Second Worst President in US History.

[williatw]

Who suggested Regan or the dems(of Reagan's congress) started the entitlements? But they blew up under Reagan he signed the budgets, "trying" to hold the line on spending isn't good enough when you are president. Again he is as responsible as the dems the 2nd he signs the budgets.

The problem is the political process - "You want more for DOD? We want more for program xxx." Otherwise gridlock.

If you were a deep student of the American political process you would know this.

How does that contradict what I said? I said they (dems & reagan) were both responsible, the budgets were of their mutual creation.

[williatw]

Perhaps you will eventually get so old and wise that you will become a conservative.

Fat chance Diogenes I couldn't afford the necessary surgery on my health insurance. The one where they stick that tube in my ear suck out half my brain and replace it with bovine excrement.

Why should you need something done twice? What you need now is a bullshitectomy which I am trying to give you if you will just hold still. This may hurt a bit.

There is an optimal position in the relationship between government and men, and that is the conservative position.

That is borderline delusional...but what do you expect from "Reagan was the best president since washington", oh please you so think he was better that washington..you think he was the greatest thing ever in the history of the world.

[MSimon]

williatw,

Well it was Reagan who won the cold war. (My chance to gore your ox). The Soviet economy was creaking along and the politics of the day said "accommodate". Reagan sad, "We will do a defense build up that they can't match which will change the correlation of forces." He did and it did. Bye bye USSR.

He presided over the last chapter of the cold war and navigated it to a somewhat successful conclusion. He contributed to the solidarity movement in Poland with the aid of the Pope, that was pretty clever enlisting him. He was also aided by the gullibility of Gorbachev(Glasnost?!). However the current head of russia is the "democratically elected" former KGB agent Putin.
I am not being gored by Diogenes...he is more like an old guy who can't find his glasses screaming at the coat rack thinking it is me.

Nothing ever ends permanently. The phase just changes.

[MSimon]

There is an optimal position in the relationship between government and men, and that is the conservative position.

That is borderline delusional...but what do you expect from "Reagan was the best president since washington", oh please you so think he was better that washington..you think he was the greatest thing ever in the history of the world.

Actually it is delusional. It assumes a static universe. Utopia.

For instance people like a bigger government when there is a war on than when there isn't. How big? Depends on the war.

And optimal? Would that be within 10% of the exact number? 1% ? .1%?

And what is the optimal government aboard ship? A Republic?

What is the correct number of representatives in your Republic? One per million? One per ten?

And could you give me the exact formula?

[Diogenes]

D says,

Abraham Lincoln established the power of Federal Supremacy. He did a lot of blatantly illegal things, and he set the stage for subsequent views on what is regarded as legitimate Federal involvement.

I answer the Lincoln Question here:

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/07/a-me ... n-keep-it/

Let me just post here the punch lines:

Slavery had a similar effect on our political system.

Evidently no elite gives way willingly for the betterment of the human condition. So be it.

====

The South killed (or at least greatly weakened) the Federal system by being unwilling to give up slavery..

Not sure what you mean here. If you mean "Federalism", it still doesn't make any sense. Slavery was legal at the time, andLincoln Himself said he would keep it legal if that would preserve the Union.

Lincoln would save the Union at any cost, towards slavery. In August, 1862 Lincoln wrote a letter to Horace Greeley, an editor of the New York Tribune, who published an open letter insisting President Lincoln free the slaves immediately. In Lincoln's reply he wrote "If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that" (Voices of America, p.138). Lincoln objective was to save the Union, not to either save or destroy slavery.

Of course this flies in the face of the founding as well. We broke off from England with the words"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. "

Does anyone think that England didn't want to preserve the Union too? The Founders fought for the principle that people had a right to separate themselves from another people.



The Federal Government emerged from the civil war as a leviathan with ferocious powers that no one would have anticipated at the founding. Indeed, the Federalists argued that no such thing as the civil war could happen under the new constitution. So if you mean the Federal Government was weaker as a result of slavery, that doesn't make sense either. The Federal government grew stronger as a result of the conflict over slavery.


Slavery was a wicked institution, the consequences of which we are still living with today. It has begot a wicked legacy after it.

