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
I have been a staunch conservative for most of my 80 years.
***Bump, gotta get back to work but this looks like a great place to stop and wish an old timer the best.
France would be a poor choice. Very, very poor choice in my eyes.
It is because some posters seem to be completely incapable of understanding that not all that the Republican party does IN THE NAME OF CONSERVATISM is, in fact, conservative. Sometimes it just does the same old power grabbing, corrupt, moneygrubbing big government tactics that democratic politicians do, but they "front" with nice conservative talk about security, law and order or bible verses. Moreover, some STRONG advocates of liberty question the reason to have military in 159 countries all over the globe, and have literally been shouted down by idiotic accusations that these people are "cut and run" or "cowards" or worse. There are patriots and advocates of freedom who think this activity is reprehensible, and counter to the stated principles of liberty on FR. I think that is at least one reason why it is challenged.
Thanks for your post.
Howlin, thanks for your post.
The vitriolic substance of some of these posts bothers me. "Circular firing squad" is the expression that comes to mind.
But I have thick skin. :^)
First of all, the meaning's more elastic in the Bush era, than it was when the Democrats were in the White House, and conservatives could simply be against them.
Today, conservatives argue about just how far they should follow the administration when it seems to be proposing policies that don't accord with conservative principles.
Secondly, people will disagree about whether conservatism boils down to red state vs. blue state conflicts, or whether it aspires to have meaning and appeal throughout the country.
A lot of what passes for liberalism or conservatism today is just "hurrah for our part of the country, and to hell with yours."
If one wants to matter nationally, one has to be able to see beyond that.
Ping to my vanity. Read the whole thing.
LOL! Better?
Thanks. I appreciate it.
They say the first eighty years are the hardest.
Only problem is that I don't know who "they" are.
I believe he will appoint conservative justices.
***I see that others are responding to various points of your post. This one stands out for me. If you had good reason not to believe he will appoint conservative justices, would that change your position?
Culture of life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
ABC clip:
George Will: "Do you think Roe v Wade was good constitutional law?"
Rudy Giuliani: "Yes I believe, I believe it is."
Cnn Clip December 2, 1999:
Announcer: "Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports."
Rudy Giuliani : "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing."
'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
***When the pitcher starts aiming at your head, you start looking at things a little bit differently. At that point, your analogy falls short. For those millions of dead babies, they're getting hit in the head by the pitcher. Their batting average is zero. Once you average that into your team batting average, you'll see why the equation looks different from that perspective. I had posted this to you once before and you said to take it up with Reagan. But, since he's dead and his words are showing up in your post again, it's time to take it up with you.
Why don't you post the truth? Would that be too much to ask of some of you who claim to be these big social conservative members of the religious right.
***Fine. You can start by answering the points brought up in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
You can post on this thread devoted to discussing the video, where there's nothing but crickets from the rudophiles.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1793570/posts
Culture of life:
ABC clip:
George Will: "Do you think Roe v Wade was good constitutional law?"
Rudy Giuliani: "Yes I believe, I believe it is."
Cnn Clip December 2, 1999:
Announcer: "Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports."
Rudy Giuliani : "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing."
Immigration
CNN clip:
Announcer: "Back in 1996, mayor Giuliani went to federal court to challenge new federal laws requiring the city to inform the federal government about illegal immigrants."
Rudy Giuliani: "There isn't a mayor or a public official in this country that's more strongly pro immigrant than I am. Including disagreeing with President Clinton when he signed an anti-immigration legislation about two or three years ago."
Gun control:
CNN clip
Rudy Giuliani: "I'm in favor of gun control"
Meet The Press:
Tim Russert: "How about registration of all handguns?"
Rudy Giuliani: "You know I'm in favor of that. I've been on your show many times."
Gay Rights:
CNN Clip:
Announcer: "As mayor he supported civil unions, and extending health and other benefits to gay couples."
ABC Clip: "I supported domestic partnership legislation and signed it"
Meet The Press:
Tim Russert: "So should gay people be openly allowed to serve?"
Rudy Giuliani: "I think people should be judged on the merits. And there should not be a specific focus on someone's sexual orientation."
