FR is pro-God, pro-Life, pro-family, pro-constitution, pro-limited government. Period!!

February 3, 2014 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

FR is pro-God, pro-Life, pro-family, pro-constitution, pro-limited government and will remain that way. Regardless of any consequences!!

You're either with us on this or against us.

Moderation is not the solution, it is the problem!!

We do not surrender, we do not retreat, we do not negotiate or compromise on our unalienable rights to Life and Liberty or our sovereignty!!

Karl Rove and the GOP-e moderates and all like them can KMA!!

You cannot moderate evil, you fight it!!

[Springfield Reformer]

The really big picture is we need God’s help more than we need anything else, and picking a candidate who thinks he’s gonna BE God eventually is taking a slap at God, not the best way to ask Him for help.

So what purpose does it serve, really, to question the motives of people with deep and sincere religious beliefs, just because they actually acted according to those beliefs? Trust me, no “big picture” is big enough if it doesn’t account for pleasing God with our political choices. We are Christians, not relativists. We can’t “sin that good may come of it.” That’s not who we are or ever will be. The real solution is to not pick GOP candidates that are guaranteed to alienate so many GOP voters.

[BJ1]

>>>I think BJ1 was agreeing with you.<<<

I was agreeing with JR. I am surprised my comment was taken as both agreeing and disagreeing with him in this thread. All I said was that I read many articles showing that the country is more pro-life than ever before since roe v. wade.

So with that information, why does it make sense to moderate? Especially in light of Reagan’s victories when the country was much less pro-life than today. If it comes down to single issue voters, I’d wager a days pay that more people will vote pro-life than pro-death.

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

“litmus matrix”

Wouldn’t that rid FR of extremist-conservatives, i.e., those who would want mass-killings of dims/liberals/left-wingers/progressives/socialists/communists/totalitarians/RINOs, etc.? In my mind they are all synonyms but.....

The locals, the FBI, NSA, Obemba’s civilian national police force or whatever he calls it, probably the CIA and who knows which other countries and/or terrorist organizations already have their sights on FR. With your suggestion ‘they’ could simply weed-out those who pose no threat to their agenda and focus on what they would consider to be the ‘hard-liners’. Let them ‘drill down’ and browse through the posts to find whatever it is that they want to find.

Does FR want to open the book for those who are already watching, reading and ‘listening’? I do not think that FR wants to do that. I and I am sure, many others do not want FR to do that, including JimRob. Maybe that was on his mind when he dismissed your idea.

( One newbie to another “Newbie” ), ;-) “Newbie” or not, your suggestion is a good one but on the surface only and only on one edge of the sword. There are always two edges to a sword. I do not like the other edge. No offense meant.

[Zeneta]

I’ve read any number of anti-abortion positions over the years and have seen a great number of them stating their regrets, after the abortion.

I find this curious and very sad.

[Kevmo]

“litmus matrix” Wouldn’t that rid FR of
***It would not rid FR of anyone. It would be a voluntary matrix to fill out. But if someone pushes Abortion On Demand and claims on their litmus matrix to be prolife, then they are simply lying and it would be up to the mods to deal with them. What I have seen are openly anti-conservative trolls operating for more than a decade on FR.

[Kevmo]

With your suggestion ‘they’ could simply weed-out those who pose no threat to their agenda and focus on what they would consider to be the ‘hard-liners’.
***You simply do not understand the proposal. Perhaps you’ve never drilled down on a 700 post thread (or 3300 post thread, for that matter) only to find that the FReeper you are debating against is an obvious anti-conservative CINO, RINO, or some other troll.

[Kevmo]

With your suggestion ‘they’ could simply weed-out those who pose no threat to their agenda and focus on what they would consider to be the ‘hard-liners’.
***That makes NO sense at ALL.

Let them ‘drill down’ and browse through the posts to find whatever it is that they want to find.
*** You obviously have not encountered the gang-trolls nor the long term anti-conservative trolls. Here’s a place to START. Read all the posts like I did.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts

Does FR want to open the book for those who are already watching, reading and ‘listening’?
***Ooooh, a boogieman argument. Look how scared us real conservatives are.

