Posted on 03/22/2004 6:22:17 PM PST by Jim Robinson
I posted the following statement to our front page in response to the criticism I'm receiving lately as to not being fair and balanced and perceived mistreatment of trolls and assorted malcontents. Got news for all, I'm NOT fair and balanced. I'm biased toward God, country, family, liberty and freedom and against liberalism, socialism, anarchism, wackoism, global balonyism and any other form of tyranny. Hope this helps.
Statement by the founder of Free Republic:
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.
Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.
May God bless and protect our men and women in uniform fighting for our freedom and may God continue to bless America.
Jim Robinson
Right-thinking people saying and doing right-thinking things. “We few, we happy few, we band of FReepers.”
Thanks for cleaning up the site--by getting rid of the most nauseating Rudy-apologists,,,who are willing to sacrifice traditional conservative values and principles in an effort to push their LIBERAL candidate!!
No, you threatened that someone ELSE would ban me. “I have no idea how you’ve managed to avoid being banned for over a week, but if you intend to stay, I strongly advise you to read Jim Robinson’s words.”
I’m not trolling, and I don’t use talking points. The agenda I’m pushing is the conservative, mainstream agenda. The one that if we’d been following, we wouldn’t have lost Congress this last time around, and we wouldn’t be looking at losing the White House and the rest of Congress this next time around. You know, low taxes, small government, a strong military.
I never once said the troops wear “costumes”. I defy you to find such a quote from me. And likewise for belittling their service. I’m not military but many of my close friends are and I would never denigrate the truly awesome task they have been asked to perform. And I never have.
I have never mocked Christian beliefs, either. Again, I defy you to blah blah blah.
I happen to hold more mainstream conservative beliefs than you do, and that’s okay — you can believe what you want. That’s the beauty of America. And I can believe what I want. And we should be able to talk reasonably about politics, without muttering darkly about “zotting” which I guess is banning.
I don’t particularly worry about getting banned. It’s not like I’m paying to be here, after all. It’s entertaining and some folks post interesting articles. I sometimes learn things. Hopefully, I’ve got some things to teach, too.
I never once said the troops wear “costumes”. I defy you to find such a quote from me. And likewise for belittling their service. I’m not military but many of my close friends are and I would never denigrate the truly awesome task they have been asked to perform. And I never have.
Oh, some of your best friends are military? That's quaint. Now, let's take a look at what you think of their uniform and their right to wear it.
"Pilot costume". Oops, that's a google search result." It turns up liberal site after liberal site, all saying the same thing you said. DU is at the top of the list.
Let me try this again.
"Pilot costume". Oops again. That's the military perspective on the subject you were discussing, and they never once called the uniform a costume. They include a letter from Lewis F. McIntyre CDR, USN (Ret) dressing down Sen. Byrd for expressing the same sentiments you expressed. My favorite part was "If you had spent some time in the service, instead of the Klan, you might understand the significance of that moment to all the men and women aboard the Lincoln, and indeed to all the men and women in the service who shared that moment vicariously. But you chose the bedsheet instead of the uniform, and so you don't." Notice how he called it a "uniform" and not a costume? But gosh, the whole thing is a damn good read. You should read the whole thing.
Okay, one last try. I think I can get it this time.
"Pilot costume. Yep, that's the one. Now, who do you sound more like? Lewis F. McIntyre CDR, USN (Ret); or one of the many liberal whack jobs who use the same language you use? Personally, I think the letter to Byrd could just as easily have been written to you.
The man whose "costume" you poked fun at, earned the right to wear that uniform, just like the other military personnel surrounding him wearing the same uniform. Many of them will wear their uniforms to various events, long after their terms of active duty service expires. And they won't need your permission.
I chose the word “costume” judiciously. And I chose it myself. It was a costume because the whole .. freaking .. thing was a political stunt. There was no need to fly him out to that aircraft carrier in an expensive jet fighter when a helicopter or a launch would have done the same. That carrier was off San Freaking Diego, remember. There was no need for him to run around dressed like a pilot when he didn’t fly the plane he was unnecessarily transported in. The thread in which I used the term was one in which the OP had objected to a Democratic debate in front of students at The Citadel, I believe it was. I agreed with the OP. I object to using military personnel, and expensive taxpayer funded military equipment, as backdrops for political events. In that context, yes, that particular outfit was a costume, not a uniform. You may have a hard time believing it, but it doesn’t take liberal websites for people to get irritated at a shameless waste of taxpayer money intended to portray a political figure as a hero.
And I never said the troops wear “costumes”.
Nor did I say any of the other stuff you accused me of saying, and then backed away when challenged.
“Tiger’s cubs”? You think of FR as your cub or something?
That just about says it all!
The best thing about FR for me is that recognition that I have met more intelligent people willing to communicate at length over just about anything, than I have anywhere else in life, let alone the internet.
