[C. Edmund Wright]

Since you demonstrated very poor reading comprehension of my point in the first paragraph. zzzz

[BlackElk]

Speaking of reading comprehension, I devoted #88 at length to responding to what appears to be the point of your first (sort of) paragraph (and sort of sentence) in #81. While it is true that your #81's first "paragraph" or sentence fragment or whatever is relatively obscure and needs translation into actual English, your barely and almost vaguely understandable post demonstrates your inability to comprehend:

1. The breadth of conservatism (hint it is not limited to obsessive money-grubbing);

2. The absence of rational thought demonstrated by your #81 as referenced in your #90;

3. The desirability of curing your limited horizon by consideration of a property tax to replace all existing federal taxation of income and payrolls (a far better idea than VAT).

Snore on!

If y'all manage to nominate the money-obsessive Mittwit, then maybe enough of the actual conservatives will make your year an exciting adventure wondering how we will vote. It won't be money-grubbing and baby-scraping and marriage-wrecking Libertoonian either. Property is a "nice to have." No one has property unless he or she have life itself. That is a basic (and grossly violated) principle of our civilization not just some burden we sadly assume to be consistent.

Consider taking a few years' (decades'?) courses in brushing up your writing and reading.