Where I stand... because this has apparently been confusing to people...

It has come to my attention that even people who have known me since p.com days still don't understand that I affiliate with the republican party. Not just affiliate, I am an activist.

On the first days of p.com I registered on that board as a libertarian-leaning Republican. This is what I have always been. I believe in personal liberties and am a strong constitutionalist. Shoot when I was nine I hand copied the constitution and hung that copy in my room, along with hand written "The New Colossus" and (of course) the Declaration of Independence, many flags from the original with 13 stars to the current flag... I'm not kidding. This isn't something my parents did to me, it was something that I believed in...

When I say I believe in personal liberties it means I disagree with the platform on some issues, particularly:

I have always been for Gay Marriage, though I believe that the government should never have been involved with choosing your partners other than to ensure that nobody was victimized. Laws should be against involving minors in marriage (and no, "parental permission" is not good enough, children do not have the capacity to make these lifetime-altering decisions regardless of parental "permission"), or bigamy where one or more partners are unaware of the circumstances (married to two women/men, but the both or one of the women/men do not know of the other for instance). Laws shouldn't exist that give government gifts to one type of relationship over another, because it is none of their business and the constitution simply doesn't give the federal government that kind of power of the minutiae of our lives. This involves 1st Amendment freedoms as well, in that the government pretty much passed anti-bigamy laws to stop "Mormons" from taking more than one wife. If all involved are adults and know the circumstances it is not the place of the government to judge the worthiness of their relationship/s.

I am also anti-prohibition. I believe that such laws only generate the violence that always comes with black-market turf wars and that you should have the ability to wreck your own life if you are an adult. At best, government should involve themselves in helping people out of addiction, not cutting off safe and violence free supply while doing nothing about the demand side of the issue.

I am against the death penalty. I believe a lifetime in prison is enough without government directed murder. The simple reality that we have released so many prisoners since the advent of DNA should compel any intelligent being to understand that even with "confessions" innocents have been imprisoned and executed in the past. This isn't good enough.

While I do have some disagreements with the platform, I do not have the central disagreement that I have with the Democratic Party that cannot see an "issue" without trying to resolve it through laws and corrupted government bureaucracies. On this board, in my experience, and in political culture I see a fundamental divide with that party and my beliefs that cannot be overcome because in every circumstance the first reaction is to pass laws where less government would be the answer that I would work towards. For example, gay marriage... I believe that government shouldn't be involved at all as I explained before, but democrats work towards laws, court decisions, etc. that just add to a list of government-blessed specific and listed relationships. This conflicts with a central belief of mine that the government should not be involved at this level of my, your, or anyone's life.


This is all relatively simplified, but it should be enough to clear up any confusion of where I stand, have always stood, and have never hidden:

I am a Republican, albeit a libertarian (small l) constitutionalist Republican. I am an activist for constitutionalism, limiting the scope of the Federal Government (not to "bring back" any "good ole days" but because I believe that personal liberty is so valuable that it is worth some risk), and I will continue to be an activist for this particular belief. In this I supported candidates like Rand Paul when they are running. I did vote for Trump, but not because I like Trump but because I understand that the President appoints judges and justices and that no democrat will nominate a strict constitutionalist as a judge on any appeals court or as a justice on the supreme court and in no small measure because I could in no way support somebody who broke laws that would have had me still in prison had I taken the same action they did when I was a Russian Translator in the Navy.

Anyway, sorry for the wall of text. I haven't explained this often enough in the past if people I have "known" on this board are still confused as to what party I have always, from the beginning, affiliated myself with.

I can, of course, go more in depth when I have the time and inclination and will use this thread to go there. I hereby designate this as the "ask Damocles" thread where I will try to explain my stances. I promise you this: I will not denigrate or insult you, I will simply and directly try to answer your question honestly regardless of how you ask it herein.

We disagree on some issues but then that is normal and healthy for the country. Thanks for making your position clear. I will close with this parting message.


ptbq7C8.png
 
Damocles: "It could be, thus the child would be available for adoption in a system that would allow adoption much easier and cheaper.'
Jack: Just my opinion, you would have so MANY babies, you couldn't GIVE them all away.

duubt it.....I go to a church of around 160 families......over 25 adopted kids.....
 
OPie, you didn't need to write us a novel full of chicken-shit excuses for being a Republican!

