Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Pinocchio, your type of 'Conservative' is not the conservatives of the mainstream. You are outliers, somewhat similiar to the John Birch Society and other social con far right religious groups. We are not in the mainstream, and we will never be that.
We will not nominate a Cruz, Perry, Santorum, etc.
Your "Conservative philosophy is the same Conservatism articulated . . . articulated by Ted Cruz." Reagan would have very little to do with you.
Your "Conservative philosophy is the same Conservatism articulated . . . articulated by Ted Cruz." Reagan would have very little to do with you.
Why do you think Reagan would have little to do with me? Give us some examples!
Can you not articulate anything? Why do you keep making baseless statements and refuse to articulate further? Do you think this passes for intellectual discourse?
You're a loudmouth punk who apparently can't make any kind of reasonable argument to support your blather. You make these rash and unsupportable claims about people and then pretend you've somehow won something.
Pinocchio, your type of 'Conservative' is not the conservatives of the mainstream. You are outliers, somewhat similiar to the John Birch Society and other social con far right religious groups. We are not in the mainstream, and we will never be that.
We will not nominate a Cruz, Perry, Santorum, etc.
I did not like Reagan, mostly because Iran-Contra that threatened the troops because of his stupid, lying behavior. Ford was great, and I supported Nixon (then we found he was a crook, and Bush the Elder.
No, liar that the far Right you changed "progress" to "radical." It is a lie to call changing Rushdie's words "paraphrasing." But the far Right has nothing but lies.As usual you lie by the way you edited my post to create your Straw Man.Just because CON$ worship tradition as sacred does not exclude them, by definition, from being quite radical.
LMAO... Yeah, just because they oppose radicalism and favor tradition doesn't mean they aren't extremists! ...Do you even hear how stupid you sound?
Here is what you edited which you have now defined as "radicalism." You can't get any more far Right than that, but no matter how many times your OWN words expose you as an extremist you will still lie and deny it.
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes
- Salman Rushdie, (1947 - )
I didn't edit anything, I paraphrased what you said, which was basically that conservatives (who are opposed to radical change) are still radicals because YOU say so, and nothing more.
I've not said anything which has yet to be shown as "radical" or "extreme" in any way. I continue to repeat my request for any of you to articulate what the fuck you're talking about, and so far, all you can come up with is defense of the 2nd Amendment. Ooo... I'm a goddamn extremist wacko, I think we have the right to bear arms!
Not according to the Federalist Papers, as you well know!It is radicle to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that the INDIVIDUAL is guaranteed the right to bear arms in order to overthrow the government whenever he rationalizes he is protecting his individual liberty.
No one has stated this except YOU!
What you are doing is twisting the words of Sen. Cruz in order to make you inane point. You are inferring things that were not said.
And... Constitution's Bill of Rights applies to individuals! Yes, the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals who do have the right to defend their property and ultimately, their country in the event of a tyrannical overthrow of government in order to restore democracy. I'm sorry if you don't think we should have the right to defend our country from the overthrow of tyrants. I suggest you move to China or Russia where people have no freedom or rights.
Some guns are useful only for assault, warfare, murder or mayhem - like the so-called 'assault weapons' AKA 'combat' firearms. Law-abiding civilians have no legitimate interest in assault, warfare, murder, or mayhem. Therefore, law-abiding civilians have no legitimate interest in combat firearms.Your "Conservative philosophy is the same Conservatism articulated . . . articulated by Ted Cruz." Reagan would have very little to do with you.
Why do you think Reagan would have little to do with me? Give us some examples!
Not according to the Federalist Papers, as you well know!It is radicle to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that the INDIVIDUAL is guaranteed the right to bear arms in order to overthrow the government whenever he rationalizes he is protecting his individual liberty.
No one has stated this except YOU!
What you are doing is twisting the words of Sen. Cruz in order to make you inane point. You are inferring things that were not said.
And... Constitution's Bill of Rights applies to individuals! Yes, the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals who do have the right to defend their property and ultimately, their country in the event of a tyrannical overthrow of government in order to restore democracy. I'm sorry if you don't think we should have the right to defend our country from the overthrow of tyrants. I suggest you move to China or Russia where people have no freedom or rights.
The amendment’s author, Federalist James Madison, articulated that its purpose was to split the military power of the new nation between the states and the federal government. But he also made it clear that any opposition to federal tyranny would come from state militia forces “conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.”
The individual right to bear arms is made in the argument for strong state militias.
No, it is your affirmation, so you give me the examples.
That is the affirmation's duty.
I am a calm, quiet manner mild reporter who has no trouble outing your claims you are a Conservative, a mainstream believer in Americanism, far righr does not exist, etc.
No, you don't carry it off. Stop making claims and give solid evidence.
I did not like Reagan, mostly because Iran-Contra that threatened the troops because of his stupid, lying behavior. Ford was great, and I supported Nixon (then we found he was a crook, and Bush the Elder.
The radical extremist Crus never once mentioned the state, not a single time, but mentioned the individual 4 times. His subject line for his insurrectionist rant was, "2nd Amendment against tyranny."Not according to the Federalist Papers, as you well know!It is radicle to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that the INDIVIDUAL is guaranteed the right to bear arms in order to overthrow the government whenever he rationalizes he is protecting his individual liberty.
