Who Are The Real Classical Conservative Republicans?

[Robo]

A real classical conservative Republican first and foremost believes that America was not founded as a democracy, but rather to be a Representative Constitutional Republic whereby the people were to be governed by elected representation who’s service, loyalty and political endeavors were solely and strictly harnessed to the constitutional rule of law and not any whims and or prejudices of any majority of the population.

A real classical conservative Republican is anti-war who understands that most wars are simply racketeering scams except when attacked and then he/she is only willing to put the Republic into a war by a congressional declaration of war as mandated by the Constitution.

A real classical conservative Republican is a constitutional “liberal”, i. e. one who promotes and is loyal to the very liberal guarantees of “individual liberty” as mandated by the Constitution’s Bill Of Rights and amendments to the Constitution that promote and guarantee individual liberty.

A real classical conservative Republican is a true libertarian, (small l) who promotes State’s Rights, Gay Rights, Religious Rights, Gun Rights, Human Rights, Minority Rights, Majority Rights, Collective Rights and Individual Rights. He/she does not waver from the support of All Rights for humans as long as no Right of others is violated.

A real classical conservative Republican opposes the unconstitutional idiot failed authoritarian Drug War, unconstitutional federal corporate and social welfare and all actions taken by the federal government not authorized by the Constitution.

A real classical conservative Republican is a State’s Rights activist who knows that our Constitution gives the powers to the States and the people respectively to do all things not enumerated and authorized by the Constitution for the federal government to do thereby creating a “several States Laboratory” of political actions, (not in violation of the national Constitution), that by their very definition and nature will decide the very best direction for the nation as a whole because States can learn from States and people will learn from people until the very best actions of government and free people are established in accordance to the particulars of State’s locations, economic attractiveness, standard of living, education availability and abilities, individual talents and economic condition.

A real classical conservative Republican is in opposition to all federal actions that impose a “One Size Fits All” mandate on States and individuals except the One Size Fits All of human rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

 

[Anti-Party]

A real classical conservative Republican first and foremost believes that America was not founded as a democracy, but rather to be a Representative Constitutional Republic whereby the people were to be governed by elected representation who’s service, loyalty and political endeavors were solely and strictly harnessed to the constitutional rule of law and not any whims and or prejudices of any majority of the population.

"A real classical conservative Republican is anti-war who understands that most wars are simply racketeering scams except when attacked and then he/she is only willing to put the Republic into a war by a congressional declaration of war as mandated by the Constitution." Everyone in the WORLD has seen parties use Military action to openly change a targeted Countries perspective.

The CIA's Coup d'état methods aren't exactly a secret anymore...........to some that is.......... We openly provided weapons to Libya rebels and Syrian rebels and almost all news sources in the world said it was through the Benghazi CIA gun running station. The Right uses limited information to drive up fear and hate on these topics knowing the smallest brains will fall in line.




A real classical conservative Republican is a constitutional “liberal”, i. e. one who promotes and is loyal to the very liberal guarantees of “individual liberty” as mandated by the Constitution’s Bill Of Rights and amendments to the Constitution that promote and guarantee individual liberty.

A real classical conservative Republican is a true libertarian, (small l) who promotes State’s Rights, Gay Rights, Religious Rights, Gun Rights, Human Rights, Minority Rights, Majority Rights, Collective Rights and Individual Rights. He/she does not waver from the support of All Rights for humans as long as no Right of others is violated.

A real classical conservative Republican opposes the unconstitutional idiot failed authoritarian Drug War, unconstitutional federal corporate and social welfare and all actions taken by the federal government not authorized by the Constitution.

A real classical conservative Republican is a State’s Rights activist who knows that our Constitution gives the powers to the States and the people respectively to do all things not enumerated and authorized by the Constitution for the federal government to do thereby creating a “several States Laboratory” of political actions, (not in violation of the national Constitution), that by their very definition and nature will decide the very best direction for the nation as a whole because States can learn from States and people will learn from people until the very best actions of government and free people are established in accordance to the particulars of State’s locations, economic attractiveness, standard of living, education availability and abilities, individual talents and economic condition.