And you, D, weaken it as well by your attachment to Federal Drug Prohibition. So what do you want most? To punish dopers or to begin the restoration of Federalism?

If we let the dopers spread the disease, we will have no use for Federalism anyway. Massive addiction will make a nation ungovernable by any but a dictator. That is the lesson I see from China's experience with drugs.

They are incommensurate. Raich would have overturned Wickard. Our "Conservatives" were ecstatic to hear that the government was going to give the dopers another pounding at the expense of their own supposed cause (limiting Federal power and rolling back the New Deal jurisprudence).

Read the Thomas dissent if you want to read what a conservative thought about the matter. Here is the beginning:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

I

Respondents’ local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce … among the several States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power. The majority supports this conclusion by invoking, without explanation, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Regulating respondents’ conduct, however, is not “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” Congress’ restrictions on the interstate drug trade. Art. I, §8, cl. 18. Thus, neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to regulate respondents’ conduct.

Or this piece:

http://spectator.org/archives/2005/06/0 ... a-v-thomas


Too funny. If it weren't so tragic.

I don't regard the commerce clause as the source of Federal power regarding drug usage. I regard the proper clause of the Constitution to be the one which empowers the Federal government to defend the nation from attack by enemies foreign and domestic. The spread of Drug usage is an attack upon the workings of our society. It is no different as far as I am concerned, from spreading a deadly disease, and therefore I regard it as an attack against the people of this nation.

If the National government has the rightful authority to interdict such things as poison gas intended for attacks on our citizens, they likewise have the rightful authority to interdict other poisonous substances as well.

[TDPerk]

Actually, the formula is easy.

It's you can swing your fist as long as it doesn't head for someone's nose. As long as you aren't breaking anyone's knees or picking their pockets.

Diogenes deal is conservatism, is Progressivism 1.0, goo-goo nonsense. First time-around, we got the Nation, Carrie'd whoopee!

Not that this isn't true:

"There is an optimal position in the relationship between government and men, and that is the conservative position."

It's that the conservative position in America, courtesy of the Revolution, Constitution, and civil war amendments, is libertarian. Not what Diogenes thinks is conservative.

Burkean conservatism in not American, either in origin nor in practice.

[Diogenes]

There is also the "B" reason I believe my idea isn't done. If you required them to work gov would be tasked with finding something for them to do. How would gov respond to that? By arm-twisting private companies to hire as many of them any way they could. Got a gov contract or certain percentage of your business with fed, state, or local gov? Then meet your new ex-welfare employee.

So your argument is that it is better for all concerned, to pay them to stay at home and remain stupid? I don't know what the consequences of educating people will be, but I cannot countenance a policy that spends money and achieves no positive benefit. If we are going to spend the money anyway, we might as well educate the people.

It would be like affirmative action on steroids...and we know how much largely white male republican business owners loved affirmative action. So you have the public service unions(largely dem, accept for maybe police & fire), and the small, medium or large business owners(largely republican). Enough votes there on both sides to explain why nothing changed much regardless of which party was in charge. That’s why unlike you I blame dem and rep(or cons or libs) equally for causing & maintaining this mess. I mean on a different subject the bad housing loans...to here republicans tell it, it's all on Barney Frank's shoulders.

Not at all. I blame Jimmy Carter for starting it. He initiated the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) which started tabulating racial data regarding home loans. People predicted at the time that any inequity would eventually be used to justify more federal interference in an effort to rectify it. Right on Cue, Bill Clinton looked at the data accumulated from Carter's CRA, and decided that Minorities were being discriminated against in housing loans, and this was just intolerable!

Clinton worked to make sure Fredie Mac and Fannie May started backing loans to minorities under conditions that would previously have kept banks from lending the money. His policies gave us LIAR (Low Income Adjustable Rate) loans, and other financial monstrosities.

Barney Frank, in his position of oversight, saw nothing wrong with pushing banks to loan money to bad risk clients.

So here is the chain of causality. Democrat President Jimmy Carter. Democrat President Bill Clinton. Democrat Rep. Barney Frank. You can throw in a lot of other Democrats as well, but these guys are the founders of this disaster.

