Posted on 11/30/2004 10:23:30 PM PST by ccmay
There are so many things that make FR great. It's my favorite place on the Internet and I am proud to support it financially.
However, there are a few things that have been getting under my skin too.
A good optional explanation... i.e. pi$$, a$$, f***...
I guess there is some logic to lame gambits other than non creative lazyness.. I stand down on being pi$$ed off.. that means I'm sitting you know.. d;-'
I'd like to see the mods automatically delete all the variations of "barf alert". This juvenile "humor" is noticed instantly by new visitors to FR, and creates the impression that FR is populated by the same sort of stupid kids who populate DU. It's embarassing to direct a friend or relative to FR, telling them what a valuable news and discussion site it is; only to have them take a peek at the "barf alert" littered front page, decide you must not be the serious thinker they thought you were, and never come back to FR.
None that they're willing to fight for.
'Tis Phil Hartman's "Anal Chef" -- I am just the conduit!
And you are Prime Exhibit A. Always so sure you're much better than the rest of us. Or as I like to call them, the ugly face of conservatives.
Nice personal attack there, Howlin.
The record is that when Republicans are in charge, the governmetn gets bigger, more expensive, more intrusive, and Republibots justify it because, after all, we have to support the Republicans. Can't have Democrats in there.
But what good does it do to ahve Republicans in charge when tehy do the same things we would excoriate Democrats for?
As I said previously, I'm not big on Kool Aid drinkers, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. I'm interested in advancing conservative principles, as presumably everyone here is. When that can be done via teh Republican Party, then I'm with the Republicans. When it can't, then I'll oppose them as I would oppose anyone else.
Do you have a problem with standing for principle, expecting "our side" to try to move things in our direction?
Hey, it's their theology. It does get tiersome, however.
But at least they're not looking for the Fox News babes when they get to wherever they're going.
My number one pet peeve is tight-arsed Freepers who decide what everyone else should do.
Posters like myself who only contribute trite comments to threads.
Thanks for making MY point once again.
Making YOUR point? You must be kidding.
I simply asked if there is any criticism of Republicans that you consider valid. No matter what the GOP does, yoou seem ready to defend it by trying to shout down any critics and impugn their motives and their conservatism.
As I said, I am interested in pursuing the advancement of conservativ e principles. Republicans, in power, tend to move in the other direction. When they do something that advances conservative principles, such as tax cuts and the war on terror, I am very supportive. But when they do such things as declare a de facto manesty for illegal aliens, refuse to secure our borders, create the largest entitlement in almost 40 years, pass the biggest Federalization of education in many years, restrict our freedom to speak out about candidates during a campaign, I oppose them a a matter of principle.
Republibots -- conservatives who will support these things merely because Republicans are doing them -- in my view do not advance our cause. But if anyone raises that point, they are the first and loudest to impugn the critics.
Republibots -- conservatives who will support these things merely because Republicans are doing them -- in my view do not advance our cause. But if anyone raises that point, they are the first and loudest to impugn the critics.
See there! My point exactly. You never miss a chance to try to make the rest of us feel like we don't have principles because we don't all agree with YOU.
But my post did give you a chance to brush up on your sanctimonious posting style. Enjoy yourself!
It's like they're yappers. They have to exclaim!!! everything so that people will notice them!!
!!!!!!
Not at all. There are many disagreements among consrevatives, but we're presumably rowing in the same direction. If anything defines conservatism, it's limted government, constitutionalism, the idea that government is not the solution, it's the problem (as Ronaldus Magnus reminded us) and we would do a lot better with less of it. Sopmetimes you'll win that, sometimes you'll lose it, but to achieve vicxtory, first you must seek it. It doesn't seem to me that the programs I mentioned advance the cause of limited government. They make government bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive.
I notice your total unwillingness to debate the merits of the issues but instead you just hurl invective at people because they dare disagree with YOU and your precious party.
Do you disagree with the GOP and the Administration on anything?
I am unwilling to debate YOUR "merits" since you have tried to characterize ME with your broad brush.
I have no intention of defending myself to anybody on this forum.
I made a blanket statement about the unappeasables on this forum who delight in trying to denigrate anybody who doesn't agree with their view of what conservatism is; you must have recognized yourself and replied. I stand by my statement. And I think every time you post, you're proving my orginal statement.
That explains it. I hate TV and virtually never watch it. I probably saw about 5 minutes total of Phil Hartman ever.