A real classical conservative Republican is in opposition to all federal actions that impose a “One Size Fits All” mandate on States and individuals except the One Size Fits All of human rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

This will be fun........

" America was not founded as a democracy" WEIRD! Who let that cat out of the bag? Why did it change?

By paragraph 2 you are obvious you don't know your bias "A real classical conservative Republican is anti-war who understands that most wars are simply racketeering scams"

America was based on "federalist" vs "anti-federalist" not what we have kiddo. The humor is that you repeat the Federalists posts without thought when you stand as an Anti_federalist.

You should learn to stand strong on your thoughts, on your values, and on your strength.........The only problem with that is you will find yourself around people that call you a "goober" and think that their use of an insulting word made them win a debate............

 

[Teflon Don]

A real classical conservative Republican first and foremost believes that America was not founded as a democracy, but rather to be a Representative Constitutional Republic whereby the people were to be governed by elected representation who’s service, loyalty and political endeavors were solely and strictly harnessed to the constitutional rule of law and not any whims and or prejudices of any majority of the population.

A real classical conservative Republican is anti-war who understands that most wars are simply racketeering scams except when attacked and then he/she is only willing to put the Republic into a war by a congressional declaration of war as mandated by the Constitution.

A real classical conservative Republican is a constitutional “liberal”, i. e. one who promotes and is loyal to the very liberal guarantees of “individual liberty” as mandated by the Constitution’s Bill Of Rights and amendments to the Constitution that promote and guarantee individual liberty.

A real classical conservative Republican is a true libertarian, (small l) who promotes State’s Rights, Gay Rights, Religious Rights, Gun Rights, Human Rights, Minority Rights, Majority Rights, Collective Rights and Individual Rights. He/she does not waver from the support of All Rights for humans as long as no Right of others is violated.

A real classical conservative Republican opposes the unconstitutional idiot failed authoritarian Drug War, unconstitutional federal corporate and social welfare and all actions taken by the federal government not authorized by the Constitution.

A real classical conservative Republican is a State’s Rights activist who knows that our Constitution gives the powers to the States and the people respectively to do all things not enumerated and authorized by the Constitution for the federal government to do thereby creating a “several States Laboratory” of political actions, (not in violation of the national Constitution), that by their very definition and nature will decide the very best direction for the nation as a whole because States can learn from States and people will learn from people until the very best actions of government and free people are established in accordance to the particulars of State’s locations, economic attractiveness, standard of living, education availability and abilities, individual talents and economic condition.

A real classical conservative Republican is in opposition to all federal actions that impose a “One Size Fits All” mandate on States and individuals except the One Size Fits All of human rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

You lost me on the fourth and fifth paragraphs. I am not saying I am a fan of the drug war, but I am not for legalizing drugs.

 

[Robo]

You lost me on the fourth and fifth paragraphs. I am not saying I am a fan of the drug war, but I am not for legalizing drugs.

( paragraph # 4)

A real classical conservative Republican is a true libertarian, (small l) who promotes State’s Rights, Gay Rights, Religious Rights, Gun Rights, Human Rights, Minority Rights, Majority Rights, Collective Rights and Individual Rights. He/she does not waver from the support of All Rights for humans as long as no Right of others is violated.

Then you oppose the promotion of ”ALL” human rights? Which human rights would you have government deny? Which humans would you have government deny rights to?


(paragraph #5)

A real classical conservative Republican opposes the unconstitutional idiot failed authoritarian Drug War, unconstitutional federal corporate and social welfare and all actions taken by the federal government not authorized by the Constitution.

So you agree with and promote the Drug War even though Congress found it necessary to pass an amendment to our Constitution in 1919 to prohibit the sale and distribution of alcohol, yet Nixon and no Congress ever even thought about an amendment to prohibit the sale and distribution of some drugs?

So you favor the huge, tax free profits that are being made by criminal types and terrorist from illegal drugs over a State regulated and taxed program similar to the sale and distribution of alcohol?

