Genuflectimus non ad principem sed ad Principem Pacis!
Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)
Posted on 08/12/2012 6:47:17 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Seems I have to re-post this from time-to-time as a reminder:
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our BORDERS, our constitution, our liberty and our national sovereignty.
Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income, thank you very much. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity and we are beholden to none. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our loyal readers and participants who enjoy our forum and think its a worthwhile endeavor.
We aggressively enjoy and defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal/progressive trolls, RINOS and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is NOT a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our GOD-GIVEN rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of Life.
Our God-given freedoms are not negotiable and not subject to debate!!
For God, Family, Country, Life and Liberty!!
If you cannot live with the above, fine, but keep your mouth shut about it while on FR. Don't fight against us on ANY of our deeply held beliefs!!
DON'T TREAD ON ME!!
You are correct, as I have made my anti-obama {i.e. a vote for Romney/Ryan} known here for a long time and I am not banned.
There are times that I should have been banned, but was not.
I give you credit for that, but I will still work for, donate to, vote for and poll watch in PA, for the only ticket that can beat obama/biden.
Romney/Ryan 2012,2016;
Ryan/Palin 2020.
Hey, if that's what floats your boat, I'll not object.
But if you define conservatism so meticulously that half or more of the Americans who consider themselves "conservatives" fail to qualify, please don't act shocked when you lose every primary and every election for the rest of your life.
I have noticed that, and I am so happy that banning has been limited to complete disruptors. People need to have an ability to respectfully disagree, even vehemently. I know of no two people who fully agree.
Heck, at times I even vehemently disagree with myself!
This said, I believe that R&R supporters can fully stand with you and your opening statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBhdXfCdaA8&feature=player_embedded
71 year old man wrestled to the ground at a Paul Ryan event. Paul Ryan had asserted that programs like social security programs and medicaid were entitlement programs and the man went ballistic, rightfully so, I might ad. While these programs need reform, people who paid into them and are 71 are hardly in a position to go back to work.
Sadly, Paul Ryan treats it as a joke rather than answer the question.
Glad to hear it, too. By now, everyone on this forum should know where it stands. Hopefully we can back to getting rid of the liberal agenda and those who promote it. Getting rid of Lisa Madigan here in Illinois will be a good start!
First it is an entitlement, by definition.
Second, Paul Ryan has never proposed changing anything for a 71 year old or even a 55 year old.
Third, it’s great to have all kinds of stuff except the country is out of money. You can’t have more than what other people have earned.
And finally, Ryan is trying to offer solutions to preserve benefits. Not take them away.
First it is an entitlement, by definition.
Second, Paul Ryan has never proposed changing anything for a 71 year old or even a 55 year old.
Third, it’s great to have all kinds of stuff except the country is out of money. You can’t have more than what other people have earned.
And finally, Ryan is trying to offer solutions to preserve benefits. Not take them away.
“I think you need to stick “THIS IS NOT A GOP WEBSITE” in there somewhere. “
I second what she said. Being a Republican and being a conservative are two different things. The GOP-E would like to own conservatism, just for the sake of being able to control it and then define conservatism leftward. A simple and declarative statement in defiance of such efforts might scotch some of them.
Hay hi leo!
I remember a Ft Hood tour you guided, it was great
Here’s a link to the thread on it, with a pic of Jim and Shelia
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1810052/posts?page=143#143
pro-God,Zero is not
pro-life,Zero is pro death
pro-family,Zero is against the nuclear traditional family
pro-Constitution,Which zero uses to wipe his rear, and blow his nose
pro-Bill of Rights,Which zero laughs at as he dismantles it piece by piece
pro-gun,Which he works on tirelessly, using the US Justice dept as a tool to undermine US law and citizenry, even getting some killed..
pro-limited government,Zero has spent more than all the previous presidents combined
pro-private property rights,While zero works to sieze those very properties, and distribute them to his cronies, a la mugabe, his friend
pro-limited taxes, Zero? Bwahahahaha
pro-capitalism,while zero nationalizes private companies, and discourages capitalism at every turn
pro-national defense,zero downsizes the military, gayifies it, disrespects it, and sells out our strategic partners, while making smoochy face and bowing to people sworn to kill us.
pro-freedom, and-pro America.Zero? Goes withoutdsaying.