Like your to obtuse to realize the committee chairmanships in the house(or senate) usually automatically revert to the party in charge. When the repub's took over under Clinton, Frank should have been removed almost automatically. They were in charge for 12yrs, 6 under a repub president, the Repub bare as much or more blame for leaving Frank head of the committee, you only get to say it’s not your fault when you’re not in charge.

I really don't have time to keep pointing out all the places where you are wrong and ignorant. It would help us both if you would learn some of this stuff for yourself. The Republicans tried to stop a bunch of this nonsense, but they couldn't get the votes.

http://www.bucksright.com/bush-proposed ... -2003-1141


Read the d@mn links and GROW UP!

[MSimon]

Actually, the formula is easy.

It's you can swing your fist as long as it doesn't head for someone's nose. As long as you aren't breaking anyone's knees or picking their pockets.

Diogenes deal is conservatism, is Progressivism 1.0, goo-goo nonsense. First time-around, we got the Nation, Carrie'd whoopee!

Not that this isn't true:

"There is an optimal position in the relationship between government and men, and that is the conservative position."

It's that the conservative position in America, courtesy of the Revolution, Constitution, and civil war amendments, is libertarian. Not what Diogenes thinks is conservative.

Burkean conservatism in not American, either in origin nor in practice.

What Burke did not get is that Liberty and Authority are incommensurate.

The difference between the current Left and Right in America is the areas in which they will allow Liberty and the areas they would apply Authority.

The only way to square that circle is to strictly limit Authority and to allow the Liberties of the Left and the Liberties of the Right.

The above may be a clearer exposition of what I mean by two Progressive Parties. Or not.

I do not see any significant difference in the philosophies of the two parties. Just areas of application. Thus the Left enables the Right and the Right enables the the Left. The result is more and more Authority and less and less Liberty. The ratchet only moves in one direction until it comes against a stop and breaks.

The breaking point is not far off.

Kathy's comment here is instructive:

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/07/the- ... rebellion/

The libertarian view is neither master nor slave.

The Hayekean view is that no master is smart enough to deal with 300 million slaves.

[MSimon]

D,

Funny that Drugs did not start attacking the nation until they were outlawed Federally in 1914. It wonders me how we survived hundreds of years of "attacks" before we made the laws.

How did we allow opium user Franklin and opium grower Jefferson to found a nation based on Liberty?

When did Alcohol begin attacking the nation? From the very beginning. The attacks only became unweatherable when alcohol was outlawed.

And what does enabling the idea of prohibition get you? A thousand prohibitions from the left.

You have no objection to the ideas of the left. Only the areas in which they are applied. A very weak reed. Because you can't stand on principle - "no prohibition" but can only argue the merits of individual cases. And that means your liberty depends on the will/whim of the electorate. You have now given up the Republic and are living in a Democracy. Are you having fun yet?

[MSimon]

D,

What did Samuel tell his brethren when they begged for an authority (king)? It might be wise to review his predictions. Authority MUST be enforced. Benevolent authority can be a blessing. But not all authorities are benevolent. What happens when the power you have given the benevolent authority is used by an authority with evil intent?

Welcome to Obamaland brother. Enjoy your stay.

[MSimon]

D,

You have given the government power over substances. The only question left is which ones. Let us put it to a vote.

[Diogenes]

It would be like affirmative action on steroids...and we know how much largely white male republican business owners loved affirmative action.

It has to do with ability. Republicans are into the money. You really have a warped understanding. If there were people with ability out there who were undiscovered as a class Republicans would find them and profit.

The reason for AA is that most in such classes are unprofitable. Sorry 'bout that.

====

D,

Progressive: with the right laws and government guns (the right calls it the nanny state) man can be perfected or at least greatly improved.

That fits your "Conservative" philosophy to a T.

No it does not. Conservative philosophy recognizes the flaws in mankind, and doesn't presume that they can change them. It is the socialists who believe in the "new man" and that natural human behavior can be modified. It cannot.

For crying out loud, the very existence of the capitalist philosophy is a recognition that people will be motivated by private greed, and often thereby produce a public good. (or service.)