President Bush did fly the plane he arrived in. "Was it a political moment? What moment of a president's life is NOT a political moment? Was it grand standing, to come in to an OK pass to a 4 wire, a bit high in close, correcting, left of centerline? Well, hell, he didn't fly the approach anyway, though I understand from the pilots who flew him that he did a pretty good job at formation flying, tucked in close for a lead change. You can always tell a fighter pilot, you just can't tell him very much. And apparently after thirty years, it all comes back, with a little coaching, I am sure. Frankly, I would have liked to see him come aboard in an FA-18, but the Secret Service vetoed that, and Bush accepted their judgment... again, a mark of a good leader." I'm not surprised you didn't take the time to read the letter from CDR McIntyre. You've made it quite clear you don't give a rat's behind what the military perspective is. But I would have thought that at some point in time you would have noticed that even your favorite liberal publications conceded that Bush flew the plane.
You've barged into Jim Robinson's house without regard for his clearly stated rules and ideals. Even after I directed you to this thread, you said that FR is “the best free speech site on the net” — over post content! Which shows you didn't bother reading JR's words. He didn't set this forum up so you'd have a place to spread liberal propaganda and talking points.
I haven't backed away from any of the other liberal things you've said. I don't have to justify your liberalism, which last I looked, was all still posted, along with objections from FReepers. If you'd like to try to explain any of those talking points, fire away. You can't do any worse than you've done in defending your view of the military.
A couple of vets and some active duty troops have asked me why I'm trying to educate you. They've all looked at your posts and said that you're not worth bothering with, because people like you have no respect for the troops, and never will, because you go out of your way to avoid learning about them. I explained to them that you're not the only one who reads FR. Maybe someone else who has no connection to the military will read CDR McIntyre's letter, and gain the understanding that escapes you. Maybe FReepers who encounter just one of your posts, and wonder if they're taking it wrong, will see your responses here, and know just where you're coming from. I don't expect you to read (much less understand) CDR McIntyre's letter. You haven't understood my posts, nor even your own. I've tried to repeatedly to explain to you the difference between a statement of cause and effect, and a threat. Your warped comment about the tiger cubs reveals that even that went over your head. But I don't think I'm wasting my time in offering you an education. I don't expect you to receive it, but others will. And when you eventually push JR and/or the moderators too hard, and you get disappeared, maybe someone will see these posts and ping me to your zot, so I won't have to miss it.
I dunno what you’re on about with my “liberalism”. I’m a conservative.
The CREW was wearing uniforms. The president was not part of the crew. The president is a civilian. That is why I found it inappropriate to dress him in a military outfit. I found it inappropriate to fly him out in an expensive jet. It was taxpayer funded political theater. And that makes it a “costume” he was wearing. See?
Your veteran friends are welcome to engage me if they want, and explain why they think it’s appropriate for military money to be spent on what was, essentially, a campaign appearance.
I haven’t “barged into” anybody’s house. I’m posting on a political web site, and you happen to disagree with me on some political issues. That’s what politics is — we’re supposed to disagree. I suspect we disagree on most things only in degree.
I haven’t disregarded anyone’s rules.
It wasn’t me that called FR “the best free speech site on the net”. I was quoting another poster. That said, I’m quite enjoying a lot of the posters here. Some of them have a lot that’s interesting to say. Nobody’s spreading “liberal talking points”. Sheesh.
I wasn’t asking you to “justify my liberalism”. Remember, I’m not a liberal. Maybe a liberal in the classic, 1800s sense.
“No respect for the troops”?? WT..?? Where have I ever said any such thing? Maybe you’re confusing me with somebody else.
Popping corn...
Looks like you might have a real live troll!
A live “troll-roast”...not that has a nice ring to it.
not = now
Are you a Rudy supporter? Just curious...
I’m not sure, to tell you the truth. The firefighters’ union isn’t real impressed with him. You’d think they’d be kinda the guys to ask.
He’s excited about lower taxes and less restriction, which I’m also excited about, and he’s actually done executive-level management of a big gummint entity, which is something the other current candidates can’t say. His abortion stance could hurt him in the primary but if he can get through that, it won’t hurt him in the election, and he may be about the best chance we’ve got to have a Republican president. Romney can’t beat Hillary. Even if the Big Gun Gingrich probably can’t beat her.
Being honest, both Hillary and Obama will out debate anyone currently on the list, with the possible exception of Rudy.
NO! Roody guarantees a liberal president.
5.56mm
“His abortion stance could hurt him in the primary but if he can get through that, it won’t hurt him in the election”
You could well state the same for guns. Except, you would be wrong on both points.
There are single issue (mostly) voters. I am one of them.
I will not vote for a gun grabber no matter how he tries to explain away his past.
“he may be about the best chance we’ve got to have a Republican president”
I’m trying to figure out how to respond, if at all. Can you help me understand who you mean when you say “we”? That might help.
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.