Cool beans def of a liberal:
 

I trimmed it down, but left the meat of the quote...

1. Gov. healthcare: so all liberals believe in this? I'm pretty liberal and believe it should be provided for minors who can't afford it or whose parents can't provide it. Should the government work to make it more affordable! absolutely! Do I need to see universal healthcare? Nope, but it should be more affordable. Liberal or logical?

2. "Improve" local school... No child left behind was a bush act, no? Do I want federal oversite and more regulations on teaching to tests? No, but we need more work to imrove thinking, not rote memorization... Should there be tolerance taught, and making sure religious tone stays out of schools 100% yes. Kids can go to private school if they need that education. There should be more incentives to hire the best possible teachers. period. Liberal or logical?

3. Salary caps: Do I have a problem with people getting rich, Hell no. but does it sicken me when John Doe of the X investment company made millions while his clients were losing money, hell yes. There was just a 2million dollar wedding in newport from someone who made a fortune with a trading co... I hope his clients are making money if he is! But no, it is socialist to question the golden parachutes some of the corporate guys get... liberal or logical?

4. Gun control: You cna own all the hand guns and rifles you want for hunting, sporting, whatever, but I still advocate a ban on automatic weapons, and would love to see it remain hard to get a gun. I have zero problem with law-abiding people owning weapons/

5. Abortion: the rights favorite zinger... all liberals do not promote abortion as birth control, but it should ABSOLUTELY be a women's right to choose, period.

Here's the rub.

Cool Beans has primarily defined a Liberal based on a set of issues rather than a set of core principals.

This is a fundamental problem with the GOP who's direction is being largely controlled by "for profit" pundits that teach their sheepy advertising revenue vampires to define themselves by what they are not rather than what they are.

-spence

Spence, are you saying that the Dems direction is not controlled or influenced by "for profit" pundits or "for profit" businesses or organizations? It's politics for cryin out loud. Influence is the name of the game for both parties. Look at the what's been going on recently in the Democratic party in Massachusetts with corruption, etc...

The amusing part for me is when any person who does not drink the kool-aid and agree with 100% of a Republican's opinion is labeled a liberal. Many Right-wingers attempt to use the word liberal as a derogatory term, and as such, they throw the term around as much as possible. This is new undertaking by Conservatives that began during the most recent presidential campaign. Now, Republican radio and Faux News use the term quite excessively to the point in which it has lost all meaning.

I disagree with a laundry list of Left-Wing ideologies, yet have been deemed a super-lib by some of the people on here. That always amuses me.

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;693518]I trimmed it down, but left the meat of the quote...

1. Gov. healthcare: so all liberals believe in this? hope not...I'm pretty liberal and believe it should be provided for minors who can't afford it or whose parents can't provide it. it is... Should the government work to make it more affordable! show me where the govt. has ever worked and made something more affordable...oh,,,wait...there was that "affordable housing crisis"..oh, yeah and they forced these banks to make all of these loans that were rediculous but "affordable"...and..well, we know how that's turned out.....absolutely! Do I need to see universal healthcare? Nope, good...but it should be more affordable. Liberal or logical? everything should be more affordable, have you been to the grocery store lately...geez

2. "Improve" local school... No child left behind was a bush act, no? actually no it was " the No Child Left Behind, Ted Kennedy's signature education reform bill", Bush just signed it and according to Kennedy and the left, he underfunded it, funny how everything these clowns come up with would certainly work if only it weren't underfunded... Do I want federal oversite and more regulations on teaching to tests? No, but we need more work to imrove thinking, not rote memorization... Should there be tolerance taught, and making sure religious tone stays out of schools 100% yes. No tolerance for religeon? well, maybe certain ones right? Maybe also teach a little more reading, riting and rithmatek and less recycling, racism and reproduction and we'd have more productive citizens that can function in society..... Kids can go to private school if they need that education. AMEN There should be more incentives to hire the best possible teachers. period. but this would hurt the self esteem of the not so best possible teachers and completely upset the union apple cart...Liberal or logical?

