Well, asserting that certainly does not make it true…and even if it were, I do know they have some pretty small shoe sizes...so what you inform us is not really very descriptive... or is it?
It's incredibly descriptive, to anyone who reads the quote honestly.
It's really simple. I have an IQ larger than my shoe size. It could be two points higher, it could be 120 points higher, but the fact it IS higher is enough proof I don't belong to the Tea Party. I cannot believe I had to explain that to you.
Clap clap clap…I guess not too bad for surface level musings.
I wasn't sure you'd be able to follow me if I went much deeper.
If one wants integrity in the system, one logically puts into place and enforces policy meant to achieve that end. In this case to make voter fraud less and less possible.
How do you get "less possible" than zero, which is what they had in Pennsylvania?
That's not integrity, that's dishonesty. The entire point was to increase government intervention into the process, for the purpose of making it more difficult for those who were more likely to vote Democrat. That's not conservative, that's dishonest.
We have no real counts on just how often it happens, how many people get away with it, but we do know it happens.
So you want the government to spend taxpayer money which makes it difficult for citizens to exercise their right to vote in order to solve a problem you cannot define or even prove exists.
You must be Republican, because you sure don't seem conservative in this case.
I think closely aligned with an educated electorate, the founders/framers, to which conservatives harken back to
Which is incredibly amusing considering how progressive the founders/framers were.
would endorse a system of eliminating most chances of fraud.
You think? I think they'd be far more concerned with Republicans actively trying to suppress representation of the electorate in the government. It seems to me they went to war, in large part, over that very ideal.
Again, you must be Republican, because you don't seem to know much about our founders either.
Besides, it is up to the states, another thing with which the founders would agree. They sure would not be scared silly like the liberals and perhaps you are about it...what is your beef? Think voter fraud will never and has never occurred before?
I'm more concerned about voter suppression, especially considering your evidence of voter fraud is "well, I can't prove it happens on anything but the rarest of occasions, but I KNOW it exists".
Again, a true conservative would not jump to ridiculous legislation to solve a problem which doesn't really exist. The fact you're defending these acts suggest to me, again, you are Republican, because you sure don't seem very conservative.
As regards the bogus belief that true conservatives would advocate for something like SSM whereas is rather ludicrous.
No, no it isn't. A true conservative would not advocate for government interference into a person's private life, as long as that private life does not negatively affect anyone else. You must be Republican, because you don't seem like a conservative on this issue either.
Now, sexual preference is up to you, no true conservative denies that, it would be pointless. Most the founders did, however, believe in virtue and looked to faith in a higher being for proper guidance.
I cannot speak on "most" of the founders, but three of the most influential of the time, Franklin, Jefferson and Paine were deists.
well, I rather know the founders would align with the true conservatives on this one as well.
On this we absolutely agree. That's why they wrote the 1st Amendment, which forbids Congress from passing a law establishing a religion. In other words, believe what you want but don't force your religious beliefs on every one else.
Once again, you must be Republican, because you sure aren't conservative on this issue.
So its seems you really have little knowledge of what you are attempting to promulgate here.
I believe this is what is commonly known as irony.
Your economic and fiscal sense fails you as well. Billions in defense, like most other forms of prevention, are much less expensive than actual war.
Again...we spend roughly the same amount as the rest of the world combined. There was the well publicized story about Congress purchasing tanks the army didn't even want a few months ago. We spend far more than we need to on defense, especially considering the changing nature of warfare as technology continues to evolve. Furthermore, the idea that less military spending equals more war is not only ridiculous, it is simply laughable. And that's before you even consider the "need" for our military to go to war in order to justify our ridiculous amounts of spending.
You must be Republican, because a true conservative would not insist on spending billions of dollars which aren't even wanted and we don't have in the first place.
Again, asserted yet unproven.
Not at all. It's not my fault you've been blinded to what a conservative would actually believe. You're a Republican, not a conservative, at least from what I can tell in this post. You actively support government spending and intervention in a problem you cannot define or prove which attempts to deny people their right to vote, you oppose the idea of government staying out of the private lives of its citizens and you support wasteful spending of billions of dollars on military spending which is not necessary or even desired.
Just from what I know about you in this thread, you're a Republican. And it seems I'm much closer to being conservative than you are. I wouldn't label myself a true conservative, but it sure does seem I'm closer than you or the Republican party.
No bearing with which to gain much insight there, have not a clue to these baseless prosaicisms you keep uttering as if they were the law.
It's not baseless at all. Republicans go around shouting the sky is falling the moment an acorn falls from a tree. They lie, their presidential candidate claimed nearly half of this country (the half who wouldn't vote for him) don't take responsibility for themselves and they deliberately misquote the President on a regular basis.
Again, that's not to say Democrats don't and won't, they just don't have to nearly as often right now because they have the majority of the power.
Again, nothing but unsupported noise and unsubstantiated exclamations, no substance.
It was utterly ridiculous, on so many levels. But I wouldn't expect you to agree because I think it's pretty clear right now you are a Republican.
Sounds like you might be too easily amused.
Ironical comments which speak to intelligence amuse me greatly. People who make ridiculous claims while criticizing others for their intelligence and/or knowledge is quite funny.
