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!
I give up. I tried to make my point clear but apparently you are not comprehending what I’m saying.
Have a nice day.
Good grief.
Trisham, meet Kevmo.
Have a nice day.
Ah, more cogent argument. You don’t disappoint.
Trisham, meet Kevmo.
Have a nice day.
*********************
I suppose this is a concession on your part of the inadequacy of your arguments?
Well how about that...
LL, in one simple, some what out of the way sentence you have summed up the entire issue with Mitt, and his supporters, and have answered the question of why those who assume to wear the guise of Conservatives seem to support him...
Yes, who are "we" to pass judgment on a politician as great as Mitt Romney.
"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.
That such a concept has escaped you, and other Romney folks as it appears it has, explains much.
Forgetting or glossing over the Constitution and other founding documents and their significance, and worse perhaps tossing them aside, is what the "other side" does.
So perhaps you, and your fellow Romney supporters (and any others) understand why we, the "inmates" approach with at least some contempt your efforts.
This "we", the 20-30% of "The People" remember where we came from and how we got to be the greatest nation on Earth. We will be the ones, the carriers of the torch on the life raft that shall remain just off shore, awaiting the day when the rest of "the people" wake up, and if it is possible, and God in his Heaven knows I pray it to be so, we will be able to reignite the fire started over two centuries ago.
Is there anyone to support or are they all corrupted dirtbags? Seriously...
Oh, blah, blah, blah. Go ahead and wrap yourself in the flag. Political freedom means one can disagree on politics. One can even decide, without any evidence and in lieu of backing up your political judgment with facts, that your opponent is a “worthless POS.” But that’s a stupid way to arrive at political judgments, and a stupid way to argue.
And, in a free country, one can point out that stupidity.
“I suppose this is a concession on your part of the inadequacy of your arguments?”
Nope, but whatever supposition makes you happy is fine by me.
“This “we”, the 20-30% of “The People” remember where we came from and how we got to be the greatest nation on Earth. We will be the ones, the carriers of the torch on the life raft that shall remain just off shore, awaiting the day when the rest of “the people” wake up, and if it is possible, and God in his Heaven knows I pray it to be so, we will be able to reignite the fire started over two centuries ago.”
Since you are waiting, I hear there is a ranch in Guyana still available at a good price.
Disagreement is one part of political freedom, another is the responsibility to the goals and ideals the nation is based on.
You point blank told another American that they are not significant enough to pass judgment on one so accomplished as Romney.
Yet over 200 years ago, in many cases the “rednecks” of the day passed judgment on the most royal of royalty....
And you still don't get it, you don't get how elitist that very simple sentence and the concept that backs it is.
Until you do, you are only furthering the case against Mitt, not for him.
Elitism is for the left.
Oh, we won’t be that far off, I assure you.
Time and tides...
Disagreement is one part of political freedom, another is the responsibility to the goals and ideals the nation is based on.
You point blank told another American that they are not significant enough to pass judgment on one so accomplished as Romney.
Yet over 200 years ago, in many cases the “rednecks” of the day passed judgment on the most royal of royalty....
And you still don't get it, you don't get how elitist that very simple sentence and the concept that backs it is.
Until you do, you are only furthering the case against Mitt, not for him.
********************
Well said, ej.
Now, that’s funny.
As always you deliberately distort my message. You can disagree with Mitt’s politics. I certainly have. But to decide he is a “worthless POS” as a person, rather than simply taking issue with his political positions, is stupid and against all the evidence. And most of the people making those kinds of statements couldn’t begin to match Mitt’s personal qualifications, achievements, or the upright way in which he has lived his life. It just makes them feel less like losers in comparison to run him down.
Try another approach, something along the lines of:
“Wow, that did come off sort of elitist didn't it, I am so sorry”
See, the fact that wasn't your first response speaks volumes, the fact the initial sentence came out so easily, as if just part of a natural conversation, only adds to it.
The fact you are now flailing not over your own words but what the other poster said...
Well...
"And most of the people making those kinds of statements couldn’t begin to match Mitt’s personal qualifications, achievements, or the upright way in which he has lived his life. It just makes them feel less like losers in comparison to run him down."
As my dear Ole' Pappy used to always say "quit while yer behind"...
It IS funny. Superiority complex much?...lol
I've said some stupid stuff here on FR....
So that being said....would you care to retract or further explain your thinking here?
Sadly its not...
But what to do...
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.