3. Salary caps: Do I have a problem with people getting rich, Hell no. but does it sicken me when John Doe (don't you mean John Dough?)of the EVIL X investment company made millions while his clients were losing (like Washington and the rest of America, they keep partying like rock stars and porn stars and we keep losing) money, hell yes. I hate it when hack politicians/community organizers get unrepentent terrorists to write books for them and then make millions on the proceeds and the spend trillions of dollars of other peoples money in like 6 months time....that 's unfair...There was just a 2million dollar wedding in newport from someone who made a fortune with a trading co... I hope his clients are making money if he is! But no, it is socialist to question the golden parachutes some of the corporate guys get... liberal or logical?

4. Gun control: You cna own all the hand guns and rifles you want for hunting, sporting, whatever, but I still advocate a ban on automatic weapons, and would love to see it remain hard to get a gun. I have zero problem with law-abiding people owning weapons/ this is good

5. Abortion: the rights favorite zinger.... all liberals do not promote abortion as birth control, but it should ABSOLUTELY be a women's right to choose, period.
why shouldn't it also be a man's right to choose, at this time, in our fairness society the child(or not) is half the man's property, is it not? unless she's been to the clinic she couldn't do it without him and he should have rights too...it's not his fault that when he evolved from a monkey he wasn't given the benefit of the ability to carry a child(except maybe in England, twice...still freaks me out), you can't discriminate against him based on his gender can you?
nice try Spock :laugha: still vague on the liberal thing

[QUOTE=scottw;693577]I don't have time to get into all 5 points...
should the guy have a choice? yes, but how many of the cases does the guy want to keep it, raise it and be a good father. I bet in these cases it is few.

Holy Sh!t. The depths of hell have frozen over. scottw and I actually agree on something. I see abortion policy like this - my responsibility but not my decision? Yes, the woman does have to carry the baby for 9 months, but then the man is faced with carrying the burden of an unwanted child for 18 years (22 if they go to college, which many in this situation don't). Our society and the courts are extremely biased against the father when it comes to custody and that bias extends all the way back to conception.

It takes two people for conception, but only one has the power to decide to keep it or not.

Before this becomes an abortion debate, this argument is 100% transferable in the case of wanting to put the kid up for adoption - so let's please not start the bi-monthly abortion debate.

yeah, you are right ROCK..probably never...still think it should be a "person's right to choose" liberal or logical? can it be both ? because with the way that you couched it , you exclude one by chosing the other...


JD....we can all find common ground...

Scott and Johnny, you guys have a very good point there on abortion. In so much as the man's rights in the whole ordeal.

Think about this one though,

Say I am your neighbor and have a female golden retriever, who becomes pregnant with your black lab as the father. I then give my dog something that makes it sick and causes her to abort the puppies. You call the cops on me and I get arrested.

How are those puppies worth more than a human baby?

Bottom line is people need to be responsible when it comes to sex.

Those points you quoted me on were "taken out of context" ... lol...
I just had to say that.. :jester:

I honestly meant to pick a few things that came to mind on Spence being a Lib. On numerous threads on here, he consistently "tows the party line" and defends the Libs and Obama at every turn. It's nothing new, and I don't see why liberals always get upset when they are called a liberal. Be proud of what you are! You call me a "Right wing ultra Conservative wacko" and I think "Hell Ya!!" There is nothing wrong with being a Liberal, Having Liberals and Conservatives in this country promote growth and hopefully make our country stronger.

If we did everything "my way" every other country would hate us for having all the $$$ and pushing them around. While on the other hand, if we did everything his way, we would be bankrupt and everyone would think we were pussies. It takes a mix of left wing wackos and right wing nuts to make this country great.

If nothing else, it keeps the other countries on their toes. They don't know if we are going to "Kick their teeth in" or roll over and "take it in the ***".

BRING YOUR OWN AND WRAP THAT SH@#$
Jesus is it that hard?
Planned Parenthood GIVES AWAY CONDOMS! AS MANY AS YOU WANT!

Always wrapped. Hell, I even thought about double-bagging it a couple times in college when things got really desperate.