It bears no relationship to the Conservatives of 1900.

You are using relative terms. This concept depends very heavily on what you mean by the word "conservative." I refer to the Burkean philosophy of Social and Economic relationships.

BTW Republicans would win elections forever if they gave up their version of the nanny state. Just watch - the Ds will be on the ropes after the coming election and the Right will start in on its religious crusades as they always do when in power and in 4 or 8 years it will be the Republicans back on the ropes. What is it about "leave us alone" that you don't understand?

You presume too much thinking and intelligence on the part of voters. Most of them are not motivated by anything remotely resembling a thoughtful analysis of current governmental conditions and activities. Most of them are of the attitude, "This channel is boring, let's see what else is on."

Yeah, they'll want a change in some period of years, but it won't be because they had an intellectual epiphany.

What is it about Hayek and the knowledge problem that you don't understand?

Nothing that I am aware of, but that is the nature of ignorance. We are often unaware that we don't know something.

Progressivism is good for ant colonies not humans.

If you start in ordering humans about they will do the opposite (the spirit of rebellion) otherwise they will do as they dam-n well please.

It sounds like you are advocating some sort of restraint on government. Something philosophically akin to this perhaps?

Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.

[MSimon]

Conservative philosophy recognizes the flaws in mankind, and doesn't presume that they can change them.

Well no wonder you support substance prohibitions.

[Diogenes]

On his behalf, I will point out that FDR was advised by Military experts that Japan could not successfully launch torpedo attacks against American Ships in Pearl Harbor because the harbor was so shallow that the torpedoes would hit bottom and never recover. Unaware to both Roosevelt and the Military experts is the fact that the Japanese had overcome this problem.

Roosevelt wasn't aware of how bad an attack would actually be. It is possible he wanted a cosmetic attack, but never appreciated that it wouldn't be cosmetic, but massively destructive in terms of property and loss of life.

I have read that the British had decoded radio intercepts of explicit plans by the Japanese navy to attack pearl harbor a month in advance of the actual attack. It is inconceivable that Churchill would not have provided this information to Roosevelt. Much of Roosevelt's pre-war behavior can only be construed as bizarre unless it was his intention to have the United States attacked as an excuse to enter into the war.

Woodrow Wilson had done something similar previously, (Lusitania) so why would it be so shocking for Roosevelt to have followed the same methodology?

Assuming such alleged intel reached FDR's desk, and assuming it was believed. After all the Brits were known to be desperate for us to join. The basic point is..it would have been irrelevant to the American public if the attack by the japs had failed, because pearl was warned & prepared. From the moment they attacked, we were a war with them regardless if we routed them or they us. FDR would have no reason to take such bizzare means to make the jap attack go well, it would make no difference.

I don't think you are getting the scenario. FDR expected the Attack to fail. Remember, he had been told that their Torpedoes would not work. I also think you assume too much regarding what would have been necessary to get Americans involved in a War that they did not want to get involved in. People remember how Woodrow Wilson had dragooned them into World War I after EXPLICITLY promising to keep us out of that war. It is not a given that a weak or failed attack would have drawn us into the war. Obviously you are unfamiliar with the fact that the Japanese had previously attacked us.

If you think that your just as stupid & biased as those who think Bush(or his minions) put incendiary/explosive device in the twin towers (and bld 3) to make sure the terrorist knocked them down completely. Again why would you do that?

Bush was a Republican. FDR was a Democrat. Democrats have a long history of doing evil things. ( Slavery, Lynching, Jim Crow, Election Fraud, and various other forms of double dealing and corruption.) Republicans, on the other hand, have been pretty milquetoasty and pathetic when it comes to conspiracies and violence. Bush didn't even have the guts to stand up to congress, so I very much doubt he had the guts to pull off such a stunt.

The 2nd they crashed the planes into the tower we were at war with them, regardless of how many people killed or bld knocked down.

And here again you miss the point. Kill 3000 people and we are at war. Kill a few dozen, and it is just an unfortunate incident. FDR knew his politics well enough to realize that a scratch might not provoke enough outrage. We needed at least a bloody nose.

