Unlike Romney's "National Council for a New America," Free Republic is a conservative site!

Refer to Romney's Council for a New American Socialist State formed in HIS Image ^ | May 2, 2009 | Jim Robinson

[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!

[Elsie]

In other words, I think they’re far less likely to merely take their ball and go home of their own accord.

And there are no more UTAH's in the world...

[Elsie]

It worked for the Left in 2008, with the uber-liberal, ...

Only because the fact that he WAS an uber-liberal was covered up my the mass media and only the minority of us who really CARE about something other than PERSONALITY were aware of it!

[Elsie]

Would I defend his Character and how he conducted and lived his personal life yes!

But....

Can you defend his RECORD?

[Graybeard58]

If the Mormons actually managed to produce a “clean living” presidential hopeful who walked the talk, and did not overtly involve his church in his politics, I wouldn’t count that as being any worse than a (Rabbinical) Jew or a Buddhist in the same situation — none are Christians but that is not the position they are being considered for.

The difference being, not too many Jews or Buddists claim to be Christians.

[Graybeard58]

Thank you, i think.

Muddled post on my part.....I meant well.

[Vaquero]

I would back Duncan Hunter again...

He is retired permanently I hear.

if he were to shoot for it again, I too would back him if he were to show some activity other than a few souls on FR etc. He needs to start his campaigning stronly and with backing at least 2 years before the election and be ‘out there’. If he cant do that then I will back a Palin or a Jindahl.

[DollyCali]

Later
bump

[mr_hammer]

AGREED...!!!! MUST BE REPEATED OVER AND OVER...!!!

[cajungirl]

The problem is when an uninsured person is hit by a car or gets cancer, somebody has to pay. It is not uncommon for bills to top a million bucks for life saving cancer treatment or for multiple surgeries to fix a broken body. ANd dialysis, organ transplants are costly.

So if you elect to have no insurance and you unfortunately are in this position and cannot pay even with liquidation of all you own, who should pay?

That is the crux of the matter. Who pays for what you cannot pay without insurance to pick up most of the tab?

Me?

[verity]

General P. has previously stated that he is not interested in Presidential politics.

Moreover, IMO,he is destined to be the Army Chief of Staff....unless Zero screws that up too.

[WVKayaker]

...That is the crux of the matter. Who pays for what you cannot pay without insurance to pick up most of the tab?

Spoken like a good socialist. Transfer everything to somebody else. Who says that all of us must be recompensed after an accident? Isn't that for the courts to decide? Isn't that a matter between various individual parties?

Insurance is a game. The Insurers take your money, then play games to keep it. Limiters, and Non-coverages eliminate most of their costs. They are just another Ponzi scheme, sanctioned by those in the know...

The problem is when an uninsured person is hit by a car or gets cancer, somebody has to pay...

If you are concerned for your health, buy your own insurance, if you wish that gamble. Otherwise start a Med investment acct. If you are concerned for your car, buy UIM insurance, which pays if somebody doesn't have any when they hit you...

The reason it is a million dollar problem is defined with one word: Tort

[cajungirl]

Name calling doesn’t cut it.

Who pays when you get cancer and the costs of treatment are considerably more than your net worth. Who writes the check?

Who pays for your dialysis when your kidneys fail while waiting for your transplant.

Theere is an expectation that services are paid for.

Who pays for you when you lose your gamble?

Me?

[WVKayaker]

Life is really crappy, isn't it?

Theere is an expectation that services are paid for...

...by whom? Somebody else?

That is a definitive socialist action. If you get cancer, pray a lot. It is NOT part of the social contract we call the US Constitution, for someone to pay your bills...

...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

[PGalt]

Thanks for the ping, jellybean. Thanks Jim. BTTT!

[cajungirl]

You still haven’t answered who is to pay your hospital bills when you get a severe illness seeing as how you don’t think you should be required to have insurance.

Who pays?

Life is not crappy in my opinion,,that is yours.

ANd paying one’s bills does not make life crappy. Having someone else other than you pay your bills, makes life crappy for others unless a population agrees to share the risk.

You want to gamble and us to pay your losses when you cannot. Unless of course you have a million bucks in the bank to pay. Your medical savings account doesn’t contain the money to pay anything other than deducatibles and a few out of pocket expenses.

Bankrupcy? I guess your gamble might result in that. But someone else will pay for it.

ANd if you want to get cancer and pray rather than avail yourself of treatment, your business. But few few people do that. And you won’t know what you will do to live until you face it. Praying is fine. But treatment works better in my opinion.

[Dead Corpse]

meh...

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.

Yer' startin' to sound like one of them "loonitarians".

Good for you... ;-)

[\/\/ayne]

God bless you and Free Republic, Jim.

[Arrowhead1952]

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.

Agreed with this statement 150% and 140% with the rest. RINOs are our biggest problem today. Get elected as an (R) and "reach across the asile" to get support from the dims. That is something the left never does. They reach across with their hand and stab us in the back.

[Beagle8U]

“Personally, I hope that all the past Romney supporters or other ‘undesirables,’ if that's what they are, don't leave. Debate is a healthy thing, and if you do or do not like a particular candidate, it is important for the health of conservatism, IMHO, that you be able to express why.”

Wrong! The Mittwits aren't here to debate, they are here to promote!

You can waste hours posting FACTS and proving them wrong on every point, and the ignorant A$$holes will go to the next thread and post the exact same crap!

They are disruptors trying to get their worthless liberal puke’s message posted as many times as they can.

The Mittwits are either rabid liberals or very stupid. Those are the only choices.
Either way they are unable or unwilling to learn and need to visit the Bug-Zapper!

[colorcountry]

For one who had been an insider, I would well think it’s a different perspective than one who has never walked through the door of a Mormon temple.

Are you saying you were once Mormon? Or just reiterating that reaganaut was?