However, some people are responsible yet nothing no form of non-permanent birth control is guaranteed, and even semi-permanent solutions like vasectomies have a 1 in 10,000 chance.

Adoption is an option for unwanted pregnancy, yet the man has no say. Hell, even if the couple agreed they didn't want a child, if the woman wanted to abort the fetus, yet the man didn't believe in abortion and wanted to have it put up for adoption the man has no say.

In a society plagued by calls for "equal rights for all", I find it ironic that those calls only stand for women and minorities. A man wants equal rights and he's essentially told to go screw.

[QUOTE=Cool Beans;693617]
I honestly meant to pick a few things that came to mind on Spence being a Lib. On numerous threads on here, he consistently "tows the party line" and defends the Libs and Obama at every turn.


Yup, all he does is regurgitate lefty talking points constantly, once he runs out of them there's very little SUBSTANCE...kinda like when Obma's teleprompter goes on the fritz...:huh:

But to be fair, typically your posts are a one line comment then a copy/paste of some conservative's commentary.

Liberal?
 

I believe everyone sould have health insurance. That doesn't keep them chained to a job. If you leave your job now, you lose your insurance, or pay outragous money for it when you have none. Some jobs places are unbearable, insureance shouldn't force you to stay there. I've had such a job, quit it and risked my health without insurance for a few months. Perscriptions can be mind blowingly pricey...
I believe that a person has a right to work under a contract, if that means union then so be it. But it should be in writing that if I do "X" then I get paid "Y". No change the rules for eithe side for the sake of "convenience".
I believe that everyone who works as hard as I do and has a little luck as I have should have what I have. A house, a car, decent food on the table, and a little left sometimes. That's not so much.
I believe that lending institutions should say no if a borrower doesn't qualify. Doing anything less is preditory and self serving. And will ultimately destroy the borrower. They should also help and educate the potential borrower, instead of expecting things to work out...
I believe that any manufacturer who ships jobs offshore should pay tarrifs equal to the welfare and unemployment that will now be paid to their former American employees. Throw in the tuitions and mortgages that default as a result of their actions as well.
I believe that our system for lawsuits has mad cow. It needs to be fixed.
I could go on and on but my two fingers are aching now....

Well, I'm of the opinion that the federal government possesses very little authority to act upon those issues in any fashion.

It is certainly true that liberal/progressives' policy beliefs are deeply held, problem is, they can only be superficially defended because their positions rest on no concrete foundation. Liberal/progressives go on and on about "values" and frankly I'm shocked that Spence actually used the word "principles," -- for that concept is usually at odds with the liberal/progressive agenda. . . .

Having "values" allows one to just know certain things to be true; but you also know that at any time they may become "untrue" because new heartstrings have been tugged. This constant flux, this forced infirmity is of course frustrating (mostly on a subconscious level) and leads to projection. That's why any challenge to a liberal/progressive to defend their positions is met immediately with anger and vitriol because that challenge is perceived as a personal attack on one's "feelings" and not simply an intellectual challenge to logically defend policy stances in reasoned debate.

To me though, the most dangerous attributes liberal/progressives exhibit is they espouse positions in direct opposition to the fundamental American concepts of liberty and equality. That their general political philosophy is at odds with our fundamental republican constitutional principles is most evident in their concept of "rights."

The original Lockean concept of rights, embodied in the justification for declaring independence and instilled into the U.S. Constitution, led to restrictions on the government's interference in the lives of citizens and having their natural, civil and political rights respected by law. This was achieved primarily by the very structure of the Constitution being founded on the principle of, "all not surrendered is retained."

Since no power was granted to government to injure rights no power existed to do so. This was the reason there was such resistance to the addition of a bill of rights.

As Hamilton argued in the Federalist 84:

• "I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

Sadly, by modern liberal/progressive definition, "rights" are no longer only "exceptions to powers not granted" and Obama has spoken openly that he feels that this fact, that the Bill of Rights only secures "negative" rights, is a "fundamental flaw" of the Constitution and its interpretation in the courts.

