Posted on 01/01/2012 5:02:18 PM PST by grey_whiskers
When I mentioned several other people, I wasn’t thinking of you at all! I was considering ... you know, regular people, the kind who don’t eat kudzu or communicate with aliens.
Happy New Year!
That was good. I’ll show it to Tom tomorrow. He’s watching some comic-book thing, on DVD from Netflix. X-Persons? It has Kevin Kline, Nazis, and blonde women in it.
It is my opinion that resorting to this kind of meaningless labeling
Hmmmm.... I think Paultard and Mitt-bott is pinpoint, PRECISE, accurate, fact based, fair labeling of those two weirdo groups. In other words, it sums them up.
I am reminded of the southern phrase “Hit dog howls”.
Can someone explain the difference between Democrats demanding respect for their liberal politics and politicians and so called conservatives demanding respect for their favored liberal politics and politicians?
Words mean things whether libs like it or not and as you pointed out, they are dead on. Mitt fans run around parroting liberal Romney talking points like they had a CD in their heads, never questioning the reality of his positions - quite robot like. Paul supporters show retarded (as in slow/held back/not up to speed) devotion, parroting his craziness and logicless positions on most issues.
Yup, shoe fits. People not liking the associations are free to alter their positions.
This is what I mean - are we supposed to swallow everything on any politician's plate? Are we supposed to conflate whackjob followers with the actual candidate? "We" never have before.
I don't give a DAMN whether Paul is elected. What I care about is saving the country from being destroyed - and the MAIN thing that's destroying us is economic sabotage at the government level by Leftist saboteurs. The only guy I see pointing out this MAIN destruction of our country is Paul - but shills swallow every damn thread by misrepresenting him in every possible way.
What nobody has stopped to consider is that economic destruction is the main way the Leftists SELL their crap to the people. It's WHY people vote democrat, to get the government support they think they need because they can't find work, or good enough work to live. Because it ain't just the "bums" out there - millions of educated, hardworking people have watched their jobs vanish overseas or be destroyed by regulations, and they're up against it now,
Fer cryin' out loud, isn't it obvious how deliberate this is?!
Without economic hell, with genuine free markets and low taxation and regulation and the historically enormous benefits and wealth it brings to the country, the Democrats don't have sh!t. THEY know it. That conservatives don't is a damn shame.
And a P.S. to the shills - if you win, and you really believe your employer is going to take care of you and your families once America is destroyed or turned into a concentration camp, then you win the stupid award of the millenium. Because if you win, your employers will then look at YOU as the next problem to be taken care of. Look up the hisotry of what happens to useful idiots after the revolution.
I hereby nominate you as the official "FR plotter" whose duty will be to calculate each FReepers curve so that we will not have to waste time with those whose "curve" is obviously divergent from conservatism. : )
Unfortunately there are many more, and not just the two that the simplistic libertarians claim.
What about the "this needs to be in the constitution" vs. "this needs to be handled by the states" axis? Some conservatives favor a stronger DOMA that would make gay marriage illegal throughout the country. Others want this handled on a state-by-state basis. Similar arguments go both ways on abortion, environmental regulations, business restrictions, etc.
The debates on if/when to use the military are often argued out on a "realist" vs. "idealist" axis.
Even if you stick to conservative vs. liberal, there are differing opinions within the conservative ranks regarding such things as Social Security. There are conservatives who feel that promises were made and need to be kept. Others who think those promises should never have been made and the program should be scrapped post-haste. Others believe it just needs to be "privatized", but every privatization scheme I've seen has had a large government component to it. What is the "real" conservative position on Social Security? Medicare? Private pensions (where promises were made and contracts signed for good or ill)?
“”...there are differing opinions within the conservative ranks regarding such things as Social Security.”
Does Part 2 apply the F test?
In order to do any sort of quality analysis we would need to specify some units. Even if we could come up with units (and for conservatives they would definitely be English units rather than the commie metric ones), how would you place different opinions along the axis? Is keeping Soc Sec the way it is because promises were made and need to be kept, more or less conservative than scrapping Soc Sec which is viewed by lots of conservatives as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power?
And that doesn't even take into consideration whether we would need to assume homoscedasticity.
...or join other sites.
Cheers!
Strictly speaking, yes, you'd not only have to handle heteroskedacity, but possibly multiple axis and different weightings -- so you'd be closer to ANOVA.
But all I was trying to do was point out an analogy (and in an odd way, your posting is a good segue into Part II, which is not at *all* what the posters here seem to be expecting); if you want to come up with a formal political placement methodology, go apply to a statistics or a Poly-Sci dept. somewhere and offer to make it your graduate thesis :-)
If you're not too busy with Hamlet, that is?
Whether 'tis nobler in the 'net to suffer the slings and arrows
of outrageous forum trolls,
and by opposing, end them? To ZOT! To FReep no more...
Cheers! Cheers!
1) the newness of the poster
2) whether A, B, and C have already been discussed within the forum, and found by consensus to be completely outweighed by D, E, and F
3) if the arguments used by the n00b have already been hashed out and found wanting, or they are obvious boilerplate
4) candidate Smith has already been declared persona non grata by the Viking Kitties
Cheers!
Cheers!
Don’t know which was the most entertaining....The thread or the comments.....Hugh I tell you.
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.