I'm a Conservative Ask Me Anything.

Why are conservatives such as the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and Tea Party always filled with so much anger and hate?

 

You exposed your own agenda!

But that is your problem, not mine!

Name these "prime rights of the constitution" that I am allegedly "against" and prove that I am "against" them by quoting my posts.

 

Arguably protectionism and anti-globalization are not identical terms although they can be components of each other. What they do represent are that both protectionism and anti-globalization are juxtaposed to the tenets of capitalism but then again opposing immigration for the purpose of providing labor is also a violation of the fundamental tenets of capitalism. Goods and services, and labor is a service, must be able to travel freely across international borders under capitalism.

Trump was unquestionably promoting protectionism during his campaign with proposals like a 45% tariff of Chinese imports. That's pure protectionism.

We can also point out that opposition to labor unions and "closed shops" violates capitalism because the "closed shop" provision is based upon contract and laws that prohibit closed shops violate the right of voluntary contract between the workers and the enterprise.

Republicans are basically half-assed capitalists and half-assed Constitutionalist because they only support those principles of each that fit with their agenda and reject the rest.

 

What BS reply, conservatives don't hate welfare to deserving individuals, welfare and Medicaid/medicare fraud runs into the billions. that's what we HATE. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-charge-107-people-in-452-million-medicare-fraud-crackdown/
Corporations that receive the most 'welfare' are in Washington State and NY., Liberal bastions wouldn't you agree? Libs elect these givers so direct your ire toward them. I might add these corporations produce jobs and tax revenues..... and pay the one of the highest tax rates in the world.http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/...-corporate-welfare-recipients.html/?a=viewall

 

I think there are some gaps in your understanding.

This applies to separation from the British empire (which is abolishing that Gov't - despite the semantic nonsense you have attempted) but it is not limited to the British.

2) You do not seem to understand the concept of "Legitimacy of Authority" as per the declaration (which is based on the ideas of the enlightenment thinkers as per Classical Liberalism- not to be confused with the modern usage of the term Liberal).

The question at hand is "what is the legitimate authority of Gov't" - as per the "Social Contract" between "We the People" and Gov't.

If you can not answer this question the how does one determine whether or not the Gov't is "legitimate" - acting outside it's legitimate authority. The founders set up a system by which power of Gov't was supposed to be extremely limited.

I am sure you have heard the term "Limited Gov't" - Limited to what ?

If you do not know the limits of Gov't power then how would you know whether or not the Gov't is overstepping its bounds (has become destructive). That you are ignorant and blind to this destruction does not make arguments to the contrary "specious"

Again I need to question your understanding of "unalienable rights". I did not give a long list of these rights being destroyed ( if you are not aware of at least a few being violated than you must be living in a cave).

I suggest you start with the Patriot act - the bill which makes it our patriotic duty to give up individual liberty.
Then let me know whether you think the Gov't forcing personal/religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law) in making pot, prostitution and alcohol illegal - and why.
Then comment in arbitrary search and seizure violations and how this is within the legitimate authority of Gov't
After that please comment on currency restrictions and regulations are within the legitimate authority of Gov't.

You should comment a bit on Gov't transparency - or lack thereof - and whether or this operation with lack of oversight from "we the people" constitutes actions of a legitimate Gov't.

I am just getting started but, you already have much on your plate so I will leave it here for the moment.

 

What the hell is a "prime right" is the question.

The Declaration of Independence refers to "unalienable Rights" and lists three (Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness) but not all of them.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/fourth_july/full-text-declaration-independence/story?id=13976396

The First Principles of America also mentions "unalienable Rights" but doesn't list any.

http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/americas-first-principles.php

The primary architects of the American ideology often referred to the "natural Rights" (i.e. rights established by natural law) in specific cases.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/thomasjefferson/jeff1280.htm

When we get to the Constitution it includes natural rights, unalienable rights, statutory rights, and civil rights none of which are actually segregated into the different categories, and then, to top it all off it has the 9th Amendment that addresses unenumerated rights.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment9.html

So what the heck is a "prime right" in the Constitution and what relevance would it have?

 

Everyone with a job that doesn't provide a living wage is deserving of welfare. They have to be subsidized by government welfare assistance because if that doesn't happen then capitalism fails. Capitalism always requires that the "price of a necessary product/service" be equal to or greater than the "cost to provide the product/service" or capitalism fails.

A government subsidy that offsets under pricing is the only way to prevent the collapse if the minimum household costs of the worker are not less than their compensation from employment.

 

Do you think it is rude and/or opressive to harshly demand from people to be polite? No special contexts in the question, just asking an opinion.

 

Why does the black community often destroy its own neighborhoods whenever they decide to riot over some supposed injustice? Why do they loot the private businesses of individuals who had no involvement in the injustice, rather than turning their ire against those who are supposedly directly responsible?

 

Is anti-evolutionism a conservative idea?
Is intelligent design a conservative idea?
Does alt-right emerge from conservative ideas?
Is it a conservative idea to eliminate the Fed?
Is returning to the gold standard a conservative idea?
Is it a conservative idea that homosexuality is unnatural aberrant behavior?
Is it a conservative idea that the budget should be balance in all circumstances (i.e. War or economic collapse)?

