Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 13, 2016, 08:38:29 AM
Actually I HAVE read Melville. And most recently, Shakespeare's Tempest. Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. It beats the Hell out of reality T.V.
Call me Ishmael.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" That is a line from one of the only film series that I have enjoyed recently. Lucas was mostly a conservative.

I understand the intense emotion about Trump, but I do not share it. Unlike most people, my vote is based more on strategic thinking with the Buckley Rule uber alles.  Strong conclusions require strong evidence.  Sure trump needs to get down to specifics and to repair his image with many groups if possible - but he is running center-left because he wants to win. He will likely swing right after winning, because that is the most expedient course.

All of you nice folks are forgetting that it is possible that Trump will follow conservative principles because they are simply more expedient at administrating a reelection chance for him. If he swings back toward NWO Statism, or Alinskyite Marxism he will be doing the equivalent of putting a bullet in his own head (politically).

Ryan has the right idea - and to some degree, Trump must have his feet held to the fire - because he must give at least the appearance of having a change of heart in many ways  - or he will lose.
Mark Levin is doing that in large part, viz a viz conservatism. I think at this point, Levin's endorsement may mean more to Trump's chances than Ryans.

One of the reasons I've decided to  give Trump another chance is that Michael Medved has all but come out for Hill-O-Lies over Trump and I have come to detest Medved.

Use the quote function if you expect a response. This is not a request, nor will I suggest it again.

Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2016, 09:29:48 AM
Use the quote function if you expect a response. This is not a request, nor will I suggest it again.

Sure. BTW is that in the site rules and regulations? Yes, I am aware that this has been mentioned before but distractions abound. Did I miss that when I went over the rules?  Since this comes up a lot and is obviously infuriating for you to deal with (understandably) maybe it should be emphasized. 'Just a suggestion.

BTW, my transgressions of the site rules aside,(with my apologies and acceptance of the last warning in the spirit it was meant) should I assume the substance of my post was not of interest to you, sieur !?! I value your opinion. That is most definitely a request.

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 13, 2016, 01:58:27 PM


Sure. BTW is that in the site rules and regulations? Yes, I am aware that this has been mentioned before but distractions abound. Did I miss that when I went over the rules?  Since this comes up a lot and is obviously infuriating for you to deal with (understandably) maybe it should be emphasized. 'Just a suggestion.

BTW, my transgressions of the site rules aside,(with my apologies and acceptance of the last warning in the spirit it was meant) should I assume the substance of my post was not of interest to you, sieur !?! I value your opinion. That is most definitely a request.

First off, it's sir, not sieur, secondly we're an adult Conservative site, which means the rules should come natural and no need for enumeration.
Commonsense/courtesy ring a bell? That's what the quote function is for. It makes it easier for others reading the forum to follow the conversation, a common courtesy.
And third. No, like I said, if you want a response, use quote and since you didn't, I didn't offer the courtesy of a read.
With that understanding, I will respond now.

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 13, 2016, 08:38:29 AM
Actually I HAVE read Melville. And most recently, Shakespeare's Tempest. Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. It beats the Hell out of reality T.V.
Call me Ishmael.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" That is a line from one of the only film series that I have enjoyed recently. Lucas was mostly a conservative.

OK? Keep in mind, I'm not here for idle chitchat, so save your breath.

QuoteI understand the intense emotion about Trump, but I do not share it. Unlike most people, my vote is based more on strategic thinking with the Buckley Rule uber alles.

So you're not really a Conservative with convictions. Got it....

QuoteStrong conclusions require strong evidence.  Sure trump needs to get down to specifics and to repair his image with many groups if possible - but he is running center-left because he wants to win. He will likely swing right after winning, because that is the most expedient course.

You have that completely backwards. Trump ran to the right in hopes of getting the nod, and now that Cruz suspended, Trump ran to the left.

QuoteAll of you nice folks are forgetting that it is possible that Trump will follow conservative principles because they are simply more expedient at administrating a reelection chance for him. If he swings back toward NWO Statism, or Alinskyite Marxism he will be doing the equivalent of putting a bullet in his own head (politically).

Optimist...

QuoteRyan has the right idea - and to some degree, Trump must have his feet held to the fire - because he must give at least the appearance of having a change of heart in many ways  - or he will lose.

Ryan is playing a game, he's a hardcore leftists. Hell, he gave the Marxists the Omnibus Bill, and padded it with more than the left was asking, even Fuglosi stated so publicly.

QuoteMark Levin is doing that in large part, viz a viz conservatism. I think at this point, Levin's endorsement may mean more to Trump's chances than Ryans.

