Cool beans def of a liberal:

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[scottw]

[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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

-spence