So you found a convenient omission in the Legacy Media.
They are not the only ones who conveniently omit things...
According to your Wiki user profile page, linked here -
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Grundle2600&oldid=353969441#My_user_name
You favor legal RECREATIONAL drug use.
You support “Same Sex Marriage.”
You are “Pro Choice” (meaning you support legalized abortion.)
You support UNIVERSAL health care.
You support (the lunatic) Ron Paul.
(And you proudly state that you voted for Gary Johnson.)
You are totally opposed to the Death Penalty.
(Although you don’t have a problem with legal abortion.)
So why are you posting on FreeRepublic, a site that is opposed in principle to so much that you support?
I post at Free Republic because it’s a wonderful place with a lot of people who agree with me that children need two parents.
Perhaps he observes the rules of the community, and doesn't go on rampages regarding the issues on which he differs.
Additionally, there are many fans of Ron Paul—and Rand Paul—on this site. Ron Paul is not a lunatic. That's merely your opinion.
Favoring legal recreational drug use shouldn't be anything controversial to someone who isn't a self-righteous Nanny- Stater, and who ostensibly believes in minimal government.
You are aware that alcohol is a drug, I presume? A recreational one? There are others, such as marijuana—a plant created by God, last time I checked—which, like alcohol, is also a recreational drug, and which is also now legal in many states.
Indeed, although traditionally legal, alcohol is the worst recreational drug on the face of the earth, inasmuch as it's a drug whose negative qualities—in the form of damage to health, violent assaults, murders, rapes, vehicular homicides, physical and psychological domestic abuse, etc.—far exceed those of all other drugs combined, both legal and illegal.
Parenthetically, anyone who claims to believe in minimal government while supporting the ever-expanding, bloated Police State necessary to enforce Contraband Law—along with the trampling of Constitutional Rights which invariably accompanies it—can hardly be considered a small-government "conservative", IMHO.
No-knock warrants, violation of privacy, searches conducted without probable cause, and asset forfeiture, for example, are but a few examples of the disregard for Constitutional Rights which routinely accrue due to the existence of such Tyrannical Law.
But I digress. On to the death penalty.
There are also many FReepers who oppose the death penalty—or at least have serious reservations about it—inasmuch as it has been erroneously applied to innocents, and is irrevocable. It's rather hard to Establish Justice for someone who has been wrongfully convicted in such a case. And such cases have occurred—many times, in fact. But even once should be sufficient to give any Christian pause.
As for health care, America has had de facto universal healthcare for many decades. Indeed, it would be an overt violation of the Hippocratic Oath for any doctor to refuse to render essential services to anyone who needed them. While nobody can technically force a doctor to provide health care services against his will, if withholding such services were to cause harm to the patient, that would constitute a violation of the Hippocratic Oath which all doctors take.
Being a supporter of universal health care doesn't necessarily imply a desire to impose a Tyrannical, leviathan, bureaucratic top-down system of socialist rationing. Again, however, America has (for all intents and purposes) had universal healthcare for well over half a century—and until Obamacare, without the socialist Tyranny.
To summarize, simply because this FReeper doesn't agree 100% with your various dogmatic positions, shouldn't mean he isn't welcome here—as long as he abides by the site guidelines, and as long as he doesn't engage in gratuitous antagonism regarding the issues where he stands in the clear minority.
I've seen grundle around here on and off for the last 15 years or so, and don't ever recall him causing any significant problem. If you disagree with him on so many issues, perhaps—through the art of persuasion—he can be disabused of some of his more fallacious policy positions...