Then you favor the illegal drug market’s corruption of police forces and politicians, the violence it causes in our streets, the clogging up of our judicial system and overloading of our prisons and the violence it creates along our borders and the thousands of otherwise non-violent citizens it locks away in prisons over a State taxed and regulated system like we have for alcohol? Why would you favor that?

 

[Robo]

This will be fun........

" America was not founded as a democracy" WEIRD! Who let that cat out of the bag? Why did it change?

“Change” from what to what Goober? Do you even have a fucking clue?

By paragraph 2 you are obvious you don't know your bias "A real classical conservative Republican is anti-war who understands that most wars are simply racketeering scams"

Do you live on generalized ignorant statements and shades of gray, or are you willing to actually make a rational statement for once and articulate just exactly what your problem is with “the statement?” I won’t hold my breath for that Goober!

America was based on "federalist" vs "anti-federalist" not what we have kiddo. The humor is that you repeat the Federalists posts without thought when you stand as an Anti_federalist.

Would you care to interpret that truckload of gibberish into rational thought, or just leave it hanging in the wind of ignorance and stupidity?

You should learn to stand strong on your thoughts, on your values, and on your strength.........The only problem with that is you will find yourself around people that call you a "goober" and think that their use of an insulting word made them win a debate............

You should take your meds and have them put the straight-jacket back on Goober before you get violent and hurt yourself with your keyboard.

 

[Teflon Don]

( paragraph # 4)


Then you oppose the promotion of ”ALL” human rights? Which human rights would you have government deny? Which humans would you have government deny rights to?


(paragraph #5)


So you agree with and promote the Drug War even though Congress found it necessary to pass an amendment to our Constitution in 1919 to prohibit the sale and distribution of alcohol, yet Nixon and no Congress ever even thought about an amendment to prohibit the sale and distribution of some drugs?

So you favor the huge, tax free profits that are being made by criminal types and terrorist from illegal drugs over a State regulated and taxed program similar to the sale and distribution of alcohol?

Then you favor the illegal drug market’s corruption of police forces and politicians, the violence it causes in our streets, the clogging up of our judicial system and overloading of our prisons and the violence it creates along our borders and the thousands of otherwise non-violent citizens it locks away in prisons over a State taxed and regulated system like we have for alcohol? Why would you favor that?

I don't believe in "human rights". That is a BS liberal meme. I believe in individual ljberties

 

[Robo]

I don't believe in "human rights". That is a BS liberal meme. I believe in individual ljberties

So then you don't believe in the inalienable rights of all humans guaranteed by your creator. Interesting!

Apparently you have no problem with Nixon's unconstitutional violent, corrupt, insane failed fucking Drug War either since you fail to mention it again, right?

 

[Teflon Don]

So then you don't believe in the inalienable rights of all humans guaranteed by your creator. Interesting!

Apparently you have no problem with Nixon's unconstitutional violent, corrupt, insane failed fucking Drug War either since you fail to mention it again, right?

You and I probably agree on more than we disagree so if you want to pick a fight than fine.

I thought I made myself clear. I believe in individual liberty. I don't believe in "human rights" because it is too opaque and used by leftists to broaden the scope of government. I don't know how I can make myself any more clear

As for the drug war, this is a topic in which I struggle. I agree there is little the government can do to stop people from wanting to distort their reality, however I also believe it is naive to think just making drugs legal would solve all of our problems.

As for Nixon? I think he was a left wing loon whose only transgression against the left was going after the Rosenbergs.

 

[Robo]

You and I probably agree on more than we disagree so if you want to pick a fight than fine.

If arguing points of disagreement is “picking a fight,” I think that’s what everybody comes here for isn’t it?

I thought I made myself clear. I believe in individual liberty.

”individual” to who or what? Individual to just particular groups? Individual rights for rich folks or white folks, or politicians, or union members or non-union members, or black folks, or brown folks, or yellow or red folks? Or how about HUMAN folks? If we’re without prejudices and biases relative to the human race how do we not “believe in” HUMAN RIGHTS?” To say we don’t believe in human rights, is to say we don’t believe in rights for all humans.

I don't believe in "human rights" because it is too opaque and used by leftists to broaden the scope of government. I don't know how I can make myself any more clear.

