[Celtjew Libertarian]

When I joined the GOP, straight out of high school, I did it based on three principles:

1. A strong foreign policy/national defense (which was my main issue at the time).
2. Low taxes; low domestic spending.
3. A government that stayed out of the life of individuals.

All three of these are, IMO, conservative principles. Now, there always has been a tension, between the third on my list and certain aspects of social religious conservatism.

When you write: As a conservative site, we are pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty, pro-America., you appear to be defining conservatism almost entirely as a matter of being a social/religious conservative.

If so, then this is not really a conservative site -- certainly not the broad-based one it was, when I signed up in 2000. Rather, it is now a specifically social/religious conservative site. If this is the case, then you should expect that this site will have a significantly smaller number of users -- and correspondingly smaller influence.

As, I think is, happening.

[berkley]

This site continues to grow!!! Go back to DU where you belong. Freepers are for life!!!

[Jim Robinson]

Let me assure you that Free Republic is conservative in all respects: social, fiscal, national defense, national sovereignty, small (constitutionally limited) government, individual liberty, etc., etc., etc. Today’s thread deals with Rudy’s abortionism.

Here’s an earlier thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts

[jmc813]

When you write: As a conservative site, we are pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty, pro-America., you appear to be defining conservatism almost entirely as a matter of being a social/religious conservative.

I'm an outspoken small-l libertarian and I strongly disagree. I feel right at home here. Read the part of Jim's piece where he delves into where our rights and liberties come from and how they cannot be taken away by man. That's the core principle of libertarianism.

[MSSC6644]

When I joined the GOP, straight out of high school, I did it based on three principles:

1. A strong foreign policy/national defense (which was my main issue at the time).

2. Low taxes; low domestic spending.

3. A government that stayed out of the life of individuals.

I'm flummoxed. Why didn't you join the Libertarian Party? Even you recognize that's where your sympathies lie.

Jim's statement is correct. He does understand what "conservatism" is.

I believe that in the past he may have hoped that the Republican Party was conservative enough; and I must admit, that in many ways they seemed to be the only choice. However, as time goes by, it becomes more and more clear that supporting the lesser of two evils is no longer a good option. 2008 may be the year we all have to make a very painful decision. We may actually have to vote for a candidate who we don't believe can win, but who best represents our beliefs.

[Jim Robinson]

“When you write: As a conservative site, we are pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty, pro-America., you appear to be defining conservatism almost entirely as a matter of being a social/religious conservative.”

What are we conserving (defending) as conservatives?

We are defending our constitutional principles. We are defending our rights, freedoms and liberty. We are defending our nation, our national sovereignty and our borders. We are defending constitutionally limited (small) government. We are defending sound fiscal and tax policies. We are defending ourselves, our families, our property, our society and our public institutions. We are defending our traditional American heritage and values.

What is our American heritage and where do our rights and values come from? Who settled America and why did they come here? Why did they split from England? What freedoms were they looking for? Who fought the Revolutionary War and what were their reasons? They’re values? What sort of men were they and what philosophy did they subscribe to? Who or what was their guiding light? How did they develop our founding documents and our system of laws and government?

Were they not devout believers? Were they not men of God? Is our system of government not designed on Judeo/Christian principles? Is not our traditional way of life and society God-centered and hasn't it been so all down through history for hundreds of years?

If all of the above is true (and it is) then why would we not say that the root of conservatism is our belief in God?

[mkjessup]

When [Jim Robinson] write[s]: As a conservative site, we are pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty, pro-America., you appear to be defining conservatism almost entirely as a matter of being a social/religious conservative.

No he's not. That's not the way I took it at all.

If so, then this is not really a conservative site -- certainly not the broad-based one it was, when I signed up in 2000. Rather, it is now a specifically social/religious conservative site. If this is the case, then you should expect that this site will have a significantly smaller number of users -- and correspondingly smaller influence. As, I think is, happening.

Well let me help you out with that, America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, by God-fearing patriots who placed their trust in the Almighty, they generally believed that Jesus Christ is the sole manifestation of God, and that the Scriptures proclaiming the Truth of Christ is in fact, the Truth. If you or anyone seeks to embrace that imaginary 'seperation of church and state' that exists NOwhere in the Constitution, you are headed off the reservation, and into secular 'anything goes' territory, you know, like that short lived reality show 'Extreme Libertarianism' which ultimately takes one into a state of chaos and anarchy which has nothing in common with the concepts upon which America was founded.

Now if you believe that the United States should NOT be 'pro-God, pro-Life, pro-America' as stated in the purpose of FR by Jim Robinson, what do you think it SHOULD be? Just one more mammoth secular state?

Here's a clue:

In the 1960's, thanks to the now-burning-in-Hell Madalyn Murray-O'Hair, the Courts evicted God from the public schools, and said that prayers could not be said. That created a vacuum.

Now survey the degradation and the depravity that has filled that vacuum over the past 40 years, with the 'situational ethics' approach to life, New Age babblings and far eastern cult teachings, all of that ANTI-God, ANTI-Life, ANTI-American indoctrination, and ask yourself if we are more, or better off than we were before saying the Lord's Prayer before class begins each day was ruled illegal and 'unconstitutional'?

Don't kid yourself about FR losing members or influence. When you have a concentrated effort by liberals and RINOs across the board trying to infiltrate, influence and sway members of this website into embracing UN-conservative candidates and principles, that is not something you would see if FR had no influence and was as insignificant as you seem to be suggesting.

[TAdams8591]

"1. A strong foreign policy/national defense (which was my main issue at the time). 2. Low taxes; low domestic spending. 3. A government that stayed out of the life of individuals

All three of these are, IMO, conservative principles. Now, there always has been a tension, between the third on my list and certain aspects of social religious conservatism.

When you write: As a conservative site, we are pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty, pro-America., you appear to be defining conservatism almost entirely as a matter of being a social/religious conservative."

When abortion was illegal, did government stay out of the lives of individuals?

[Mr. Silverback]

It's really boffo that you support those three great conservative principles. Now listen carefully, please:

Ripping a small child's limbs off is not conservative. neither is tolerating it, considering it a sacred right equivalent to freedom of speech, or promoting it.

Sorry if that leaves you out, but it is the bottom line.

[Kevmo]

If so, then this is not really a conservative site — certainly not the broad-based one it was, when I signed up in 2000. Rather, it is now a specifically social/religious conservative site.
***I’m pretty sure the same words were there when I signed up in 1998 and were there when you signed up in 2000. I don’t think the site has changed, nor has Jim Rob, nor have socons for the most part. Perhaps it is your perpsective that has changed.

[Lindykim]

Celt-—When you write: As a conservative site, we are pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty, pro-America., you appear to be defining conservatism almost entirely as a matter of being a social/religious conservative.
If so, then this is not really a conservative site — certainly not the broad-based one it was,

Conservatives are the worldview heirs of this nation’s Founders, who were in fact, “pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty, pro-America.” To define consevative in a broader way so as to allow man-—who does not create life but is merely the subcreator-—to determine who gets to live and who ought to die for the sake of coveniance, money, etc. is to move away from the true definition of conservative and move in the direction of tyranny.

If man cannot have even the most basic right-—to live-—then he cannot and will not have the right to own property, firearms, etc.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

this is not really a conservative site

I know the troll to whom I responding has (thankfully) long since smashed his itty bitty pointed head up against the hard, unforgiving surface of the FR BugZapper... but: I never do tire of giggling helplessly at self-described "libertarian" chuckleheads lecturing real, actual conservatives as to what the latter actually is/ought to be.

*snort*