Is doing this any good?


By this I mean posting here on these internet forums. It just seems that internet forums are just as partisan crazy as Congress. Yes, as I read many threads on here, it seems that people just want to get their point across and they don’t care about seeing anybody else’s point of view, answering people’s questions, finding out what went wrong and trying to fix it in the real world.

Yes, I sometimes agree with the libertarians, the liberals and the tea party types on here. I hardly see anyone else agreeing with people who don’t match their ideology on here.

It’s in my philosophy to try and bring everyone together and not drive us further apart. It appears, that we are all conservatives in one form or another, but even we can’t agree on the basic policies, and we aren’t anybody major in the party. (At least I don’t think anybody famous in politics is on here. If you are please reveal yourself!)

I try to share news with people and bring people to understand the history, the bias, the players, and the reality of what is going on in the world and I think I’ve done a pretty good job at being a neutral player across the board.

Why exactly do you post here and what did you want to accomplish by going on this forum? I don’t really think any of us goes to RO for late breaking news. We hear about it and learn about it first from the MSM!


What does it hurt? There’s always someone lurking that may be influenced by a post here and go on to do good things. There’s a good chance with this group you will learn some history. The MSM always puts their own slant on stories. With folks from all around the country and the world here, you have a fair shot at finding out a bit of real truth behind the bias from someone close.

As to you being neutral, you are living up to your title. Republican Party (Centrist). Loyal to the end, of us all.


I post because I believe the vast majority of issues can conclusively be shown to support only one position IF the common goal of preserving Individual Liberty and Prosperity by respecting the Constitution is the broader concept.

I am fully aware that preserving Liberty and Prosperity by respecting the Constitution is NOT the goal of Liberals and I do not expect them to budge one bit as a result.

I simply want those who are not aware that Liberals desire the eradication of the Constitution as our highest authority (and the eradication of individual Liberty) to become aware of this fact by reading their arguments and especially their lack of an argument when the Constitution is the foundation of the opinion that they oppose.

Liberals succeed by forcing the debate out of the big picture and getting their opponents to argue minutia, Conservatives regularly fall for this so the Constitutional case rarely gets made and passive observers never consult a broader perspective than their own opinion.

There will never be unity if we see every issue from a personal, selfish perspective. Unity can only occur when we agree to submit to something greater than our personal, selfish interests.

The Constitution served as this unifying force for much of our history, citizens were willing to support the grand principles in spite of knowing that some would utilize these principles in ways that many citizens deemed despicable. They opted for peer pressure (shame) rather than a Nanny State Government to influence behavior.

I still believe that most can understand the superiority of a Constitutional Government if this broader perspective is used in debate instead of allowing the Left to always steer the discussion away from Principle, this is not hard to do and I want to be an example of how to avoid the minutia traps and tricks that the Left have utilized since Theodore Roosevelt.

The coalitions that make up the American Left are quite fragile, they only endure because of cowardice and intentional ignorance on the part of Christian Conservatives. Since I have no idea who the multitude of “guests” that regularly visit this site are, I assume that many are Conservatives that have never heard how to best debate the Left and avoid their misdirection techniques and many others who may not yet be committed to a side.

This site Google’s well, many times an RO thread will appear in the first few results of a search on current national events, if one of these events has a clear Constitutional position then I want to make sure that perspective appears in our threads.

And yes, I think it does do good.

***“The pen is mightier than the sword”***…Unless no pen is writing the truth, in that case the sword is all that remains.


Um, no.


[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:1, topic:37284”]
I hardly see anyone else agreeing with people who don’t match their ideology on here.
[/quote]You’re probably not going to see that either, except for, as you say, those that share an ideology. You can almost determine political views by seeing which posts certain people agree with and don’t, though that’s not always true. Now and then you’ll see someone agree with someone else, and think, “Strange bedfellows”.

