Judge Andrew Napaltano asks "What If"

[b4uqzme]

Hey, I believe in recreational polygamy....

[knkali]

Tman, the judge isn't a conservative he a libertarian. The libertarian party believes in legalizing pot and other recreational drugs, gay marriage, polygamy and a host of other things that a true conservative frowns upon. I agree with him on many things, but not with what he said in these comments.

Muggs, I am not trying to be flippant but I hold BOTH parties in contempt. I think the real problems are things like the NDAA, Patriot Act, unconstitutional checkpoints and martial law enforcement, Benghazi, ACA/SCOTUS ruling, IRS abuse ect. Please explain to me how pot, gay marriage, and other social activities are tied into the problems that I mentioned. Again, I am not attacking you. I respectfully want to know. Thanks in advance.

[muggsy]

I prefer a Bush

I'm a Bushman myself.

[muggsy]

Hey, I believe in recreational polygamy....

My kinda guy. AC, DC, or Bi?

[muggsy]

Thanks b4uqzme. I agree with Muggsy too, that the USS America needs to steer to the right, or they are going to end up on the rocky shores the Left has set up for us.
I think the Judge was trying to give us a wake up call. That things are not what they seem or what we think they are. People often refuse to accept that things are changing for the worse, just as the Germans in the 1930's watched as Hitler fundamentally changed their nation into a socialist war machine. They couldn't grasp what was going on, so they ignored it, going on, leading their normal lives, until it was too late to do anything. Their is some psychiatric term for it, it's kind of like a mass hysteria, like with a depression, people say things have never got that bad, so they can't believe what is going on, and tend to dismiss things that don't fit into their pre-conceived ideas, until they are forced to open their eyes.


That is why I check out a lot of conspiracy theories, and keep an open mind to different possibilities, and tin foil hat stuff. The secret military labs, have things that are at least 30-50 years advanced from the level of public technology.
I was watching one video from a man who retired from Lockheed's "Skunkworks" and he said that we already possess the technology, to travel to the stars, and other technological advancements that have the capacity to make life better for all of us, but they are kept hidden from us.
(Makes one wonder if maybe they have recovered some alien spacecraft or are in contact with space Aliens, I don't know about all that). I took this one with a big grain of salt, no way to prove or disprove his statements, other that to verify he was employed at Lockheed or one of it's subsidiaries. I suppose they keep things hidden possibly due to economic reasons. Say they had some type of device that would produce enough energy to power a home, or even a city in a relatively small package, or a new automotive engine that could run on sunlight, or energy obtained from the atmosphere. Either of those would do major damage to utility companies, and the big oil companies, and distribution.
Of course, he could have been making stuff up, but try and imagine what technology will be available in 30-50 years, Think back to the 60's, then take a look around at all the things we take for granted now, that would have been labeled tin foil hat BS back then. Microwave ovens, cell phones, computers that fit on your desk that have more power and storage than machines that used to take up 3 or 4 large rooms.
Flat screen TV's, satellite radio, GPS devices, and a host of other things, and all the improvements made to everyday items like our automobiles, with 300 hp motors, and still get 25mpg, instead of 12-15. Space Stations. Satellites that can read your tag number from space. Possible weather modification with HAARP, and chemtrails, or chemdumps where they dump the whole payload in a small area.


It would really be fascinating to know what all the govt. keeps secret from us, no doubt much of it is weaponry, but probably includes things that could drastically improve our lives, but perhaps ruin certain industries. Is it right to keep things hidden for the sake of jobs, and keeping money flowing into the same old companies?
I think we could adapt, the same way we have adapted to changes in the past, with the industrial revolution, and assembly lines, electric power as it replaced steam power, air travel taking the place of trains, etc. We have shown the capability to adapt to new technologies in the past. Some people lost fortunes, others made them. But life went on for the average person.

I too, was an aficionado of conspiracy. So many of these conspiracies didn't pan out that I quickly lost interest. All had some element of truth, but with a ton of bovine excrement mixed in. Some of the biggest fortunes being made are by those who propagate the conspiracy theories and sell them to the gullible. I have better things to do with my time.

[muggsy]

Muggs, I am not trying to be flippant but I hold BOTH parties in contempt. I think the real problems are things like the NDAA, Patriot Act, unconstitutional checkpoints and martial law enforcement, Benghazi, ACA/SCOTUS ruling, IRS abuse ect. Please explain to me how pot, gay marriage, and other social activities are tied into the problems that I mentioned. Again, I am not attacking you. I respectfully want to know. Thanks in advance.

It is perfectly fine if you to choose to be flippant with me, but know in advance that I am the master of flippant. I've been to charm school.

There are real problems and supposed problems. It is our job to separate the wheat from the chaff. The ACA/Scotus decision was just that, a decision. If it was a decision made in error, and I believe that it was, the decision will be overturned in the future, just as in the Dred Scott decision.

I don't see the Patriot Act as a problem though abuses of the Patriot Act could be. There are approximately 6 billion cell phone subscribers in the world. Our government agencies don't have the manpower or time to monitor every conversation. The best that they can hope to accomplish to to catch a few people conversing with number held by known terrorists. I doubt seriously if they care that I'm calling my wife to say I'll late for dinner.

My time is limited as well and I try only to concern myself with real issues, the movement of this country toward socialism being one of them. I hope that I've sufficiently answered your question. Feel free to ask me anything. I'm not offended. You are a thinking person.

[knkali]

My time is limited as well and I try only to concern myself with real issues, the movement of this country toward socialism being one of them. I hope that I've sufficiently answered your question. Fell free to ask me anything. I'm not offended. You are a thinking person.

