Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Barakistan

Why don't you refer to hypocrites as hypocrites instead of referring to them as conservatives? The word conservative has a meaning which is quite the opposite of that which you attribute to it. If folks calling themselves libertarians started advocating big imperial government, would you do them the courtesy of calling them libertarians, or would you call them hypocrites instead?

VAnimrod calling out for a modicum of respect on the Campfire. This, from the guy being legally threatened by a WOMAN over his utter lack of any kind of reasonable civility- on the frikkin' INTERNET no less! This, from the guy who stands out as the single person MOST LACKING in basic respect for other people.

Think about what it takes, to push someone to the point of a lawsuit, over words on the internet.

Will wonders never cease.

Yup, he used to be quite popular, even among people who didn't agree with him. Everybody would have said he was a great guy. Something like, say, isaac is today.

Sometime later, though, his behavior convinced a significant portion of the population here that he was either a real buttwad or just chronically miserable about something. (Since I knew him before, I hesitate to believe that he's really a buttwad and just successfully deceived all of us for so long, but the second theory may have some merit.)

Why the change? I don't know if anyone knows for sure, but several things happened in his life between Time A and Time B.

One of them was that he got married.

You're losing it, dude. Empire, last I checked, was not one of the founding principles of the United States. The forces of empire won the Civil War against the forces of constitutional republicanism in the United States. That's what explains our current course. Not that we are Americans.

The kiss of death for many but not for you and I. We have keepers.

Ok, point taken.

I suppose I thought it was clear that I was saying that they were NOT conservatives, though!

But also, TRH, as I've said before around here, I get confused as heck as to what a conservative is or isn't. Put it this way. Toltecgriz, Steve, Isaac, etc have gone out of their way to tell me you are NOT one! And you've made it clear that you don't think they are.

And I know that by any "Campfire" definition, I'm not one. Yet, I look at my "conservative" friends, and I look at my life and how I've lived it, and [bleep] if I don't think that I've lived it more "conservatively" thay they have!

It drives me nuckin' futs, to be honest. I get eviscerated around here for not being conservative, and yet, it's a term that has no meaning. Not anything you can get your hands around it's throat, anyway.

Actually, I think most folks would tell you that marrying Penny significantly reduced the amount of buttwaddity I tended to spread around.

There you go.

If you're looking for internal consistency, though, neither conservatism nor liberalism will make you happy.

A look at the objective definition of a conservative may assist you in this regard. A conservative, in the context of the United States, is someone who thinks it essential that the principles upon which this nation was founded be CONSERVED. As between myself and the others you mentioned, which of us comes closest to the objective definition of a conservative?

Story of my life, which is why I'm not a particularly political person.

That, and the fact that when you step back and look at it, there really isn't much functional difference between the two parties. Oh, they keep their bases all fired up over the BS social-war issues, but in the end, it's the same results.

But the Forces of Empire were there from the beginning. The US has always wanted an Empire. Well that's not totally true. The Anglo-Saxons who primarily settled the North wanted a empire. The South settled primarily by Anglo-Celtic did not want a empire.

The constitution and federal government was set up primarily to build empire. The confederalists, primarily Anglo-Celtic, wanted a Swiss style confederacy. No empire building in that. The original constitution was flawed from the beginning hence the reason for the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was an effort by the confederalists to put the brakes on the federalists and their empire building.

This has been the prime argument from day one: From the Federalists, conservatives, neoconservatives build an empire, from the confederalists no empire building. What confederalists want is a limited government, lazaire faire (sp?) capitalism, unlimited freedom to pursue our happiness as we see fit.

As I've said, I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that there is nothing that can save the present nation-state.

This nation was founder. I like that little typo!

By that definition, TRH, you've got it all over those guys in spades. Mainly due to their global militarism, but also because I don't routinely see you hammering on the religious social issues either.

The point they avoid- emphatically- is that you can't say you are both pro-small-goverment, and pro-big-military. Pick one.

Exactly. There was a split, but the forces of constitutional republicanism held sway until 1860. After that, each side took up arms against the other to decide anew which would hold sway in the United States.Naturally the Constitution was flawed. Everything this side of paradise is flawed to one degree or another. But to paraphrase Churchill, it created the worst possible form of national government, except for anything else that's been tried.No, not "unlimited freedom to pursue our happiness as we see fit." That would be anarchy, and that only results, due to immutable human nature, in its quick replacement by tyranny. What the Founders hoped to achieve was liberty, quite distinct from "total freedom to pursue our happiness as we see fit." Liberty is that state in which we are free only to do those things that we have a right to do, while the power of the state is restrained by the rule of law.

... whoops, missed a point.

A person cannot also say they are pro-personal freedom... and then be willing to lock people up over drug use.

They can't say they are pro-Constitution... then advocate what amounts to a state religion- Christianity.

etc.

Drives me nuckin' futs, as I said... grin...

Absolutely correct. Those would be hypocrites, not conservatives.

PS I fixed your mistake. The US Constitution determines things national, not (for the most part) state-level. I think the only thing the US Constitution imposes on the states is "a republican form of government."

For a look at how well anarchy works, look no further than Papau New Guinea.

JeffObama, could you please find a douche and wash the sand out of your mangina?

Not only are you off-base, but you're behind the curve.

Go figure.

And, someone will have to draw you a freakin' picture to even give you a chance of catching up.

An insult to my marriage? Wow.................

Ain't even gonna go there today.

B; the ONLY things that you do here are prattle on about a utopia that is impossible, about how wonderful your scumbag prisoners are, and about how worthless military personnel are.

Given that two of those three REALLY piss me off, is there any wonder that I'm not all sugar and honey toward you?

As for what kind of man I am, those that know me know that. Those that don't, well, you're guessing.

That you don't, is still a given. How 'bout checkin' with those that do?

Naw, that'd require something like proof, and a change of your world view; two things that thus far seem to be about as attractive to you as garlic is to Nesferatu.

Hey, JeffObama, how about explaining this one (on the other thread, please), since your messiah is still just that:
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthread...hn_Holdren_Obama_s_Science_C#Post3289149

The problem with people using drugs is the market it creates. To see the results of a free market drug use, look at Mexico. They're cutting heads off people and rolling them down the floor in dance halls to intimidate. It's near-anarchy there as well, at least no one responsible is in charge. That country demonstrates two bally-hooed concepts(or more) at once.

At any rate, few people go to jail for drug use any more. Selling drugs, yep. Put them away for a looooong time. Else the U.S. becomes like Mexico.