But the vast majority here, myself included to some degree, have the classic “religion and politics” syndrome. What I mean is, in those two areas, opinions (sometimes even portrayed as certainties) can be extremely strong . . . to the point of abrasiveness. And opinions in these areas are very often tied up with a person’s own self-characterization. IOW, when you even suggest that their opinion may not have a credible basis, basically your calling their baby ugly. My babies have been called ugly a few times, and since I’d rather be in a productive exchange instead of being a rooster in the barnyard seeing who can crow the loudest, and thus send the thread south, I generally don’t respond to that baiting. If it’s a credible and reasonable challenge, I WILL respond.

So, when you challenge someone else’s opinions on religion or politics, most of the time you’re challenging their cherished and strongly opinionated view of the world, and in these areas that challenge can be seen as an attack. Even if it’s not, very often a thread can go south when one side or another perceives it as a personal attack. You’ll frequently see, for example, a Ron Paul person calling a Romney supporter a “liberal”, a RINO, or Evangelicals might call you a Godless Pagan . . . the ultimate insults on a board like this. You need a thick skin to be here.

So, don’t be too surprised when someone brands you with an insult. You’re calling their baby ugly, or at least that’s the way they see it, and they’re going to call your baby ugly right back. And of course the thread goes south from their, all thought of a productive exchange of ideas having been forgotten.

On the plus side though, there is some good information exchanged here. Plus we’re more comfortable among our “own kind”. Indeed, I wouldn’t last long on a board that sang the praises of Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and that gang of lunatics/morons/clowns/idiots.

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:1, topic:37284”]
Why exactly do you post here and what did you want to accomplish by going on this forum?
[/quote]Mostly because it’s a group, however diverse, that shares more of my opinions than Liberals do. Now it’s not a 100% thing . . . some of the opinions I have send some people here ballistic, but I would be sending Liberals ballistic ALL the time. I wouldn’t be comfortable on a Liberal board. I am comfortable here . . . MOST OF THE TIME.

In the larger sense, I just flat out like to rant about BHO, and I enjoy reading other’s rant about that moron.

BTW, it always amazes me when someone calls an opinion “wrong” . . . how can an opinion be wrong? The very definition of an opinion is a “belief”. Beliefs are neither right nor wrong. Misguided, perhaps. Or maybe founded on some flawed information. But there’s no “right” or “wrong” to it. Is his bible “right”? Is my bible, that’s different from his, “wrong”? Neither . . . we just BELIEVE in different bibles. Maybe I think the moon is beautiful, and someone else may think it’s ugly. Can either of us “prove” our opinion? Maybe we can explain the underlying basis for that opinion, but the conclusions we draw from those “facts” are nothing more than opinions and speculation. Twelve inches to a foot is a fact. Two plus two equals four is a fact. White wine is superior to red wine is an opinion, a belief. Liberals are crazy is an . . . opinion (an opinion I have I might add.) An opinion I hold because I have drawn that conclusion from what I think are “facts”. Nevertheless, my conclusion itself is an opinion . . . and, thankfully one most here share, except the occasional moronic liberal that wants to troll.

(OK . . . I’m sure I’ll be blasted for the “bible” comment, but that’s expected.)


One of the things I hate most is when people tell me to, “wake up.” What I’ve found is that “wake up” is just another term to ask me to go over to their side of the political spectrum and only look at things from their point of view.

Wake up is also a derogatory term insisting that I do not know what’s going on.

So is there a way to make some conversations less confrontational?? (Not just on this forum)

I never call someone a RINO, NEOCON, or a liberal if they don’t match my point of view. If someone asks why they are a liberal, I will slowly explain it to them, but the liberals on here know who they are :wink: I think there should be some ground rules for these types of emotional exchanges.


C.S. Lewis had an interesting discourse on opinions in his book “Mere Christianity.” I can’t remember the details exactly, because I don’t have my own copy of the book (must correct that soon!), read my sister’s copy.

Anyway, he was talking about how everyone has opinions, and everyone has some wrong opinions. Why do we hold to our “wrong” opinions? Because we don’t know which ones are wrong! If we knew, we would discard them.