For him, the Bill of Rights "says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." In Obama's view, rights should be redefined into special grants of power to compel others to act. This line of thought is a product of fundamentally communitarian ideals and is a political offspring of the 1917 Soviet Revolution.

As a result of that revolution, economic, social, and cultural rights emerged into the political arena. By their very nature, these two "generations" of rights assume very different roles for the state.

Second generation "rights" convey a romantic idea of how the state should take care of us, about how we, as an organized state can somehow provide human dignity and "help" citizens live a decent and happy life. Of course there is absolutely zero constitutional authority to do anything of the sort.

That doesn't stop the liberal/progressive rants demanding a "right" to health care, prescription drugs, education, affordable housing, internet access, a living wage and that most basic of human rights, an abortion, but in reality, these are demands that someone provide these things under governmental order and that is never the true definition of a right.

Our rights are NOT a list of services that government provides for us.

Nor are they tangible commodities that the government compels others to provide to us.

The purpose of this Orwellian new-speak is to redefine our rights into a fuzzy, moldable menu of goods and services, privileges and entitlements that, upon our display of various ID cards, filling out the proper forms and payment of license fees, a bureaucrat can stamp “APPROVED” and our benevolent government will bestow our "rights" upon us. Unfortunately, with that mindset comes the acceptance of the situational, temporary denial or outright removal of those "rights" (for our own good of course).

For me, that's a good start on what I consider a liberal/progressive to be, why they shouldn't be trusted and why they are so damn dangerous :wavey: . . .

Not at all, I'm not defending the Obama position but rather exposing unbalance in the arguments posted.

For example...

People have been grilling Obama for the 2009+ budget deficits. I have not endorsed large deficits but rather argued that Obama has inherited a lot of the problem.

Big difference. I see this as objectivity, you see this as endorsement.

-spence

This is absolutely fabulous stuff! So good it will probably be ignored.
This was meant to immediately follow ReelinRod's post. didn't know how to make that happen. Sorry for the displacement.

This is really good. I truly enjoyed your well-wrought argument. I, personally, think it is unassailable, but would certainly be very interested in a negative response. Your post merits considerable discussion.

This was meant to immediately follow ReelinRod's post. Double error in that I didn't know how to do that, without entering his whole post by using "Quote" option, then, after using the "Quick" option and not immediately seeing it posted after his post, retried, hence getting both misplaced replies. Again, ReelinRod, sorry for the misplacement.

Such an odd comment.

I'll add my comments later after work...

-spence

Now your in trouble! I think Spence was one of Clinton's lawyers, and had almost 50% of the country convinced a "blowjob" wasn't sex.

He will somehow discredit and make a valiant effort at piecing apart that well thought out and very well written opinion by ReelinRod.
Spence Alynski is quite a "spinmaster".

I wonder if he had one of those "sit and spin" toys when he was a kid. That could explain a lot. :jump1:

Everyone has a right to their opinion and ReelinRod did one heck of a good job giving his. Now, I guess I will sit back and wait for Spence to return from work, so I can witness the miracle of Liberalism as he will attempt to "spin" the truth into untruth. :banano:

you only need a basic understanding of the progressive movement through the last century(Spence has already demonstrated that he knows little to nothing about history, but he can recite false revisionist cliches) up until now, the influences throughout the left wing of the democtaric party shroud do gooderism in an attempt to undermine the foundation of this country, it's been slow and persistent and they think that through Obama they finally have the ultimate weapon to fundamentally CHANGE this country. These people display remarkable intellectual dishonesty and have the benefit of little or no resistance to their false and misleading rehtoric from a complacent and often enabling and fully compliant "watchdog" media....Obama, the liberal progressives in the democtatic party and their supporters are taking us into a black hole...they/we have no idea what lies on the other side..they believe that they do based on what they were indoctrinated with on their college campuses and not through any real world experience...what they are trying has failed over and over, we are going down the road that has already been traveled with disasterous results elsewhere but in typical liberal progressive fashion we're told it's not that their programs that are flawed, it's that they are underfunded...this administration has not a clue what they are doing....they are engaged in a giant liberal progressive experiment and our children will have to deal with Frankenstein...if you get the opportunity...try to watch Charlie Rose with Richard Posner....in the early part of the segment he interviews three economists and Charlie becomes quite frustrated that the evidence is that the Obama administration is ignoring logic and favoring ideaology without regard to facts and Richard Posner(author of A Failure of Capitalism) is likewise flustered that this administration has no plan no idea what they are doing, he attemts to be supportive but clearly understands that there is somthing far larger going on here than simply trying to revive an economy in recession...this is a wholesale take over of the American capitalist system and the deconstruction of our political and financial syatems by far left wing extremists....as George Soros said "I'm having a great recession and this is the culmination of my life's work"...a despicable enemy of America and capitalism, a leach on humanity in my opinion....


