I'm a Conservative Ask Me Anything.

Yes, but my understanding of conservative advocacy is that conservative principles are really just the most natural way of living... natural law, etc. for that reason, I would assume that ancient societies would have naturally embodied these principles?

 

OK fine. When I see the hatred espoused on this board...I'll ask again on that thread

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/23/fema-targets-climate-change-denier-governors-could/

The Obama administration has issued new guidelines that could make it harder for governors who deny climate change to obtain federal disaster-preparedness funds.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s new rules could put some Republican governors in a bind. The rules say that states’ risk assessments must include “consideration of changing environmental or climate conditions that may affect and influence the long-term vulnerability from hazards in the state.”

The policy, which goes into effect in March 2016, doesn’t affect federal money for relief after a hurricane, flood, or other natural disaster. But states seeking disaster preparedness money from Washington will be required to assess how climate change threatens their communities, a requirement that wasn’t included in FEMA’s 2008 guidelines.

FEMA said it “recognizes there exists inherent uncertainty about future conditions, and will work with states to identify tools and approaches that enable decision-making to reduce risks and increase resilience from a changing climate.”

“An understanding of vulnerabilities will assist with prioritizing mitigation actions and policies that reduce risk from future events,” the agency said.

Among the GOP governors who could face a difficult decision are Rick Scott of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Pat McCrory of North Carolina and Greg Abbott of Texas.

From the fema website directly on the matter: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-...67/signed_climate_change_policy_statement.pdf

Meaning only that scientists believe human activity is in some way related to the concept of global warming. But it does not state that they believe it is a significant, overwhelming connection. Nor does it mean they have any actual evidence to show the two are linked. At best it is nothing more than a consensus that they are willing to speculate about it being possible.

Causation does not equal correlation.

It is impossible to say with certainty that human activity is indeed the overwhelming aspect responsible for a change in the temperature of the planet. This is not the equivalent of working a jigsaw puzzle where everything is neat, orderly, and divided up into pieces that cleanly fit together in an undeniable fashion. It is nothing more than guesswork and speculation, guided by science of questionable validity, in a highly politicized fashion that breeds distrust and suspicion.

As have all political parties, making one no different than the other.

All of which amounts to nothing if those that are young and healthy do not participate, because the fine for noncompliance is more affordable than the premiums of whatever insurance policies are available. The fine does not even go towards supporting the elderly and the ill, which it would not even come close to doing, it goes directly to the internal revenue service for their use.

So the claim goes by those that are advocates of the affordable care act. What are their credentials that confirm them as being more verified than those who state the regulatory changes brought forth by the affordable care act have stymied economic growth and development by companies wishing to start up, but are unable to comply with the countless regulations in place?

Put simply, why should one be believed over the other?

Just as the system will collapse if significant portions of the public cannot afford insurance, cannot use insurance, and simply will not purchase insurance.

And higher insurance rates means fewer individuals are able to actually afford the available policies, meaning they cannot be used, which means the situation is no better. Realistically all that is changed, is the ability to claim that more individuals carry health insurance. That ultimately means nothing in the discussion if it cannot be used.

Because it does not fit the narrative that illegal immigration is a victimless crime.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...grant-theft-of-ssns-irs-chief/article/2588288

However the huffington post is indeed reporting on such.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-levin/irs-stop-letting-taxpayer_b_9844642.html

Then what you are attempting to claim, is that those who are entering the united states illegally are not committing various crimes, not because they are not motivated, but simply because they are too incompetent and stupid to know how to make such efforts work?

Who went about actually debunking the myths?

Beyond such, refer to the above citations about illegal immigrants filing tax returns with stolen social security numbers.

 

Yes I do think that if a government becomes tyranical we as the people have the right to abolish said government

 

But the next part that gives the right its teeth, its functionality, is neglected. What enables the unity required to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights if it is not free speech. Consider that the framers took the people appreciation of independence for granted and did not foresee that we would become dependent; and not even know how to use our right, under law, to free speech manifesting the right to alter or abolish; IF there was some way to share with everyone.

This one is covered.
1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

But this one needs to be secured so the first one can manifest.
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.

