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!
Time to leave Reagan behind??? why does Jeb think Reagan was so popular, it was NOT just his ability to communicate? It was his IDEAS — rock solid values. SOME things don’t change with the wind, JEB.
OMG the GOP is riddled with maggotty RINOs.
For the most part, not much. I agree with them on most things. However, in this case, they touted a set of gimmicky House amendments to the five major appropriations bills introduced by Jeff Flake. Those amendments were then used as the sole basis by NTU in developing a rating of congressmembers and labeling anyone with a low rating a "pork barrel spender." Any "nay" vote, or absence of a vote, was a strike against a representative. In the case of Duncan Hunter, he was chairing the House Armed Services Committee at the time, working day and night to get the Defense Appropriations bill passed and he missed about half the votes of Flake's amendments introduced on a single day -- those counted against him. As to the amendments themselves, IMO they were stupid stunts, addressing relatively minor dollars ($34 million for all 17 amendments) out of more than $600 billion that was being debated. Flake had done no homework on any of the items, unable to make a case as to what the items were other than the one-line title of the item. He wasted hours of time introducing the bills while the full congress was in session, then demanding a recorded vote when his bills were shot down by a vast majority by voice vote. When debating the bills, Flake was an embarrassment. He had no idea what it was he was objecting to, while it was pointed out in bill after bill that many of the items already had been debated and passed during the accompanying authorization bills. I have no objection to Flake trying to fight pork or earmarks but these were juvenile stunts used to grab headlines and put his name in the news, not sound legislation about which he or his staff had done any research. I have a real problem with the results of his efforts being used to conclude that someone is, or is not, a pork-barrel spender.
BTW: FR endorsed Fred. Is JimRob outta here in your book?
It is only an indication if you assume that these were good amendments. In my opinion, they weren't. See my prior post above. And that really isn't my point anyway. I object to the results being used as the sole basis for labeling a congressmember a big spender.
The other problem with the Mythheads is that they WON'T SHUT UP. When Rooty dropped out of the race, the Rooty Rooters who were left had the good sense to shut up about it. But the Mythheads are a totally different story, they can't seem to let it go.
Let's look at reality here, he lost the GOP nomination to a spastic, RINO has-been. If Myth couldn't even beat McLame what makes anyone think he can actually beat anyone else?
It was both. I'd probably argue more the Marxism than the apathetic campaign.
If McCain had flogged and flayed that flim-flam in the places where they differed substantially but Obama was busy pretending otherwise, we might not be going through this agony now.
No, we'd be going through the slightly less agonizing pain that would be President McPain. At least we'd have Sarah.
They can’t let it go, they would be terminated from their job for non performance of duties...
;-)
Thanks for the ping jb.
Moreover, I cannot imagine the good General compromising his integrity to run for National Office.
Listen, most voters include character in how they weigh a candidate -- it's not just some cold, robotic impersonal issues assessment. Don't get me wrong, issues & values are extremely important, but you can't separate candidate from character; and you can't separate character from faith.
Example: If a candidate has no faith -- if they believe they become worms when they die, then they don't believe in ultimate accountability. Politicians have enough trouble already with accountability without erasing it even more.
Now, take a temple Mormon. Temple Mormons believe they will one day become gods of their own planet/star. If they believe the rhetoric of their leaders, they, in fact, already believe they are a "god-in-embryo". Do you really think conservative Christian voters appreciate voting for somebody who thinks they are right a "god in embryo?"
You can't get around it. Otherly dimensional beliefs affect what people do this side of death. By all means, let's take everything about a candidate into consideration -- including whether they pay their taxes or not...cause that's a character issue, too!
***************************
No, they can't and it seems to me that they've never stopped criticizing Palin since she accepted the VP slot offered by McCain.
***************************
Let's look at reality here, he lost the GOP nomination to a spastic, RINO has-been. If Myth couldn't even beat McLame what makes anyone think he can actually beat anyone else?
***************************
Let us suppose that he actually won the nomination this time around. Is there any possibility that he would win the election? I doubt it. Too many on the Right oppose him.
I remember reading of the brouhaha over JFK, the first Roman Catholic presidential candidate, who eventually said if he was in a pinch between Rome and presidential duties, he would step down.
- - - - - - - - - -
What surprised me was that the “faith” speech Mitt gave was the same speech that JFK gave. And it worked for JFK. I suspect that is why so many Catholics (including Sean) supported Mitt in any way.
Jim,
I’m both relieved and thankful you took the time to explain this. I was almost zotted by a mod for not agreeing with John McCain shortly after I joined the website and have been slammed for being a conservative that believes in God, for crying out loud!
I’ve considered whether this is the right place for me, but then you posted this... not even a consideration now. I support freerepublic wholeheartedly.
Sincerely,
GG
Smokin’ Joe. Thanks for the explanation. My “Maybe, I’m missing something...” is no longer a ‘Maybe’. I did :-) We’re on the same page.
My Friends, I am involved with Tea Party Boards and I can tell you that Mitt is NOT even close to being mentioned !!!! Get involved! Do not let the LDS scare tactics work there too!
\ - - - - - - - - - -
Thank you, Taj. We went to two tea parties here and I didn’t hear any support of Mitt either.
I believe many who do/did/would support him (off FR) are simply misinformed.
And as soon as that [Law of Consecration] came up, the candidacy would be effectively doomed.
- - - - - - - - - -
Which is why I think Mitt got so much favorable press. The MSM knew he would be easy to defeat that way. Get him the nom then let loose. Easy win. And Romney would be an easy defeat.
Understood but we differ on what 'good' means here. Going to my other point, if it _exposes_, then I think it's 'good'. And also, my point was only that and not a reflection on how Flake's action were used by others against Hunter, whom I respect.
LOL. Glad to hear it. Long weekend on my part. :)
The difference being, not too many Jews or Buddists claim to be Christians.
— - - - - - - -
Or are trying to redefine Christian to match their own theology.
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.