Reelin' that was thoroghly enjoyable to read, can't wait to see what Spence vomits in response, it's getting harder and harder to stay on message, the administration is even struggling to keep their stories straight, this is what happens when you exist to deceive......

You can't work.
you support liberal policy, don't you sit home and collect :D

Raven, you are good man..that's funny s*&%...

while Spence is formulating his response...any predictions???

I'll go with..."naaaaaa, na,naaaa,na ,naaaaa, naaaa...we won GET OVER IT! :bshake:SUBJUGATE YOURSELVES TO THE ONES:angel:"...with some(a lot) condecension, belittling, weak attempts at humor that are really vicious attacks in drag thrown in ...and complete misrepresentation of historical facts because history is "LIVING and BREATHING":huh:....the anticipation is killing me:rolleyes:

How does the 9th amendment figure into all of this? Is it the spring board for "2nd generation rights?

No.

Where would one find the philosophical support for the government to compel one person to provide anything to another?

The way I read the 9th, such a reservation of power would specifically preclude it.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Because the typical justification for the government mandating such "second generation rights" is an expansion of the general welfare clause of the Constitution's Preamble.

The 9th's purpose was to allay Federalist fears that by simply listing some rights, such enumeration would be taken as the formal and complete listing of the rights of the citizen.

This particular principle is where some conservatives go off on an illegitimate tangent, usually in their zeal to oppose abortion.

:eyes:
Almost 10pm, how late does Spence work?
Looking forward to his spin on those comments of ReelinRod.

I don't have a lot of time, but here are a few comments...

This statement is quite contradictory. The notion that a belief is "deeply held" implies it's part of a foundation.

This makes no sense, unless your assertion is that a liberal/progressive agenda is formed via a random process.

What you are doing is declaring words or ideas to be invalid based on your personal judgment. It's called hubris.

This is a circular argument based on talk radio stereotypes. Perhaps you're just picking debates with lightweights who have never thought about what they believe?

The fundamental American concepts of liberty and equality were radically progressive ideas at the time. Had the founding fathers felt the Constitution was perfect they wouldn't have allowed for it to be amended.

Wasn't this proposed by FDR? He was a commie??? :rotflmao:

I think Obama was getting at the notion that change via the courts alone isn't always practical. This is a pretty common remark by civil rights advocates and in that context does have some merit.


Again you speak as if there's no principals behind the proposed actions. One doesn't have to subscribe to Leninism to believe that we are sometimes better served when we act as a team.

-spence

did I call it or what? :rotf3:

Quote: I don't have a lot of time -Spence Alynski

since when??

Are you going to make a point or just spit up more petty insults?

-spence

ReelinRoc did not say that liberal progressives' deeply held beliefs had no foundation, he said they rested on no CONCRETE foundation. Foundations can and often are slippery, sandy, foolish entities.

His implication, among others, is that the concept of "principles" is counterintuitive to moral relativism, that cornerstone of liberal/progressive thinking.

When you say he is "declaring" words or ideas to be invalid on his personal judgement . . . it's called hubris--isn't that what you are doing to HIS words and ideas--is that hubris? Perhaps, anyway, his personal judgement is superior to yours. OH!--that's right--I forgot--moral relativism doesn't allow for hubris.

Your reference to his supposed "circular argument" shows it went over your head. And "talk radio stereotypes"??? Is that dismissing out of hand by simply calling names. Typical liberal trick.