We get it! If Donald Trump asks you to come down and jump into the fire- you are going to do a back flip with a 2 1/2 gainer right into the fire!

Does anyone else have any other weak excuses for supporting Donald Trump and the hi-jacked Donald Trump Republican party?
 
OPie, you didn't need to write us a novel full of chicken-shit excuses for being a Republican!

We get it! If Donald Trump asks you to come down and jump into the fire- you are going to do a back flip with a 2 1/2 gainer right into the fire!

Does anyone else have any other weak excuses for supporting Donald Trump and the hi-jacked Donald Trump Republican party?

Yes, he isn't Hillary.
 
Frank, I read your posts.

Good.

I read yours.

Some I enjoy.


You've gone off the deep end.

I have NOT gone off the deep end.

American conservatism HAS GONE OFF THE DEEP END...

...and people like you refuse to see it.

Bad for you.

Bad for all of us.


Your acute disrespect for those who see things (even slightly) differently than you is obvious.

I have lots of respect for people who see things differently from me...slightly and considerably.

I have NO respect for American conservatism any more.

Remove the people who are racist, misogynistic, and the hypocrites opposed to abortion because of what they suppose some god expects of them...and American conservatives could hold national conventions in a local Elks Club.

American conservatism, RB, is one of the most disgusting political philosophies ever to infest planet Earth. Develop some self-respect and move away from them. You will be a better person for it.
 
Meade? Did you have to do the crypto course at Goodfellow? If you did we may have known each other.

I did, however I did take an additional 6 months of Russian at DLI and did not reach Goodfellow until January of 91.
 
I'm specifically talking about what Kamala Harris did to Kavanaugh. I think she should be kicked out of the Senate and barred from holding public office in the future for what she did.

Are you talking about that edited monstrosity where she took him talking about a case and removed portions of the sentence to make it sound like he was talking about his opinion? Under current law I think you would have to prove damages, and the fact he was confirmed regardless of her worst effort would make that difficult. It is also difficult in a land of the 1st Amendment and political speech to punish people for even direct slander in a political sense. People in politics consistently obfuscate about the "other party" and I am not sure it would be good to start putting political opponents in prison/firing political opponents for it... It would be just one small step away from the "disappearing" people in the old USSR that weren't walking the party line.
 
Are you talking about that edited monstrosity where she took him talking about a case and removed portions of the sentence to make it sound like he was talking about his opinion? Under current law I think you would have to prove damages, and the fact he was confirmed regardless of her worst effort would make that difficult. It is also difficult in a land of the 1st Amendment and political speech to punish people for even direct slander in a political sense. People in politics consistently obfuscate about the "other party" and I am not sure it would be good to start putting political opponents in prison/firing political opponents for it... It would be just one small step away from the "disappearing" people in the old USSR that weren't walking the party line.

No. I'm talking about the "anonymous" letter with no return address detailing a rape by Kavanaugh and a friend in a car.
 
OK. I have another question. I will use fictitious names so that there won't be any bias here.
Let's say there is a 'Moderator' here who publicly informs a person that he is on 'Forced Ignore' with another person but gives no rhyme or reason why. When asked about this, let's just call her 'Moderator A', says this person, let's call him 'Jack', has to discuss this 'privately'. Now 'Jack', and the other person, let's call her 'Owl', have not requested a 'Forced Ignore'. This 'Jack' person was never 'Notified' privately or informed about this other than in a Public Format. So ... since this was ALL Public, why all of a sudden is there now a demand for 'secrecy'?

Also, Moderator A claims there were a cabal of other Moderators that agreed to this 'muzzling' of free expression of these two Forum participants without the consent or knowledge of either.

PS: No rush on this, Damocles. It's 'Tuesday Discount Nite at the Movies' and I will be back ("A Simple Favor") afterwards.




It has come to my attention that even people who have known me since p.com days still don't understand that I affiliate with the republican party. Not just affiliate, I am an activist.

On the first days of p.com I registered on that board as a libertarian-leaning Republican. This is what I have always been. I believe in personal liberties and am a strong constitutionalist. Shoot when I was nine I hand copied the constitution and hung that copy in my room, along with hand written "The New Colossus" and (of course) the Declaration of Independence, many flags from the original with 13 stars to the current flag... I'm not kidding. This isn't something my parents did to me, it was something that I believed in...