Do you actually take me for a fool as to believe for a second that Levin endorsed Trump?
Something we do frequently on this forum is educate and elucidate. For two reasons we call out bull shit, and this is one of those times when I don't let bull shit slide.
Back up your claim that Levin backed Trump

QuoteOne of the reasons I've decided to  give Trump another chance is that Michael Medved has all but come out for Hill-O-Lies over Trump and I have come to detest Medved.

No, you back Trump because you lack conviction.

Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2016, 02:41:37 PM
First off, it's sir, not sieur, secondly we're an adult Conservative site, which means the rules should come natural and no need for enumeration.
Commonsense/courtesy ring a bell? That's what the quote function is for. It makes it easier for others reading the forum to follow the conversation, a common courtesy.
And third. No, like I said, if you want a response, use quote and since you didn't, I didn't offer the courtesy of a read.
With that understanding, I will respond now.
OK? Keep in mind, I'm not here for idle chitchat, so save your breath.
So you're not really a Conservative with convictions. Got it....You have that completely backwards. Trump ran to the right in hopes of getting the nod, and now that Cruz suspended, Trump ran to the left.
Optimist...
Ryan is playing a game, he's a hardcore leftists. Hell, he gave the Marxists the Omnibus Bill, and padded it with more than the left was asking, even Fuglosi stated so publicly.
Do you actually take me for a fool as to believe for a second that Levin endorsed Trump?
Something we do frequently on this forum is educate and elucidate. For two reasons we call out bull shit, and this is one of those times when I don't let bull shit slide.
Back up your claim that Levin backed Trump
No, you back Trump because you lack conviction.

I find that in response to all of that, I must say either a great deal, or nothing at all. I elect the latter. Take care, sieur.

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 16, 2016, 08:18:07 AM
I find that in response to all of that, I must say either a great deal, or nothing at all. I elect the latter. Take care, sieur.

If you wanted to be taken seriously you would have responded with factual evidence to back up your assertions, otherwise they are nothing more than feelings, I actually kinda lost hope for you when you said this:

QuoteStrong conclusions require strong evidence.  Sure trump needs to get down to specifics and to repair his image with many groups if possible - but he is running center-left because he wants to win. He will likely swing right after winning, because that is the most expedient course.

He running to the left because he wants to appeal to Bernie supports, since Bernie is a self avowed socialist and attempting to swing his voters to trump it forces me to come to the conclusion that trump has not one conservative bone in his over tanned body, no self respecting Conservative would ever swing left ... Ever
Trump along with 90% of Republicans are throwing TEA and Conservatives out, were being told that they don't NEED us, they would rather pander to socialist libs then to Conservative ideals.

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 16, 2016, 08:18:07 AM
I find that in response to all of that, I must say either a great deal, or nothing at all. I elect the latter. Take care, sieur.

Thank you.

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 16, 2016, 08:18:07 AM
I find that in response to all of that, I must say either a great deal, or nothing at all. I elect the latter. Take care, sieur.

Tell me why you should be afforded the pleasure of membership on this forum if you're unwilling to participate in actual debate?
Last time, it's Sir!

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 13, 2016, 08:38:29 AM
Actually I HAVE read Melville. And most recently, Shakespeare's Tempest. Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. It beats the Hell out of reality T.V.
Call me Ishmael.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" That is a line from one of the only film series that I have enjoyed recently. Lucas was mostly a conservative.

Since you're not a conservative, you probably aren't the qualified to declare someone conservative or not conservative.

Quote
I understand the intense emotion about Trump,

What intense emotion?  I have disdain for him like I do Hillary.  They're the same.  We already lost.  Emotion is for the Trumpers.  Remember, they're mad at the system and all that?

Quote
but I do not share it. Unlike most people, my vote is based more on strategic thinking

This is not true.  Your choice is not based on any thinking, whatsoever, and you know it.  You simply see Donald has an (R) next to his name.  That's it.

Quote
with the Buckley Rule uber alles.  Strong conclusions require strong evidence.  Sure trump needs to get down to specifics and to repair his image with many groups if possible - but he is running center-left because he wants to win. He will likely swing right after winning, because that is the most expedient course.

Trump is actually running far right for what he is.  Yet, he is still just as left as Hillary.

Quote
All of you nice folks are forgetting that it is possible that Trump will follow conservative principles because they are simply more expedient at administrating a reelection chance for him.

No.  We're not stupid enough to believe that.

Quote
If he swings back toward NWO Statism, or Alinskyite Marxism he will be doing the equivalent of putting a bullet in his own head (politically).

Ryan has the right idea - and to some degree, Trump must have his feet held to the fire - because he must give at least the appearance of having a change of heart in many ways  - or he will lose.
Mark Levin is doing that in large part, viz a viz conservatism. I think at this point, Levin's endorsement may mean more to Trump's chances than Ryans.

