Posted on 05/03/2009 12:32:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
I'm going to try one more time to explain what FR is all about.
Free Republic is a conservative site. That does not necessarily mean it is a Republican site. In fact there may be many Republicans we don't support and some Republican issues we cannot agree with.
I'll throw in Arlen Specter as a prime example of a Republican we cannot support. Should be obvious to all why not. Should also be just as obvious to all that we cannot support Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain and his lap dog Lindsay Graham, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, et al.
Some of the issues we cannot support as conservatives even though sometimes initiated by so-called Republicans include TARP, or any kind of government bailout of private enterprise, federal intrusion into free markets, federalized education systems, government provided or controlled health care systems, abortion, gay marriage, amnesty, global warming, gun control, etc.
I guess there is more than one definition of conservatism floating around out there, and this won't be text book, but the one we use involves defending, preserving and protecting our constitution, our unalienable rights, our traditional family values, our American heritage, our nation, our borders and our sovereignty.
We aggressively defend our rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness!
We aggressively defend our rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to keep and bear arms, right to due process, right to equality under the law, right to be governed under the rule of law, right to constitutionally limited government, right to corruption free government, right to self-government and our private property rights, etc.
We also aggressively defend our right to state and local government for all issues not expressly delegated to the central government by the constitution.
We aggressively defend our rights to free markets and our rights to live our lives free of government intrusion, interference, coercion, force, or abuse of any kind.
We aggressively defend our rights to national sovereignty, state sovereignty and individual sovereignty!
And this definition also includes aggressively fighting against all enemies foreign and domestic who may try to deprive us of our rights or sovereignty. This would obviously include all foreign enemies, but also we defend against RINOS, Democrats, liberals, socialists, Marxists, communists, militant feminists or homosexualists, radical environmentalists, etc, etc, etc.
And we expect our elected representatives to also aggressively defend our rights and fight against all enemies foreign and domestic. We do not elect people and send them to DC or our state capitals, etc, to reach across the aisles or to be bipartisan or to negotiate or compromise away our rights. If you're not going to aggressively fight for us, and for our rights, STAY OUT!!
We bow to no king but God!
Our God-given unalienable rights are NOT negotiable!
Do NOT Tread on US!
Thank you very much!
Make a list of where Fred was on the issues, long term and historically, then do the same for Mitt, and that will answer your question there.
As far as “lacking balls” Did they impeach Bush?
Precedent is a bitch, Fred Thompson, accomplished Constitutional scholar and attorney knows that.
Presidents, on the both sides of the isle (got to take the good with the bad), are better off for his efforts.
Oh, and I wore my Cole Haans to our state fair this year at lunch one day...
The Alaskan democrat party did blame her for stopping that bridge and posted it on their web site and only took it down when her national race started.
She has nothing similar to this compulsive liar and twisted personality, she is honest and sane.
“Governor Palin wasn’t a strong spokesman for abortion for much of her life and she isn’t married to a pro abortion spouse and she isn’t a compulsive liar like the man that makes so many false claims about his family and even his personal life.
When a person makes up stories like I own a gun, lifetime hunter, watched dad march with MLK, was just out of school when church ended racism in 1978, and so on it shows an incredible lack of character, the very fact that his family has a perfect tradition of refusing to serve the U. S. in the military, including not even one of those five boys of his, his arrogance in regards to his sanctuary mansion, his total and immediate reversing of positions, his personal attack against Ronald Reagan, all of these are signs of a deeply vain and self obsessed man that is missing part of his personality.”
Thank you.
Couldn't have said it better had I tried.
Plus it saved everyone having to endure a rant. ;^)
Ah, yes, that’s what I thought.
They’re back up to 50 now?
I admit it’s your right. It’s my right to say that it’s stupid to judge a man a “worthless POS” and try to demonize him just because you disagree with his politics. It’s also my right to laugh at your judgment when the person you are judging so obviously outperforms you in so many objectively measurable ways. He’s smarter, more successful, has too much class to say the things you say. Heck, he has too much class to say the things I say.
He Bunkie, I am free to roam, you are trapped in your dungeon. By the time you realize your position it may be to late. I will focus my efforts on people who are not blinded by passion and may be useful in the coming struggle.
Rudy's supporters sealed their own fate. If I remember correctly they didn't get banned for simply supporting Rudy but for constantly running down real conservatives in order to make their candidate look better, especially Reagan.
Reagan has well deserved hero status here and the people bad mouthing him to boost Rudy were warned repeatedly, when they didn't stop....boom, they were gone.
I see it on this thread, people putting down Palin to make Mitt look better. Palin isn't perfect by any means but she's a damn sight better at it than the pretender Mitt.
LOL...back to your old superior self I see.
Probably.
I tried...
I really did...
I guess the charge I “twisted her words” really has rung shallow...
“If I remember correctly they didn’t get banned for simply supporting Rudy but for constantly running down real conservatives in order to make their candidate look better, especially Reagan.”
That is exactly what the Mittwits do, bash Fred, Sarah...
Though I am giving temporary benefit of the doubt...
A regular legend in your own mind. You and Romney seem to have more than Mormonism in common.
Because you couldn’t live up to the standards, you hate everybody who can.
I don't understand your point about Bush. Incoherent.
As far as "issues" go, there's a football field's worth of difference in being a Senator and 1 of 100, and being a Republican governor of a blue state who can't stop the Commie health bill, but settles for weakening it and getting what he can.
I guess I don't judge him as harshly as the malcontents because I've admired him since the Olympics and thought he'd make a great president.
Like Ann Coulter says when people accuse him of flip-flopping..."I don't care that he flip-flops if he flops my way."
But you can stop know, the proof is more than substantial...
lol... You REALLY indicted yourself with THAT one!
I thought you said it had nothing to do with his mormomism LL, now you turn around and make his mormonism a qualification. What positive things have come out of his time in Taxachusetts? (crickets) And we would expect better with him as president?
“colorcountry”, I’ll testify for you. I follow your posts fairly regularly and I’ve never seen you express hate towards any person on this forum or in the political arena or any where else. You are accused of it but your accusers don’t back it up because they cannot.
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.