You don't have to be a commie to espouse ideas generated by the soviet revolution.

"Change by the courts alone"??? What part of the Constitution allows for change via the courts at all?

He didn't say there were no principles behind the redefined rights--the fuzzy, moldable menu of goods and services, privileges, and entitlements. He opined that the "federal government possesses very little authority to act upon those issues in any fashion."

Your comments seem to nitpick at some of his language, but don't engage, at all, his constitutional argument.

I'm not going to argue the notion of a negatively biased constution, for the most part it is. But the application of the constution as an absolute isn't very practical, there are always exceptions. The lession I take is that those exceptions should be very well thought out.

Moral relativism is a deke, I don't know anybody who believes it should be a guiding principal in a pure form. The reality is that the vast majority of the country lives, quite well mind you, with a combination of beliefs.

Too much of anything will kill you.

-spence

[QUOTE=detbuch;

Your comments seem to nitpick at some of his language, but don't engage, at all, his constitutional argument.[/QUOTE]

classic Saul Alinsky....I think John R pointed this out very clearly a short time ago...his purpose is never to prevail in an argument because he can't based on facts, destroy/discredit the opponent...his objective is to find a tiny flaw with your argument, even just one word... and focus on that and claim that since this is erroneous your entire stance is invalid and you are discredited, throw in a couple of smarmy insults as you kick dirt in the hole and he is elevated while having not really achieved anything of sustance...

"I'm not going to argue the notion of a negatively biased constution, for the most part it is. But the application of the constution as an absolute isn't very practical, there are always exceptions. The lession I take is that those exceptions should be very well thought out.

Moral relativism is a deke, I don't know anybody who believes it should be a guiding principal in a pure form. The reality is that the vast majority of the country lives, quite well mind you, with a combination of beliefs.

Too much of anything will kill you.

-spence "

this is Obama off the teleprompter gobligook...

Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I don't think the entire argument is invalid, quite the opposite in fact I happen to agree with a lot of it. What I don't agree with is the outright demonization of liberalism based on the rejection of moral relativism. This I do believe is a bunk argument.

If you ever botherd to read any of my posts you'd know that I nearly always work from a centrist position.

According to some, this means I believe in nothing :bshake:

-spence

Superficially supported beliefs can be deeply held, have you ever dealt with a woman with PMS?

The two terms, "values" and "principles" identify beliefs of very different origin. Principles are foundational and unalterable and generally last a lifetime; values are fluid and undergo constant examination and tweaking to conform to one's feelings at that moment.

No, those sentiments come from nearly 20 years of experience debating liberals about gun control on the internet. First was talk.politics.guns on USENET, way before any forums had a presence on the WWW, then once that technology took off, on many news and politics forums on the web. Gun control is one topic where all those peccadilloes of liberals are really exposed and liberal's true beliefs about individual liberty shine through.

But to the topic at hand; usually the most ardent "strict gun control" supporters are the ones most ignorant of firearms and their most simple functions as mechanical objects, let alone technical aspects like ballistics . . . Those people "just know" that guns are "bad" and no amount of logic or facts will dissuade their illogical and emotional based position.

In fact, their profound ignorance is worn as a badge of honor because they don't want to share anything, even knowledge, with Neanderthal gun-nuts. They are incapable of logical thought and utterly immune to logical debate because, as I said, their entire position is based in emotion and "feelings" so opposition in debate is viewed as an attack on them personally. I always knew when I won when liberal's replies contained nothing but personal insults and then accusations of Nazi sympathies. (Of course whenever the liberals invoked the Nazi's I automatically won because of Godwin's Law)

Yes they were and the progressive political philosophers who wrote the treatises that influenced the progressive founders wrote them as denunciations of the authoritarian King ruling over his subjects any way he saw fit. Funny how things have a way of coming around. Today's progressives are tearing apart everything our progressive founder's built.

I agree, but . . . The fundamental principles upon which the Constitution rests are unalterable and all law and even amendments must be in agreement with those principles. See Marbury v Madison:

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent."

