guess it depends on if you really are a conservative, or just here "playing devils advocate"...I'm still a bit of a noob here, but I have noticed that several of the threads I've read through go a little bit like this:
PERSON A: I think A,B,C,D,E,F and G and I'm a conservative.
PERSON B: I think A,B,C,D,E,F and I disagree with you on G and I'm also a conservative.
PERSON A: No you're not a conservative because you don't agree with G.
JIM ROBINSON: Yup.
Okay, I've seen the posts by Jim about what is and isn't conservative and it's his site and his perogative to do so. I'm not disputing that.
But I just wondered, before I get banned in my first week for doing something like playing Devil's Advocate in a conversation (which I have done on other forums) I thought it prudent to ask:
What is the tipping point between someone expressing a different or contrary or contraversial YET STILL VALID point of view here, and crossing the line to a point that'll get you banned?
I'm asking because IMO there's a fundamental difference between arguing a point of POLICY (which requires a sense of pragmatism as well as ideology) and arguing over IDEOLOGY (where it's appropriate to maintain an absolute position).
Are you f’ing kidding me. You are disrespecting jimrob?
If I had zot power I would ignore it and petition for double secret zot power and then ensure you could never ever reproduce.
You Brits pronounce “aluminum” and “schedule” incorrectly. I’m thinking about starting a thread on that topic.
Try to avoid Abraham Lincoln posts, comparing Baby Boomers to the WW2 generation (favorably or unfavorably), and just realize that some people here have a VERY specific template for the definition of conservative.
Posting pictures of Helen Thomas in a bikini.
Welcome to FR!
guess it depends on if you really are a conservative, or just here "playing devils advocate"...
What you’ve heard about us Americans is true.
We all are nuts.
I do admire your courage at attacking the grand poohbah, right off the bat. If I were him, I'd nuke you on general principle.
Common courtesy should keep noobs from crashing into a room and demand that their opinions and assertions are preeminent. In the real world they should be seen and not heard until they know for sure if he's among murdering bikers or old women's quilting club.
By the way, "I don't agree with G" is not argument; it is opinion, no response is necessary nor should it expected.
My response to the delusional poster is to ignore them The only value they DO have is they draw out the older Freepers as immature as themselves.
Good luck.
I’ve always just said what I feel, haven’t been on here long, but my parents have. If I’m not “conservative” enough, so be it. Not everyone can be from CA. :P Welcome!
Shhhhhhhhhhhh.. You can’t say things too loudly, the Obambi Gestapo is watching. Would you like some tea?
Advice to n00bs?
Don’t drop the soap around Lazamataz.
To 1 - “perogative” s/b prerogative.
Welcome...BTW..you need a tagline..
Rule 1 - “Free Republic is Palin country” -— Jim Robinson October 2010
Since you’re British... what’s the deal with Prince Charles? Is he just nuts from the git go, or was he replaced by a space alien when nobody was looking?
Oh, welcome to Free Republic.
Devil’s advocate positions are nothing more than useless mental masturbation and are the type of thing done most often done in classroom situations or to deliberately provoke someone. This is not a debating society here, and I personally detest argument merely for the sake of argument.
As I see it, this site is devoted to adults seeking real-life solutions and answers based on the way the world works and the way human nature works, and not how we wish it would work, as is the case with leftists.
I think most here believe in obtaining wealth via hard and honest work, and abhor those who seek a free lunch, ala the moochers and leaches in Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. You can add to that particularl book as a reading list “Animal Farm”, “1984”, “Harrison Bergeron”, “First Circle”, “Cancer Ward”, and “The Gulag Archipelago” as starters. Then read everything by Jack London. If these books don’t ring your bell, then you’re not a conservative.
We also believe in limited government, limited taxes, and the supremacy of the individual rather than the collective.
There are areas of disagreement here, primarily in religion and morality. These are primarily matters of faith and not reason, and its pointless to engage in argument.
I rarely disagree with someone unless I think they’ve presented incorrect facts or patently misrepresented something generally accepted as being true. If I’m going to disagree or correct, I try to do so in a gentle and helpful manner, unless I’m chastising the rare troll here.
I generally prefer to add to posts in a positive manner, agreeing or amplifying or posting additional relevant information.
You end with:
“I’m asking because IMO there’s a fundamental difference between arguing a point of POLICY (which requires a sense of pragmatism as well as ideology) and arguing over IDEOLOGY (where it’s appropriate to maintain an absolute position).”
Right here you revealed what you are all about, namely arguing, rather than seeking the truth. Furthermore, you wish to argue about useless academic garbage like pointless distinctions between POLICY vs. IDEOLOGY, in caps no less, which no doubt is how you think of “ideas”.
If you’re looking for a debating society, I recommend you go elsewhere. Actually, if you had any sense at all, which seems doubtful, you would have read the posts here for a few days or weeks before making any post at all, much less one that reveals your total ignorance of this site. Basically, you’ve started off exactly like a troll would!
We must remember that Free Republic is Jim Robinson’s property. Americans have free speech rights but not on someone else’s property.
I understand that conservatism and the political environment are different in different countries. Britain is, of course, far more secular and socialist than the US. Mr. Obama wants to see the US travel in that direction.
Here is a GOP(Republican) “Litmus test” proposed earlier this year. Candidates would have had to favor at least 7 or 8 of these to gain party support:
“”1. Support for smaller government and lower taxes
2. Support troop surges in Iraq and Afghanistan
3. Support Defense of Marriage Act
4. Support containing Iran and North Korea
5. Support gun rights
6. Oppose ObamaCare
7. Oppose cap-and-trade legislation
8. Oppose “amnesty” for illegals
9. Oppose union card check
10.Oppose government-funded abortion””