You should be able to easily make yourself more clear by presenting evidence and or examples of that accusation. How has the left used human rights to broaden the scope of government? I’ll be interested to receive that knowledge.

As for the drug war, this is a topic in which I struggle. I agree there is little the government can do to stop people from wanting to distort their reality, however I also believe it is naive to think just making drugs legal would solve all of our problems.

Actually once upon a time all drugs were legal in America. There’s no historical evidence that America at that point in history was awash in addicts wallowing in the gutters and back alleys. Once upon a time the class (“A”) narcotic alcohol was illegal in America and all historical evidence shows an explosion of illegal speakeasies, criminals involved in a huge profit tax free illegal alcohol running marketplace, alcohol corrupted police and politicians, violence in our streets and on our borders, thousands of otherwise non-violent citizens in jail, the jails and judicial system in general clogged in an alcohol related quagmire. Now States regulate the sale and use of alcohol.

If drugs were decriminalized would there be more drug addicts? Maybe but there’s no evidence that decriminalizing alcohol created more drunks and alcoholics per-capita.

“Solving all of our problems?” That’s fantasy that only leftist and rightist believe in. Their answer for that is GOVERNMENT.

We never solve all of our problems or any of them completely. We simply make choices that either make our problems fewer or easier to contend with, or we make laws that make our problems worse. Walla! The Drug War.

 

[iolo]

Who Are The Real Classical Conservative Republicans?

They died in caves, thousands of years since, as a result of Cromagnon competition.

 

[Robo]

Who Are The Real Classical Conservative Republicans?

They died in caves, thousands of years since, as a result of Cromagnon competition.

Though on the threshold of extinction, they’re not all dead yet! They’re called constitutionalist and or libertarians.

 

[Teflon Don]

If arguing points of disagreement is “picking a fight,” I think that’s what everybody comes here for isn’t it?



”individual” to who or what? Individual to just particular groups? Individual rights for rich folks or white folks, or politicians, or union members or non-union members, or black folks, or brown folks, or yellow or red folks? Or how about HUMAN folks? If we’re without prejudices and biases relative to the human race how do we not “believe in” HUMAN RIGHTS?” To say we don’t believe in human rights, is to say we don’t believe in rights for all humans.



You should be able to easily make yourself more clear by presenting evidence and or examples of that accusation. How has the left used human rights to broaden the scope of government? I’ll be interested to receive that knowledge.



Actually once upon a time all drugs were legal in America. There’s no historical evidence that America at that point in history was awash in addicts wallowing in the gutters and back alleys. Once upon a time the class (“A”) narcotic alcohol was illegal in America and all historical evidence shows an explosion of illegal speakeasies, criminals involved in a huge profit tax free illegal alcohol running marketplace, alcohol corrupted police and politicians, violence in our streets and on our borders, thousands of otherwise non-violent citizens in jail, the jails and judicial system in general clogged in an alcohol related quagmire. Now States regulate the sale and use of alcohol.

If drugs were decriminalized would there be more drug addicts? Maybe but there’s no evidence that decriminalizing alcohol created more drunks and alcoholics per-capita.

“Solving all of our problems?” That’s fantasy that only leftist and rightist believe in. Their answer for that is GOVERNMENT.

We never solve all of our problems or any of them completely. We simply make choices that either make our problems fewer or easier to contend with, or we make laws that make our problems worse. Walla! The Drug War.

Have you ever heard the statement "brevity is the soul of wit"? Think about it.

People come here for many reasons. I guess if I don't share yours I am not a conservative?

You were the one speaking of groups of people. I don't. I believe in the individual. Yes I don't share your left wing view if human rights. But that is ok.

I also said I have mixed feelings about legalizing drugs.

If you think your haranguing is going to change my mind, you are sorely mistaken.

Maybe you need more fiber in your diet?

 

[Robo]

People come here for many reasons. I guess if I don't share yours I am not a conservative?

The only reasons I can see folks coming here would be to argue politics or to be amused by other folks arguing politics. I’ve noticed that you aren’t timid about the former. If I’m missing something I’m open to enlightenment.