I do not think that FR wants to do that.
***You have no idea who is lined up against true conservatives, or perhaps you are even one of them.

I and I am sure, many others do not want FR to do that, including JimRob. Maybe that was on his mind when he dismissed your idea.
***He didn’t seem to dismiss the idea when he opened up the bugzapper thread and told a long term CINO FReeper to “get lost, asswipe”.

( One newbie to another “Newbie” ), ;-) “Newbie” or not, your suggestion is a good one but on the surface only and only on one edge of the sword. There are always two edges to a sword.
***This is a single edged sword. Period. The other edge is blunt. Or have you not been following FR of late? JimRob endorsed someone he claimed he would NEVEr endorse, -someone he called a lying, babykilling, gun-grabbing, homosexual agenda loving statist.

I do not like the other edge.
***I daresay you do not like the single edge because it would expose you.

No offense meant.

[Kevmo]

I and I am sure,
***uh huh. And I’m sure that FReepers who key up on this proposal are worried that they will be exposed. What’s to worry? Even exposed CINOs are allowed to operate on FR. But at least I wouldn’t have to drill down 700 posts to find it out.

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

Wow! I gave to you a well-intentioned post and you came back aggressively and with malice?

I can guarantee you that I am further to the right than anyone on FR!

Forget you!

[Kevmo]

I doubt that highly.

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

It is unfortunate that there is not an “Ignore” feature on FR. Be that as it may, I ask you nicely to please stop posting to me.

Thank you in advance for your kind consideration.

[Kevmo]

It is unfortunate that there is not an “Ignore” feature on FR.
***It is unfortunate there is not an idealogical matrix on FR. Then we could all check your matrix to see just how conservative you really are, not having to drill down 700 or 3300 posts to find the real evidence.

[Agamemnon]

You obviously don't understand the modifier, nor the concept of "invincible ignorance." That's the only explanation available for such a doctrinaire statement.

Since error by definition is refutable, "functionally irrefutable" error is fiction. Fictitious babbling in which you may engage fails for relevance in any discussion.

I’ll presume for the sake of discussion that we admire Dembski’s debating skills. It is also possible that we share the same world-view to some extent, at least where it pertains to origins and TOE.

That said I’ll let the record show that on this third round of exchanges readers still don’t know what quotation you have attributed to Dembski, which allegedly forms this seemingly un-Google-ably elusive “dictum,” to which you refer.

Somehow I don’t think the problem you are experiencing in debates is entirely attributable to what may -- by your own estimation -- be your opponent’s “invincible ignorance,” as much as it might be attributable to your own general lack of preparedness for discussions in which you engage.

If you actually showed up to debates with your source material in hand you might have a more credible standing in the debate.

Dembski is mathematically astute and you tangentially appealed to his authority. I happen to be a biochemist; are you a professionally accomplished mathematician by any chance?

None of which addresses the question of whether Christ commanded you to engage in fallacious argumentation (switching the meaning of terms in mid stream) for the aggrandizement of your religious self-esteem.

Jesus is the Author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2), and all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (II Timothy 3:16).

So then, just a few questions:

Does Paul engage in “conflating promulgation of the Gospel” in Ephesians 6:14-15 as he writes under Christ’s inspiration, “Stand therefore, having your loins girded about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace.”?

Do you think that the debates that Paul engaged in with his opponents on Mars Hill as recorded in the Book of Acts were just “useless endeavors” too, or was he standing for the truth of the Gospel as Christ had commanded?

Are you alleging that Paul engaged in debates with people who had flawed arguments merely for “aggrandizement of [his] religious self-esteem”?

Do you think Paul showed up to his debates as unprepared as you appear to be inclined to show up to yours?

[Me] Mastering the skill of rebuking logical fallacy and poor argumentation begins with having ready access to those sources from which one intends to quote in order to make their point.

[You] Pot, meet the kettle. I'm not familiar with the official ranking authority that found not having a quote handy, of lesser rhetorical value than engaging in sophomoric non sequiturs.

