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!
There is no law that says it has to specifically be the Democrat and Republican parties.
Now, obviously, my first choice BY FAR would to be go with name recognition and take back the GOP. But the GOP is leaving me.
Winner takes all relegates against most 3 or 4 party races at the State and Rep levels, and effectively eliminates *any* competitiveness for extra party candidates and independents at the Presidential level. Perot’s billions may have made him a bit of a recent exception (although he didn’t follow through well) - but what Perot/Soros type financing can grassroots Conservatives expect? Come on - we’ve got to be realistic and adobt sensible strategies.
Anymore tired cliches and ridiculous generalizations you’d care to rescue from the hack files?
- - - - - - -
How about Romney is REALLY a conservative? He is not a RINO, he is just misunderstood. /sarc
What did he do, pants you in the third grade?
Thank you for your response. I too long for a return to wholesome party goals.
I do not support any candidate who lies about being Pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-marriage when his record states otherwise.
I used to just dislike him, and definitely not trust him, but you sycophantic Romney supporters have show me how bad he really is.
You really are insane. Why don’t you just not vote for him? All this hysteria is so odd.
Wow. I can now add “insane” to the list of names I have been called my Mittbots this week. Getting to be a long list there.
How is it “insane” to hold a candidate accountable for what he says and does? How is it “insane” to look at a politician’s RECORD over his sound bites?
I did not vote for him. I also do not want to see him drain the coffers of real conservative candidates. Romney has NO chance of winning a general election yet he will try again and take money away from better candidates.
Are you really that blind? Or is it you just don’t like my tagline. :)
Maybe you're feeling a little fragile after your hissy fits.
Just rest a while. It'll be okay. I promise I won't say how weird I think you all are anymore. Promise. I'm going now...um.. to play racquetball (tip-toeing out) so try to stay calm, okay? Stay happy....bye. (Geez, what a wanker)
I haven't seen those words used by Jim to describe McCain, Romney et al.
Perhaps you have a link?
Oh, and you have no problem with McCain, Romney, Snowe, Collins, Specter, Matthews, democrats et al defining the republican party?
I was looking at the National Council for a New America and decided to make a few commits, seems this will be as good a place as any to post them.
First I would like to say that I think that these areas and to what extent the government is involved in them is/or should be a concert to all on this forum - if we don’t become involved in the National Council then what is a alternative to them. Second, although three of the ones evolved in this are people I would like to see in contention for the next presidential election I find it strange that all the listed “experts” are politician, why are people like the Heritage Foundation, and other relevant groups listed?
These are three quick comments on the topics they have listed, and I think the government is far too involved in/and should have little/no involvement (beyond criminal behavior) over anything except National Security. Personal innovation will restore the economy (which should be focused on production, not consumption). Although many areas of the country had people who couldn’t read (and still do), I think the education system worked much better when the government had less control over it.
Health care is approaching a state of crisis and much of it is because of government intervention and tort. Any involvement (besides minimal regulation) should be directed to areas of health care where the private sector does not/can not meet the needs of the citizens. The EMS system has interfaced very well with private medical practice, and emergency room crowding has been alleviated by private (mostly) clinics that are run by hospitals. I think this could be extended to make home health care more prevalent (as it has been in the past), we could have the same government /private interface here and people suffering from things like the flu (which normally not handled by EMS) could obtain medical care GMTs?)without having to get out of bed and go sit in a doctorss office.
Socialism is never the answer.
This site is dedicated to advancing the cause of liberty. If you want to push for socialism, take a freaking hike!
I'm tired of justifying my vote by saying...I'll hold my nose and vote for (McCain). He was a lousy candidate, he was a RINO. Romney is the same. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) - same. Now people are trying to promote Utah's Governor as a potential runner in 2012. As a Mormon, and a current resident of Utah...I say NO WAY!
However, 2 questions that beg for answers: 1)When do we stop holding our noses and supporting RINO's; 2) When will we pick a REAL conservative candidate - dare I say - regardless of the outcome of the election?
IMO, it's question #2 that is what we fear worst...losing. Well, we lost big time this past election. I don't mean in terms of numbers, but in terms of what we value. I believe we have to put our values out there with a candidate who is a true conservative, even if we think they won't win. I believe, however, we will win.
But we will continue to lose with RINO contenders - even if they win.
You're not the DALLAS Deb; are you?
You have quite a little mouth on you. It’s no wonder I’ve never seen you in the religion forum, the mod wouldn’t put up with it. But your feisty. If we could just harness your feistiness for the cause of conservatism instead of bashing your fellow freeper for the sake of a RINO, we’d be in much better shape.
Signed,
The loon
your=you’re
IMO, it's question #2 that is what we fear worst...losing. Well, we lost big time this past election. I don't mean in terms of numbers, but in terms of what we value. I believe we have to put our values out there with a candidate who is a true conservative, even if we think they won't win. I believe, however, we will win.
I would contend that the ONLY REAL conservative that they GOP has EVER nominated for president is Ronald Reagan (Goldwater was a fiscal conservative and strong on national defense, but socially liberal) and Reagan won in landslides both times. "Safe" candidates (Ford and Dole) have been disasters. Bushes may be able to win, but they destroy the morale of the conservative base in the process.
Perhaps you have a link?
And lame ass socialist RINO liar Mitt Romney can KMA!!
Up yours, Romney, you socialist bastard!!
Oh, and you have no problem with McCain, Romney, Snowe, Collins, Specter, Matthews, democrats et al defining the republican party?
I've got as much problem with RINO's as anyone else. What I have a problem with here, is someone, anyone making decisions for me about who is and isn't a RINO. I've got a problem RINO lists drawn up by someone else and handed out on the basis of authority. You don't have a problem with that? Do you regularly hand over your ability to make conservative judgments to someone else?
I understand that maintaining a conservative website needs to keep out liberal trolls, etc. That's great. But I am not a liberal troll, and I object to anybody else deciding for me that some candidate is liberal, and proscribing any mention of this candidate aside from lame ritualistic denunciations.
The others? Yea, emotional responses.
No scum though.
If you think anyone is making a decision for you, that's your issue.
Personally, I read other’s opinions and decide for myself.
Jim's opinions resonate with mine most of the time, but not all of the time.
I have no problem with Romney McCain et al being called out for the liberal socialists that they are
Look, when you see a "RINO list", decide for yourself.
If you don't agree with some of them, debate the poster.
I haven't seen those words used by Jim to describe McCain, Romney et al.
You haven't?
Well, you may have a point, he doesn't usually use such mild words.
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.