Posted on 03/08/2014 2:52:54 PM PST by PaulCruz2016
Then I apologize. Post 211 gave you a specific Hat Tip for that Zot. I apparently assumed incorrectly that that meant that you had a significant role in the process.
How in the world can you have been here since 1998 and yet seem to be so out of touch, I don't get it.
>>Gibberish and weird nonsense. Your posts are getting goofier.<<
I’m simply asking if you’d explain what you meant when you used the phrase “dog whistle.”
After reading a bit on it now, if Senator Paul is employing the “dog whistle” technique of presenting his positions, it would mean that he’s using code words that supposed Libertarian/ant-conservatives (like me, perhaps?) will recognize as revealing the real agenda behind his proposals.
If that’s the case, I’m not hearing any whistles. Perhaps you could point a few of them out? He seems to be one of the clearest, most forthright, speakers in some time. I’d like to know what I’m missing that you’re so perceptibly picking up.
Or is this really just all about amnesty, perhaps?
>>How in the world can you have been here since 1998 and yet seem to be so out of touch, I don’t get it.<<
Please explain. A brief explanation, rather than another insult, will do.
As for appearing to be out of touch, I pay very little attention to the name of the poster, preferring to concentrate on what they are saying instead. I would not be able to list ten screen names in here if you asked me, nor would I be able to accurately tell you the positions of any of those I listed.
I prefer to consider arguments on their merits, rather than on who is making them. If that’s “out of touch” to you, so be it.
I look at Paul with a jaundiced eye simply because of something I learned long ago about apples, trees and where the former tend to fall.
That’s not a rule that is without exception. But it bears careful watching.
When you see people on this thread who are anti-conservative promoting Rand Paul, doesn’t that indicate that they see him as representing their politics?
Start delving into the posting history of some of his supporters and learn what their politics are, and then ponder why Paul would have such passionate and early dedication from them.
Even you were going on about you being afraid of being zotted for your politics, why would a true conservative be afraid of being zotted by JR? How could that happen?
I supported Paul to defeat Grayson for the senate, but I don’t trust him, and when you look at how he is attracting the anti-conservatives and Giuliani backers, it is strong evidence that your suspicions are justified.
I hope so. THE political issue of the day is far and away FREEDOM, specifically, freedom from government coercion and breach of its constitutional limits. All these other issues which the Right gets tangled up in do not compare to the threat big government poses to our lives, liberties, and well being.
As I've said several times including on this thread, there's never going to be anybody who everybody agrees on everything. The Right has to get clear about what THE major political issue is in our time and unify and rally around whoever best deals with that issue.
If America is not about freedom from government coercion, then I do not know what America is about. Freedom from overreaching government is THE political issue and Rand Paul seems most committed to dealing with it.
It’s neat, but the kitteh version is better IMHO.. That is one incredible kitteh.
And my favorite Zot.
As I said, he’s the God-Emperor of Catkind.
I love the Warhammer 40000 background material.
>>Even you were going on about you being afraid of being zotted for your politics, why would a true conservative be afraid of being zotted by JR? How could that happen?<<
No, I’m not concerned about being zotted (banned from commenting) for my “politics.”
What I am concerned about is being zotted because someone like you ascribes views to me that I do not hold, or implies them as you do above with your “why would a true conservative...” comment, and then starts building a case to have me zotted (I note that you’ve apparently checked my history here, since you know when I joined. Also, note that I haven’t checked yours, nor do I care.)
Robinson is one man. He could ban me for any number of reasons, including a presumed friendship with people who get angry, as you appear to be, when discussing matters with me. The first step to censorship is to build a case against someone, whether using facts or fabrications. You seem to prefer fabrications, since every time I ask you to supply links or explanations, you resort to insults and innuendo.
But enough. I’ve got wood that needs splitting and it’s good weather for doing it.
By the way, I have no trouble with banning people who persist with racist comments, or who are obviously only commenting to annoy others, or who routinely insult others. They tend to become the norm if you permit them to continue. Others, with sounder minds and/or better manners, drop out of the discussion because they don’t want to even be perceived as associating with them and all you’re left with is racists and trolls.
Agreed. And this is also a good road into the youth vote. The revelation of the NSA snooping scandal sunk home with them. It was exactly then that Obama started to decline in popularity among the young.
Senator Paul is trying harder than most to expand the GOP coalition by seeking to make inroads with the young, and with blacks and Hispanics. It will be interesting to see how he addresses the supposed GOP “war on women.”
You really seem spacey and new to FR, even though you signed up in 1998.
Don’t you know by now that your sign up date is visible right here on the thread? I didn’t search your posting history to see your sign up date, and the weirdness about “building a case”, is nuts, don’t you know anything about JR?
Weird posts.
I realize you are a big supporter of Cruz. Maybe Sarah will run and we both can get back on that bandwagon. I have posted a few times and others as well since I got it from a FR post, the evidence for my conclusion on NBC. If you have not read it, (yes the whole thing), I plead with you to do so. I don’t see how any open mind can’t come to the same conclusion as me that NBC is born IN the country by TWO citizen parents. I don’t deny anything you said about Cruz, all true, except that one thing, Article II constitutionally eligible to the office of president. In fact he is as constitutionally eligible as I am. Which is ineligible, because my mother was a French citizen alien when I was born. Too bad for me. That’s why I won’t be running in 2016, either will Cruz if he really supports the Constitution.
A couple simple yet major points for me.
1. Using the “specific” term “natural born citizen”
2. The John Jay letter to Washington.
3. Vattel’s book, The Law of Nations, Book I, Chapter 19, section 212.
Natural born citizen, not “defined” in the Constitution. If you were telling someone about Jello, would you describe it to them as: you know, that jiggly fruit flavored dessert? NO, of course not, everyone KNOWS what Jello is. Would George Washington or John Jay know what Jello is? NO! but they knew what a “natural born citizen” was. It was 1787 JELLO.
Here is this link on FR. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2840767/posts
Yeah, well, get back to me after five constitutionalists on the supreme court make their ruling.
Meanwhile, Go, Cruz, GO!!
By the way, amnesty pushers need not apply! FURP!!
Zots conform to the old adage, “the sizzle sells the steak”, although in general, the zotworthy call to mind the old “where’s the beef” ad campaign.
As Forest Gump said, women “is whole other country...”
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.