[Skywarner]

"Yeah. FR is almost 'safe for conservatism,' but not quite."

There's a right way and a wrong way to accomplish one's goals. The goal of bringing Free Republic back to its conservative base is refreshing.

However, if being "safe for conservatism" means at ANY cost - and that's sure the demeanor it's taken here lately - then I'd just assume not be part of it.

[calcowgirl]

Did you catch this post?
It’s worth a read, IMO.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=12911#12911

[EternalVigilance]

However, if being "safe for conservatism" means at ANY cost - and that's sure the demeanor it's taken here lately - then I'd just assume not be part of it.

I think you're overstating things considerably. That is either because you lack the full context of this saga, or that you are willfully ignoring the fact that virtually every one of the dearly departed worked hard to earn their banishment.

I don't know you, so I can't comment on which it might be.

[rbmillerjr]

However, if being “safe for conservatism” means at ANY cost - ((and that’s sure the demeanor it’s taken here lately)) - then I’d just assume not be part of it.

Puzzling post. You have set a condition that you perceive as being met. You state if the condition is met you’d sooner not be part of it...and yet you’re still here. I hope that is not your intention. I think your over reacting.