One of the reasons I've decided to  give Trump another chance is that Michael Medved has all but come out for Hill-O-Lies over Trump and I have come to detest Medved.

Why do you call her Hill-O-Lies, but not give Trump the same label?  Why are you not being truthful with yourself, and others?

Quote from: AmericanMom on May 16, 2016, 08:31:30 AM
If you wanted to be taken seriously you would have responded with factual evidence to back up your assertions, otherwise they are nothing more than feelings, I actually kinda lost hope for you when you said this:
He running to the left because he wants to appeal to Bernie supports, since Bernie is a self avowed socialist and attempting to swing his voters to trump it forces me to come to the conclusion that trump has not one conservative bone in his over tanned body, no self respecting Conservative would ever swing left ... Ever
Trump along with 90% of Republicans are throwing TEA and Conservatives out, were being told that they don't NEED us, they would rather pander to socialist libs then to Conservative ideals.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, Madame.

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 17, 2016, 07:53:07 AM
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, Madame.

What "Feeling"? What she stated is fact, not an emotional response.
Though I differ on the 90% claim, beyond that, she's spot on.

Quote from: Solar on May 16, 2016, 09:10:58 AM
Tell me why you should be afforded the pleasure of membership on this forum if you're unwilling to participate in actual debate?
Last time, it's Sir!

Well, substantive debate is all fine. It's the level of personal invective that informs me on taking a way-and-see posture.  If I did not recognize when my remarks and observations are unwelcome and unappreciated (and generate anger) then I WOULD be obtuse, neh?

I regard forums as living rooms, Solar. You have been gracious enough to invite me into yours. It would be ill - mannered of me to express contrary views which are experienced as offensive (obviously, or they could not be triggering so much invective). Likewise it would be morally base of me to say that I fully agree with opinions which I do not. So I chose to remain mute and ponder awhile how I may contribute.

When my posts trigger more invective and outrage than correlation, it's a clue that my "shoulder is not to the wheel", so to speak. The TEA party is righteous. It deserves every good man's full support. Never doubt that. I support the TEA party fully and share anger at those who water down or try to "temper" righteous policy with adulteration.

Many people are unaware that the Founders considered the word "innovative" to be worthy of contempt. This because it was seen as a representation of something effete, purely philosophical and therefore detached from reality. I'm striving not to be "innovative".

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 17, 2016, 08:07:31 AM
Well, substantive debate is all fine. It's the level of personal invective that informs me on taking a way-and-see posture.  If I did not recognize when my remarks and observations are unwelcome and unappreciated (and generate anger) then I WOULD be obtuse, neh?

Personal invectives? My what a frail indiviual you are...
I gave you a substantive response, but instead of taking on my points, you cowered and took the low road of passive aggressive in an attempt to smear me for calling you out for the quote function issue..
Here's the post you obviated, I'll bold the points you previously avoided.
And yes, I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that Levin backed Trump.

Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2016, 02:41:37 PM
First off, it's sir, not sieur, secondly we're an adult Conservative site, which means the rules should come natural and no need for enumeration.
Commonsense/courtesy ring a bell? That's what the quote function is for. It makes it easier for others reading the forum to follow the conversation, a common courtesy.
And third. No, like I said, if you want a response, use quote and since you didn't, I didn't offer the courtesy of a read.

With that understanding, I will respond now.

OK? Keep in mind, I'm not here for idle chitchat, so save your breath.
So you're not really a Conservative with convictions. Got it....You have that completely backwards. Trump ran to the right in hopes of getting the nod, and now that Cruz suspended, Trump ran to the left.
Optimist...
Ryan is playing a game, he's a hardcore leftists. Hell, he gave the Marxists the Omnibus Bill, and padded it with more than the left was asking, even Fuglosi stated so publicly.
Do you actually take me for a fool as to believe for a second that Levin endorsed Trump?
Something we do frequently on this forum is educate and elucidate. For two reasons we call out bull shit, and this is one of those times when I don't let bull shit slide.
Back up your claim that Levin backed Trump
No, you back Trump because you lack conviction.

QuoteI regard forums as living rooms, Solar. You have been gracious enough to invite me into yours. It would be ill - mannered of me to express contrary views which are experienced as offensive (obviously, or they could not be triggering so much invective). Likewise it would be morally base of me to say that I fully agree with opinions which I do not. So I chose to remain mute and ponder awhile how I may contribute.

When my posts trigger more invective and outrage than correlation, it's a clue that my "shoulder is not to the wheel", so to speak. The TEA party is righteous. It deserves every good man's full support. Never doubt that. I support the TEA party fully and share anger at those who water down or try to "temper" righteous policy with adulteration.