Thanks Muggs for your reply but your quote above is the thrust of my original question. I am still unsure of your position to it. I think you are in agreement with me but I still have some doubt on that and do not want to misunderstand you. Are some of the morality issues that conservative focus on real problems or distractors from some of the things we touched upon earlier in this thread? Is the fact that a guy who wants to marry his dog more important than, for example, the suspension of the 4th amendment 100 miles from our borders? Is the fact that the gov can listen in on our phone conversation(4th and possibly 1st amendment breaches) less or more important than a guy watching TV after a hard day at work and paying his taxes smoking some weed while watching the FOX network? While I understand your subtle concept that the system self corrects, my concern is that the system is being dismantled completely little by little. Who marries who, what you put into your body, ect is important, no matter how unappealing they may seem to some, but preserving a system that allows those freedoms to do these things is paramount. Your thoughts again on this please?

[xsailer]

Did I read here that Bush was a conservative?

Post #10 - " I believe that all we have to do is elect a truly conservative candidate. I'd much rather have a Reagan, or a Bush, than an Obama."

"What if" Bush wasn't a Conservative. Was he really? That's 1/2 your basis for Obama.
Believe me when I say I'd rather have Reagan & Perot than Obama. And I don't know what Perot is.

[TheTman]

I think Bush was just another puppet doing what the Banksters wanted him to do, make them richer, buy buying up war supplies from their corporations. Conservative or not, I'd rather have W than what currently resides in the White House.

[xsailer]

Yes I agree Tman. Hell I'd take NOBODY in there rather than him. At least we'd be getting more done for us instead of to us.

[muggsy]

Thanks Muggs for your reply but your quote above is the thrust of my original question. I am still unsure of your position to it. I think you are in agreement with me but I still have some doubt on that and do not want to misunderstand you. Are some of the morality issues that conservative focus on real problems or distractors from some of the things we touched upon earlier in this thread? Is the fact that a guy who wants to marry his dog more important than, for example, the suspension of the 4th amendment 100 miles from our borders? Is the fact that the gov can listen in on our phone conversation(4th and possibly 1st amendment breaches) less or more important than a guy watching TV after a hard day at work and paying his taxes smoking some weed while watching the FOX network? While I understand your subtle concept that the system self corrects, my concern is that the system is being dismantled completely little by little. Who marries who, what you put into your body, ect is important, no matter how unappealing they may seem to some, but preserving a system that allows those freedoms to do these things is paramount. Your thoughts again on this please?

I think that morality is the cornerstone of a great nation. Those who would attempt to corrupt morality are the enemies of a free state. That these people do so in the name of individual freedom or equality are the worst. I also object to the "suspension" of our rights except when our national security is at stake. I don't consider illegal immigration to be the equivalent of a declaration of war.

[knkali]

I think that morality is the cornerstone of a great nation. Those who would attempt to corrupt morality are the enemies of a free state. That these people do so in the name of individual freedom or equality are the worst. I also object to the "suspension" of our rights except when our national security is at stake. I don't consider illegal immigration to be the equivalent of a declaration of war.

Understood. Thanks

[OldLincoln]

I like the Judge and his "What If" struck a chord. However, since it happened nearly 2 years ago (2/20/2012) I doubt it had anything to do with his show cancellation. Like many good conspiracies, this dog don't hunt.

[getsome]

I think the problem we are seeing is that very few Republicans are true conservatives anymore and that if you put all of Congress in a big bag and shook them up you couldn't tell any difference between the two parties....

I believe that a 6 year term limit for Congress would go a long way towards getting any real work done in the long run....As it is just as soon as Congress take the oath of office their attention immediatly turns to how to get reelected....I was real proud of Ted Cruz for having the guts to go against his own party and stand up and filibuaster the budget deal and say damn it this is wrong and we need to do something about it but Boehner and the party loyals were quick to distance themselves from him, why? It's election time

I was very disappointed that in December the Republicans basically said screw it, give Obummer what he wants, let him run the debt over the moon, we don't care if it destroys the Country and harms the Citizens and takes away our childrens hope of any kind of a future we got to lay low and not make waves, why? It's coming up on election time and we got to get freekin reelected...

Charles Krauthammer had a great editorial last week on how easy it would be for the Republicans to kill Obamacare by doing one simple thing...There is hidden in the ACA law one little fact that Nancy and the rest of the Democrats don't want to get out and that is the part about if the plan goes south (and it will) and not enough young healthy people sign up to support the older sick people in this crazy insane ponzi scheme that the Government is set to BAIL OUT Big Insurance Companies with your tax money to keep them in the game...If the Bail Out portion of the law was voted out the Big Billion Dollar Insurance companies would pull out of the program pronto and the whole thing would fold up like a house of cards in a hurricane....

All the Republicans would have to do is to write legislation and bring up a bill before Congress to vote out the Bail Out portion of ACA and the beauty of doing it is that the Democrats wouldn't want to stand up and fight for a Bail Out of the Billion Dollar Insurance Corporations because their constituents would have a fit and vote them out so it's a win/win for the Republicans but they won't do it, Why? Yep it's election time and they got to get reelected so the Country be damned, let's lay low and work on our campaigns....

I saw this on a t-shirt and while it's funny it's also sad because it's so true,

Our form of Government should be called: Ineptocracy

A system of Government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves and succeed are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers...

The Jokers we got in Washington now are for the most part a bunch of spoiled useless spineless wimps who only care about staying in office and living the good life on our dime....I say lets vote um ALL out and start over with a 6 year term limit and see what happens....Couldn't be any worse than what we have now...

[Armybrat]

I think Bush was just another puppet doing what the Banksters wanted him to do, make them richer, buy buying up war supplies from their corporations. Conservative or not, I'd rather have W than what currently resides in the White House.

When Bush first ran for the White House I posted on several forums that he was a liberal.
However, he would be 100 times preferable to the current buffoon.

But I think we have a one party system, the republicrats.