Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
"Trump's election is part of an anti-progressive globalism which was deconstructing Western societies and reshaping them from diverse family oriented people with distinct regional cultures who all had finally shed the shackles of monarchic or dictatorial ruling classes and tasted the fruits of individual freedoms and rule of law. And shaping them into what appeared to be, once again, cultureless collectives dependent on and ruled by overlords."
Is their anything about Trump's plan in that statement? Are you denying there is an anti-Progressive movement occurring in Western countries?
Do you know what Trump's plan is?
I never mentioned a plan. I didn't speak of a plan. I didn't say anything about Trump's plan. You're the one who brought up "plan."
Seems you are in mistaken ^^^^
No, I am not mistaken. There is no mention of a plan by Trump in my statement. When I said his election was part of anti-globalism, against a Progressive globalism, I threw his election in as part of this movement in Western societies as a whole as demonstrated by the rest of the statement. I wasn't saying it was Trump's plan to be a part of the movement. Nor was I even inferring it. If I wanted to say it was his plan, I would have said it was his plan. That's why I said that I didn't mention a plan. That's why I didn't mention a Trump plan. The anti-globalist movement is not a plan. No centralized authority is directing it. It is a nearly simultaneous anti-globalist pushback in almost all Western countries.
Now you're moving the goalpost. Your switching from "rights" (freedoms) to "laws."
How else are theses losses taken .. certainly not by the barrel of a gun
the goal post are the same .. all 3 are effected by laws
Don't know what you're referring to here, but you asked me to give you a list of lost freedoms. I gave you a specific instance of one and how it was accomplished, and I listed several others in a general manner rather than a tedious case by case. Your response seems to have been merely that the world changes--that's the nature of things. So if its just the nature of things that we lose freedoms, why ask for a list? Certainly, from your attitude, you're not concerned by lost freedoms--it's just the nature of things--why get nostalgic about lost freedoms? (as I said, I wasn't being nostalgic. I was being factual)
And you're demonstrating that you do not understand this nation's founding. You don't understand the Declaration of Independence. So you don't understand the purpose of the Constitution and why it was written the way it was. It shows to me that when you took the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, you didn't know what exactly you were swearing to defend.
And there it is in a nut shell ... so any freedoms That were lost were at the Hands of Men or women who like me it seems "do not understand this nation's founding. You and they don't understand the Declaration of Independence. So you and them don't understand the purpose of the Constitution "
No, the freedoms were lost at the hands of men(mostly) and women who DID understand our founding and its documents. They knew exactly what they were doing. And they "interpreted" the Constitution in deceptive ways to make it appear that what they were doing was constitutional. It's just that many men and women, like you as you say, accepted their ploy as genuine. That the Constitution was being defended and supported while it was actually being sabotaged.
So based on all this if you had a Time machine what period in our history would satisfy your Views ... or a time when there was 100% consensus on your views of the bill of rights the Constitution or Declaration of Independence..
It's not a question of mere views. Law, if it is to be applied to more than one person, cannot merely be a point of view. The Constitution, as law, applies limitations on, mostly federal, government's power to abridge or deny the people's freedoms/rights by enumerating the areas only in which it is allowed to do so. It leaves criminal statutory law up to states and localities where the citizens have power to decide by majority rule.
The Constitution provides the only way to change its structural limitations on government--amendment. That is not affected by time. It is always to be so. Though the Constitution can be changed, it is to be done by formal amendment, not by judicial whim to suit a judge's notion of changing times
My guess is any time in history you would have the same argument as you do today and i would have the same counter argument and neither of us in my eye have the solution
|
Law is not up to you nor I to change. Different arguments whether affected by time or personal whim cannot change law. Law is formal. And it must be changed in a formal manner.
As I said, if you think mere time or point of view can change the Constitution, you don't understand it. If you don't think the Constitution should any longer be applied, that's a different story. That would be the Progressive argument. Understandably, the structure of the Constitution makes the Progressive idea of government impossible to apply, so, if it cannot be done by amendment, unless there is some kind of revolt by enough people to forcefully eliminate the Constitution, then change must be done by deception or "interpretation."
As I said, since you and I have shown that we do not agree on what constitutional "interpretation" is, we can't agree on what freedoms have been lost.
And it doesn't seem by your responses, that lost freedoms are of any concern to you. Mentioning them is mere nostalgia--the blanket of the fearful.