 

Again the way you have worded this for some reason confuses me. What exactly are you trying to say. Specifically #2

 

That is agreed with. The presentation leaves much to be desired in terms of clarity.

 

So, are you saying that if you can find a handful of small fringe groups on the left that are racist, that justifies racism by the President of the United States and by some of his closest advisers?

 

If you read the actual document that your right-wing news is spinning it simply says that FEMA will take climate change into account when allocating funding since climate change is causing damage it will allocate funds to those areas. It didn't say that it will give less money to states with governors who deny climate change. You just got yourself fooled. Maybe you should get your news from credible sources and not get your information from fake news.

The consensus measured is that humans are the primary cause of global warming. You should look at the actual wording on these studies rather than just making this up. Here is one of these studies. See it for yourself.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

While a scientific consensus doesn't prove global warming when 97% of experts come to the same conclusion this is very strong evidence is true, since 97% of experts are far more likely to be right than you are.

That isn't what i asked. Let me try again. Is it possible for scientists to determine the likely cause of a temperature change? Yes or no?

You basically ignored my points. Increasing the subsidy will make healthcare more affordable for them to purchase and healthcare will be a better deal for them rather than paying the fine. Also loostening the requirements for healthcare plans will make them cheaper and more affordable. We can also increase the fine to encourage them to sign on. You blame Obamacare for the cost but the cost wasn't Obamacare's fault and is the result of the existing system.

You can go out and check for yourself. Before Obamacare the uninsured rate with 18% now it is 9%. It looks like when you are presented with facts that conflict with your ideology you start spinning up conspiracy theories instead of confronting reality.

The system was collapsing before Obamacare and healthcare costs rose from 12% of the GDP to 18% from 2000 and there were 50 million uninsured. With Obamacare the costs relative to GDP have stopped rising and the uninsured rate has been cut in half. Obamacare helps make it easier for people to afford healthcare.

Higher insurance rates for plans that cover more is a problem and that is what the medicare expansion and subsidies were for to help pay for that. While more has to be paid for insurance that means more is covered so when something goes seriously wrong you don't go bankrupt trying to pay out of pocket because its a preexisting condition that isn't covered. Also the limits on how much more the sick can be charged means that if you get sick you aren't landed with crazy bills, isn't health insurance supposed to be for the sick in the first place?

If you actually read the HuffingtonPost article it doesn't say who stole those social security numbers. They could be US hackers, Chinese hackers, or East European hackers, not necessarily unedicated illegal Mexicans working on some farm. It mentions that some illegals will use stolen social security numbers but doesn't specify how many. So what is the evidence 1 million numbers are used by illegals?

You can claim media bias but Fox News is right wing and would have jumped at the chance to run this juicy story. Give me the video footage of this testimony or at least specific quotes from specific people in the IRS who said the 1 million social security numbers were stolen by illegals and how they know this. You really need to stop trusting fake news you find the internet.

Identity theft isn't something anyone can do. It takes skill and training. Most illegals don't even have high school education.

 

that's not at all what I am saying, you are putting words into my mouth that I in now way said.

 

What if the parents can't afford to send their kids to a private school?
Are you suggesting my tax $$$$ go to a school who's primary goal is to make a profit?
Where do we send problem kids to school, by problem, I mean the 25% or so that don't want to be there?
Where do kids with special needs go to school? Who pays for their education?

 

So the question is then - have we reached that point ?

The principles on which this nation was founded, on which the constitution and law are supposed to be interpreted, and which give an indication of where that line are found in the Declaration of Independence.

1) Individual rights an freedoms were put "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. Gov't power was to be very limited "Limited to what" ?

Only acts which are injurious to others - protection from harm one person on another. Rights end where the nose of another begins and this is where Gov't authority begins and ends.

2) The authority of Gov't comes from "We the People" .. as opposed to "divine right/God" as was the case in the past.

The Gov't is not to make "any" law outside its legitimate purview and especially it is not to mess with individual liberty as it has no legitimate authority to do this. If a law is being considered which is in a grey area - the people must be consulted.

