Statement by Jim Robinson Regarding the State of our Free Republic

October 20, 2003 | Jim Robinson

[TexasRepublic]

The Democrat leadship are Marxists and our greatest domestic threat!

[VRWCmember]

Madame de Winter serves the Cardinal, whom do you serve???

I serve Jesus Christ, and those whom He calls me to serve.

[VRWCmember]

Consensus and compromise, are part of checks and balances. There is no capitualation in compromise. When you argue whith your spouse or family member do you try and destroy their position? Or do listen and reach an understanding?

More word games? If we are talking about my spouse or family that is one thing; if we are talking about the democrats that is another thing altogether. My spouse is honorable and willing to work out our differences when we do not agree. The democrats do not even make a pretense of honor or willingness to work out differences.

For example, the democrats -- when clinton was president and the GOP controlled the senate -- complained about the republicans blocking a couple of clinton's judicial appointees saying that the nominees deserved a full hearing and an up and down vote in the senate. Then, when they had the majority briefly during GWB's presidency, they cajoled and stonewalled and blocked several nominees even though the nominees were all rated as "highly qualified" by the usually liberal leaning American Bar Association (the democrats' proclaimed gold standard for nominees). The nominees would have easily passed confirmation before the full senate but the democrats on the committee blocked the nominees. Then, when they lost their majority and the republicans approved the nominees out of committee, and even though the nominees are HIGHLY QUALIFIED and have bipartisan support and would EASILY win confirmation, the democrats stonewall and filibuster the nominees but refuse to debate and question the nominees, all while claiming the nominees haven't been open enough or they haven't had adequate time to review them. The are completely devoid of honor and the only "compromise" they will accept is total captitulation of the President's constitutional authority to nominate judges to their prior approval.

There is no compromise or consensus with such tyrants who abuse a senate procedural rule to thwart the clear will of the majority.

[MonroeDNA]

Here, here!!!

We are on the exact same page. Liberals, Socialists, Marxists, all control freaks, who can't stand individual liberty.

I abhore them, and will do whatever I can to defeat them.

Thank God for Bush.

[Semper]

While I agree with what you have said, I offer that there is more to the problem. The republican party is not without fault in what has developed - spending has increased and freedoms have decreased under their watch also.

Therefore, the most serious problem is the corruption of our whole political system - it has been corrupted by MONEY, the "mother's milk of politics". Special interest money has gotten so out of hand that it will take more than the meager legislative possibilities so far proposed.

It will take a major change in the dynamics of our election law to correct this problem. The best thing I have heard is the idea that no money can be contributed to a candidate by anyone who cannot vote for that candidate - and then put a reasonable limit on contributions (like a certain % of income). That eliminates contributions from organizations: unions, corporations, PACs, etc. It also eliminates much of the structure of corruption and it keeps the local elections local.

There would still be the problem of soft money and that would require some good regulation to keep it appropriate and under control but that could be done.

Thank you for Free Republic - you have done a great service.

[wimpycat]

Hey, you didn't include my last reply to him. If you're going to be fair about it, then critique the whole exchange, not just part of it.

Here's a link to my last reply to him.

But on to other business:
a site that loudly proclaims itself for liberty, but then asserts that a website can't be moderated under republican principles of personal conduct. How will we know unless we give it a try?

Since everyone is the arbiter of his own personal conduct, according to Sabertooth, it's up to the moderators and Jim to decide whether or not their conduct is in line with republican principles. Hey, I'm just following the logic that was laid out by someone else; I'm not saying that I agree with it.

But I will say it is human nature that no matter what the rules are, somebody is bound to be pissed off and feel as though they haven't been treated fairly. Switch places with Jim for a moment. Let's say as of tomorrow you were in charge and could run this place however you saw fit. Your rules, whatever they might be (I'm afraid to speculate) are fair, just and according to whatever principles you prefer, as far as you see it. Well, the result would be that a lot of people would be pissed off. They would complain, and insist on you changing your mind and doing it some other way. They would cajole, beg, plead, lay the old guilt trip on you, try some philosophical jujitsu, and when that didn't work they would accuse you of all sorts of ugly things, as well as start posting opuses announcing to the world (as if the world cared) that it is with a sad heart that they must declare publicly that you're a liar and a fraud. You, of course, might examine their proposals, but some of them would ask what you consider impossible and against your principles. And of course, you, being the self-proclaimed curmudgeon that you are, wouldn't give a flying you-know-what, because you'd be convinced that your way was the right way, and you would doggedly continue on your merry way (as you do in reality). So, if you're in Jim's place, why break in a new set of people to be pissed off by changing the rules, when you don't feel as though they need changing in the first place?

[tpaine]

wimpycat wrote:
Hey, you didn't include my last reply to him. If you're going to be fair about it, then critique the whole exchange, not just part of it.

Therefore, each of us as individuals has it in our power, whatever the context, to voluntarily avoid potential excesses of mobs and majorities by not conducting ourselves in that manner... -saber-

I personally don't see the "potential excesses of mobs and majorities" happening at FR. And if Jim doesn't see it, and since each is the arbiter of his own personal conduct, like you just said, then it is a moot point. 1,088 -wimpy-

Your 'point' was that Sabers issue about principles is a moot point. Why bother to reply to sophistry?

But on to other business:

a site that loudly proclaims itself for liberty, but then asserts that a website can't be moderated under republican principles of personal conduct. How will we know unless we give it a try?

Since everyone is the arbiter of his own personal conduct, according to Sabertooth, it's up to the moderators and Jim to decide whether or not their conduct is in line with republican principles. Hey, I'm just following the logic that was laid out by someone else; I'm not saying that I agree with it.

More sophistry. Republican principles are outlined in our constitution. They are arguable in detail, but certainly, can not reasonable people agree on their basics?

