided by a single vote (and for a statewide race, this possibility can be completely ignored). So each voter must realize that their vote will not by itself tip the scales.

A common response to this point is, “What if everybody voted that way?” The implication of that question is that third-party voting can, in the aggregate, swing the election to the least-favored candidate. However, the question has a straightforward, and obvious, answer. In these times of increasing dissatisfaction with political “business as usual,” if everybody voted for the candidate whose platform they most believed in, the stranglehold of the major parties would be broken and the victory of third-party challengers would become a real possibility---as it became reality in Minnesota when Jesse Ventura was elected governor.

Is this a likely outcome in the short term? Perhaps not. But until that day comes, the only practical significance of one’s vote is to send a message---to the eventual winner, to that candidate’s party, and to all those who may seek that office in the future. What message do you want to send?

[APBaer]

"When you have two choices to make, you have to make the best one."

Funny, I thought the best you could do was to make the better one.

[jimt]

So far you have been weak in your 'bobbing and weaving' ...

There's no need to "bob and weave" with an opponent who's flailing the air behind him.

Until you can respond logically you might start worrying more about your own personal problems than commenting on mine, especially as you know nothing about me.

As to your TV viewing habits, well... try something other than the sensational shows.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, I'm not so sure about that. I believe the majority of the damage was done by big time liberals and progressives. I can name the income tax, the 17th amendment, the New Deal, the Great Society, and Roe vs Wade as examples. And even though federal spending increased under Ronald Reagan, so did the economy. In fact it continued booming long after Reagan was gone. And then there's the little deal of defeating the USSR. I sincerely doubt that any Democrat would've or could've done that. In fact, I believe they opposed him at every turn.

Sure am glad that Gore is not president today. And just as glad that Daschle, Gephardt & Co are not in charge of the Congress.

[eskimo]

Well, do you have a viable alternative?

Perhaps if we all did not allow ourselves to be herded into the "them and us" groups that are strategically managed by political profiteers to comprise about the same number of supporters so as to stalemate any real political change.

Perhaps if all were encouraged to speak their minds as individuals and not chastised severely for deviating, in any way, from the group consensus as defined by its activists.

Perhaps if we made an earnest effort to hold every political miscreant, who chooses to disregard the Constitution, personally accountable for their crimes.

Perhaps then we could honestly say we are performing our duty as American citizens and not just floundering in some reverie at having slightly slowed the destruction of our Republic.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, the sad reality is, our government is essentially controlled by the two major political parties. And I doubt there will be any earth-shattering changes in that anytime in the foreseeable future.

[EggsAckley]

Eventually I will set up a special forum in the sidebar for the drug war threads. At the moment they can go to the Smokey Backroom Forum.

LOL! Just where the pot smokers SHOULD be. </;o)

[Jim Robinson]

Well, I still think that a more conservative Congress and judiciary will go farther in mitigating some of these matters (EPA, FEC, Brady, etc) than would the liberals. And, yes, we can and should criticize and hold them all accountable every day. Letters, faxes, phone calls, personal visits, joining organizations to lobby, etc, etc. And when nothing else works, a primary fight might be in order.

And I'm still glad that Gore is not president and that Daschle, Gephardt, et al, are out of control. Of course, I'm also glad that Lott is out as leader.

[Publius6961]

It's in the backroom because there's more to the Constitution than your right to toke up. Maybe now those issues will get more prominent attention.

Thank you.
Of course a consistent and constant support of the constitution can be made without any reference whatsoever to drugs or the WOD.

Those loser druggies aren't even aware that their position is both self serving and self defeating.