You were the one speaking of groups of people. I don't. I believe in the individual. Yes I don't share your left wing view if human rights. But that is ok.

So then in your world political parties aren’t ”groups” of folks made up of individuals, they’re simply “individuals?” Government isn’t a “group” of people? Unions, charities, special interest, Wall Street, blacks, whites, Asians and Native Americans and Hispanics aren’t groups of folks made up of individuals? You’ve developed a talent to eradicate all collective human actions and realities from your vocabulary? I reckon that’s one way to reduce the redundancy and measurements of your dictionary and encyclopedia, I prefer a larger reference availability myself.

Might inquire what exactly is “leftwing” about my recognition of human rights?

I also said I have mixed feelings about legalizing drugs.

What’s to mix?

If you think your haranguing is going to change my mind, you are sorely mistaken.

So conversation and questioning is “forceful haranguing?”

I thought it might simply be rational peaceful exchange of ideological thought that might provide food for thought for both of us while I believe that the only people that can change a mind are the people owning the particular mind at issue.

Maybe you need more fiber in your diet?

Maybe you need a lot more explanation in your typing. You seem to be at a loss for same.

If I were “full of shit,” I’d be a Democrat or a Republican, I’m neither!

 

[Teflon Don]

The only reasons I can see folks coming here would be to argue politics or to be amused by other folks arguing politics. I’ve noticed that you aren’t timid about the former. If I’m missing something I’m open to enlightenment.

Well, if those are the only reasons you see, that must be it right? But, for the record, I am more amused by others arguing politics than actually arguing them myself. Sure, I will jump in there and mix it up on occasion. But, I enjoy watching you rubes play Big Indian/Little Indian.



So then in your world political parties aren’t ”groups” of folks made up of individuals, they’re simply “individuals?” Government isn’t a “group” of people? Unions, charities, special interest, Wall Street, blacks, whites, Asians and Native Americans and Hispanics aren’t groups of folks made up of individuals? You’ve developed a talent to eradicate all collective human actions and realities from your vocabulary? I reckon that’s one way to reduce the redundancy and measurements of your dictionary and encyclopedia, I prefer a larger reference availability myself.

Might inquire what exactly is “leftwing” about my recognition of human rights?

Here is a nice link for you to peruse from our friends at the United Nations on what they think are "human rights". One of them includes a right to employment. Do you think people have a right to employment? Another is a right to leisure time. Do you think people have a right to leisure time? I do not. As I have said, the term "human rights" is too subjective. I am more interested in individual rights of person and property. But, hey, you are free to believe what you want even if it is a left wing belief.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/


What’s to mix?

I think I have already said that my libertarian streak leans to just let people fuck themselves up and who should care, but life isn't that simple, people on drugs happen to fuck other peoples lives as well. So, I go back and forth on the issue. I am deeply sorry that it isn't good enough for you. To be honest, the drug issue isn't really high on my priority. But, it does seem to cause you great concern. Maybe, if I ever get this desire to please you, I might move it up on my priority list? I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

So conversation and questioning is “forceful haranguing?”

Yes, that is what you are doing. You are free to do it. Just don't expect to change my mind.

I thought it might simply be rational peaceful exchange of ideological thought that might provide food for thought for both of us while I believe that the only people that can change a mind are the people owning the particular mind at issue.



Maybe you need a lot more explanation in your typing. You seem to be at a loss for same.

If I were “full of shit,” I’d be a Democrat or a Republican, I’m neither!

Yeah, you are one of those "moderates" I hear so much about

Don't know how many more ways I can answer your questions. Maybe you are a bit like Desh?

 

[Robo]

Here is a nice link for you to peruse from our friends at the United Nations on what they think are "human rights". One of them includes a right to employment. Do you think people have a right to employment? Another is a right to leisure time. Do you think people have a right to leisure time? I do not. As I have said, the term "human rights" is too subjective. I am more interested in individual rights of person and property. But, hey, you are free to believe what you want even if it is a left wing belief.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Well I’ll just say that I don’t give a flying fuck what the United Nations says is Human Rights or anything else that comes from the International Den of Fucking Drunks and Socialist Morons. I’m sure that the commie left would also argue that “individual” rights include the right to employment and the right to leisure. That only proves that the commie left doesn’t know the difference between a “right” and a “privilege.” Human Rights in my world are ”life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and whatever private property one can peacefully acquire.

