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 like them. Why would I bring them back here for you?
To prove you are not a troll. To prove I’ve been “mind reading”. To prove you’re worth listening to, rather than throwing out with the trash as a CINO troll.
I like them more than you do. That’s why I defend conservatism against trolls like you.
Why should I value your approval over theirs?
Why should I value your approval over theirs?
***WTF? You should value THEIR approval over MINE by re-pinging them to prove you aint a troll. If you valued their approval over mine, you’d embrace an ideological matrix because you’d have nothing to hide. WTF kind of tactical logic response is yours? You’re throwing out whatever cliche sounds good without really following its meaning. Why should anyone listen to you? You’re simply a CINO troll.
They already know I’m not a troll. You’re the one demanding I so something to prove I’m not. Why should I submit them to the same thing by bringing them back here for you?
They already know I’m not a troll.
***If they knew you were not a troll, then you wouldn’t be reluctant to re-ping them. You wouldn’t have any trouble with an ideological matrix. Evidence enough to prove you’re a troll. Your actions speak for themselves.
That would put an end to Obamacare, the War on Drugs, and most of the remaining nanny/welfare state.
Perish the thought.
No.
Along with ending any federal funding of Planned Parenthood.
Hey, good to see you again Steve.
I’m always interested to hear your insight on anything political.
Of course the linkage of r/K to politics is new, so I expect it to require some honing to account for everything, in part because its simplified explanation is designed to explain why a political system with a lot of complexity simplifies itself into two parties. I know it is a poor tool to characterize an individual, and perhpas even a minority strategy.
I think I see what you are saying about Libertarians. It’s the K-freedom-guys vs the r-potheads. I think they unite around the idea of freedom, though it is different to each. Freedom-lovers want everybody free to do what they want - including ignore everyone else, Potheads want everybody free to do what they want, including nothing, even if that means someone else pays for it. Sort of a perpetual child. He sees real Libertarianism as a moral support for his desires. I think it’s r and K, but just focused on different sides of freedom. Like the old negative and positive liberty debate.
There is a blog linked off my site by HBDChick which theorizes (freedom-type)Libertarians are mildly inbred. The idea being heavy inbreeding consolidates genes, so relatives carry the same genes. In that case, your genes get a great payoff from seeing a relative succeed (since the closely-bred relative has your genes it is as if you succeeded).
Her idea is that that inbreeding eventually promotes in-groupism to family, and tribalism at the extreme. When moderated, it just promotes a rejection of outsider’s authority, without the intense tribalism, so you apply that anti-authoritarianism to non-relatives as well.
I think she is right in that moderated inbreeding is a cause of Libertarianism, but I think what moderates the in-breeding may be density of the population. r/K is well known to be density dependent. If everyone is crammed together, K-competition get’s fierce. As they spread out (due to spread out resources in a large terrain), they bump into each other less, so even if resources are scarce, direct competition diminishes, mating can become more promiscuous, rearing is single parenting because there might not be enough food in a territory to feed both parents and a child) and even things like disgust diminish (less disease with less density, so less need to avoid possibly disease-causing things).
On Libs, I know there is a difference in rearing. I suspect, if we knew the truth, one strategy consists of K’s who evolved the strategy to breed up the r’s around them as a less capable buffer, while still K-rearing themselves. It keeps them, and their genes at the top of the food chain in their little r-paradise, by keeping the population around them less capable and competent. I think of the highly rich, who want to avoid competition and support r, but still rear K and compete themselves. Maybe they evolved in an environment which went r to K often, and this kept them at the top of the food chain, so they survived the K times better. Maybe they just evolved a psychology which uses r’s to attack others, and avoid competing themselves. I don’t know, and it probably can’t be figured out, beyond identifying it as a strategy, even if unconscious.
Let me know your take though. I really appreciate you giving your input.
Yes. You are a troll.
The moderators told you "No."
I'm telling you "No."
Nobody has to jump through your hoops.
Get over it.
>> There is what appears to be a false dichotomy presented that’s forcing a division of philosophy into either “socially liberal” or “socially conservative” camps.
Agreed.
What are you talking about? JimRob never said, “no”, he simply went straight into distracted mode. The mods don’t follow their own definition of troll. Once again, you’re just throwing out cliches that don’t mean anything, not something we would expect from someone who upholds tactical logical thinking. You’re just a troll, otherwise you’d have pinged all your prior corresponders by this time.
Here’s JimRob’s definition of conservative, from the front page of this website. Does it fit you? How about we convince JimRob that you’re a conservative, and then I’ll withdraw the accusation that you’re a troll. But I won’t be withdrawing that accusation any time soon, because you are no conservative. Are you, in order, Pro-God, ProLife, Pro family, etc?
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
Free Republic ^ | Jim Robinson http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 7:22:17 PM by Jim Robinson
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.
Then report me, or STFU.
No.
Then I will.
Admin Moderator. Please review this and suspend my account if I am a troll.
Thank you.
So if that doesn’t work will you STFU?
About what? You're the one wailing about trolls, and without the guts to even back it up by reporting it.
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.