Not my fault you aren't intelligent enough to know what I'm referring to (and yes, the previous red4man would have known it right away).

I'm surprised it took 25 minutes for someone to mention Obama in the discussion for this story. Clearly, this had Obama Conspiracy written all over it.

The master of changing subjects is accusing me of distorting the topic. Honored, I am not.

Need I remind you that you provided a reference that endorsed uneven enforcement of the law based on their own notion of "morality"?

I guess I should probably congratulate you, though; you keep to the topic of the JE far longer than usual this time. We almost had an actual discussion of the topic of your JE. Do I need to try to only post replies to you in the evening, when you are less quick to jump ship?

And have those brought you to an economic echelon where conservative fiscal policy would help you more than it would hurt you? We already know the answer to that is no. You also just recently bitched about how much you despise community college. I wouldn't ask you to provide evidence of your educational background, so don't attempt to play that card. It would not change in any way the fact that you have shown a great deal of disdain for education - as have your heroes in politics.

My point, in spite of your creative attempts to obfuscate it, is that you are still encouraging political cherry-picking through the laws of the land. You are claiming the moral high ground - which is not a new position for you to claim to own, of course - and telling us that everyone else is wrong because they subscribe to a different take on "morality" from your favorite.

What would shock me would be if your "libertarian lens" actually lead to an increase in actual liberty for more than .01% of the population.

You mean like dictating to people who they can love, or our Federal roles of international nation-building?

Does the moral high ground automatically require you to insult me rather than have an actual discussion of the topic?

Talk is cheap. Just because he said doesn't mean it will be done. You evaluate President Lawnchair and his legacy based on your fears, I evaluate him based on what he has actually done - and his speech about wanting to make community college free is not action but just a speech. We both know it won't pass.

But thank you for reminding us that education is something that conservatives love to hate - as of course very few educated people can ever benefit from conservative policy.

It occurs to me that every state whose governor has encouraged secession has been a conservative-led state. Meanwhile any time a non-conservative suggests that maybe things might be better elsewhere (with or without their state) they are methodically labeled as "Un-American" and formally told to STFU. So it would appear that the conservatives are far more interested in Civil War than anyone else.

That said, haven't you previously used terms similar to "Constitutional Freelancing" to describe the current POTUS (who you keep pretending to be not enormously conservative)?

Well, I've tried to be fair and balanced, but I keep being told I'm not "American" enough to use that terms as it belongs to someone else who is somehow more "American" than I, and I'm afraid of his teams of lawyers.

I love the quote from your source:

(Emphasis mine)

"Morally blameworthy" sounds like it could easily still include daring to be in love with someone who is of the same sex, or daring to follow a religion that doesn't pray to the right god (amongst other "blameworthy" offenses).

In other words, your bit on "overcriminalization" seems to - by their own quote - be another expression of "we will enforce what we want to enforce".

And what about the historical fact that nothing he did as president would be welcomed by the current GOP platform?

So then if "enforceable" is important, how much energy will you put in to the enforcement of laws that oppress individual freedoms? How will you manage doing that both for laws that are against freedoms you support and laws that are against freedoms you oppose? And for that matter how do you define which laws are "needful"? It seems that each time we get a change in the individuals at the power levers we would tweak the notion of which laws are "needful" (mostly just to make adjust them towards their preferred sponsors).

So do you want to see increased enforcement of jaywalking laws then? There are plenty of places where spitting on the sidewalk is against the law as well. I thought you were opposed to a police state overrun with law enforcement personnel.

The GOP has favored suppression of liberty for as long as I have known of them. And don't pretend that the GOP somehow philosophically connects to Lincoln, the whole world knows that is a pile of malarkey.

But is it not a local law that he was breaking by owning a large capacity clip? There is no federal ban on high capacity clips currently, though ones have existed under the administrations of less conservative presidents than President Lawnchair.

Hence the question remains, why do you support local jurisdictions passing laws regulating things such as marriage but not passing laws regulating things such as ammunition clips? You oppose the federal government interfering with regulations on marriage but you are begging for the federal government to interfere with regulations on ammunition clips.