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Since the Constitution is supreme and the governmental powers granted through it are strictly defined and thus limited, government "can seldom act," thus no LEGITIMATE power to change those principles exists. There is no way to empower the government to retroactively change them, even by an amendment demanded by the people. The legitimate path is to erect a new Constitution based on new principles to establish a new government to better serve the wishes of the people.

I specifically avoided using the "communist" label . . . One can promote and endorse "communitarian" ideals and not be a communist. Do you have an alternate history to offer for the genesis of social, cultural and economic "rights" and their emergence in western culture, post Depression, other than the Soviet Revolution and communitarian thought being embraced by the powers that be? Is there any evidence of such thought from the founding period? Where exactly do you think the general philosophy came from?

Speaking as he was . . .

the recording from '01

. . . as an Illinois state senator, his comments are perfectly understandable. The comments and the sentiments behind them must now be re-filtered through the Presidency and the opportunity Obama has to shape the federal judiciary with ideologues who agree with him that the "fundamental flaw in the Constitution and its interpretation" must be corrected.

Back then, he was speaking as a law professor and state senator with those position's limited impact and "legislative" bias on display (he admits this in the recording). The realization has occurred that what he once thought only possible via the legislature, is not viable politically; . . . and what he once thought impossible though the courts, is possible with the new duty to nominate federal judges and Justices in his hands.

He is Plato's Philosopher King but without wisdom, just power.

I can not compose a reasoned reply for this, when read in the context of my statement you quote . . .

Monthly :lama:


Most people use them interchangeably, although I think you have them reversed. Value is the unalterable belief and a principal would guide how the value was applied.

I think the liberal position on gun control is pretty straightforward and is based on individual liberty (a deeply held value), or more precisely the right to not have your safety taken away by another.

That being said I think the counter argument is stronger. I've always been a proponent for responsible gun ownership.

Certainly there are elements of the AWB that are based on emotion, such as the restrictions on weapons that "look" more dangerous. I don't think this is necessarily illogical though, a lawmaker has to draw the line somewhere. For instance that evil "looking" semi-auto could be indistinguishable from a real automatic weapon in the eyes of law enforcement.

This cuts both ways. Many consider the Bush administrations radically progressive response to 9/11 as running counter to our Founder's principals as well. I don't think one faction has a monopoly on constitutional erosion.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Liberals are not necessarily opposed to the fundamental values of liberty and equality, but rather the application of these values often differs from that of conservatives. Holding the constitution as supreme is always going to be seen through a lens if your interpretation of the values differs. Hence, the basis for this entire discussion.

Was there influence from the communist thinking of the time? I'm sure there was...even The Communist Manifesto makes an interesting point now and then. I think progressive ideas came about in this country largely as a response to how were evolving as an industrialized nation and as an alternative to socialism.


You use quotes but I don't hear that statement in the audio.

Obama's point, that the framers of the Constitution had a "blind spot" on the issue of civil rights and that the Warren Courts weren't really that radical...isn't that radical of a statement.

I think he was speaking as an academic.

But ultimately the proof is in the putting. Had Obama's intent been to subvert the Constitution via the bench, the nomination of Sotomayor was a very poor choice.

-spence

ReelinRod refers to liberal/progressives going on about values and is shocked that you used the word "principles." Saying that that "principle" is usually at odds with the lib/prog agenda. In this post, you prove his contention by "progressively" morphing PRINCIPLE and CONCEPT into VALUE. You say that "most people" use principle and value interchangeably. Perhaps, (I don't think that's true) but "most people" is irrelevent to THIS discussion. More important, you are wrong to assert that RR has reversed the words. RR's use, throughout, is correct. By definition, a principle is a basic truth. IT is unalterable. VALUES change and fluctuate. There are phrases like "fundamental principles." Even you, in your first post to this thread, differentiated between "a set of issues" and "a set of core principles". When RR refers to the Constitution being founded upon the PRINCIPLE of "all not surrendered is retained" it would be awkward to say the VALUE of "all not surrendered is retained." Originally, in this thread, you and RR used the phrase "the fundamental CONCEPTS of liberty and equality". Later you changed the phrase to "the fundamental VALUES of liberty and equality". You say "liberals are not necessarily opposed to the fundamental values of liberty and equality." (?not necessarily??) "But rather the application of these values often differs from . . . conservatives . . . to be seen through a lens if your INTERPRETATION of the values differs." In that paragraph you belie your own assertion that a value is an unalterable belief. You don't interpret an unalterable belief. The principle of jet propulsion, for instance, is not to be interpreted. You might interpret the value of jet propulsion, whether it is necessary, too expensive, too toxic, just wonderful, etc. But the PRINCIPLE (not the VALUE as you imply) of jet propulsion is to be APPLIED, not interpreted.