 

Attempting to enforce "all or nothing thinking" to justify selectivity is a typical ploy of a cognitive infiltrator.

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_cyber_offensive2_nbc_document.pdf

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE95K0ZV20130621?irpc=932
"For decades, the NSA and GCHQ have worked as close partners, sharing intelligence under an arrangement known as the UKUSA agreement. They also collaborate with eavesdropping agencies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand under an arrangement known as the "Five Eyes" alliance."

 

This I deal with extensively. Under the constitution all rights are literally unalienable, even those not listed are retained and not to be disparaged. In the social sense, natural rights come from biological, phylogenetic DNA and all other rights are derived from reasonable extension of them. Or "Reason is the life of the law"~Coke

 

You are against them all because you deny the function of the right that protects all other rights. The ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity of the people to protect all rights. You deny and disparage the purpose which is warring on the constitution.

 

I've named them and you reject them. You expose yourself. Your entire act opposes them all because you refuse to accept the rights that protect all rights.

Sorry, you are not accountable enough to even bother trying, agent.

 

Unfortunately I was drawn into wasting quite a few posts exposing a cognitive infiltrator so my effort to get an answer to the second question was diverted.

Do you agree with 2)? Do you understand it yet?

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that Americans use the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech to enable the unity under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

 

Ironic!

Obviously you lack understanding of the term "abolish"!

Does the British government still exist? Yes or no?

If it still exists then the government (British) was not abolished.

Instead the RELATIONSHIP was abolished. Anyone with any knowledge of the British Empire knows that it continued to exist and perpetrate it's violations on other nations long after the DoI was written.

Fallacious allegations on your part are not my problem.

Thank you for exposing your own Libertarian agenda with the term "Classical Liberalism". Do you deny that this is your own interpretation of what it means?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Now compare that to the Google definition of Libertarianism.

As defined by the Law of the Land which is based upon the Constitution, the Amendments, legislation and Supreme Court decisions.

Specious allegations on your part are your problem, not mine.

The Libertarian Agenda again?

Yet another baseless allegation on your part.

Resorting to the gratuitous ad homs above does make your allegations specious.

The term refers to the FACT that rights cannot be DENIED by the government. However rights CAN be REGULATED by the government.

For example, Freedom of Expression does NOT grant anyone the right to incite violence. The government does have the authority to regulate Freedom of Expression to maintain law and order.

Libertarians, in my experience, have a problem comprehending that the term "unalienable" does not mean that they have UNLIMITED rights. Instead it means that their rights cannot be denied WITHIN the LIMITS imposed by government regulations.

To use another example the government can and does have the right to regulate when and where citizens can vote. What it cannot do is pass legislation that would deny a citizen their right to vote except under very defined circumstances such as criminal convictions.

This principle of unalienable rights not being denied but can be regulated applies across the board.

You can't give a "long list of these rights being destroyed" because that is something that only those who don't understand how rights actually work believe is happening.

The Bush/Cheney Patriot Act did egregiously attempt to DENY rights and those attempts were subsequently OVERTURNED by Supreme Court rulings.

Yet another Libertarian disinformation canard.

In case you haven't noticed We the People are making pot legal under the existing state governments of We the People. If it wasn't for Sessions it would probably be legal at the federal level before 2020.

Prostitution is legal in Nevada and could be any other state. The federal government does not actively patrol the streets and arrest prostitutes and johns. Instead the role of the federal government is to prevent sex trafficking, primarily of minors and aliens. That is a legitimate form of government regulation unless Libertarians are proponents of sex slavery which I very much doubt would be the case for any of them.

As far as alcohol goes the federal government is primarily interested in compliance with taxes which is a legitimate function of the government of We the People even if Libertarians don't understand that taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. {Oliver Wendell Holmes]

Onus is entirely on you to substantiate that allegation is actually happening WITHOUT the necessary court orders.

Are you alleging that the government of We the People does not have the authority per the Law of the Land to regulate the nation's currency?

There needs to be government transparency up to the point where it would compromise national security.

I can't wait!

 

What makes you imagine that you are the target of a "cognitive infiltrator"?

 

You are entitled to your misinformed opinion but that in no way reflects my position.

 

Gotta love it when paranoia is the motivation!

 

Destroying neighborhoods?

You mean like conservative Bush bombing Iraqi and Afghani villages to 'liberate' those innocents from Islamic terrorism?


Injustice?

Oh you mean like Bush laughing and celebrating himself as if he was a hero for killing thousands in the middle east and pretending to be innocent?



Or perhaps you mean how conservatives applaud Bush and his treason.

Why do conservatives applaud such evils???

 

Is it well & Good that Conservatives NOT Liberals now Run the
majority of our States and state governments.I think the Liberals
have control of just 5 states.
How does it feel to know finally We the People can breathe a
sign of needed relief.

 

Not exactly true....if that matters to you

 

Yes the sign of the Liberal Lion is nearly forever vanquished.
Not a Kennedy in Government.Now that's worth buying the next
round at the Pub.Hopefully a Nice Irish Pub.

 

Enough of a gist to want to buy a round.
If Democrats lose any more seats in Government they mise
well start a Comedy Channel instead.They joke and they know it.

 

And they are, what do you call earned income and child and dependent care credits? My daughter just started a lower income job and she paid about 2 k in income taxes and received a 7 k refund.