You mean the rooster took credit for the sunrise. World War II got us out of the Great Depression. If you want to give Roosevelt credit for involving us in that ( A position which you objected to above) then you have a point, but it certainly was not his economic policies that made any improvement in the American Economy.

The man was faced with the greatest economic catastrophe in our nation's history..

And he made it WORSE!

he gave strong leadership and hope when it was needed.

Oh, he gave people hope, and a lot of snake oil to go with it! The NRA, Price Controls, Make Work government projects, none of that would fix what was really wrong, and what was really wrong was the uncertainty about what would or would not be legal for businesses to do in the future. For all they knew, he would confiscate everything, just as other Socialists were doing in other parts of the world.

He scared people the same way Barack Obama has scared people. No on wants to hire when the Government produces so much future uncertainty. The economy is currently in the toilet because Barack Obama is trying to do the same thing FDR did.

Not surprising that everything he tried didn't work. Everyone knows it was WWII that got us out of the Great Depression, the point is FDR sucessfully navigated us through both.

We got there DESPITE him, not because of him.

And his massive spending and leadership lead this country to its greatest military victory in our nations history against the existentialist threats of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy & Imperial Japan in WWII.

Yes, he was riding the horse when it crossed the finish line. Doesn't mean he contributed anything to winning the race.

Didn't contribute anything to winning the war other than he was prez from beginning to almost the end, formulating policy. The Manhattan project, D-day, even Lend lease before the war.. yeah right he had nothing to do with any of those things.

He approved the Manhattan project. Big Whoop. Any President would have done the same, just like any President would have made the "Gutsy call" to get Bin Laden. FDR didn't plan D-Day either. Eisenhower (Later Republican President.) Did. Lend-Lease was in fact a corroboration between Churchill and Roosevelt, and some view it as a defacto act of war by the United States. (Had Germany won, it would have been a serious problem.) None of these things are good examples for which we should pin a "Leadership" medal on FDR. Those things that were actually examples of HIS leadership were abject failures. (Socialism gone Amuck)

One of Roosevelt's successes was how efficiently the Military moved Japanese-American citizens into internment camps. Yup, that program was a smashing success! Republican J. Edgar Hoover opposed rounding up and confining our citizens, but Democrat Roosevelt knew better!

As opposed to Reagan who came into the cold war pretty late in the game but your nose is so far up his backside you seem to think he single handedly won it. Greatest president since Washington?! You gotta be freaking kidding me.

No, you are just ignorant, and I'm beginning to think, a little bit stupid. If you knew history as well as I do, you would realize that Reagan was indeed the Greatest President since George Washington. Now go back to your knowledge base of wikipedia for a rebuttal.

let's see 1948 to 1980:

Berlin air lift/Korean war: Truman
.

Yup. Massive failure. Didn't want to confront the Soviets while we had the upper hand and they were still relatively weak. Rather than just informing the Soviets that we would not tolerate a blockade of Berlin, we played the role of little miss panty-waist to avoid offending them. If they wanted to confront us, that was the time we should have done it. Our weakness emboldened them in Korea. The Actual architect of the Berlin Air lift was Curtis LeMay, who was also the highly competent and successful architect of the Bombing campaign against Japan. He continuously urged for confrontation with the Soviets because he KNEW what our capabilities were, and he KNEW what their capabilities were.

You also leave out the fact that Truman was asked for surplus military Aircraft and equipment to Chiang Kai Sheck so as to hunt down and wipe out the Communists under Mao Tse Tung, and Truman made the worst blunder of his Administration by not letting them have it. Had Truman simply given them the stuff we didn't need any longer, we would never have had a Korean War, and we would never have had a Communist China with 100 million people dead as a result of the Communist takeover of China. We would not now have a defiant North Korea making nukes.

Truman screwed the pooch BIG TIME! (Democrats almost always screw up big time. 100 Million dead was the consequence of Truman's decision.)

U2crises/McCarthyism: Eishehower.

McCarthy was right. He was absolutely, smack dab, Iron on Target correct. The US government WAS infested with communist scum, (As a result of Roosevelt/Truman incompetence/Indulgence in counter espionage. ) Algeir Hiss was in fact a Soviet Spy, as were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, as was Klaus Fuchs, and a whole host of other left wing traitors.

