The problem with the modern conservative movement, Christianists.

[taxed]

I think I've found the problem.  You've assumed I am coming from your left. I am in fact storming in from your right.

No you're not.  This may work other places, but not here.  I know you are a liberal.

You've assumed I am a statist. In fact I am just shy of an anarchist.

You are a liberal, through and through.  You're for gay marriage, support man-made global warming, against Christianity, and for legalizing abortion.

The government ought to be so week as to not be able to prevent an abortion, nor to regulate much of anything. Marriage included. Want to enter into same sex, plural, or traditional marriage? Fine by me. As long as the parties are consenting adults, I don't much care what they do.

We are a Republic.

While I think abortion is abhorrent,  I recognize that not everyone has my sense of morality.  Who am I to force it upon them? Who are you to force yours on me? We sure wouldn't like them forcing there's upon us.

They already force their policies on us.

No, we have some real problems we're facing as a nation, and women terminating their pregnancies is not among them.

It's systematic of the fabric of our culture.  It is important.

Bill and Steve deciding to enter into a legal joining of their lives will not cause you the slightest inconvenience,  yet your injunction on them will prevent them from having the same privileges you share with a wife.

I don't have a problem with civil unions.

You really aren't much different from the liberals you hate.

Hate is too kind of a word.

At the end of the day you want to rely on the power of the state to enforce what you see as the way things ought to be.

No.  I want them to adhere to The Constitution.  It's pretty simple, really.

  The only difference is the issues you place priority on. You are just as liberal as Nancy Pelosi at the end of the day. 

You are very politically confused.  This doesn't surprise me.

With regard to the fabian socialists, see the above. Mainstream republican and democrat political policies are nearly identical.

You should read it.  You'd learn a lot about yourselves -- especially the chameleon part.

I'm in favor of freedom.  You have an agenda and are in favor of the state to provide and protect it.

Incorrect.  I want freedom, upheld by the enforcement of our Constitution.

[CG6468]

Knox, never use a few words when thousands will do. 

[taxed]

By the way you guys who all claim to be way smarter than me, there is a big difference between "your" and "you're. "

You've assumed I am a statist. In fact I am just shy of an anarchist. The government ought to be so week as to not be able to prevent an abortion, nor to regulate much of anything. Marriage included. Want to enter into same sex, plural, or traditional marriage? Fine by me. As long as the parties are consenting adults, I don't much care what they do.

People make typos.  Fail.

[supsalemgr]

Oh dear God....

The minority found his place? 40 years ago and before, eh? 1974, less than 10 years after the signing of civil rights laws.

I guess you are one of those people who thinks the black man was happier then. That voting restrictions, the inability to eat lunch in the same place as you, and the occasional lynching were what he really liked best.

No wonder people say Republicans are racist.

First, please use the quote function when responding to a post.

Where in the world do you get "racist" from any post in this thread? In all honesty, you seem to be grasping and using the race card confirms it. That doesn't work here.

[SVPete]

First, please use the quote function when responding to a post.

Where in the world do you get "racist" from any post in this thread? In all honesty, you seem to be grasping and using the race card confirms it. That doesn't work here.

K1983 was referring to Solar's post, immediately above the post you quoted. Except K1983 changed one word in what Solar posted, a change that made something obvious and innocuous into a racist statement. Not very honest. Nor, to me, very surprising. Some one who Plays the Race Card, as K1983 did in his OP isn't likely to balk at misrepresenting what some one said to make them seem racist.

[supsalemgr]

K1983 was referring to Solar's post, immediately above the post you quoted. Except K1983 changed one word in what Solar posted, a change that made something obvious and innocuous into a racist statement. Not very honest. Nor, to me, very surprising. Some one who Plays the Race Card, as K1983 did in his OP isn't likely to balk at misrepresenting what some one said to make them seem racist.

Agreed. He quickly moving closer to ignore status.

[Solar]

Oh dear God....

The minority found his place? 40 years ago and before, eh? 1974, less than 10 years after the signing of civil rights laws.

I guess you are one of those people who thinks the black man was happier then. That voting restrictions, the inability to eat lunch in the same place as you, and the occasional lynching were what he really liked best.

No wonder people say Republicans are racist.

Oh Jeez, you racist little lib prick, you know very well what I was talking about!
Show me where I mentioned anything about race, and to accuse me of such, is literally grounds for a boot in the ass.

So come clean, just admit you're a lib and we can move forward, considering your response to me was taken directly from the Marxists play book.

[taxed]

Oh Jeez, you racist little lib prick, you know very well what I was talking about!
Show me where I mentioned anything about race, and to accuse me of such, is literally grounds for a boot in the ass.

So come clean, just admit you're a lib and we can move forward, considering your response to me was taken directly from the Marxists play book.

He's playing the race card already?  Usually they get 30 or 40 posts in first.

[Solar]

K1983 was referring to Solar's post, immediately above the post you quoted. Except K1983 changed one word in what Solar posted, a change that made something obvious and innocuous into a racist statement. Not very honest. Nor, to me, very surprising. Some one who Plays the Race Card, as K1983 did in his OP isn't likely to balk at misrepresenting what some one said to make them seem racist.

Bingo! Straight out of the Dim play book.
The guy is a lib hoping to create as much divide as possible on the right, the memos have been going out to these little trolls for months.
I'm seeing this behavior at ever increasing levels across the web, including here.

