[RKBA Democrat]

“Between now and the election, explain to me how can we tell the difference between a good, anonymous conservative Freeper refusing to vote for Romney on principle, and a covert leftist operative posting on this site to discourage votes against the Kenyan?”

Good luck with that! Or discerning the difference between someone who is a willardite because they’re sincere (albeit misguided), or are just on the payroll.

Only thing I can suggest is looking at how long they’ve been here and how often they post. Someone who has been here a decade and has posts numbering in the 5 or 6 digits is probably not an operative. Conversely a n00b or someone with 50 posts is more suspect.

I gave up on trying to discern underlying motivations and just respond to the post.

[reasonisfaith]

See #607

[familyop]

I've been calling for starving the beast as soon as possible, because both political parties are controlled by constituents who drive increases in debt while sucking on that debt. Government cannot continue to be big without revenues from a large manufacturing base. As for gradualism/incrementalism pushed in politics by so-called progressives (commies), it's the slow way.

Starve the beast, and make it small. Government cannot continue to be big without revenues from a large manufacturing base. Become more self-sufficient. Learn to manufacture something useful as a hobby for now.

I've made that clear hundreds of times, at least. I welcome the bond collapse and repudiation of debt just ahead, because that's the only way to decrease the size of government. That's conservative. Socialist readers who don't like it should quit their government jobs/pensions/services and find something useful to produce instead of using the feminist tactic of false accusations in political speech. Nearly all of the insanity in contemporary, bipartisan socialist politics results from the following.

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

  Hysteria \Hys*te"ri*a\, n. [NL.: cf. F. hyst['e]rie. See
     Hysteric.] (Med.)
     A nervous affection, occurring almost exclusively in women,
     in which the emotional and reflex excitability is
     exaggerated, and the will power correspondingly diminished,
     so that the patient loses control over the emotions, becomes
     the victim of imaginary sensations, and often falls into
     paroxism or fits.
     [1913 Webster]
  
     Note: The chief symptoms are convulsive, tossing movements of
           the limbs and head, uncontrollable crying and laughing,
           and a choking sensation as if a ball were lodged in the
           throat. The affection presents the most varied
           symptoms, often simulating those of the gravest
           diseases, but generally curable by mental treatment
           alone. Hysteric

How Dramatically Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?

JOHN R. LOTT Jr.
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (download links for whole document at bottom of page)

September 1998

University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 60
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 107, Number 6, Part 1, pp. 1163-1198, December 1999

Abstract:

This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.