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!
If its to the right of Obama and his cabal, I’ll give ‘em some degree of support.
- - - - - - - -
I won’t that kind of compromise is what has gotten us in this mess in the first place.
The time for compromise is OVER!
Yowsah !!!
Thomas Paine - On To Washington!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNnk1m5eE_4&feature=player_embedded
I think the fact that only 40% of the Republicans voted against the Flake amendments shows how bad the situation is. I do understand the point about wasting time, but back in the ‘94 Congress, despite getting the Contract points voted on, there were issues that could have been addressed that never made it out of committee - the wool/mohair subsidies, the atom spliter in Texas, PBS/NPR, National Endowment for the Arts, doing away with the Energy and Education Departments, and a whole lot of others programs that with the majority we had at the time could have been done away with.
Now you probably would be right to say that even _with_ those majorities, we still wouldn’t have gotten rid of those programs so bringing them up would have been a waste of time. I disagree, I think that showing _who_, in our ranks, supports those programs is important information and not a waste of time.
We may have been able to handle the ‘weeding’ then better than we can now, and Specter would either have been a Democrat or retired for over a decade, as well as McCain and some others.
Yeah...where are the brickbats for Huckabee?
To me the candidate must have the following:
1. Pro Life
2. Understand and support the 2nd amendment
3. Lower taxes
4. Smaller government (Ideally govt should be about 1/3rd the size it is now)
5. Let failing businesses (especially newspapers)fail
6. Lower regulations
7. Not believe in man-made global warming
8. State rights
9. Pro vouchers in education
10. Freedom of speech and assembly especially for those speaking out against abortion
11. No amnesty
12. Seal the boarders NOW.
13. Protect our country from foreign invaders
14. Protect our country from domestic terrorists that wish to subvert the Constitution.
15. Stand up to the liberals/socialists/communists forcefully to groom another generation of conservatives.
Serious question. What is your list and who could meet it?
Yep..they cannot leave quietly and become like the Savior they say they follow. The are glued forever to the church and fighting it.
That is the problem. I don’t want to conform. I want to be FREE!
No excuse!?!?!? How about leave me alone. I don’t want insurance.
- - - - - - - - - -
I am in complete agreement with you Grey.
Great list..I like it.
You are too easily offended, Resty. While I do not approve of course language, I am not going to berate others who choose to express themselves that way.
That is between them and God.
You are coming across as “holier than thou”, my dear.
That’s twice more than Rush voted for Reagan, since he didn’t bother to register before 1988.
> We vote for conservatives only!
I’d like to follow that thought up by making sure there is ALWAYS a conservative on the ticket.
this way we’re not tempted to vote for the “lesser of 2 evils”.
*placemarker*
If you start kicking out TEA Party people who like Mr. Romney or have a generally positive feeling towards him, you’re going to lose much of the TEA Party movement.
____________________________________
Did you really mean to post that ???
There are at least ONE MILLION TEA Party people...
MOST of them didnt vote for Romney...
and dont agree with his politics ...
or stance on the issues...
ROMNEY IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN A LEADER IN THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT..
If as you claim Romney is now a “leader” in the TEA Party Movement...
Then I dont belong there...
“If you a think for a second that saying you voted for Palin was not a vote for McCain is mind-bending absurdity”
It’s called HUMOR....you know...a joke...might try getting that 2x4 out of your ass...
“I don’t come here for approval or denial.”
Right...you just come here to berate other people for making jokes...
“Sharing ideas and opinions and growing with everyone is what makes this site special. (It better not include baby-murder or your out)”
Yeah...unless that opinion happens to be in the form of a joke.....then we get to deal with you eh....
After his next answer "The tea parties don't seem to be working..." ???, you might consider that first option. ;-)
I've heard that from Keith and Garofalo and others on MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, and Washington Post a lot but not elsewhere and not here!
“I don’t mean to be harsh.”
Bullshit.
“Understand that a vote for Palin was a vote for McCain.”
But a joke is beyond your understanding appearently...
“You can’t hide on a political board.”
I dont hide anywhere...not even behind a fake name...
“I voted for McCain knowing Palin was on the ticket. That’s all.”
The question is...would you have voted for McCain if Palin wasnt on the ticket....
My answer is NO.....I would have bolted....
All you’ve done on this thread is ask the same question over and over and then whined that we haven’t accomplished anything. Why don’t you step up to the plate and tell us what you think should be done? Or are you satisfied with the current state of affairs?
- - - - - — - - - - - -
Are we sure this person isn’t a DU infiltrator?
The TEA Partiers are mostly grassroots people so I’m sure there are lots of people with divergent ideas, however, the main concept is to oppose out of control, big spending, big taxing, overreaching, big government. In this regard, Mitt Romney is part of the problem, not the solution. He’s more of a fat cat party elite that we’re rebelling against rather than a rebellion participant. We sure as hell will not be supporting him here and I doubt many other TEA Partiers will either.
there has NEVER been a conservative Mormon to run for President that I am aware of.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Joseph Smith ran against Polk in 1844. He was killed before the election, but he still ran. Not sure I would call him a conservative though. Sidney Rigdon was his VP candidate.
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.