When I say I believe in personal liberties it means I disagree with the platform on some issues, particularly:

I have always been for Gay Marriage, though I believe that the government should never have been involved with choosing your partners other than to ensure that nobody was victimized. Laws should be against involving minors in marriage (and no, "parental permission" is not good enough, children do not have the capacity to make these lifetime-altering decisions regardless of parental "permission"), or bigamy where one or more partners are unaware of the circumstances (married to two women/men, but the both or one of the women/men do not know of the other for instance). Laws shouldn't exist that give government gifts to one type of relationship over another, because it is none of their business and the constitution simply doesn't give the federal government that kind of power of the minutiae of our lives. This involves 1st Amendment freedoms as well, in that the government pretty much passed anti-bigamy laws to stop "Mormons" from taking more than one wife. If all involved are adults and know the circumstances it is not the place of the government to judge the worthiness of their relationship/s.

I am also anti-prohibition. I believe that such laws only generate the violence that always comes with black-market turf wars and that you should have the ability to wreck your own life if you are an adult. At best, government should involve themselves in helping people out of addiction, not cutting off safe and violence free supply while doing nothing about the demand side of the issue.

I am against the death penalty. I believe a lifetime in prison is enough without government directed murder. The simple reality that we have released so many prisoners since the advent of DNA should compel any intelligent being to understand that even with "confessions" innocents have been imprisoned and executed in the past. This isn't good enough.

While I do have some disagreements with the platform, I do not have the central disagreement that I have with the Democratic Party that cannot see an "issue" without trying to resolve it through laws and corrupted government bureaucracies. On this board, in my experience, and in political culture I see a fundamental divide with that party and my beliefs that cannot be overcome because in every circumstance the first reaction is to pass laws where less government would be the answer that I would work towards. For example, gay marriage... I believe that government shouldn't be involved at all as I explained before, but democrats work towards laws, court decisions, etc. that just add to a list of government-blessed specific and listed relationships. This conflicts with a central belief of mine that the government should not be involved at this level of my, your, or anyone's life.


This is all relatively simplified, but it should be enough to clear up any confusion of where I stand, have always stood, and have never hidden:

I am a Republican, albeit a libertarian (small l) constitutionalist Republican. I am an activist for constitutionalism, limiting the scope of the Federal Government (not to "bring back" any "good ole days" but because I believe that personal liberty is so valuable that it is worth some risk), and I will continue to be an activist for this particular belief. In this I supported candidates like Rand Paul when they are running. I did vote for Trump, but not because I like Trump but because I understand that the President appoints judges and justices and that no democrat will nominate a strict constitutionalist as a judge on any appeals court or as a justice on the supreme court and in no small measure because I could in no way support somebody who broke laws that would have had me still in prison had I taken the same action they did when I was a Russian Translator in the Navy.

Anyway, sorry for the wall of text. I haven't explained this often enough in the past if people I have "known" on this board are still confused as to what party I have always, from the beginning, affiliated myself with.

I can, of course, go more in depth when I have the time and inclination and will use this thread to go there. I hereby designate this as the "ask Damocles" thread where I will try to explain my stances. I promise you this: I will not denigrate or insult you, I will simply and directly try to answer your question honestly regardless of how you ask it herein.
 
OK. I have another question. I will use fictitious names so that there won't be any bias here.
Let's say there is a 'Moderator' here who publicly informs a person that he is on 'Forced Ignore' with another person but gives no rhyme or reason why. When asked about this, let's just call her 'Moderator A', says this person, let's call him 'Jack', has to discuss this 'privately'. Now 'Jack', and the other person, let's call her 'Owl', have not requested a 'Forced Ignore'. This 'Jack' person was never 'Notified' privately or informed about this other than in a Public Format. So ... since this was ALL Public, why all of a sudden is there now a demand for 'secrecy'?

Also, Moderator A claims there were a cabal of other Moderators that agreed to this 'muzzling' of free expression of these two Forum participants without the consent or knowledge of either.

PS: No rush on this, Damocles. It's 'Tuesday Discount Nite at the Movies' and I will be back ("A Simple Favor") afterwards.

16. Any issues with the Moderation of the board must be taken up in PM with the jpp.com staff.
 
Back
Top