What invective? When someone avoids the subject at hand in a discussion, they can expect a bitch slapping designed to invoke a response to the query previously avoided.

QuoteMany people are unaware that the Founders considered the word "innovative" to be worthy of contempt. This because it was seen as a representation of something effete, purely philosophical and therefore detached from reality. I'm striving not to be "innovative".

Where did that shit come from?

Quote from: Solar on May 17, 2016, 10:04:49 AM
Personal invectives? My what a frail indiviual you are...
I gave you a substantive response, but instead of taking on my points, you cowered and took the low road of passive aggressive in an attempt to smear me for calling you out for the quote function issue..
Here's the post you obviated, I'll bold the points you previously avoided.
And yes, I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that Levin backed Trump.
What invective? When someone avoids the subject at hand in a discussion, they can expect a bitch slapping designed to invoke a response to the query previously avoided.
Where did that shit come from?

Solar.  I did not express myself clearly and for that I apologize. 'Never said Levin backed Trump, but he has not definitely stated that he would not. He did say in one recent show that the Trump campaign had likely done something to him  (Mr.Levin) that he would consider unforgiveable and that it might make his personal endorsement impossible, but I have not heard an update.

I meant to express that Levin's endorsement would be more valuable to Trump than that of Ryan. I meant that it would be more valuable so he should SEEK IT in lieu of seeking Ryan's. Ryan is at best an utterly inept politician and a horrible spokesman for conservatism in the sturm und drang of political campaigns.

Levin is the standard bearer for conservatism in many ways far more than Ryan. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Levin has a PLAN and an HISTORICAL CONTEXT for conservatism that is unparalleled. His depth of understanding of conservatism and culture is truly awesome.

If the mass media did not control at least 8% of the electorate wholly, Mark Levin would be an excellent choice for Trump's VP.

I live in Mexifonia, and even though Trump has all but sewn up the primary, I will be voting for Cruz.

I like the plans I have heard for trying to wrest the nomination away from Trump at the convention a lot. So you see, I am truly on the side of conservatism.

I will take any lions share of the blame for any misconceptions to the contrary.

BTW, the "innovation" comment was derived from Miracle at Philadelphia; The Story of the Constitutional Convention May-September 1787. People who try to consider all angles (as I often do) sometimes get carried away with possibilities and forsake the good in pursuit of the perfect. I don't want to be mistaken for someone who thinks there is some substitute for genuine Reagan/Sobran/Buckley/Levin-style conservatism. Populism is not conservatism - it equates to Statism in the final analysis. Levin proved that to me on one of his programs.

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 17, 2016, 06:32:19 PM
Solar. There must be some misunderstanding. 'Never said Levin backed Trump, but he has not definitely stated that he would not. He did say in one show I listened to that the Trump campaign had likely done something to him that he would consider unforgiveable and that it might make his endorsement impossible, but I have not heard an update.

Your words:

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 13, 2016, 08:38:29 AM
"Mark Levin is doing that in large part, viz a viz conservatism. I think at this point, Levin's endorsement may mean more to Trump's chances than Ryans."

Quote
I stated that Levin's endorsement would be more valuable to Trump than that of Ryan. I meant that it would be more valuable so he should SEEK IT in lieu of seeking Ryans.

Levin is the standard bearer for conservatism in many ways far more than Ryan. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Levin has a PLAN and an HISTORICAL CONTEXT for conservatism that is unparalleled. His depth of understanding of conservatism and culture is truly awesome.

Ryan is a hardcore leftist, how can you even mention him in context to, or even the same sentence with Levin?

REP. PAUL RYAN
WISCONSIN (R)
           F
LIBERTY SCORE® 56% 

QuoteIf the mass media did not control at least 8% of the electorate wholly, Mark Levin would be an excellent choice for Trump's VP.

Seriously? They're oil and water, hot and cold, Idiot Leftist vs Conservative.

QuoteI live in Mexifonia, and even though Trump has all but sewn up the primary, I will be voting for Cruz.

Ca Native here, the entire state will be voting Cruz, we've seen what NY Libs do to a state.

QuoteI like the plans I have heard for trying to wrest the nomination away from Trump at the convention a lot. So you see, I am truly on the side of conservatism.

I will take any lions share of the blame for any misconceptions to the contrary.

You have a huge mountain ahead of you...

Best pray very hard that the write-ins work. Trump has it in the bag, and no one will take it from him. It's either Hillary or Trump. Write-in Cruz, and you just inaugurated the enemy, Hillary. Vote Trump...lesser of two evils.