Posted on 03/04/2007 4:46:35 PM PST by johniegrad
Even though we are still almost two years out from the presidential election, it is clear that the candidates are campaigning in earnest. This has led to some acromonious discussions with accusations flying about posters' motives and dedication to the principles of conservatism. While these frank discussions could be healthy for pounding out the details in a primary, some here are indicating their unequivocal refusal to support some candidates if they are nominated after the primaries. Furthermore, valuable posters have discussed their disatisfaction with the website as a forum for discussing conservatism and some have threatened to leave.
Given these observations, I'd like to republish the posting of the website owner from a few years ago.
Statement by the founder of Free Republic:
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.
Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.
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 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. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. 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 readers and participants.
We aggressively 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 trolls 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 rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.
May God bless and protect our men and women in uniform fighting for our freedom and may God continue to bless America.
Jim Robinson
When someone is so obsessed about apostrophes in other people's posts, it is a good idea to know how to use them properly oneself.
"McCoys" and "Hatfields" are not possessive.
Yes, I'm running into it lately as well. Here's just 2 recent examples.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794672/posts
How bad can things be? I've been watching for the first FReeper threatening to move to France if Rudy is the nominee, haven't seen it yet.
***LOL, please ping me when and if that happens. ;-)
From Noemie Emery whose article in the Weekly Standard seems to have stirred this pot:
"I'd like to differentiate here between the proper pressure put by pro-life and pro-choice interests on their various parties, and the absolute vetoes imposed on the parties, which I consider disproportionate, dangerous, and close to obscene. I have no problem with there being a more pro-life, and a more-pro-choice party, or with these groups having proportionate influence. What I do object to is that these groups, whose views never poll more than the low to high 20s on issues that never reach the top tier of concerns of the American people, have absolute veto power over who does and does not run for president, an office that impacts the lives directly of 300 million Americans, and indirectly millions of others around the globe.
As a more or less normal voter in my pre-pundit days, and as someone moving from being pro-choice to pro-life, I was repelled by the antics of both of these factions, who seemed to enjoy tormenting the candidates. I feel a pro-choice Republican or a pro-life Democrat should and must concede something to the feelings of most of his backers. But this grip can't be broken too soon. "
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016943.php
In my defense...our last name ends in "s." So the proper usage for our name is "s(apostrophe)." Some people improperly put "es" at the end of the name.
Example:
when referring to the Colmbes family...it would be the Colmbes'....NOT the Colmbeses.
So...that makes this right, how??? Especially for a Presidential campaign???
Vanna...I'd like to buy an apostrophe....
I guess Presidents don't sign/veto bills in your world, hmm?
Giuliani would have vetoed the partial birth abortion ban.
He would willingly pay for his own grandchild to be murdered.
He supported public funding of abortion.
Therefore, I conclude that he will not support ANY restrictions on abortion...but his does support restrictions on an actual enumerated RIGHT, that of the people to keep and bear arms.
I'd be happy to hear them say that they either really believe as he does or that they really don't believe as he does. I'd be happy to see them discuss point by point the issues where people disagree with Mr. Giuliani. I'd be happy to see them discuss point by point why they really believe he can win when there are so many voters whom he doesn't represent. I'd be happy to hear them say something substantive rather than retreating into the claim that only he can beat Hillary and then insulting anyone who can't in good conscience vote for him.
***Good post -- that's where I'm at. And I might be happy if we could round up the crickets on the rudy threads.
Thanks for posting that about Goldwater. Bump for later reading.
cryin out loud tells me all I need to know about a person.
after six years of rinology
***Good writing
He always was for limiting government intrusion into peoples' private lives.
Political theory isn't like chemistry. I don't think its an empirical science.
People can look at the same situation and come up with different conclusions which are logical and valid in their own minds.
I don't agree with liberals politically because my analysis of events differs from theirs, not because either one of us is mentally impaired.
Having said that, this is essentially a conservative forum or so I have been led to believe and the HOME page so indicates. One would expect most opinions expressed here to be conservative ones.
On the other hand, I don't think people should PERSONALLY attack another individual because they disagree with them. Logical people try to make logical arguments, not ad hominem ones.
I have been personally attacked on a whole host of issues for some time here because my views don't mesh with the majority on things like evolution,animal rights and environmental preservation - areas in which I perhaps disagree with "orthodox" conservatives. I try to ignore people who attack me personally, and discuss diffrences with people civilly who are receptive to such discourse.
I don't think things have changed here since I have been registered.
How can you claim Rudy is a liberal? Let's see, in his own words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
Rudy endorsed a democrat over a republican. That's pretty unusual for someone trying to run for republican slot for pres.
Well, not just once, but twice.
I think people should perhaps stop attacking Rudy as a liberal - it's pretty obvious he is. Even the majority of people who defend him here seem to agree on that. But for some odd reason they think he is the only game in town - and the game has just begun.
I think we need to do more to publicize viable alternatives to Rudy - in this forum and outside it.
If Hiliary and Giuliani are both nominated then both candidates will be pro abortion. Since a third party candidate has little or no chance to win, which of these candidates would you be better off voting for?
***Why is this false dilemma question being asked so many times during the primary season? If you were offered unicorn rides on the good ship lollipop, would you accept or turn it down?
Hypothetical to answer your hypothetical. Both sides losing to Hillary.
The solib republican splits the base. The MSM turns on him the moment he is nominated. Hillary wins. Republican party is split.
The socon republican wins the nomination, loses to hildebeast in a tough fight. Republicans are united against the hillary presidency.
Which candidate is best for the republican party?
It would appear that the owner is one of those "social conservatives" who are now vilified daily on this same website! People who claim to be "conservatives" assert monotonously that "socons" have taken over the Republican Party, when it is clear to me that people who hate traditionalist conservatives are the ones who have "invaded" this forum and the conservative movement at large. In fact, this is the story of America: The Founding Fathers were believers who based their politics on Judeo-Christian concepts of the dignity and worth of every individual person, yet people who enjoy the results are openly hostile to their source.
***Excellent post, well written, which is why I copied it so that I can find it for future reference. This reminds me of how often I hear people from other countries cast aspersions on the US when they are here as immigrants. It's obvious that our country is better than theirs because they are here. I wonder how much the people back in "their country" would accept the same kind of ripup from an immigrant.
Nixon goes to China --http://www.opinionjournal.com/
You forgot all the cool conspiracy theorists. Class of '98 is supposedly known for that.
I thought it was a gun rights site!
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.