Well, it seems Obama must go, and I am sure we are all in agreement regards that, are we not?
Are there any here who would like to have another four YEARS OF ZERO?
Even before then. There were a bunch of Republicans scared of Reagan as well, and he clearly proved them wrong.
I believe that almost all of us here on FR are conservatives, and agree on underlying values. Where we disagree is on strategy.
The truth is that a majority of the American people do not agree with us across the board on all those issues. Nor do they agree with the left. The left is winning this war for the future of our country via relentless incrementalism, holding ground when they are in the minority, and then pushing for change when they manage to get a majority. Tactical retreats, strategic advances. It's ugly, but it has worked for them. It also helps that they are not above lying to voters to accompish what they want.
How to best combat and reverse that trend is a matter of strategy, not principle. I think grass roots supporters sticking to their guns is important, but at the same time, I don't think a "no retreat" rule works any better in politics than it did for Hitler in late 42 through the end of the war. There are small issues that matter little, but that can be demagogued very successfully and cost elections. And on those issues, I'd rather see a conservative candidate take a tactical loss if necessary for a larger victory.
I think it is unfortunate that a difference in strategy has divided so many here who actually agree on principle. I don't trust Romney, though I do like his selection on Ryan even though I disagree with him on gay issues. I just view Romney as the political equivalent of a strategic retreat from Stalingrad, rather than telling the Sixth Army to die in place at the hands of the marxist(s). I don't think electing Romney is going to mean victory for the conservative agenda, but I do think he may stop a more complete victory for the left.
I'll be happy when this election is over so that we all can remind ourselves that we're actually on the same side.
Just a reminder.....Sarah dragged mclames butt over the finish line. We were 3 points ahead until mclame decided to “halt” his campaign to go and vote for TARP.Well put!HE lost the election, despite everything Sarah did to win it.
His other big "gaff" that showed he didn't want to win was when he virtually endorsed Obama with his praise of him a few weeks before the election.
Why the heck did he run if he wanted to lose?
I think when they saw that Palin may have made it possible for them to win, it scared them to the point that they had to marginalize here and push her out of the limelight.
The GOP mystifies me...
It would seem this needs to be repeated time and again. Heck, I’ve got half a mind to suggest that you have to check an “I agree” box next to it each and every time you post.
The we want willard contingent has been unusually obnoxious of late.
“Will we long time supporters be banned if we support R&R?”
I think your question borders on the silly. I’ve been on the receiving end of the attacks from the we want willard crowd. There is little if any restraint being put on them so I really don’t understand your concern.
Unless you are an extreme willard supporter, and a combative and rude one to boot, then what I’ve seen with my own eyes indicates that you’ll be here to post another day.
Have you been banned yet? I believe that Mr. Robinson has made hispolicy abundantly clear a number of times. To wit: One is free to support Romney so long as one does not bully non Romney supporters. There is alittle more to it than thaat, but, that is the gist of it.
This was a comment received to a post where I merely stated that I still did not intend to vote for willard:
“Isn’t that special. Another turd in the punchbowl. Are you making phonecalls for the Obama campaign?
Oh, never mind. I’ve already read the rationale: you’ve got principles and you won’t comprimise them even if it means the house burns down around you. By golly, you’re a real man. Yada, yada, etc.”
I guess I’m missing why you’re confused. You have little to worry about.
I think most here would agree that sending Obama packing and saving our country is our goal.
The problem is we don't all agree on how to get there, nor will we ever agree.
“Why the heck did he run if he wanted to lose?”
It was all about the money. Note that he started his senate re-election campaign the next day.
Thanks, Jim. And don’t let the folks who are standing hip-deep in the cesspool at the bottom of the slippery slope convince you to jump in, saying that it doesn’t smell so bad after all. Thanks for standing firm.
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.