One doesn’t draw credible conclusions from arguments based upon imaginary source material.

Engaging in debates without your facts and source material in hand is indeed a “useless endeavor.”

Jesus Christ through His inspired Scriptures admonishes us to “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15) 1 Peter 3:15 goes on to say, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you.”

Whether you consider them to be “invincibly ignorant” or not, yes, you are commanded in the inspired Scriptures of Jesus Christ not only to engage opponents, but to do your homework and to be prepared to stand and deliver.

The whole thing invariably devolves into "my science is bigger than your science" match.

If you ever hope to win debates with materialists, you’ll need to learn how to debate on your terms not theirs.

FReegards!

[darrellmaurina]

1 posted on 2/3/2014 1:43:22 PM by Jim Robinson: “Have to post this reminder from time-to-time. Had to ban another long-term FReeper today who suddenly decides we should moderate our position on Life. No thanks.”

4 posted on 2/3/2014 1:47:35 PM by BJ1: “But articles get posted on FR all the time showing abortion has the lowest support of the population since Roe v. Wade. The argument to moderate on that issue doesn’t seem logical: The country was much less pro-life when Reagan won in 1980 and 1984. Just saying.”

Thank you, Jim.

As BJ1 pointed out, caving in on this issue is not just wrong, it's illogical. Abortion is an issue on which, due to developing technology, it has become much more difficult for the average person to maintain the liberal fiction that a “fetus” is not a child. When mothers are routinely getting “baby's first picture” of a very early ultrasound and showing it on Facebook, the fact that a baby is a baby, both before and after birth, is becoming increasingly obvious.

As it becomes more and more obvious that abortion is killing a living person, one of two things will happen. Either America will become comfortable with the idea that it's okay for people to kill people who have done nothing wrong if they are an inconvenience, or abortion will become less and less acceptable as a choice, perhaps someday leading to greater restrictions and eventual abolition.

Down that first road lies nightmare scenarios such as killing “defective” babies after they're born, killing seriously injured people after accidents, and killing elderly people, all because they're an “inconvenience.”

I shudder to think what America will look like if the general public decides abortion is murder and it's still okay regardless of that fact.

[cripplecreek]

There are some issues we can afford to moderate on a bit but this and other pure constitutional issues are not something that we can moderate ourselves on.

This isn’t wind power. If someone can make wind power work on their own dime I say go for it but abortion is a pure moral and constitutional (life liberty and pursuit of happiness) issue and there is no middle ground.

[darrellmaurina]

159 posted on 2/4/2014 12:23:25 AM by Kevmo: “My suggestion is basically to hold the first primary in the state that has the highest percentage of GOP votes in the last election, the 2nd primary in the 2nd highest, and so on.”

Interesting concept.

I do think it might have the effect of forcing Republicans to spent a lot of time in Utah trying to make Mormons happy rather than spending a lot of time in Iowa and South Carolina trying to make evangelicals happy.

I'm not sure that would be a helpful outcome.

It isn't intended as Mormon-bashing to point out that Utah is one of the most strongly Republican states. A lot of the states which are very red or very blue are also very small, and scheduling early primaries/caucuses in those states might result in major influence by states which are not in any way reflective of the people who typically vote Republican.

[vox_freedom]

[Kevmo]

I do think it might have the effect of forcing Republicans to spent a lot of time in Utah trying to make Mormons happy rather than spending a lot of time in Iowa and South Carolina trying to make evangelicals happy.
***It would force them to spend time in whatever state votes republican, and less time in those states that vote democrat. If Utah is at the top of the list, then so be it. At least they would have a legitimate claim to being first or close to the top of the list. Today’s primary schedule is optimized for CINOs/RINOs/EstablishmentRepublicans/GOPe.

[Moonman62]

Have to post this reminder from time-to-time. Had to ban another long-term FReeper today who suddenly decides we should moderate our position on Life.

Agreed. Politics is the art of persuasion, not compromise.

[Grimmy]

God Bless you, sir.

Semper Fi.