THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Quote:

Dave, are you losing it?
I am surprised that even you would waste all that time writing that patent crapola.

Sorry, Ad; I thought that the concept was simple
and that u 'd have no trouble understanding it.
( For many centuries and millenia,
philosophers and lawyers have had no difficulty in comprehension of it. )
It appears that I overestimated your intelligence;
my apologies.

Quote:

BTW, is it conservative to engage in massive government spending
on a giant credit card (running up the national debt)?

No.

Quote:

Liberal Clinton ran surpluses.
Is it conservative to lie the country into a war (as Bush has done)?

As Roosevelt did, after he campaigned for pacificism and isolationism in 1940,
before he provoked Japan into attacking us,
as a backdoor into the war against the nazis ?

We have no business remaining in Iraq.
The war is no longer defensive.
It is now just a giant charity project for the Iraqians
and a waste of American soldiers' lives n American treasure.
Our mission was complete and successfully accomplished when we arrested Saddam, YEARS ago.
We did not go there to make Iraq a NICE PLACE.

Quote:

Is it conservative to allow one in three people to go without, or with inadequate, health insurance?

YES.
Absolutely YES.
That is a historical fact.
U will search in vain for any historian who 'll assert
that government was created to spread heath insurance thru the citizenry.

Quote:

Is it conservative to massively subsidize
highly-profitable energy and health insurance firms (as the Reps have done)?

No; that is none of government 's business.
Government was never granted power
to get involved in that.
The social and political contract that brought government into existence
was and is the US Constitution.
Government was based upon the concept of its being
like a stinky little sparrow-fart, in the background of life
with which the average citizen seldom came into contact.
( I think thay shud have put a flatulent sparrow on the American Flag,
to represent government, bashfully hiding in one corner thereof. )

It was concieved of as staying out of economic matters,
for the most part, except insofar as international relations n tarriffs.

THE BUSHES WERE NEVER CONSERVATIVES.
When Reagan put Bush on his ticket to balance
his own conservatism, I deemed it a mistake and said so.
David

Quote:
Dave, are you losing it?
I am surprised that even you would waste all that time writing that patent crapola.

Sorry, Ad; I thought that the concept was simple
and that u 'd have no trouble understanding it.
( For many centuries and millenia,
philosophers and lawyers have had no difficulty in comprehension of it. )
It appears that I overestimated your intelligence;
my apologies.

DAVE, I CONCEDE THAT YOU ARE HALF A WIT.





Quote:
BTW, is it conservative to engage in massive government spending
on a giant credit card (running up the national debt)?

No.

THEN WHY IS IT THAT ONE NEVER READS OF A CONSERVATIVE WHO OPPOSES BUSH'S BORROW AND SPEND POLICIES. CERTAINLY ALL THE REPS IN CONGRESS, TO A MAN, HAVE BACKED HIM IN EVERYTHING.




Quote:
Liberal Clinton ran surpluses.
Is it conservative to lie the country into a war (as Bush has done)?

As Roosevelt did, after he campaigned for pacificism and isolationism in 1940,
before he provoked Japan into attacking us,
as a backdoor into the war against the nazis ?

ROOSEVELT DID NOT LIE US INTO A WAR.

We have no business remaining in Iraq.
The war is no longer defensive.
It is now just a giant charity project for the Iraqians
and a waste of American soldiers' lives n American treasure.
Our mission was complete and successfully accomplished when we arrested Saddam, YEARS ago.
We did not go there to make Iraq a NICE PLACE.

YOU ARE THE EXCEPTION WHO PROVED THE RULE.



Quote:

Is it conservative to allow one in three people to go without, or with inadequate, health insurance?

YES.
Absolutely YES.
That is a historical fact.
U will search in vain for any historian who 'll assert
that government was created to spread heath insurance thru the citizenry.

IT IS UNPATRIOTIC AND BAD FOR THE COUNTRY TO ALLOW THIS TERRIBLE SITUATION TO FESTER.




Quote:

Is it conservative to massively subsidize
highly-profitable energy and health insurance firms (as the Reps have done)?

No; that is none of government 's business.
Government was never granted power
to get involved in that.

ONE NEVER READS OF A CONSERVATIVE WHO HAS OPPOSED THIS SOCIALISM FOR THE WEALTHY.

The social and political contract that brought government into existence
was and is the US Constitution.
Government was based upon the concept of its being
like a stinky little sparrow-fart, in the background of life
with which the average citizen seldom came into contact.
( I think thay shud have put a flatulent sparrow on the American Flag,
to represent government, bashfully hiding in one corner thereof. )

MOST OF WHAT NOW EXISTS WAS NOT, AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN, CONTEMPLATED WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS DRAFTED. YOU HAVE NO SPECIAL UNDERSTANDING WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED.

It was concieved of as staying out of economic matters,
for the most part, except insofar as international relations n tarriffs.

THE BUSHES WERE NEVER CONSERVATIVES.
When Reagan put Bush on his ticket to balance
his own conservatism, I deemed it a mistake and said so.
David

ONE NEVER READS ABOUT A SINGLE CONSERVATIVE OPPOSING BUSH'S ECONOMICS, ETC.

I REST MY CASE.

Quote:

See my comments in caps.

OK

Quote:

Advocate wrote:

Quote:
Dave, are you losing it?
I am surprised that even you would waste all that time writing that patent crapola.

Sorry, Ad; I thought that the concept was simple
and that u 'd have no trouble understanding it.
( For many centuries and millenia,
philosophers and lawyers have had no difficulty in comprehension of it. )
It appears that I overestimated your intelligence;
my apologies.