Oftentimes I try to educate people about the reality of such and such policy, issue, situation, or out of context BS and if it’s really what the pundits on each side are talking about. Yet, no matter what I do some people just don’t want to see facts.

While doing this, I am perfectly capable of leaving my ideology out of things, but it seems most people are not able to do this.


I have not noticed that you are able to leave your ideology out of things. Often, we are quite sure that our opinions are facts.


[quote=“Susanna, post:9, topic:37284”]
Often, we are quite sure that our opinions are facts.
[/quote]That’s the “certainty” I was talking about.


[quote=“Susanna, post:7, topic:37284”]
Because we don’t know which ones are wrong! If we knew, we would discard them.
[/quote]Or could it be that we have an internal defense mechanism that prevents us from going as far as to realize that our opinions are “wrong”? Doing so would turn our whole world upside down.

Speaking for myself, I can go up to the line, push the envelope and perhaps modify my opinion, but the core views will always stay intact. That’s how I define “me”. To lose my core views, values I guess, would be the end of “me”. I can’t let that happen. Which is why, I guess, that we all have a bias.


[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:6, topic:37284”]
What I’ve found is that “wake up” is just another term to ask me to go over to their side of the political spectrum and only look at things from their point of view.
[/quote]Which I’m sure makes you dig your heels in, and the other side has already dug their heels in, so why continue discussion with them? Maybe you should just recognize that this will happen now and then (reality?), and write it off to “we agree to disagree” and let it go at that. Pressing your side of the argument sometimes only makes the other side dig their heels in all that more. You have to realize when that point is reached and just let it go because it’s not going to be productive going any further.

You’re both only going to highlight your differences and get farther apart, eventually driving the thread south.

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:6, topic:37284”]
Wake up is also a derogatory term insisting that I do not know what’s going on.
[/quote]That’s why you need a thick skin. Unavoidably, sooner or later someone is going to use a term or phrase you find insulting. That’s the nature of this beast. Learn to deal with it, or you’re going to be perpetually angry. You have to decide if your visits here are a fair trade-off for the annoyance you may suffer. If it’s not, then I assume you would leave because I’m guessing you have enough aggravations in your life without adding one that is unbearable.

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:6, topic:37284”]
So is there a way to make some conversations less confrontational?? (Not just on this forum)
[/quote]NO!!! As I said, that’s the nature of the beast. Some forums are moreso than others, but since the Internet is essentially a fast and loose medium and is also anonymous, any forum is going to be confrontational to some degree. For example, that’s why I don’t hang out on unmoderated forums, newsgroups, or usenet. I also don’t hang out on things like IE forums where I know the aggravation I’ll suffer is not worth the information I may gain.

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:6, topic:37284”]
I never call someone a RINO, NEOCON, or a liberal if they don’t match my point of view.
[/quote]That’s a good practice and avoids inflammatory confrontations. Name calling is a sure sign that the debate is about to head south.

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:6, topic:37284”]
If someone asks why they are a liberal, I will slowly explain it to them
[/quote]The use of the word “slowly” may prompt some to think of you as arrogant. I’m not suggesting you try to be “politically correct” or otherwise be the word police, but consider the reactions your words may prompt. If you chose to use the word or phrase, just be prepared for the response it may elicit. After all, some are not as thick skinned as others on the Internet.

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:6, topic:37284”]
I think there should be some ground rules for these types of emotional exchanges.
[/quote]Beyond perhaps personal threats, and clearly vulgar language, and also spamming, if mods tried to eliminate “emotional exchanges”, almost every poster would be banned. The reality is that on this planet, and particularly on a forum like this, “emotional exchanges” are frequent. Again, you’re going to have to learn to deal with it, or else you may not enjoy too many forums.

Now I don’t necessarily disagree that it might be nice to have discussions that are without “emotional exchanges”. But the downside of that is that it becomes sterile and uninteresting . . . boring if you will. A lively and spirited debate, maintaining civility, is what you’re looking for. Learn to spot where you have that opportunity, and where it’s not. If someone steps over the line and turns that lively and spirited debate into a nasty exchange, get the heck out of that thread.


