View Single Post
Old 01-14-2016, 09:50 PM   #30
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Far from a hater I am an Independent

How does being a so-called "Independent" absolve you from being a hater? Independents can't be haters?

If my name was Trump you would applaud me for not being politically correct and calling it as I see it

I know Donald Trump. You're no Donald Trump. (Just kidding--I've enjoyed using some "liberal" tricks in the last few posts just for fun).

When have I applauded Donald Trump? Does being a so-called "independent" give you the clairvoyant ability to know what I think of Donald Trump?

Then, maybe you and the Donald are more alike than you care to admit. You both call it "as you see it." And you both assume (or pretend) that you know a lot of stuff that you don't. Is that a mark of an "independent"--falsely assuming things?

Are you politically correct? Is that a good or bad thing? Or dependent on which politics you're being correct about? Did you come up with the concept of "politically correct" on your independent own? Or was it provided to you Via email Facebook or some blogger? Or some TV show, or some "independent" article?


But because I see the World differently then you I became a default Hater ..

How do you know how I see the world? I replied to several of your comments as a form of dialogue. You didn't seem to want to discuss most of what I said. I even invited you to dialogue in one post. You didn't reply. Apparently not interested. How do you know how someone actually sees the world If you don't actually have a dialogue, but merely expound or counter with what you consider "independent" opinions which don't actually address my discussion, but go on about how Conservatives are bad as in "Why are Conservatives afraid of everything thing and any one who is not like them!! That[s] the Real threat to America".

I think, from some of what you've said, that you and I do see the world alike in some, probably many, ways. But I think we differ mainly (aside from your unfounded ad hominem attacks on Conservatives) on the viability of the Constitution as it was written and intended. You really seemed convinced that it is a living breathing thing, at least metaphorically, (which it obviously is not) that must change to suit new times. (That "living breathing notion, BTW, is not an independent view, but specifically expressed in that exact way by Progressives and fostered by them in their anti-constitutional ideology). You don't seem to consider how and why it actually does suit new times because of the way it is structured. Those of the "living, breathing" persuasion avoid that discussion in any honest sense, but fall back on the ridiculous notion that it's old and must by that metric be outdated and inappropriate for current conditions. I suppose, by that standard, human DNA is outdated and should be replaced by something new. Or, that Shakespeare, or Homer, being so ancient, have nothing to say about the human condition of today because they didn't have airplanes, nuclear weapons, or ISIS.

I think that, if you and I have a dialogue on the matter, I might be able to demonstrate, even to your satisfaction, that the Constitution as it was written and intended is as relevant today as it was at its inception. And that it is not now, as "interpreted" and practiced or avoided, the same as the original Constitution (even though the exact language has not changed). And that changing its structural foundation over time resulted in many different successive Constitutions over that time, which is why I asked you which Constitution you swore allegiance to. And, by that change, that at its core, the relation of the individual to the government, has been reversed.

I'm not sure what an "independent" really is. They, when it comes time to vote, choose one side or another. I don't know what they are "independent" of. I guess they, to some degree, swing both ways. But do they have a way of their own, or are they dependent on the sides they are independent from?

I don't have my own way. I am, basically, an original constitutionalist. That doesn't make me a Republican or Democrat. But neither am I independent.


My comments are not provided to me Via email facebook or some blogger .. I am sorry you feel the pointing out reality over fantasy is Me using propaganda

You fail to see how, just as Iranians, and (as you see it) "Conservatives" are similar in how they could use the "reality" of what happened as propaganda, you, as well used the "reality" of that comparison as propaganda to equate Iranians and "Conservatives." Which makes you like them as well.

adjective
1.
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
synonyms: traditionalist, traditional, conventional, orthodox, old-fashioned, dyed-in-the-wool, hidebound, unadventurous, set in one's ways; More
noun
1.
a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.
synonyms: right-winger, reactionary, rightist, diehard; More

Do you realize that we have been under the growing sway of a Progressive form of government longer than we were under an originalist form? That Progressivism has become the traditional "values and attitudes," and typically so, especially, in relation to politics. Would it, by that definition, make Progressives "right wingers"? "diehard"? And all that other stuff?

See, this is how you're (in my "World view") blind to the paradox that it is the original Constitution which is truly capable of evolving yet maintaining its fundamental relation of sovereign citizen to servant government, and that the Progressive "living and breathing" version is actually an eradication of that fundamental relation, and rather than evolving, Progressivism not only replaces constitutional government, but retrogresses to that truly ancient form of government which makes the citizen a servant of sovereign government

This is why you don't see the paradox of what we refer to now as "liberals" not really being liberal, but, in politics, dictatorial. And how those who we refer to as "conservatives" (of the original Constitution) are truly liberal. I invite you to a dialogue on that if you don't see my point.


This is How Iran and US conservatives have more in common than you wish to acknowledge... Never said they are the Same only there are similarities.. it easier to see with a World view Then a partisan world View "Surrender" Another example that every Bass is a 50Lber
My friend, the similarity between us all, "Conservative, Liberal, Iranian," or anyone else is fundamentally greater than our differences. We are all human. That "similarity" makes us compatible in the most basic way. The artificial ways are all the difference. They are the basis for conflict, for different "World views." Partisan or otherwise.

But differences don't only breed conflict. They only do so when some differences are mandated over and against others. If we are free to express them without oppressing or denying others the same freedom, they give rise to human progress in our arts and sciences and even politics. In all things human--if we are free to express them without oppressing or denying others the same freedom. Freedom to express differences is a most powerful engine of evolution.

I believe original constitutionalism provides us with a governmental structure which guarantees that freedom in a purer more fundamental way than can Progressivism. We can agree to disagree, but that ends dialogue, and feeds into political wars which allows for continual erosion of our guarantee against being more and more subjected to that ancient system of governmental control. That control which opposes what is still the newest political concept--government by consent of the governed. And control is a most powerful engine of stagnation, lack of or hindering evolution.

The greatest difference between our constitutional system and benevolent dictatorship, is if the former is followed as intended, there is a GUARANTEE of rights and freedoms, but in benevolent dictatorship, there is no guarantee, only dependence and hope that government will allow us rights and freedoms.

BTW, saying you are a hater, as you apparently didn't notice, was just fun sarc by responding how others like Spence, PaulS, Eben, etc. have done (including saying apples and oranges, depends on context, and so on). I enjoyed the past few posts I made doing so. It was so easy. Didn't have to use logic, reasonable argument, present a thesis . . . just little, irritating, ride by's.

Last edited by detbuch; 01-14-2016 at 11:04 PM..
detbuch is offline