I think I have already said that my libertarian streak leans to just let people fuck themselves up and who should care, but life isn't that simple, people on drugs happen to fuck other peoples lives as well. So, I go back and forth on the issue.

The Drug War doesn’t prevent other people fucking up other people’s lives, it causes more people’s lives to be fucked up. You seem to be missing that point.

I am deeply sorry that it isn't good enough for you. To be honest, the drug issue isn't really high on my priority. But, it does seem to cause you great concern. Maybe, if I ever get this desire to please you, I might move it up on my priority list? I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

If I came here to be pleasured by other folks, I wouldn’t strive to be the “equal opportunity pisser offer” that I aspire to be when it comes to politics.

“Every” Constitutional violation perpetrated by government concerns me. I’m not at all sorry that seems to bother you!

Yes, that is what you are doing. You are free to do it. Just don't expect to change my mind.

I repeat, in my opinion the only person that can change a mind is the person owning the mind at issue.

Yeah, you are one of those "moderates" I hear so much about.

Looks as though you’re one of those people that confuses classical liberalism and constitutionalism with “moderation.” At least you’re in the “middle” with that accusation. The modern liberal, neo-commie left call me a radical knuckle dragging rightwing bastard and the neo-conservative RINOs call me a fucking leftwing idiot. The truth be known, I’m simply a Constitutionalist Classical Liberal, i. e. Bill Of Rights loyalist liberal, Limited Government Classical Conservative i. e. libertarian, (small l.)

Don't know how many more ways I can answer your questions. Maybe you are a bit like Desh?

Now I understand your assertion about “picking a fight.” Maybe I’ll start referring to you as that idiot Truth Detector’s little brother, how about that?

 

[Truth Detector]

Now I understand your assertion about “picking a fight.” Maybe I’ll start referring to you as that idiot Truth Detector’s little brother, how about that?

LMAO; it won't make you look any less stupid. The sad irony for an idiot like you is that the Don and I agree with many of your positions; but if we are not in lock step with some of your lunacy, we're "neocon" RINOS.

How old are you; seriously?

 

[Teflon Don]

Well I’ll just say that I don’t give a flying fuck what the United Nations says is Human Rights or anything else that comes from the International Den of Fucking Drunks and Socialist Morons. I’m sure that the commie left would also argue that “individual” rights include the right to employment and the right to leisure. That only proves that the commie left doesn’t know the difference between a “right” and a “privilege.” Human Rights in my world are ”life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and whatever private property one can peacefully acquire.

Whether you give a flying fuck about what the UN thinks or not is irrelevant to this conversation. What is relevant to this conversation is my reasoning for not believing in "human rights". I don't much care about your definition either. Which sort of bolsters my point in that there is too much subjectivity in the term "human rights? As I said I believe in individual liberty which I have never seen used by an organization to encompass a right to work, but maybe you can show me where it has been. As far as believing in "life, liberty the pursuit of happiness and private property", you and I agree on that. What you seem to want to get your panties in a wad over is whether or not I choose to use the term "human rights". I do not. So that we agree in principle seems to be irrelevant to you. You want to argue terminology. I am not going to play that game

The Drug War doesn’t prevent other people fucking up other people’s lives, it causes more people’s lives to be fucked up. You seem to be missing that point.

As I said, I didn't say that the drug war did prevent that. I am not missing any point. Apparently, I am not allowed to be conflicted on an issue? I am sorry. I will do my best to take a stand one way or the other so that you will be more pleased.

If I came here to be pleasured by other folks, I wouldn’t strive to be the “equal opportunity pisser offer” that I aspire to be when it comes to politics.

“Every” Constitutional violation perpetrated by government concerns me. I’m not at all sorry that seems to bother you!



I repeat, in my opinion the only person that can change a mind is the person owning the mind at issue.