But I will say it is human nature that no matter what the rules are, somebody is bound to be pissed off and feel as though they haven't been treated fairly. Switch places with Jim for a moment. Let's say as of tomorrow you were in charge and could run this place however you saw fit. Your rules, whatever they might be (I'm afraid to speculate)

Now now, wimp, -- you just took a personal 'shot'.. While attempting to put yourself forward as a rational defender of FR's rules..

are fair, just and according to whatever principles you prefer, as far as you see it. Well, the result would be that a lot of people would be pissed off. They would complain, and insist on you changing your mind and doing it some other way. They would cajole, beg, plead, lay the old guilt trip on you, try some philosophical jujitsu, and when that didn't work they would accuse you of all sorts of ugly things, as well as start posting opuses announcing to the world (as if the world cared) that it is with a sad heart that they must declare publicly that you're a liar and a fraud. You, of course, might examine their proposals, but some of them would ask what you consider impossible and against your principles. And of course, you, being the self-proclaimed curmudgeon that you are, wouldn't give a flying you-know-what, because you'd be convinced that your way was the right way, and you would doggedly continue on your merry way (as you do in reality).

Yep, -- and strangely enough, the 'I don't give a crap' issue was just mentioned in another recent exchange here at FR.. Fancy that..

So, if you're in Jim's place, why break in a new set of people to be pissed off by changing the rules, when you don't feel as though they need changing in the first place?

Why indeed? Carry on with saying one thing & doing another.. No skin off my nose.

[PatrickHenry]

Or how many gallons my toilet must flush.

Oh, come now my dear fellow! Surely you must realize that this is one of the few subjects about which our esteemed congressmen are uniquely qualified to legislate.

[Jim Robinson]

I didn't say or mean to suggest that the Republican Party is without fault. It is made up of politicians and some are more conservative than others and some may not be any better than a liberal Democrat.

However, under our current systems of governance at both federal and state levels, the party that holds the top executive position and or the majority in the legislative bodies effectively controls the agenda and controls which bills get advanced and signed into law, which judges get appointed and confirmed, which treaties get ratified, which policies are executed, etc., etc.

Majority control is much too powerful and too important to our Liberty to be entrusted to the unabashed God-hating, America-hating, family-hating, freedom-hating, constitution-hating socialist Democrat Party. They've already proven how their evil policies and corrupt methods can destroy our moral society and our once free and sovereign nation. The goals and agenda of the current Democrat Party are antithetical to freedom.

The evil platform and treasonous policies of the socialist Democrat Party must be soundly rejected by the American people if we are ever again to regain our lost freedom. And there is only one other party in America that has the strength of numbers to accomplish this task, the Republican Party.

I say we embrace and promote the Republican Party candidates in all elections nationwide to the point that the Democrats eventually lose all power to further obstruct and destroy our nation and our way of life.

And I do not advocate a one party system as some on this thread have suggested. I believe that once the evil party is soundly defeated and its leaders sent packing and its evil socialist platform of death and perversion dumped into the trash-bin of history, there will be other parties rising to the top from both sides of the political spectrum. I only hope that the more conservative parties prevail and that our constitutionally limited government and our God-given Liberty is eventually restored.

This is my ultimate goal.

[Jim Robinson]

By the way, I don't see anything in the Constitution that prohibits any person from supporting his candidate or party of choice with as much time, effort and or money as he possibly can or wishes to contribute. Without a constitutional amendment, the government simply does not have the authorization to interfere in campaigning or elections. I support absolutely no limits and no forced disclosure. It's none of the government's business how I support my candidates. Now, on the other hand, if a politician is caught accepting bribes or playing quid pro quo, etc., then I think he should be impeached, recalled, ejected, etc., and he and the person(s) who offered said bribes should be charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and incarcerated if found guilty.

[wimpycat]

Now now, wimp, -- you just took a personal 'shot'..

Not quite. I really don't know what your rules would be, and I'd rather not speculate, because it would most likely take the dialog off on a tangent. Besides, the whole point I was making was that it makes no difference what the rules are, somebody is going to get pissed off.

Carry on with saying one thing & doing another.. No skin off my nose.

Now that is a personal shot. Not that it matters. We were talking about how Jim is running the website, weren't we? I have nothing to do with how this place is run. I just happen to not be one of the pissed off people.

[tpaine]

You wrote:

So, if you're in Jim's place, why break in a new set of people to be pissed off by changing the rules, when you don't feel as though they need changing in the first place?

[if you're in Jim's place] -- Why indeed? Carry on with saying one thing & doing another.. No skin off my nose.

Now that is a personal shot.

Not in the context of 'Jims place' which you established.

Not that it matters. We were talking about how Jim is running the website, weren't we? I have nothing to do with how this place is run. I just happen to not be one of the pissed off people.

Whatever..

[wimpycat]

Whatever...

And on that note, we conclude what has been a relatively civil exchange. Thanks for participating.

[Senator Pardek]

Depleted Uranium? No - but I've heard it gives a good high.

[JHL]

I'm with you Jim. I applaud your stand and the service you've done in providing this website. I agree with you about the threat posed by the Dems, but I'm afraid the Republicans are only slowing the nation's demise, not actually reversing it. Yet, I'm no Libertarian either. You put your finger on it when you stated a need to for this country to return to the original intent of the Constitution. Amen to that.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

No, no, no...not "Depleted Uranium". Diversity University, if you catch my drift.

[Ben Bolt]

I like passion in people . Focused passion K .

[Senator Pardek]

That's where I got my B.S. Everyone always wonders where I got that.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

You ought to just put that on your profile page. Then you wouldn't have to field so many inquiries. A little rainbow graphic would be nice, too. ; )