So, if for a lilberal, liberty and equality are values, not unalterable principles, to be interpreted, one way by a lib, another way by a con, and who knows what way by any number of anybodys, and if all the rights granted or implied by the Constitution are values to be interpreted in any number of differing ways and not unalterable principles that apply to all alike, then the Constitution is not only flawed, but worthless.

Perhaps that is what those who wish to CHANGE it want.

PLEASE KEEP GOING THIS IS SO VERY INSTRUCTIVE..... AND REVEALING :claps:

Reading online I generally see (and according to the dictionary) it's clear (to me at least) that values are the building blocks of principals. I do see some sites that reverse it, so clearly people do read it both ways.

Regardless, you're just mincing words, it's what you believe that's important. And to think that in this very thread you were accusing me of trying to nitpick on a single point in invalidate an argument. That didn't take long...:hs:

That's because it's not a value, it's a principal concept, made up by people, that was meant to set limits on the Federal Government. The limit (i.e. principal) is based on the value of liberty which can't be changed if it's given from God.

In your example the value would be thrust, and jet propulsion would be a method of achieving that thrust.

My principal may be based on a propeller (like the one on Scott's head), but we both believe god has given us the right to move forward.

Take equality as a good example. That is a value that our Founding Fathers jumped on as pretty important. A conservative is likely to interpret this strictly as it was written, that we are all equal at birth and what happens after that is up to you.

A progressive, who also believes in the value of equality might argue that since the world is a complex system with overlapping generations that equality should extend beyond birth. A good example might be the progressive tax system. I believe it was a principal exposed by Karl Marx, but perhaps based on different values. Some, like Ted Kennedy would argue that if not for it we might not have had the rise of the middle class and the economic engine that it created. Personally I feel there's some merit to this and don't discount the idea simply because it shares socialistic roots.

It's certainly fair to argue that how it has sometimes been applied in this country (i.e. Federal welfare programs) violates the intent of "not surrendered is retained".

But neither has changed the fundamental meaning of equality. For the most part all Americans believe in applying equal rights via citizenship to everyone born on our soil.

Go to other countries and they don't allow this right because their values are different.

Primarily, the Independent voters who got Obama elected wanted a more transparent government and pragmatic policies. If Obama's more left of center policies don't deliver short-term results it will show in the mid-term elections.

-spence

this is so convoluted Spence...principles(our founding principles) are the basic "building blocks", "truths that we hold to be self evident" that identify, unify and distinguish our nation...VALUES are simply the degree to which an individual or group feels compelled/obligated to adhere to these princilpes based on their wants/needs/beliefs at the time... (values) are not "unalterable beliefs" they change constantly among individuals as well as groups....Values change over time, principles do not...you have this completely upside down because you seek, promote values based on no principles, arbitrary to suit your whims....we all share the same basic principles on which this country is founded, we all have differing values however, for a whole host of reasons...liberal progressives seek to make their values univeral through the deconstruction of the Constitution and it's principles, activism on the courts, supression and activism in the press...the disdain is obvious...the evidence is abundant, I don't think that most self -described "liberals/democrats" have the slightest clue as to the Progressive agenda or the history of the Progressive movement in this country...I hope that this conversation continues because you making things crystal clear and are revealing yourself in a frightening way...nice job :spin:

Primarily, the Independent voters who got Obama elected wanted a more transparent government and pragmatic policies. they are getting neither