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:
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
You seem to be having a difficult time differentiating between words and ideas. Call them farnicks and labdubs for all I care...it doesn't change the argument at all...
I think I now understand the argument that the liberal position isn't based on a strong foundation. They just lay claim to the words they want and assert the other side is left empty.
The FOX News crowd seems quite enamored by Glenn Beck these days, here are his top values and principals. See how perhaps if we stopped being honest (a value) that a principal like "America is good" could change.
Quote:
Principals that Glenn Beck speaks of are:
1. America is good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not "un"-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
Glenn's 12 values goes as such; honesty, reverence, hope, thrift, humility, charity, sincerity, moderation, hard, work, courage, personal responsibility, and gratitude.
America is "good" while not perfect and has been an extraordinary force of good on this planet since it's inception and has done more to improve humanity through charity, protection of freedom and rebuttal of tyrrany, advancement of technology etc..than any other country in world history...however, you wouldn't know this by listening to Obama, Flotus or your average progressive and the blame America first crowd...
you have been reduced to farnicks and lubadubs and cut and paste from Glenn Beck...sad state of affairs for the Alynski, but I still love you
[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.
This is becoming all very clear to me know. The liberal position has no strong foundation because they don't know which words to use to describe it!
-spence
Naw (unless you and I are interchangeable) I'm just demonstrating your absurdity with absurdity by extending your language and logic to its absurd conclusions. Wait . . . that would be a parody of you!
Actually, diction that shifts, changes, interchanges, (a mark, in my opinion, of much liberal argument) IS a sign of weak foundation. A strong foundation, in argument, evokes clear, direct, unambiguous language. Ambiguity, lack of clarity, shifty words, bespeak uncertainty. Such words are often used to cover up lack of proof or merit. Politicians have to be masters of weak, unfounded diction. You should run for office, or consult for and write for them.
By the way, did you notice in my previous reply that it was not me that accused you of nitpicking a single point to invalidate an argument? The "straw man" is, of course, a common way to create a false or non-existent foundation to an argument. You're also adept at that--turning my demonstration of your SEVERAL nitpicking nonsequiturs in response to ReelinRoc against me by implying that I was doing the very thing of which, you say, I was accusing you--trying to nitpick on a single point to invalidate your argument--when, of course, I never made such an accusation, scottw said that, not I, nor was I doing such a thing.
You do the same to ReelinRoc in your response to scottw when you say that you agree with a lot of RR's post, but "what I don't agree with is outright demonization of liberalism based on rejection of moral relativism. This I do believe is a bunk argument." ReelinRoc did not do that. His main contention, to which you hardly respond, is that a liberal/progressive is dangerous because of liberal redefinition of "rights" and the lib/prog (Obama's) view that negative rights "exceptions to powers not granted" is a fundamental flaw of the Constitution, and that a Bill of Rights should also be included declaring what the Government CAN or should do for you. He NEVER mentions moral relativism. He may not even imply it. It was ME who injected that phrase in a response to you. It was MY OPINION that the concept of "principles" IMPLIES (among other implications) counterintuition to moral relativism. Yet you debunk the remainder (to that which you agree) of his post on the count of what he never said.
You do the same again in the ABSOLUTELY NAILS IT thread (the article by Hanson). You say "the author is clearly trying to make the same moral relativism argument against lilberalism as was made in the other thread" ??? Again, Hanson was not speaking about liberalism. He was speaking STRICTLY about OBAMA. Three posts earlier in the same thread, you said "his core argument, that liberals don't care about lying because all truth is relative, is pretty silly." I pointed out, in reply, that Hansen was speaking about Obama, not liberals.
You persist in seeing what you want rather than what is there, setting up straw men to knock down, shapeshifting words, using phrases like "I don't know anyone who believes". You're relentless, you are a MASTER.
Last edited by detbuch; 06-17-2009 at 12:48 AM..
Reason: typos
Hybrid Mode
