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!
Amusing, because I really wonder what makes you think you are qualified to pass judgment on someone of Romney’s caliber.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Oh brother. Romney’s caliber? ROFL. His caliber is smaller than a .22 LR.
And not all uninsured are “free riders”. Some people would rather pay their own way rather than give more money to an insurance company then they will use in medical care.
You just swoon over Romney because he is Mormon.
“Some people would rather pay their own way rather than give more money to an insurance company then they will use in medical care.”
Until they hit a wall in their Honda. Then it’s the tax payers that have to pay for the jaws of life and 47 reconstructive surgeries.
BTW you never answered this question.
“but JimRob sure is.”
“Why?”
No one is saying Jim isn’t a smart guy and that he has a right to establish the parameters and tone on his own website. The question was what makes Jim more qualified to establish the litmus test and definition for conservatism (outside his website) then say you or anyone else?
“Did you initially support Romney because he was mormon, and then find through investigation that his policies were not worthy of your support?”
I grew up in the Michigan mormon congregation where the Romneys worshipped and know the family personally. They are really great people and it was this family/religious connection that was the tie for me. I supported his campaign financially and voted for him at our Caucus here in Colorado early in the campaign.
When he pulled out I moved to Ron Paul and then reluctantly to McCain when he chose Palin as his running mate.
I won’t say I am Anti Romney, I’m more Pro Palin.
But my politics are a mixed bag overall.
I am a Neo Con when it comes to National Security.
A Ron Paul Revolutionary when it comes to the Economy.
A Christian of the Mormon persuasion when it comes to morals,
And a Libertarian on just about every other political and social issue.
I LOVE Sarah Palin and want to see her as our first female commander in chief.
She is the ultimate expression of my personal politics.
Jenny
Well said, E. “we the people” are qualified to judge Mitt’s fitness for office and he was found wanting.
Mitt and his supporters want to force us into compromising the principles this country was founded on.
I cannot fathom WHY someone would claim to be a conservative and support Mitt. Must be because of his religion.
“If this is an example of what we have to depend on to “stand in the breach and hold the line” then our prospects are dismal.”
Dude, I was at the front line with my ass hanging in the wind for 8 years and I can tell you I spent well over half my time fighting with those in the same foxhole. I gigantic waste of effort.
Conservatives are their own worst enemy.
Disagreement is one part of political freedom, another is the responsibility to the goals and ideals the nation is based on.
You point blank told another American that they are not significant enough to pass judgment on one so accomplished as Romney.
Yet over 200 years ago, in many cases the “rednecks” of the day passed judgment on the most royal of royalty....
And you still don’t get it, you don’t get how elitist that very simple sentence and the concept that backs it is.
Until you do, you are only furthering the case against Mitt, not for him.
Elitism is for the left.
- - - — - - - - - - - -
Repeat BUMP.
And most of the people making those kinds of statements couldn’t begin to match Mitt’s personal qualifications, achievements, or the upright way in which he has lived his life.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Wow. You have done it again. This sound just like the time you said that you would bet that no FReepers had a “solid academic career” and were taken to task on it.
Now, none of us could begin to “match Mitt’s qualifications.”
Your elitism is showing.
Careful Jim......I think those sentiments qualify you as a “Domestic Extremist” per the definitions found here:
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/lexicon.pdf
Congratulations!
ping to #1350. Remember that conversation?
What is it with you and this “elitism” hang up?
I’m just sittin here stubbornly clinging to my guns and religion.
You just swoon over Romney because he is Mormon.
___________________________________________
LL, you need swoon no more over Romney...
There is a mormon president in the White House...
President Obama is a mormon...
His Momma was dead dunked last June 2008...
As mormons invented families are forever, Obama is a mormon now also...
and was elected as the first mormon POTUS...
By the faithful mormons..
(No bigots there...)
Took the oath of office as the first mormon POTUS...
Finally...
“American faces in the White House...”
Oh, joy...
Dont it make ya wanna swoon over the mormon POTUS ???
bkmking your excellent post...
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,
- - - - - - - - - -
Mormons like Romney call this “Lying for the Lord”. To be fair not all mormons do this, but Romney appears to.
You can say or do anything as long as it furthers your cause or the cause of “the Church”. It is one of the reasons I do not trust him. Here is another:
One of the temple oaths (the Law of Consecration):
“You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.”
He’s smarter, more successful, has too much class to say the things you say.
- - - - - - - -
Who ARE you, Mitt’s wife?
Because you couldn’t live up to the standards, you hate everybody who can.
- - - - - - -
Many who could live up to the standards (like me) still left. I don’t hate you, I feel sorry for you
"Suddenly, a heavyset man wearing a bright-orange cap entered the room. “Mr. Romney,” he called out. “Eric Orff—I’m a hunter.”
It was a potentially awkward moment. Earlier this year, Romney claimed that he’d “been a hunter pretty much all my life.” A few days later, he said in a statement, “I’ve hunted small game numerous times.” Four days after that, Romney told W. Gardner Selby, of the Austin American-Statesman, “Any description of my being a hunter is an overstatement of capability.”
Still, he couldn’t resist. “You’re a hunter?” he said to Orff. “Well, same here. Good to see ya.”
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.