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
Every time someone posts the FR mission statement, I ask myself that question.
no. even an imperfect George Bush, was a better president then two terms of Gore, or Kerry, would have been.
Not at all. The Bush administration has done more harm to the nation and the conservative movement than 16 years of the Clintons could ever do.
Like the man said, it's a conservative site. Praying the Republican party remains a conservative party.
Any Democrat Administration will be a disaster for America.
We have yet to experience the full consequences of the November 2006 election.
But it is coming.
yeah OK, whatever you say. Roberts and Alito are on the SCOTUS, yet "The Bush administration has done more harm to the nation and the conservative movement than 16 years of the Clintons could ever do".
this is an example of the frenzy on FR these days.
thank you Jim, we may not agree on Rudy - but I am glad you posted that.
I have to agree with you on the SCOTUS picks(not counting Harriet Maiers). The tax cuts were great along with the pro-life issues. I think he didn't really try to make his case regarding traditional marriage. His handling of the WOT, while somewhat flawed, sure beats anything I'd expect from Clinton, Gore or Kerry. No Democrat would be able to accomplish as much harm as I believe Bush will do on illegal immigration. Spending has gone completely out of control. I think much of the conservative crisis currently is due to the Bush administration's bungling of governance in general. If one of the evil clowns were in power, the GOP would have been more conservative out of simple party opposition.
Glad you cleared that up ;-)
Levin wants to get Hunter on? I hadn't heard that, and was wondering why Mark hadn't done so before now.
It is stated above in a number of my previous posts. I was struck at the enthusiastic support for Rudy and the heated arguments that ensued when anyone challenged his positions. It seemed to me that at least a substantial segment of the posters viewed FR as a Republic site rather than a conservative site. This led to some discussion about how conservative certain candidates were and whether their stances on governance were aligned with the intention of this website.
What was your point in responding to the thread?
Isn't that just a smidge over the top?
Isn't that just a smidge over the top?
Depends on how the cards play out over the next couple years.
That's a good question. It's kind of both. The Founder wanted a certain type of discourse, encouragement, rallying, etc., but the members usually want a Republican agenda and to defend Republican politicians against all comers. Of course, BJ Clinton's disgraceful tenure certainly provided a catalyst.
Once in a great while, I'm sure you've noticed, FR has gone off the rails a bit but generally I love it here; it's the bright spot in my day. Do you agree?
Bottom line, it doesn't really matter if it's a conservative or republican site, or both; it's a place for learning and comraderie that's hard to beat.
Secondly, please don't go around accusing people, especially me, of being "antiLife" when you don't know. You do the pro-Life cause a great disservice by your ignorant accusations. I intentionally use "anti-Choice" rather than "pro-Life" to distinguish my anti-federal intervention position from the vociferous one-issue voters who would use the police power of the federal government to impose a singular view of morality and religion on the entire nation. Addionally, such a rabid pro-Life postion is losing us votes; votes that we desparately need if we're going to defeat Hitlery.
I heard him last week to tell his producer to get him on. But I hardly get a chance to listen so he may have already done so by now.
I understand some of what you said. Of course, Bush has been better for the country than Gore or Kerry would have been - but - because of some of the things you cited - in the long run, I think it has hurt the Republican party - for example, in the last election.
If putting anyone in that can win, helps us in the short-term, but hurts us in the long-term - well then, I think we need to come up with a better strategery. Anyone that's ever played chess knows that you don't just think to your next move - you think to the next 5 or 6 moves. That's how you win chess.
Anyone that's ever played chess knows that you don't just think to your next move - you think to the next 5 or 6 moves. That's how you win chess.
It would be an improvement if the majority would start thinking 2 or three moves ahead.
Anyone that's ever played chess knows that you don't just think to your next move - you think to the next 5 or 6 moves. That's how you win chess.
It would be an improvement if the majority would start thinking 2 or three moves ahead. You always have to fight defense if the opposition keeps you in reaction mode.
That's been one of my BIGGEST gripes about the Bush administration - they are always playing defense. Just think if they had reversed it & played offense! Especially when the media is in the pocket of the other side, you can't let them get any toe-hold. The dims and everyone else just keep tooting their lies over & over until most people start to believe them.
Play offense - not defense. Would make a good tag line.
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.