Posted on 11/20/2012 8:42:54 AM PST by Scooter100
I am wondering about the structure of a third "Constitutional" party. Would it be better to form a party exclusively on a fiscal issues basis? What would be the pros and cons of taking social issues completely off the table? I mean, are there really enough "social issues" in the text of the Constitution itself to warrant making them a permanent policy of a new party and subsequently risking vicious debate and division? I guess I am thinking of the inevitability of Conservatives locking antlers with the "socially" left wing of the Libertarians", who are otherwise fiscally right wing. Shouldn't social issues be contained closer to the people, i.e., at the state/local levels?
I know. And by their account, it’s never them.
Your damage has been done. But for those who check your posting history, they’ll know you’re a troll. It’s catching up to you, just like it caught up to your cohorts. And, the reason why the ship has sailed and you won’t re-ping those whom you have engaged with is because you KNOW you’re a troll.
One of us is. The people I was talking to earlier seemed like reasonable, intelligent people. I’m sure they’ll figure it out without needing me to explain it to them.
One of us is. (a Troll)
***That would be you. If a person logs onto unicorns.com and tries to separate the members from their unicornian beliefs, he’s a troll. If a person logs onto Hotrod.com and tries to explain how important gas mileage & global warming is for hot rodders, he’s a troll. If a person logs AlSharptonIsAwesome.com and argues that he’s a disgusting liberal, he’s a troll. In the same way, when a person logs onto a conservative website and tries to separate conservatives from their conservative beliefs, he’s a troll. You Are A Troll.
The people I was talking to earlier seemed like reasonable, intelligent people.
***And the conservatives among them will realize that you are a troll. You even acknowledge this yourself by not posting your proposals after you’ve been identified as a troll on this thread.
I’m sure they’ll figure it out without needing me to explain it to them.
*** Now that it has been explained, note how you no longer post your own trollish ideas. That’s because, you’re right, they’ll figure it out.
Are you done now?
Are you done trolling now?
Happy Thanksgiving.
From one lying liberal troll to another - Happy Thanksgiving to you!!
An exercise of great good judgment on Mr. Robinson's part.
Doubtless he surmised that if you were elevated to high sheriff of the ideological purity police, FR might lose three-fourths of its already slightly depleted membership.
Which would be sheer delight for those who enjoy parroting identical views back and forth, but perhaps not be in the best interests of where Jim wants FR to go.
"I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections." - Lady Jessica Atreides in Frank Herbert's Dune
P.S. "Ideology" is spelled with two "o"'s.
I am too, except when their ideas are unconstitutional. Then I must part company. For example - the late and unlamented Presidential campaign of Tome Hoefling, who expressed his intent to end legal abortion by Presidential fiat.
And to you! I hope all are well and and in good spirits.
Kevmo:
he called me a newbie.
Notary:
An exercise of great good judgment on Mr. Robinson’s part.
***That was good judgement to call me a newbie? I signed up 2 months after him. 4 days earlier, I would have had a 3 digit freeper number. If I’m a newbie, what does it take to be an old timer?
Doubtless he surmised that if you were elevated
***You didn’t read the proposal, no doubt, because it has nothing to do with me. It has to do with FR needing an ideological matrix so that Freepers can tell they’re dealing with antichristians or anti-socons.
to high sheriff of the ideological purity police,
***Again, you don’t seem to have read the proposal, because it isn’t to police ideology, it is to let others know who they’re dealing with. FR has been inundated by CINOs & RINOs. They sound like conservatives until you scratch the surface. They uphold the GOP at the expense of conservatism. Something that I’ve noticed is that conservatives have no problem with an ideology matrix, whereas anticonservatives do. It strikes fear into anticonservatives. Why is that? Because their intent is to dispute conservative principles. Is that “in the best interests of where Jim wants FR to go”?
Which would be sheer delight for those who enjoy parroting identical views back and forth, but perhaps not be in the best interests of where Jim wants FR to go.
***Again, you don’t seem to have read the proposal, because there would still be an exchange of viewpoints but anticonservatives couldn’t hide any more. They like to sound conservative but once it’s investigated, they turn out to be far more liberal than they have been letting on. And JR doesn’t seem to mind libtards on this website as long as they are up front about it.
I have been reading your book and your posts. There are two different kinds of Libertarians and two different kinds of Liberals and your posts and book doesn't quantify them. I believe it is extremely important they are 180 deg off from one another.
If your not sure what I mean please ask.
It seems to me that fiscal conservatism without social conservatism is like planting one’s feet squarely and firmly in midair.
I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it.
The end result
***Again, you haven’t read the proposal. That would NOT be the end result.
would be to make people who don’t fit your personal definition of conservatism,
***Bowlsheet, bullshiite, bull$#!+. The matrix would simply be a series of questions that you answer yourself and everyone else can see how you answered. For instance, do you favor outlawing abortion even in cases of rape or incest, answered from 1 to 5, 1 being definitely favor and 5 being definitely against. Where is MY PERSONAL definition of conservatism in such a situation? It does not exist.
those who are “RINOS According to Kevmo” very uncomfortable here.
***Again, bowlsheet. If you’re a RINO it will show up on the matrix, simply by the answers you provide, and everyone can see it for themselves. In this thread alone, tacticalogic was exposed as a CINO but he claims to have had “reasonable” discussions with others on this thread beforehand, and refuses to have the same discussions afterwards. Why? Because once someone knows you’re a CINO they start looking at your posts differently. CINOs don’t want that because they want to pretend to be conservative and have “reasonable discussions” with conservatives, all the while trying to separate them from their conservative principles.
And I can’t imagine that is not your intent.
***Now you’re engaging in mind reading. I have stated my intent outwardly.
I say the hell with it.
***That is probably because you want to hide, whereas I seek to have things come out into the light, which is a biblical position, i.e. Luke 8:17.
Remeniscesnt of the “scientism” gambit.
You’re probably more right than wrong. The strange thing about the scientism ‘gambit’ was that the religion mod had accepted scientism as a bonafide religion on FR 4 or 5 years ago, and then this year changed her mind. It does not make sense. Similarly, JimRob said that he would never vote for a “lying, baby-killing, gun-grabbing statist” (his words) but then changed his mind. Again, it does not make sense. There is some serious waffling happening at FR. Much of it would be easy to prevent if JimRob could easily see who it is that is trying to push him to abandon his principles. It is CINOs like yourself. And CINOs like yourself prefer to operate in the shadows, whereas real conservatives operate in the sunlight. That’s why you are against an ideological matrix. You prefer the darkness.
Do you have any idea how silly you look accusing others of “mind reading”?
Prove me wrong. No mind reading required. Operate in the light. Ping those on this thread for whom the “ship has sailed” and re-engage them, knowing that you’ve been exposed as an anti-conservative troll. Are you proud of what you do when you try to separate conservatives from their conservative beliefs?
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.