*************
You got that right.
If they don't agree with the LP, then they are small-l libertarians, not big-L Libertarians. Heck of a big difference.
Small-l libertarians go by the principles laid out by the Republican Liberty Caucus, a group which JimRob endorses and allows to host their forum here. Large-L Libertarians are kooks that oppose the war on terror, pine for open borders, and wish to legalize drugs extra-constitutionally. Y'all are not the first ones to confuse the two. It's easy to overlook the capitalization. Here's what the big guy has to say about it...
I have no problem with libertarians. In fact, I see eye to eye with them on most issues.
79 Posted on 06/18/2000 19:33:42 PDT by Jim Robinson http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a394d6bdf0950.htm (Post #79)
Not true. I wrote that one of my pet peeves is "The "Republicans can do no wrong" crowd. I really get annoyed by Kool Aid drinkers, even on our side."
To use your own logic, you must have recognized yourself because you chose to respond to my post thus:
"Actually, my FIRST pet peeve on FR is people who say that Republicans don't have principles." To which I replied, "None that they're willing to fight for."
Apparently, you chose to interpret that as a personal attack.
I made a blanket statement about the unappeasables on this forum who delight in trying to denigrate anybody who doesn't agree with their view of what conservatism is
First of all, as you know, there are no such people; at lesat, I've never encountered them. You seem to interpret any criticism of Republicans as somehow demandign 100 percent fealty to the poster's personal ideas all the time.
We do expect to have our team move the ball towards our end of the field.
Your abusive response to my statement that Republicans don't fight for their principles (which constituted a personal attack on me) shows your unwillingness to consider any other point of view and your unwillingness to argue the subject on the merits:
You wrote, "And you are Prime Exhibit A. Always so sure you're much better than the rest of us. Or as I like to call them, the ugly face of conservatives."
Now, this is the point where this got personal. Yet you accuse me of trsahing you. Interesting.
I have tried to keep it on conservative philosophy,, thus:
"The record is that when Republicans are in charge, the governmetn gets bigger, more expensive, more intrusive, and Republibots justify it because, after all, we have to support the Republicans. Can't have Democrats in there.
But what good does it do to ahve Republicans in charge when tehy do the same things we would excoriate Democrats for?
As I said previously, I'm not big on Kool Aid drinkers, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. I'm interested in advancing conservative principles, as presumably everyone here is. When that can be done via teh Republican Party, then I'm with the Republicans. When it can't, then I'll oppose them as I would oppose anyone else."
To which you felt compelled to reply again, again personally:
"Thanks for making MY point once again."
So I replied again:
"Making YOUR point? You must be kidding.
I simply asked if there is any criticism of Republicans that you consider valid. No matter what the GOP does, yoou seem ready to defend it by trying to shout down any critics and impugn their motives and their conservatism.
As I said, I am interested in pursuing the advancement of conservativ e principles. Republicans, in power, tend to move in the other direction. When they do something that advances conservative principles, such as tax cuts and the war on terror, I am very supportive. But when they do such things as declare a de facto manesty for illegal aliens, refuse to secure our borders, create the largest entitlement in almost 40 years, pass the biggest Federalization of education in many years, restrict our freedom to speak out about candidates during a campaign, I oppose them a a matter of principle."
Engendering this obviously non-personal non-attack reply from you:
"See there! My point exactly. You never miss a chance to try to make the rest of us feel like we don't have principles because we don't all agree with YOU.
But my post did give you a chance to brush up on your sanctimonious posting style. Enjoy yourself!"
To which I responded:
"Not at all. There are many disagreements among consrevatives, but we're presumably rowing in the same direction. If anything defines conservatism, it's limted government, constitutionalism, the idea that government is not the solution, it's the problem (as Ronaldus Magnus reminded us) and we would do a lot better with less of it. Sopmetimes you'll win that, sometimes you'll lose it, but to achieve vicxtory, first you must seek it. It doesn't seem to me that the programs I mentioned advance the cause of limited government. They make government bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive."
That is what led to your claim that you "made a blanket statement about the unappeasables on this forum who delight in trying to denigrate anybody who doesn't agree with their view of what conservatism is; you must have recognized yourself and replied. I stand by my statement. And I think every time you post, you're proving my orginal statement." Sure, whatever.
I'm leaving it up to you to start the "annoying poster" thread! If we did it late at night, we could have it nuked by morning and no one would be the wiser! lol
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.