[SVPete]

He's playing the race card already?  Usually they get 30 or 40 posts in first.

He did that in the post with which he started this thread, which was his first post on CPF (and this is the only thread in which he's participated). Not much patience, not much skill in disguising his trollish intent. OTOH, the manipulativeness of his OP shows a fair amount of polish. So I'd give him a "C+".

The guy is a lib hoping to create as much divide as possible on the right, the memos have been going out to these little trolls for months.
I'm seeing this behavior at ever increasing levels across the web, including here.

I probably get around less than you do, but I've been seeing a fairly steady stream of RINO-oids and false-flaggers trying to drive a wedge among conservatives between the "religious right" (or "social conservatives") and conservatives whose primary concerns are fiscal. That was this imp's game.

The roots of this dump-the-"religious-right" are partly within the R Party, and partly without. I started hearing the, "If the Rs don't dump the Pro-Life people, the Rs will never win," drumbeat in 1999 or 2000. G. W. Bush's wins kind of rained on that narrative, but such people have never gone away or changed their minds.

Eric Cantor showed what happens to pols who alienate their voters. If the R Party ever tells "social conservatives" to sit in the back of the bus, shut up, and vote as they are told, that would be a political suicide whose scope and scale would make Eric Cantor's defeat look insignificant.

[Solar]

He did that in the post with which he started this thread, which was his first post on CPF (and this is the only thread in which he's participated). Not much patience, not much skill in disguising his trollish intent. OTOH, the manipulativeness of his OP shows a fair amount of polish. So I'd give him a "C+".

I probably get around less than you do, but I've been seeing a fairly steady stream of RINO-oids and false-flaggers trying to drive a wedge among conservatives between the "religious right" (or "social conservatives") and conservatives whose primary concerns are fiscal. That was this imp's game.

The roots of this dump-the-"religious-right" are partly within the R Party, and partly without. I started hearing the, "If the Rs don't dump the Pro-Life people, the Rs will never win," drumbeat in 1999 or 2000. G. W. Bush's wins kind of rained on that narrative, but such people have never gone away or changed their minds.

Eric Cantor showed what happens to pols who alienate their voters. If the R Party ever tells "social conservatives" to sit in the back of the bus, shut up, and vote as they are told, that would be a political suicide whose scope and scale would make Eric Cantor's defeat look insignificant.

You're absolutely correct!
Alienating any part of the base is suicide, and the left knows it and is fostering it, which is what gives this troll away.
Hell, look at what the Dim Marxists have pulled together as their base, from sexual perverts, murderers, and druggies to full blown Marxists, people that would never agree with each others goals on principle, but willingly work together to further their own agenda.

[taxed]

He did that in the post with which he started this thread, which was his first post on CPF (and this is the only thread in which he's participated). Not much patience, not much skill in disguising his trollish intent. OTOH, the manipulativeness of his OP shows a fair amount of polish. So I'd give him a "C+".

I probably get around less than you do, but I've been seeing a fairly steady stream of RINO-oids and false-flaggers trying to drive a wedge among conservatives between the "religious right" (or "social conservatives") and conservatives whose primary concerns are fiscal. That was this imp's game.

The roots of this dump-the-"religious-right" are partly within the R Party, and partly without. I started hearing the, "If the Rs don't dump the Pro-Life people, the Rs will never win," drumbeat in 1999 or 2000. G. W. Bush's wins kind of rained on that narrative, but such people have never gone away or changed their minds.

Eric Cantor showed what happens to pols who alienate their voters. If the R Party ever tells "social conservatives" to sit in the back of the bus, shut up, and vote as they are told, that would be a political suicide whose scope and scale would make Eric Cantor's defeat look insignificant.

The thing with these guys is they are like cookie cutter trolls.  They all parrot the same stuff.  We can usually spot them immediately.  Their typical approach is to attempt to call themselves conservative, and then proceed to dig themselves into a hole.

[Solar]

The thing with these guys is they are like cookie cutter trolls.  They all parrot the same stuff.  We can usually spot them immediately.  Their typical approach is to attempt to call themselves conservative, and then proceed to dig themselves into a hole.

We've seen may a broken shovel, where these trolls hit bottom and continue to dig.

[Knox1983]

I have asked you to prove your 97% assertion.  The one rule we have on this forum is you prove your posts.  We are a fact based forum, meaning this isn't a medium for you to spew liberal propaganda.  You may post it, but you must back it up.  Liberals have an impossible time with that, hence why you are dodging.

I'm asking you again, prove your assertion that 97% of scientists buy into man made global warming.

I have posted a link. It responds to deniers three ways, a simple, an intermediate and an advanced.

Check it out again. .. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

[Knox1983]

I am liberal in the traditional sense of the word. I'm in favor of liberty.


If a group of citizens are requesting something,  their request must be considered.

With respect to gay marriage, I cannot think of one single detrimental outcome for anyone. I can see how allowing it will help those currently prohibited. 

If any of you can explain to me a good reason to disallow same sex marriage,  I'll gladly oppose it. To this point, all I've heard is eww, sin, and tradition.

In my book, that isn't enough.  You need to display how this would harm others,  allowing people to marry who they want.

I usually frame my position in this as "I don't oppose" gay marriage.  I'm not an activist for the cause, either way.