Looks as though you’re one of those people that confuses classical liberalism and constitutionalism with “moderation.” At least you’re in the “middle” with that accusation. The modern liberal, neo-commie left call me a radical knuckle dragging rightwing bastard and the neo-conservative RINOs call me a fucking leftwing idiot. The truth be known, I’m simply a Constitutionalist Classical Liberal, i. e. Bill Of Rights loyalist liberal, Limited Government Classical Conservative i. e. libertarian, (small l.)



Now I understand your assertion about “picking a fight.” Maybe I’ll start referring to you as that idiot Truth Detector’s little brother, how about that?

Labels really don't matter to me, but they are apparently very important to you

 

[Robo]

LMAO;

Apparently you’re related to a fucking laughing hyena, huh Goober?

it won't make you look any less stupid.

If I’m so stupid how come you never rationally or successfully rebut anything I post? All you seem to have the talent to do is propagate insults and denial without a dime’s worth of actual evidence of anything.

The sad irony for an idiot like you is that the Don and I agree with many of your positions; but if we are not in lock step with some of your lunacy, we're "neocon" RINOS.

So you and Don agree with many positions of ”idiots” i. e. ME and you speak for Don, right Goober?

I don’t think you’re even a fucking RINO neo-con Goober, I think you’re more of just a plain brainwashed, brain-dead partisan more the equal of Desh.

How old are you; seriously?

I have 77 years, almost 78 of experienced wisdom, I’ve seen Goobers like you day after day. You haven’t a fucking clue! You never studied the Constitution and recognized the political trashing it’s suffered. You don’t give a flying fuck about constitutional government and all you know is rightwing talking points. Give you a phony Republican into a political office and you’re one happy giddy child.

 

[Truth Detector]

I have 77 years, almost 78 of experienced wisdom, I’ve seen Goobers like you day after day.

Wow, I am stunned; I expected you to be around 18. 78 and you still post like a brain dead teenager unable to communicate without cussing like a Construction worker and making very little sense in your naive prattle.

One thing for sure; you are giving Evince a run for her money.

I stopped responding to your lunacy for the same reason I stopped responding to Evinces; no one can argue with raving lunatics.

Carry on.

 

[Robo]

Whether you give a flying fuck about what the UN thinks or not is irrelevant to this conversation. What is relevant to this conversation is my reasoning for not believing in "human rights". I don't much care about your definition either. Which sort of bolsters my point in that there is too much subjectivity in the term "human rights? As I said I believe in individual liberty which I have never seen used by an organization to encompass a right to work, but maybe you can show me where it has been. As far as believing in "life, liberty the pursuit of happiness and private property", you and I agree on that. What you seem to want to get your panties in a wad over is whether or not I choose to use the term "human rights". I do not. So that we agree in principle seems to be irrelevant to you. You want to argue terminology. I am not going to play that game.

In the political world everything is “subjective” that politicos wish to make subjective. Doesn’t mean all subjectivity is rational.

You can of course interpret “Human Rights” however you like and contrary to your accusation, I never even came close to having “my shorts in a bunch” about your interpretation, (you’re making way too much about any interest I may have in you). I’m a libertarian, (small l), I believe in everybody’s right to think and do as they please as long as no right of anybody else is violated. Your opinion of Human Rights violates nobody’s rights that I know of.

As I said, I didn't say that the drug war did prevent that. I am not missing any point. Apparently, I am not allowed to be conflicted on an issue? I am sorry. I will do my best to take a stand one way or the other so that you will be more pleased.

You’re taking the conversation way to personal Don. I don’t have a dog in the fight of what your personal political struggles are. I’ve simply questioned your responses to particular issues and for some reason that seems to offend you.

I simply find it odd that people can’t seem to see the folly, incredible stupidity, willful government perpetrated violence and especially the violence to our Constitution of BIG government programs, laws and regulations like the Drug War and still have a problem with “mixed feelings” about it.

I think it’s a “no-brainer.” You’re opinion of it belongs to you, whatever.

Labels really don't matter to me, but they are apparently very important to you

If “labels” are the calling of ”spades as spades” I find much importance in them as long as they’re accurate. Besides, they can nicely add infuses to particulars.