DAVE, I CONCEDE THAT YOU ARE HALF A WIT.

OK; maybe I shud have understood that u don 't have the mental equipment
to have comprehended the concept,
as simple as it is; sorry.
( I hope I did not strain your brain
from the pain of stretching for new intellectual gain. )

Quote:

Quote:
BTW, is it conservative to engage in massive government spending
on a giant credit card (running up the national debt)?

No.

THEN WHY IS IT THAT ONE NEVER READS OF A CONSERVATIVE
WHO OPPOSES BUSH'S BORROW AND SPEND POLICIES.
CERTAINLY ALL THE REPS IN CONGRESS, TO A MAN, HAVE BACKED HIM IN EVERYTHING.

How about William F. Buckley, Jr. ?
Do u claim that HE backs those policies ?

Quote:

Quote:
Liberal Clinton ran surpluses.
Is it conservative to lie the country into a war (as Bush has done)?

As Roosevelt did, after he campaigned for pacificism and isolationism in 1940,
before he provoked Japan into attacking us,
as a backdoor into the war against the nazis ?

ROOSEVELT DID NOT LIE US INTO A WAR.

He did, in that he campaigned for pacifism & isolationism in 1940,
when he was planning to enter WWII, by provoking the Japs.
Entering the war was the correct thing to do.
America 's safety depended on defeating the Japs n National Socialists.

Quote:

Quote:

Is it conservative to allow one in three people to go without, or with inadequate, health insurance?

YES.
Absolutely YES.
That is a historical fact.
U will search in vain for any historian who 'll assert
that government was created to spread heath insurance thru the citizenry.

IT IS UNPATRIOTIC AND BAD FOR THE COUNTRY TO ALLOW THIS TERRIBLE SITUATION TO FESTER.

Your opinion of the definition of " bad "
is only your personal subjective opinion,
like your choice of a favorite color.

Quote:

Quote:

Is it conservative to massively subsidize
highly-profitable energy and health insurance firms (as the Reps have done)?

No; that is none of government 's business.
Government was never granted power
to get involved in that.

ONE NEVER READS OF A CONSERVATIVE WHO HAS OPPOSED THIS SOCIALISM FOR THE WEALTHY.

There shud be no socialism for anyone,
but if the Constitution is perverted by socialism for the poor,
then, in fairness, there shud also be socialism for the rich.
Government is supposed to be evenhanded,
not pick its favorites.

Quote:

The social and political contract that brought government into existence
was and is the US Constitution.
Government was based upon the concept of its being
like a stinky little sparrow-fart, in the background of life
with which the average citizen seldom came into contact.
( I think thay shud have put a flatulent sparrow on the American Flag,
to represent government, bashfully hiding in one corner thereof. )

MOST OF WHAT NOW EXISTS WAS NOT, AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN,
CONTEMPLATED WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS DRAFTED.

Regardless of how true or false that allegation may be,
no one 's ignorance adds to the jurisdiction of government.
Government does not gain additional jurisdiction,
if its creators did not know something.

Quote:

YOU HAVE NO SPECIAL UNDERSTANDING WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED.

It is very ez to know
what thay intended simply by reading their writings; no problem.
Thay were lucid and eloquent; thay remain so, in their immortal writings



It was conceived of as staying out of economic matters,
for the most part, except insofar as international relations n tariffs.

Quote:

THE BUSHES WERE NEVER CONSERVATIVES.
When Reagan put Bush on his ticket to balance
his own conservatism, I deemed it a mistake and said so.
David

ONE NEVER READS ABOUT A SINGLE CONSERVATIVE
OPPOSING BUSH'S ECONOMICS, ETC.

Conservatives shud be more vociferous n loquacious.

Quote:

I REST MY CASE.

U don 't have a case.

Buckley is the exception who proved the rule.

Quote:

Few of the founding fathers wrote about their thinking in constructing the constitution. They purposely avoided any approved legislative history, and kept their ongoing discussions secret.

Ever hear of the Federalist Papers ?
or the Anti-federalist Papers ?

The contemporary press is well preserved; ( as r the Founders' private letters ).
We know the temper of the times.
U will find no refuge in ignorance.

Quote:

Dave, it seems that the arteries feeding your brain have calcified. Have you seen anyone about this?

Multiple yuks.

Regarding the Federalist Papers, Wikipedia states:

The amount of deference that should be given to the Federalist Papers in constitutional interpretation has always been somewhat controversial. As early as 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous case McCulloch v. Maryland, that "the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained." Madison himself believed not only that The Federalist Papers were not a direct expression of the ideas of the Founders, but that those ideas themselves, and the "debates and incidental decisions of the Convention," should not be viewed as having any "authoritative character."
In short, "the legitimate meaning of the Instrument
must be derived from the text itself."

Half, you referred to an "off-color remark." A literal person might ask how a remark can have a color. BTW, what is the remark to which you referred.

Clinton got the government in a surplus mode. It is clear that, had Gore won, the national debt probably would have been eliminated by now.

Few of the founding fathers wrote about their thinking in constructing the constitution. They purposely avoided any approved legislative history, and kept their ongoing discussions secret.

Basic reality is that the constitution would never have been accepted
by a majority of the states without the bill of rights
and that for anybody to want to rescind any part of the bill of rights
retroactively amounts to a form of treachery and double dealing.

Gunga, rescinding a right retroactively would be ex post facto and illegal. But a conservative may be dumb enough to try that.