First Amendment:
ABC Clip
Cokie Roberts: "Would you vote in the senate in favor of Mccain / Feingold?"
Rudy Giuliani: "Yes, I'm a big supporter of Mccain / Feingold. I have been for a long time."
Party Loyalty:
ABC Clip:
Rudy Giuliani: "Frankly George, I'd like to run on all the lines. I'd like to run on the liberal line, the conservative line, I'd like to run on the democratic line if I could figure out how to do it."
Conservative Values:
Meet The Press:
Tim Russert: "Whether it's gays in the military, gun control, campaign finance, late term abortion - you and Hillary Clinton are in sync on those issues."
Rudy Giuliani: "Well then maybe the other side should stop the 'He's part of the vast right wing conspiracy'."
Welcome To CPAC, Rudy!
End clip.
I want a strong military,
***Strong Military --
Just what ARE Rudy's qualifications that make him the "BEST man to lead as CIC?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1791077/posts
Jim Got crickets on that thread.
and conservative judges
***Culture of life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
ABC clip:
George Will: "Do you think Roe v Wade was good constitutional law?"
Rudy Giuliani: "Yes I believe, I believe it is."
Cnn Clip December 2, 1999:
Announcer: "Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports."
Rudy Giuliani : "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing."
I also want the definition of marriage to stay as it is ,am against abortion, and want our borders controlled.
***You just defined Duncan Hunter. http://www.gohunter08.com
See below for rudy's comments on marriage and the border, in the same video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
Gay Rights:
CNN Clip:
Announcer: "As mayor he supported civil unions, and extending health and other benefits to gay couples."
ABC Clip: "I supported domestic partnership legislation and signed it"
Meet The Press:
Tim Russert: "So should gay people be openly allowed to serve?"
Rudy Giuliani: "I think people should be judged on the merits. And there should not be a specific focus on someone's sexual orientation."
Immigration
CNN clip:
Announcer: "Back in 1996, mayor Giuliani went to federal court to challenge new federal laws requiring the city to inform the federal government about illegal immigrants."
Rudy Giuliani: "There isn't a mayor or a public official in this country that's more strongly pro immigrant than I am. Including disagreeing with President Clinton when he signed an anti-immigration legislation about two or three years ago."
His post wasn't a question, was it?
Conservative justices are the primary gift any president can make to the country. They can change the entire direction the country will go for generations to come.
I know Hildabeast wouldn't pick our conservative judges as models for her selection.
I have no reason to believe that Guiliani would go back on his word regarding justice selection. Ted Olsen certainly believes in him, and Ted is one I'd like to see on the bench.
So, until Rudy indicates that he intends to appoint liberals to the Supreme Court, I'll continue to believe that he meant what he said about nominating men like Roberts and Alito.
Sigh. Crickets.
Same thing has happened to me. I think we should open up a thread that is a Rudy vs. Hunter cricket roundup. Whenever someone experiences crickets (for either candidate) they could post to that thread and let others know, leaving a good-natured challenge to the other team to respond.
When another poster and I showed him Jim's statement on the FR home page, he was humble enought to admit he was wrong.
***Then both of you are better off for it. I had a long term freeper quit the forum rather than be humble and admit error. That's NOT what I'm hoping for. If people want to push their candidate because they agree with him, they need to be open about it. And it would probably benefit them to honestly answer the question of what they're doing here if they don't agree with the socon agenda. It would benefit all of us to know where we stand with respect to JimRob's statement of purpose.
Now why these pro liberal threads (i.e. Rudy) are thus far allowed is another matter. Soon I believe to be addressed by the mods and the owner of this CONSERVATIVE website.
***Please tell us why you believe that.
What concerns me are the number of posters who would not support the party nominee if he won the nomination fairly. I'm also concerned that the conservative electorate not posting on FreeRepublic may also feel the same way and stay home or vote third party.
***That should concern you. A recent FR poll shows that a RINO like rudy would split the socon base.
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=172;results=1
No republican has won the presidency with a split base. The republican party can afford a socon candidate but cannot afford a permanent split.
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.