[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:8, topic:37284”]
Oftentimes I try to educate people
[/quote]Be prepared for accusations of arrogance when you say something like that.

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:6, topic:37284”]
Yet, no matter what I do some people just don’t want to see facts.
[/quote]Your “facts” are not necessarily their “facts”. What you see as clear may not be so clear to others. People disagree on whose “facts” are correct, particularly on a forum like this. Best to stay away from the word “fact” whenever possible. Using it presents a target that some just can’t resist. Perhaps phrase it as “seems credible” rather than “fact” . . . less of an invitation for those “emotional exchanges” you speak of and maybe enticing a more reasonable debate where the other side can present their view and not feel angry.

  1. I know I usually just drop out of conversations if I see them going nowhere. Once I’ve said all I’ve wanted to say and tied up any loose ends one may have. If after all this people still call me a liberal RINO sell out then I know they didn’t even attempt to hear my side of the issue. I honestly believe that.

  2. I know, but that’s taken out of context here. You obviously are not a liberal so I would never spell out to you what a liberal is. Funny how they don’t seem to like calling themselves what they are huh?

  3. Yes, but sometimes things get out of control like saying such and such section of such and such party is destroying America or inputting things that have nothing to do with the topic like saying “wake up your all dumb for debating this party nonsense anyway, you both suck!” That’s almost the same thing. That statement doesn’t really make it more lively, that will likely get some members on here to block you because you added nothing substantial to the conversation. For instance I never say, “Us moderate republicans are the best things in the world we are the only ones willing to work together and allow the deadlocks to end and get the government working!” When the topic has to do with say, the media…

Though I do believe the statement above I don’t feel the need to advertise it and input it into every other thread. Actually I don’t think I’ve ever praised Moderate Republicans like that. I don’t think I’ve ever praised Moderate Republicans in general (though I did congratulate Chris Christie for handling Sandy well enough), but that’s what I am: A Moderate Republican. Sometimes I have to remind people that I am not a conservative, but that’s as far as I go where advertising party talking points goes.


Why do I post? To throw my 2cents out there, hence the username.
I have next to no interest in debating an issue, as it’s generally a useless waste of time. I will if I feel strongly enough about a matter, but go into it knowing it’s unlikely to change anyone’s mind. Afterall, rarely does anyone change mine. But it does happen! lol.

IOW, I don’t take bb’s all that seriously.

However, I do learn a lot, and for that, I am grateful. And also for the ability to hang out with (mostly) like-minded folk.


I’m always looking for an actual debate. But the majority of posters on any political forum are mostly looking to rage at X. Rage and thoughtful analysis don’t go hand-in-hand. There are some thoughtful posters on any political forum, but they seem to be more skittish here, probably due to “debating” some people here, who’s opinion can best be expressed by using many, many exclamation marks at the end of “derp”.

Why do I post here? Mostly because I like some of the posters.


:yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat: I guess I have to start doing more of this.


Yes, they seem to be lacking here.

I once had a character in one of my novels who’d rather be a lawyer than run for President because as President you can’t please everyone. As a lawyer you can (well pleased enough)


I’ve learned a lot about myself in the six years I’ve been on RO. I saw my own attitudes and views in print, and I rethought many of them as a result. I’ve learned to chill out, relatively speaking.


There are many I do not respond to because like two cents I already know their opinion and will receive their stock answer for most things including scorn when they realize no one is going to suck up the nonsense. I know I will receive the strawman arguments or the assertions that we need to do things different than the constitution.

I know what libertarians are going to say–usually the latest talking points one finds on a Paul site.

I know what archaists want.

I know what the gays want

I know what the religion haters want.

Their posts is as follows blah blah blah you do not understand or you are a haters blah blah

Some times I look at the site and all I see are those on ignore with some I wish I could put on ignore.