Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
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 . . .
Last edited by ReelinRod; 06-11-2009 at 05:08 PM..
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
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.
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.
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.
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
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
while Spence is formulating his response...any predictions???
I'll go with..."naaaaaa, na,naaaa,na ,naaaaa, naaaa...we won GET OVER IT! SUBJUGATE YOURSELVES TO THE ONES"...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"....the anticipation is killing me
I don't have a lot of time, but here are a few comments...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelinRod
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.
This statement is quite contradictory. The notion that a belief is "deeply held" implies it's part of a foundation.
Quote:
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. . . .
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.
Quote:
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.
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?
Quote:
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 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.
Quote:
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.
Wasn't this proposed by FDR? He was a commie???
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.
Quote:
That doesn't stop...blah...blah...blah...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.
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.
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???
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
This statement is quite contradictory. The notion that a belief is "deeply held" implies it's part of a foundation.
Superficially supported beliefs can be deeply held, have you ever dealt with a woman with PMS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
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?
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The fundamental American concepts of liberty and equality were radically progressive ideas at the time.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Had the founding fathers felt the Constitution was perfect they wouldn't have allowed for it to be amended
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."
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Wasn't this proposed by FDR? He was a commie???
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
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.
Speaking as he was . . .
. . . 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
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.
I can not compose a reasoned reply for this, when read in the context of my statement you quote . . .
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
Superficially supported beliefs can be deeply held, have you ever dealt with a woman with PMS?
Monthly
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Today's progressives are tearing apart everything our progressive founder's built.
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.
Quote:
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:[INDENT] "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."
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.
Quote:
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?
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.
Quote:
. . . 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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
you prove his contention by "progressively" morphing PRINCIPLE and CONCEPT into VALUE.
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.
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...
Quote:
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."
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Perhaps that is what those who wish to CHANGE it want.
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.
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
Primarily, the Independent voters who got Obama elected wanted a more transparent government and pragmatic policies. they are getting neither
[QUOTE=spence;694272]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.
Did you not also say that values and principles are used interchangeably by most people? So brick and house are interchangeable? So one can refer to a whole by one of its parts?
[QUOTE=spence;]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...
So is it mincing words if I #^&#^&#^&#^&er over whether to call my home a brick or a house? So what really matters is whether I "believe" it's a brick or a house? I didn't accuse you of trying to nitpick on a single point to invalidate an argument. I said your comments seemed to nitpick at some of RR's langauge and I picked a half dozen examples. It was Scott W., not me, who mentioned the method of attacking a single, insignificant point to invalidate an entire argument. My focus on your nitpicking was actually a demonstration that the great bulk of your response was incorrect and that you did not even engage the real points of RR's post. Nitpick was actually a mild, rather kind, choice of words to describe your deceptions.
[QUOTE=spence]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.
Is a principal concept a principle? Could RR have said "the principal concept of "all not surrendered is retained"? Is the VALUE of liberty equal to or the same as the CONCEPT of liberty? Is concept also interchangeable with value and principle? And what are the building blocks of concept if it can be interchanged with principle? What, indeed, are the building blocks of VALUE if values are the building blocks of PRINCIPLE? If a value is the "unalterable belief" can belief be interchanged with value and is principle also an unalterable belief when it is interchanged with value? Same for concept? So how could RR have reversed value and principle if they're interchangeable?
[QUOTE=spence]In your example the value would be thrust[/I], and jet propulsion would be a method of achieving that thrust.
Is thrust an unalterable belief? Can thrust and jet propulsion be interchanged? Why are the values I mentioned of no merit and only your "thrust" is THE value? Are you straining to discredit my example of a principle? The PRINCIPLE of Jet Propulsion IS in the lexicon. It is SCIENTIFICALLY recognized as a PRINCIPLE. And are you saying ("value is the unalterable belief and a principal would guide how the value was applied") that the PRINCIPLE of Jet Propulsion cannot be applied? That a principle cannot be applied? I guess it can be applied when it is interchanged.
[QUOTE-spence]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.
[QUOTE=spence]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.
[QUOTE=spence]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.
But are we mincing words? It's what you believe that's important. If a conservative believes "that we are all equal at birth and what happens after that is up to you." And a liberal believes equality should extend beyond birth and in the progressive tax system, they certainly believe equality to be a DIFFERENT value, concept, principle.
And their beliefs are not interchangeable.
. . .
SUBJUGATE YOURSELVES TO THE ONES
"...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"
....the anticipation is killing me
Hybrid Mode