No one has stated this except YOU!
What you are doing is twisting the words of Sen. Cruz in order to make you inane point. You are inferring things that were not said.
And... Constitution's Bill of Rights applies to individuals! Yes, the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals who do have the right to defend their property and ultimately, their country in the event of a tyrannical overthrow of government in order to restore democracy. I'm sorry if you don't think we should have the right to defend our country from the overthrow of tyrants. I suggest you move to China or Russia where people have no freedom or rights.
The amendment’s author, Federalist James Madison, articulated that its purpose was to split the military power of the new nation between the states and the federal government. But he also made it clear that any opposition to federal tyranny would come from state militia forces “conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.”
But he also made it clear that any opposition to federal tyranny would come from state militia forces...
Hence the phrase "well-formed militia" in the 2nd Amendment.
Has Cruz said anything about citizens taking up arms against the government? No.
I know Madison better than you, I can assure you. What you are now trying to do is sidle up to Madison's argument for strong state militias as if that somehow makes your argument that Cruz opposes Madison. Who the hell do you think state militias are made of? Foreigners?
I don't think Ted Cruz thinks individual people ought to have the right to revolt and overthrow the government on their own without the state. If you have something he has said to that effect, you are more than welcome to show us. Trying to twist and distort his comments out of context by doing some pretty amazing acrobatics is not going to work.
There's no such thing as a 'Far-Right'.
The radical extremist Crus never once mentioned the state, not a single time, but mentioned the individual 4 times. His subject line for his insurrectionist rant was, "2nd Amendment against tyranny."Not according to the Federalist Papers, as you well know!It is radicle to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that the INDIVIDUAL is guaranteed the right to bear arms in order to overthrow the government whenever he rationalizes he is protecting his individual liberty.
No one has stated this except YOU!
What you are doing is twisting the words of Sen. Cruz in order to make you inane point. You are inferring things that were not said.
And... Constitution's Bill of Rights applies to individuals! Yes, the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals who do have the right to defend their property and ultimately, their country in the event of a tyrannical overthrow of government in order to restore democracy. I'm sorry if you don't think we should have the right to defend our country from the overthrow of tyrants. I suggest you move to China or Russia where people have no freedom or rights.
The amendment’s author, Federalist James Madison, articulated that its purpose was to split the military power of the new nation between the states and the federal government. But he also made it clear that any opposition to federal tyranny would come from state militia forces “conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.”
But he also made it clear that any opposition to federal tyranny would come from state militia forces...
Hence the phrase "well-formed militia" in the 2nd Amendment.
Has Cruz said anything about citizens taking up arms against the government? No.
I know Madison better than you, I can assure you. What you are now trying to do is sidle up to Madison's argument for strong state militias as if that somehow makes your argument that Cruz opposes Madison. Who the hell do you think state militias are made of? Foreigners?
I don't think Ted Cruz thinks individual people ought to have the right to revolt and overthrow the government on their own without the state. If you have something he has said to that effect, you are more than welcome to show us. Trying to twist and distort his comments out of context by doing some pretty amazing acrobatics is not going to work.
The idea that guns protect Americans against government encroachment is a dangerously slippery one. One man’s liberty encroachment is another man’s law enforcement, ala Bundy ranch. Such a view when it boils down to it is not the philosophy of patriotic citizens ready to defend their liberties-no matter how it is presented. It is, in truth, part and parcel of a terrorist ideology.
Every suicide bomber can, after all, use the same excuse. Casting aside the democratic system altogether, disregarding the power of representative government, ignoring the law of the land for the sake of a noble truth, indisputable right or principle, all of these things belong to the terrorist mentality. History gives us plenty of proof that fighting tyrants is the creed of most political terrorists. John Wilkes Booth, for example, after murdering the president in cold blood at Ford's Theatre, Booth lept down to the stage and shouted at the audience, "Sic semper tyrannis" which means in Latin "Thus always to tyrants."
Liar!Cruz has said nothing about guns protecting people from government encroachment.
At least you finally tried. I have been saying you are making claims for which you have offered no proof except your opinion, which is a circular argument. Finally, you offer some analysis. He expanded the size of government and spent money like crazy on the credit card to defeat the USSR: RR would not have supported a balanced budget that would have prevented him from spending money. What you think is immaterial: give us evidence he would have abolished the IRS. Reforming SS is a goal of everyone.No, it is your affirmation, so you give me the examples.
That is the affirmation's duty.
I am a calm, quiet manner mild reporter who has no trouble outing your claims you are a Conservative, a mainstream believer in Americanism, far righr does not exist, etc.
No, you don't carry it off. Stop making claims and give solid evidence.
Huh? You made a statement: "Reagan wouldn't have anything to do with you." Now you are saying that I have to disprove you statement? I have to prove Reagan would have something to do with me?
Well okay... I think he would certainly like my idea of a balanced budget amendment. I don't think he would have any problem with my idea of abolishing the IRS or reforming Social Security. I think he would support me on having a strong national defense. So the way I see it, I think there is ample evidence that Reagan would adore me.
Now can you not support your allegation? Because here in the real world where the rest of us live, that's what you have to do when you make an allegation about someone. If you can't, then you are a blowhard and a joke. A role that suits you well!
