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?
It’s already reported. You’re still here. So what does it take to get a troll like you to STFU?
Start by figuring out why you seem to be the only one that thinks I'm a troll. That's what we call a "clue".
Start by figuring out why you seem to be the only one that thinks I’m a troll.
***Ok, let’s start. Again. If a person logs onto unicorns.com and tries to separate the members from their unicornian beliefs, he’s a troll. Do Freepers agree? 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. Do Freepers agree? If a person logs onto AlSharptonIsAwesome.com and argues that he’s a disgusting liberal, he’s a troll. Do Freepers agree? 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. Do Freepers agree? You’ve been logging onto FR for a long time, trying to separate conservatives from their conservative beliefs. You Are A Troll.
Trolls get zotted. Try again.
Yawn. Dog goes back to his vomit of circular reasoning. Already dealt with in post #182.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2961512/posts?page=182#182
Yet again, we see that you aren’t much of a tactical logical thinker, as your handle would suggest. Your favorite tactic seems to be to grab onto some cliche without even really understanding what it means. Oh, well, such tactics are stupidity in action, not necessarily trolling... usually.... except when you actually read the definition of trolling as posted by the mods. Have you read that definition? Here, let me formulate your next response: Insert cliche, misunderstand meaning of cliche, stay on course of trolling this website that you disagree with so much... etc.
I’m still here. Nobody else thinks I’m a troll. What does it mean when you start seeing things that aren’t there?
I’m still here. Nobody else thinks I’m a troll.
***Argument from silence. Classic fallacy. Maybe you should consider changing your handle to TacticalCliche. Your response follows my template, doesn’t that concern you that you’ve become predictable?
What does it mean when you start seeing things that aren’t there?
***It’s there. You’re still a troll, even if you still have a green light to troll. Every troll at one point has had a green light until... they didn’t. So does that mean that up until the time they got the zot, they weren’t trolls?
If I’m a troll, then maybe you should run home and hide under the bed before I feed you to the little trolls. Unless you’re afraid of dust bunnies, too.
Well, at least your response this time didn’t fit the TacticalCliche template. How refreshing.
If you are NOT a troll... then let’s examine the difference between your posts and those of a troll which are pre-zot. Is there any ideological difference? No. Hence, you’re a troll, a pre-zot troll, but a troll nonetheless.
Apparently you’re the only one that sees this. And your apparently afraid to tell anyone. It must suck to be you.
Apparently you’re the only one that sees this.
***There you go again. Back to the argument from silence, a classic fallacy. When are you going to change your handle to TacticalCliche?
And your apparently afraid to tell anyone.
***You’re none too bright, huh? By posting it, I’m telling EVERYONE who will read it.
It must suck to be you.
***It does. As a conservative posting on a conservative forum having to defend conservatism from anti-christian & anti-socon trolls like yourself, it really does suck. But at least I’m being true to my principles. Trolls like you have no principles, and your primary motivation is hatred of Christian values and real conservatism. Such hatred generates its own spiritually sick level of “it must really, really suck to be you”.
All that venom, and only imaginary trolls to spit it at. I’ll bet you’re a lot of fun at parties.
I’m plenty of fun at parties. My favorite trick is troll burning. I’ll have to invite you to the next one. At least your post didn’t follow the standard TacticalCliche template. Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT
I’ll bet you never leave a party until you’ve had the last word, either. Does that make you feel like you won an argument?
I’ll bet you never leave a party until you’ve had the last word, either.
***Geez, you’re back to stringing 2 cliches together, TacticalCliche. You don’t seem to be able to put 2 posts together without doing it. People don’t leave a party, dimwit, until they’ve had all the fun they can or they’ve got something else to do. You leave an argument when the stakes are so low that you don’t care any more.
Does that make you feel like you won an argument?
***You’re doing exactly the same thing, by trolling onto a conservative website and trying to separate conservatives from their conservative beliefs. As long as you’re here, you’re doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. The difference is, I’m a conservative and this is a conservative website whereas you ain’t a conservative. So why don’t you leave this party called FR and go to GOP.com where you won’t be a troll?
You may now cap off the lesson by taking the last, bitter word.
Taking social issues off the table avoids
***Social Issues are the most important issues. From my home page:
___________________________________________________________________
I’m a big tent republican.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1821435/posts?page=18455
Here’s an analogy to work with. Take a small box and fill it with some rocks. Then add some rice, filling it to the top. Now take all the same stuff, but in a different order. Put in the rice first, then add the rocks. What you’ll find is that if you put in the big stuff first, the small stuff will fit around it. But if you put in the small stuff first, the big stuff won’t have room. The republican tent is the box. The Big issues are the socon issues, to be put in first. The little issues are things that can be accommodated around the bigger stuff. A candidate who tries to focus on the smaller issues first and leave out the bigger issues has no way of getting all of us into the tent. He splits the party. The candidate who gets the big stuff right and as much of the little stuff that will fit, he can fit more into the tent. We’re often amazed at how much rice can keep fitting in. Folks such as Rudy or Romney flunk some of the big issues, and on some of the little issues it looks to me like anyone else’s rice would do just as well. All that remains for us to agree on is which are the bedrock principles and which are not. Why would there be so much invective aimed at rudy or romney from the right? Because there are some bedrock principles that he is leaving out. Bad move. I see rudybot and romneybot postings all the time saying that they would vote for Hunter or Palin, and I see socon postings that say they would not vote for rudy or romney. That’s a BIG indicator of a few bedrock principles that are being left outside the tent in order to let in some rice.
___________________________________________________________________
Tell that to the Democrat-Socialist cabal.
The clean waters of fiscal conservatism will not spring forth from a social cesspool.
My last lady friend was an agnostic and she played nice. She had impeccable integrity. As for me, atheism and conservatism seem incongruent. I don’t see how conservatism can exist absent Judeo-Christian belief, but if you think you can fit a round peg into a square hole, then go for it. I’m no judge of you. I’ll take all the conservatives I can get.
I can see how atheism fits so well with socialism and with liberalism. I can’t see how atheism fits with consevativism, but if you have found a way to make them compatible then who am I to say differently. God won’t give up on you any more than he will me.
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.