Posted on 05/26/2011 8:31:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
NOTICE: FR DOES NOT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT ABORTIONIST, GAY RIGHTS PUSHING BIG GOVERNMENT STATISTS FOR PRESIDENT!!
This message is intended for those posters on FR who seem to have missed my prior statements in this regard and insist on advocating for these bastards.
I'd rather shut the place down than be involved in any effort to install abortionist/gay rights pushing RINOS like Romney or Giuliani into the White House!!
Do NOT push this crap on FR. Take your business elsewhere!! And I don't care how long you've been here!!
I included you because the post I responded to was to you.
I figured I’d better show you what the site owner said as well so there weren’t any “what happen” moments.
We tend to get a few people who feel they can slyly push for homosexual ‘rights’ here and there.
Some will mock those who know that homosexuality is a mental disorder.
For a real education in what the homosexual lobby is truly backing, look up folsom street fair.
Keep a barf bucket handy.
I addressed you because you agreed with whattajoke in post 554. He was talking about me without pinging me. He also mischaracterized me. And you agreed. You also brought Phelps into this and no one on FR supports him.
Laws do not make people moral. Criminals will do what they’ll do regardless of whether it is illegal or not. They don’t care.
What laws do is give the government, a necessary evil in a sense, the teeth to legitimately deal with the immoral and illegal behavior when it occurs, for the protection of its citizens and the establishment of an orderly society, which makes for a free society. It gives them the authority to act and delineates which actions are to be taken.
If the the government does not deal with crime and immoral behavior, people will on their own and anarchy will result. It will be survival of the fittest, or cruelest, and to hell with everyone else.
A representative form of government that we have is, theoretically, restricted to what it can do by the laws that govern it so that it can protect society and yet does not step over the bounds into tyranny and oppression.
But government MUST exist and it must have laws so that people can be free under it. Not free to rape and murder and steal, or anything else they feel like doing, but free to live their lives in peace. Members of society have an obligation to each other. Nobody lives in a vacuum and everyone simply cannot do whatever he pleases.
Besides, governments based on the Judeo-Christian value system are the freest and most prosperous on earth. Having a religious basis for our laws does not immediately equate to oppressive theocracy.
If you want to see what living under a government which is not based on Judeo-Christian morals, the 20th century provides plenty of examples of societies based on atheism.
Tell me which one of these, Prokopton, you would prefer to live under.... Cuba? USSR? NK? Communist China? Pol Pot? Which atheistic paradise would you prefer over a society based on the Judeo-Christian value system.
FR was mostly against Bush from top down in 2000 as he ran.
When it became evident he was the nominee the support for him was very strong from top down....anti Clinton and hence Gore feelings were strong...not as strong as against Obama but still very high after 8 years
Lots of bloodletting that go around too.
It’s just how things shake out around here but no doubt they were more liberatrians then....famous ones like tpaine and OWK and so forth
I think most folks here have always leaned socially conservative though many are sorta PC on hot topics...maybe due to regional perspectives or youth
but Obama has pretty much crystalized the battle divides and that’s where we are now..in less heady times...it appeared at least that variety of opinion here was more weighed..
I don’t have a problem purging pro homosexual marriage folks from here and the civil union crowd are naive
but this means that Dick Cheney cannot be a freeper now..kinda odd...but who would want Satan anyhow (sarc)
I didn’t catch all that..what I took whatajoke to be saying was that others here do have family members that are gay and aren’t afraid to still be anti-homosexual.
That's coming by others. Keep reading.....
Thanks!
“We’ll never know because no one ever comes forward and says “I would have done that except it was against the law.”
If marijuana was legal, I’d smoke it. Then I would quickly realize that I am not getting anything done on the farm, quit smoking pot and get back to being a productive member of society.
Erm...What are you talking about?
No I believe he supports ALL parts of the constitution.
The Constitution supports private property rights.
Jim owns Free Republic, it is his property. He can set site rules for people being on Free Republic. Or for being forced to leave the site.
If you create your own site you will have the ability to say anything you want to say without anyone zotting you. But even then it will be limited by libel laws and fair use and copyright laws.
You can actually post anything you want here, but you also have to accept the consequences of doing that. If you violate the site rules with a posting you could be kicked off the site. Sites that have member rules and such are not a brand new phenomena. Nobody forces you to post on FR or to even visit here to read others’ posts.
For the particular instance here, tell me, what part do you disagree with? Are you pro-abort, or are you pro-homosexual, or are you a big government person? If this is the thing that gets under your skin, it might be good to know what part you’re objecting to. But if you are just upset that Free Republic is a privately owned site and the guy who owns the site has rules you don’t think are fair, it sounds like YOU are not excited about people being able to determine use rules for their own property.
Remember the Constitution binds the government. It is a limiter on government, not private businesses or individuals. The government cannot stop you writing a book. However your employer can fire you if your free speech activities at work violate their work policies. The government can’t take away your right to self defense, but a private business can tell you you cannot enter their store with a gun on your hip, just as a person could tell you you cannot come into their house armed.
If that was the posters intent they would have pinged the person they were discussing. Read again what he was responding to. It was a cheap shot as I am disliked by some for my stand. They seem to believe that if you love someone, you won’t tell them they’re wrong. The problem is if one REALLY loves someone, they tell them the truth.
You are an anomaly amongst FR libertarians then.
What you have described is what I’ve seen most people consider true conservatism.
LOL!!!
Supporting civil unions is not conservative. Two of a kind cannot mate in any way. It is not a “union”.
We’ve had people push “they’re born that way”, we’ve had people push the “It’s genetic” line, we’ve had people push all manner of excuses and falsities on the issue.
And when people call them on it, they get angry and sulk.
The post I was responding to was one of the latter.
What is so hard for people to understand?
Conservatives support TRUE FAMILY VALUES.
Queer buggery advocates seek to destroy such values, to grind them into the dust, to brainwash children and set them against nature and nature's God.
Support of Queerness is not a conservative value.
Thanks for the clarification. I truly didn’t pick up on any of that other stuff. My neice knows exactly how I feel. We have had long private discussions on the matter that I won’t go into here. My main point is that I love her and that God is her ultimate judge..not me. It’s an uneasy peace but the only one possible at this juncture because she is a grown woman.
I think a conservative can reasonably support the idea of civil unions. Not much different from a “corporation,” really. Of course, they couldn’t just be for gays.
*******************************
Agreed.
LOL. Welcome to DJ MacWoW world, Penelopesire. FTR, Penelopesire, your interpretation of my comment was correct.
And DJ MacWoW’s, as per usual, was paranoid and off-base. (I’d forgotten which one your pinglist had the gay brother. Sorry.) And who the heck knows where Darksheare is coming from. All I said was that some of the most vocal anti-homosexual posters here have gay family members. DJ MacWoW is certainly one, but there are plenty of others.
Now, if you wish, you can read all sorts of nefarious subplots into my simple statement.
But I suggest you don’t. It’s unbecoming.
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.