The bar is not (50+1) this was referred to as "Tyranny of the Majority". If simple majority was enough then there would be no point in putting individual liberty "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't as every elected official has a simple majority mandate.

The reason "We the People" gave power to an authority was for protection from harm (Murder, Rape, Theft and so on).

There are few people that think Murder should be legal. There is "overwhelming majority" agreement - at least 2/3rds.

The bar is no different for any other law.

On the basis of the founding principles of this nation - the Gov't should be abolished. Every member of SCOTUS should be fired for dereliction of duty - failing to interpret the constitution and law on the basis of our founding principles.

We are living in "Tyranny of the Majority - and minority in many cases"

The founders created a system where the authority/power of Gov't was limited. For 200 years Gov't has been trying to get that power back - and they have succeeded.

 

Which one would that be exactly?

Right wing?
Conservative?
Or Libertarian?

Quite frankly I don't see any "intellectual" or "moral bankruptcy" in what the OP has posted so far.

Care to clarify what you are alleging to be "intellectually and morally bankrupt??

 

There are some who think the morals all should follow stem from voices they hear in their head. Most here are christian. And most say the voice is the holy spirit.
In other words, everyone should follow their personal belief. But each of those who hear voices have a different moral to follow.

 

Nowhere in Article 5 does it stipulate that the purpose is to "abolish government".

The DoI is NOT part of the Constitution and therefore does not apply to Article 5 which was written about a decade later.

 

The problem with those that would impose their own "morality" is that they are the ones who tend to be "intellectually bankrupt" because they ignore the fact that not everyone agrees with their "morality".

The classic example of "moral bankruptcy" being the issue of gay marriage. Only heterosexuals were allowed to marry and the "moralists" looked down upon gays because they weren't married. And to compound the "moral bankruptcy" they flatly refused to allow gays to marry the consenting adult of their choice. There is no way that "morality" made any intellectual sense which is why it was "morally bankrupt".

And yes, you are right that it was the voices in their heads that convinced them that their "morality" was correct even though it was a clear violation of the Constitutional right to equality under the Law of the Land.

 

A question answers that question best.

If the framers intended for us to have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish if it was NOT free speech?

 

The FRAMERS did not intend to "abolish government" when they wrote the Constitution. They intended for Constitution to be AMENDED, not abolished.

 

Hmm, the clarity is easily supplied yourself by simply answering this question.

If the framers intended for us to have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish if it was NOT free speech?

 

No one said anything about abolishing the constitution you misrepresenter.

Abolish the government destructive to unalienable rights. And through Article V, an equivilant can lawfully happen you gatekeeper you.

 

Ironic since it is you that is doing all the misrepresentation here.

Here are YOUR own words;

The government of We the People was FRAMED by the Constitution.

Since YOU are using the term "abolish government" and the only government referred to in the Constitution is the one FOR the People and BY the People then that MUST be the government that you want to abolish.

 

For one thing they embraced the idea that you work or you die. Most of the time in the ancient world people that worked like they should were lucky to even live if they did work hard, those that didn't work hard died as there weren't liberals to give government welfare. Not saying I want thing's to go back to that but it's what happened.

Also due to the limited choice in partners there weren't many openly gay, sure it happened as did many thing's but people counted on the normal family structure as children would often be given work to do before the age of 10. Again I don't want 10 year old kids to flipping burgers but it's what often happened.

I honestly think this is kind of a silly question as I think you likely know this stuff but want to claim conservatives want to go back 2000+ years and while I am sure a person like that exist it's not what most people that claim they lean to the right or claim to be conservative want.

 

And yet we have Republicans embracing the corporate use of child labor in other nations in order to enrich the 1% here in the USA.

 

Seems to be globalist more than anything but sure it's all republicans doing it, never a democrat like Hillary supporting such thing's nope not in a million years.

Both party's have many globalist in them and they all support this shipping of jobs overseas where child labor is used. But then when pointing that out it's racist as those in my own collage class claim.

 

It was the Republican/Libertarian failed "free market" agenda that caused hardworking Americans to lose their jobs that were outsourced to 3rd world child labor nations. To argue otherwise is to deny the reality of what actually happened.