Posted on 05/03/2009 12:32:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
I'm going to try one more time to explain what FR is all about.
Free Republic is a conservative site. That does not necessarily mean it is a Republican site. In fact there may be many Republicans we don't support and some Republican issues we cannot agree with.
I'll throw in Arlen Specter as a prime example of a Republican we cannot support. Should be obvious to all why not. Should also be just as obvious to all that we cannot support Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain and his lap dog Lindsay Graham, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, et al.
Some of the issues we cannot support as conservatives even though sometimes initiated by so-called Republicans include TARP, or any kind of government bailout of private enterprise, federal intrusion into free markets, federalized education systems, government provided or controlled health care systems, abortion, gay marriage, amnesty, global warming, gun control, etc.
I guess there is more than one definition of conservatism floating around out there, and this won't be text book, but the one we use involves defending, preserving and protecting our constitution, our unalienable rights, our traditional family values, our American heritage, our nation, our borders and our sovereignty.
We aggressively defend our rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness!
We aggressively defend our rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to keep and bear arms, right to due process, right to equality under the law, right to be governed under the rule of law, right to constitutionally limited government, right to corruption free government, right to self-government and our private property rights, etc.
We also aggressively defend our right to state and local government for all issues not expressly delegated to the central government by the constitution.
We aggressively defend our rights to free markets and our rights to live our lives free of government intrusion, interference, coercion, force, or abuse of any kind.
We aggressively defend our rights to national sovereignty, state sovereignty and individual sovereignty!
And this definition also includes aggressively fighting against all enemies foreign and domestic who may try to deprive us of our rights or sovereignty. This would obviously include all foreign enemies, but also we defend against RINOS, Democrats, liberals, socialists, Marxists, communists, militant feminists or homosexualists, radical environmentalists, etc, etc, etc.
And we expect our elected representatives to also aggressively defend our rights and fight against all enemies foreign and domestic. We do not elect people and send them to DC or our state capitals, etc, to reach across the aisles or to be bipartisan or to negotiate or compromise away our rights. If you're not going to aggressively fight for us, and for our rights, STAY OUT!!
We bow to no king but God!
Our God-given unalienable rights are NOT negotiable!
Do NOT Tread on US!
Thank you very much!
LOL
“Yes, of course if that “mob” is on the right side of an issue”
Now see, your mistake is thinking that a mob is capable of rational thought. A mob takes the character of the least stable member. That provides several candidates for this threat, congratulations you are one of the finalists. My Pappy was raised in a county that was referred to as the “Independent Republic”, how bout yours. Like I have said already I will expend my effort on worthwhile things, that does not include this thread.
As F.R.s founder is fond of saying:
The liberals made him do it!
Crying to Dad, are we, coward? He went home.
We are a nation of equals. You see, in America there is no royalty that is deemed beyond our judgement. You have judged Romney - and judged him to be our better - and so it seems you think yourself capable of “judging” him, yet you think that we are incapable of judging him. Again I ask, “superior, much?” [ejonesie22]
Exactly, Ejon...how elitist could LL's comment get?
"We", the "we" you refer to, are the same "we" that the founding fathers referred to over 200 years age. We are "The People", the people that Mitt wants to SERVE, not be served by. [ejonesie22]
'Tis the very problem we're seeing in politicians mortgaging generations to come by having a taxpayer $ giveaway fire sale. (They forget that "we the people" employ our civil servants -- it's not the other way around. 'Tis "the people" who review their employees -- not the other way around).
So may I encourage you, Lady Lawyer, to stop reinforcing this notion that voters aren't to evaluate & assess politicians both before and after "the people" hire them!
To you OMM, I’ll say that I have never seen you express hatred toward an individual either. I may have missed it but I sure havn’t seen it.
Obviously, you've got no problems with bashing GOP candidates. So, some candidates Freepers should do nothing but bash, and others do nothing but praise?
Is there a list of which GOP candidates to bash and praise respectively? And who makes up that list?
I quoted him, why shouldn’t I have pinged him? Stooping to name calling?
This IS his home. You can bet JimRob is here. You are a guest in his house. I would consider acting like one if I were you.
That is strictly because I bear no hatred toward any member of Free Republic.
There are a few who would like to see me lynched, but far be it from me to mention any names!
8-)
More elitist retroactive judgment from afar -- without even having known you, CC! [But thanks, LL...we now know why lawyers tend to have a less than stellar rep!]
Not I, OMM and I've never witnessed any hatred at all toward you. In fact I have wished you well on many, many threads - and have never issued any statement of hatred toward you nor any other Mormon Freeper. But I don't mind your inference.
Hence my “Was Bush Impeached” question. He wasn't because the standards were maintained as they should have been so the Democrat could not do to us what we almost did to Clinton. Blow back is always the price of political vendettas.
As for the rest, I have seen the whole “Mitt was in a blue state yada ydad ydad for years”. Hogwash. He danced around numerous issues and even today takes pride in his health care fiasco. Even praised it again this week.
So no go, been there done that dozens of times.
I love Coulter, but she, like many others, was too star struck to look past the promises and the current “Mitt Version” to see the history. Researching the real Mitt is an effort for it goes all over the place.
Yes he had somewhat “flopped” our way, but even now he shows that is was not only incomplete, but very possibly temporary and prone to the whims of the political winds as has always been Mitts nature.
So as you can see, we “malcontents’ otherwise known as the majority of FreeRepublic including the boss man himself are not so easily swayed and take time to look not as the words but the actions and history. Mitt was found more than wanting and that has not changed.
I guess you missed it when he said he was “going home.” Aren’t you a little old to be such a pathetic tattle-tale? I don’t need a lecture about being a guest from the Mormon-bashers.
Definitely not you. You always do the best you can to maintain high standards of civility.
I had another in mind, one that claims to be from a certain Southern State north of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, West of Virginia and south of Kentucky.
Yet you continued to post to this thread...
Interesting...
Oh, and there was a reason I put the word mob in quotations marks...
How are you feeling, BTW?
May want to do a little more research on the man...
Isn’t it amazing how all the posters here are so much smarter and more insightful than all the conservatives, like Ann Coulter, who actally get paid for what they write?
Hanging in there. And you and yours?
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.