Richard Nixon was the Government Prosecutor for the Conviction of Algeir Hiss, which is one reason he was so greatly hated by the left ever since.

As for the U2 overflights and Eisenhower's lack of knowledge regarding them, that was the work of Curtis LeMay, who should very likely have been relived of command and prosecuted for the extra-legal things he was doing in the 1950s, even though he was behaving more sensibly than any of the political leadership of the time.

Cuban missile crises/space race/start Vietnam war: Kennedy.

And I am so glad you brought up John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Do you know WHY we had a Cuban missile crises? It was because that incompetent and illegitimate (When vote fraud was excluded, Kennedy had actually lost the election of 1960) Stabbed the Cuban expats in the back!

Here is another History lesson for you. In the late 1950s, Cuban exiles had fled the Communist Castro regime and came to the United States. They had left much of their money behind, and all of their property, and they wanted their country back. The Eisenhower Administration collaborated with them in a planned invasion of Cuba to re-take that country. The Eisenhower administration provided them with training weapons and support, and assured them that the United States would back them up with the full force of the U.S. Navy and Air Force. They were to storm the beaches, and the U.S. Navy was to provide bombardment to suppress the communist enemy forces. The United States Air force would guarantee that none of Castro's air force would be used against them in the attack.

Then the election occurred, and the Criminal element of the Democrat party made Kennedy President. This clueless nit wit (Who couldn't even run a PT boat during WWII.) could have called off the invasion, or he could have seen it through in accordance with Eisenhower's plan of action. Nope, what he did was go ahead and launch the invasion, but he didn't tell the Cuban ExPats that he was going to stab them in the back.

He let them commence the attack of the beach at Bahía de Cochinos and then he ordered all American Air and Naval personnel to Stand down and do not assist them. I have personally spoken to men on those naval ships who were stationed off the coast of Cuba and who had been told that their mission was to provide naval artillery and logistic support for the Cuban ExPat invasion. They told me how they remember hearing the Cubans screaming on the radio for assistance, and they felt utterly humiliated and disgusted that they had to obey orders and let the Cubans die.

Castro's air force took off and chopped them into giblet meat. Castro's ground forces were not pounded into hamburger by Navy guns and managed to engage and overwhelm the ExPat force. Many of the ExPats fought until they ran out of Ammo, and the survivors were captured and put in Cuban prisons, some to be tortured and some to die over then next several decades.

Other brigade members still recall desperation as they watched U.S. fighter jets take off from carriers stationed along the Cuban coast and fly over them without firing; Washington’s ambassador to the United Nations had denied the U.S. had any involvement at all, so any direct link to the attack would have been an embarrassment.

Castro took the attack as evidence that he needed a deterrence. He contacted his Soviet Allies and DEMANDED they give him nuclear weapons to prevent another such attack from the United States. He felt that if he had Nuclear Weapons to retaliate with, the United States would never DARE make such an attack again.

The Soviets, not being totally insane, wisely deferred from this course of action. However, to reassure Castro that they took the threat of an American Invasion seriously, they did agree to place Russian manned missile systems in Cuba.

To make this clear to you, It was KENNEDY'S FAULT THAT THERE WERE MISSILES PLACED IN CUBA!!!!!!!


Kennedy is responsible for the near death of 30-60 million Americans from Nuclear attack as a result of his stupid policies. The way he solved the problem was also stupid and dishonest. He quietly traded American Nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey in exchange for the Soviets removing their missiles from Cuba, but he crowed to the American Public that he had backed them down by sheer determination and a willingness to go to war.


That's it for now. I'm not going to bother with the rest of your message, because I literally don't have the time it would take to inform you of the entire extent of your ignorance and fallacious knowledge.

You've got a lot to learn, and a lot to unlearn.

[Diogenes]

Conservative philosophy recognizes the flaws in mankind, and doesn't presume that they can change them.

Well no wonder you support substance prohibitions.

How do you feel about Rohypnol?


I assume you believe it should be legally available to anyone.