Paul Ryan on Syria. The art of the flip flop

I believe you have become unhinged. But you are a liberal. And you and your buddy Rawls have selected a Marxian framework not too cleverly concealed to rally around.

Still, I do enjoy fighting with you despite your lack of honesty. So expect me back as time permits. I have a day job. And you are completely unable to keep things on target and pithy.

 

Misterveritis

Ok...so now we've come to understand that the Conservative Segregationist Democrats (none of them are liberals) that you cite that opposed the Civil Rights Act, hold the same position as you. That means that you must be a Democrat right? Or is it that you're a Conservative as well as those that you pointed out? If that's the case, then this has nothing to do with party affiliation as I told you. You point out these guys as evidence that these "Democrats" are all a bunch of racists which must prove that Democrats are all racists. Except it doesn't. You hold the same position as they do. Are you a Democrat? Like these racist segregationists, you agree with their point of view. So in casting your disapproving eye at them for their racist, segregationist views, you cannot escape the fact that you hold the same views. You're all conservatives aren't you? You also would oppose the Civil Rights Act. You can't very well hold them up as racist segregationists and deny your own shared identity.

I'm afraid you've caught yourself in a wringer of your own making here. Arguing that Dems are racists by using these examples doesn't work, when you share their same ideas, without admitting that you too hold the same position. So either that makes you a Democrat, which I doubt you'll claim...OR, you're stuck with the reality that these are conservatives, just like you, that at one time called themselves Democrats, but would never be aligned with them today. Each of them is from the South where we all know conservatism rules. Today they're Republicans. But what has never changed is that they're still Southern conservatives no matter what party they belong to.

So...if you're going to hold them up as examples of segregationist racists, then you're going to need to look in the mirror. You hold the very same ideology and there's no way out of that. All of you are conservatives regardless of the party. Like them, you oppose Civil Rights and the Social Justice that goes with it. How are they any different than you when it comes to this position? All of the "additional" beliefs you talk about have their roots in racism. You can't compartmentalize this. It permeates everything else. It informs all of your ideas with regards to social justice which of course bleeds right into economic justice as well as criminal justice. You either support Justice or you don't. You don't cherry pick Justice. Either you support it or you oppose it. We both know that this isn't part of your thinking. You oppose Justice. You oppose the concept of "with Liberty and Justice for All". You reject that. And your ideology is what informs you of this position, and it's unsustainable in a Just society which is something that we "as Americans" all support.

So, you are in no position to question MY loyalty to this country and it's principles. I'd suggest you take the time to re-think your own. I'm not the one that denies "liberty and justice for all" because of some deep seeded animosity toward some people. That would be you.

 

If it assuages your guilt then by all means lean upon earlier authors. I am okay with that. The Marxist man has to do what the Marxist man has to do.

Let's review, shall we? You do not know the difference between a Constitutional republic and a democracy. You don't know the difference between a national government and a federal government. And you cannot distinguish between opposition to Marxist social justice and racism. You are very well rounded. LOL.

LOL. Project much.

It is clear you are a closet Marxist. So is Rawls. And individual liberty is justification for individual liberty.

I just love watching you self destruct.

 

Earlier i wrote, "I suppose one could build a terrific man of straw simply by changing the phrase "bypass the national government" to "bypass the Constitution." But that would be underhanded, sneaky and wholly dishonest, wouldn't it?"

As you are fond of saying this argument is above your pay grade.

"And yet I have not felt the need to create a lie in order to demolish it. I have been (mostly) patient with your Marxist perspective, your condescension and your poor use of available icons."

Deep down inside you know you are a Marxist. So do I.

Yes, I could be wrong. But I am not. You and your radical Marxist buddies are wrong. Very, very wrong. Marxism is evil. It may be the most evil thing to happen to human beings. Embrace it. It makes you who you are.

 

Then I'm not a real Liberal. I wouldn't agree. I'm not a pacifist, but I'm not looking for the next war to get into. So where does that place me? I don't know, and I don't really care about that. I don't want a war with Syria. I don't want any war. But I won't stand by and allow a banned substance like CW be used on the battlefield. Perhaps it's because I have a son in the military and I don't want him exposed to poison gas. However, we aren't going to war in Syria are we? It appears that the threat of an attack was sufficient to bring a resolution by the members of the Security Council that all agreed ( When was the last time that happened?) to disarm Syria from its CW. They're going to be removed and destroyed, and it appears that Russian troops will be used to provide the security in the removal. I'd say that's mission accomplished. The CW are removed and we don't launch missiles. The threat of a strike was NOT a bluff on the part of Obama. The Russians took him seriously. The statement in his first campaign that he would find and kill Bin Laden was not a bluff either. It would serve the Republicans in Congress well to recognize that he's not bluffing with them either.

 

Iraq 1991. It was an inspection regime that Iraq never adhered to and either will the Syrians so we all, once again, agreed to a fantasy.

 

Hehe...what a loon. Maybe we should get rid of the Department of Justice altogether. Would that make you happy? We do know that Justice is not something that you are interested in. After all...it's a Marxist plot.

We have. You're opposed to the Civil Rights Act, just as those evil racist segregationist conservative Democrats. Are you a Democrat? No? Then there must be some other connection here. I got it. You're all conservatives.

Do I? You call me a Marxist because I recognize the concept of Liberty and Justice for ALL. Project much?

Ahhh...I'm a Marxist? And before you call Rawls a Marxist it might help to know something about him. That starts with reading him. He's no Marxist. But then everyone is a Marxist to you. You're a Marxist and you don't even know it. BTW...this statement of yours: " And individual liberty is justification for individual liberty. It's a logical fallacy. You can't use a theory to justify itself. It's called circular reasoning. But logic is the enemy of the conservative because Liberals use it therefore...Logic=Bad It has a liberal bias.

In your statement; "And individual liberty is justification for individual liberty" the so-called “final proof” relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. Basically, the argument goes in an endless circle, with each step of the argument relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven. Surely "Individual Liberty" deserves a more intelligible argument than the circular reasoning proposed in your example.

That's the reply of a man with no answers. You haven't rebutted a single point. You've offered a logical fallacy and made assertions that I'm a Marxist, but that's it. You're pretty much a mess right now.

 

So you know that you could be wrong. But you know that you aren't? How? Demonstrate for me how you know that you can't possibly be wrong. Calling people Marxists doesn't prove your point. You just admitted that you could be wrong. Now you're insisting that you aren't. But the fact here is that the possibility exists that you could be doesn't it? Your own words; "Yes, I could be wrong." Then it must also be possible that you're wrong about me and my "buddies" being Marxists. After all...I'm telling you that I'm not a Marxist. I have no interest in Marxism. Marx subscribed to the idea of historicism and that's more to your liking, and I would know more about my political philosophy than you would. You're attempting to define me according to your standards, not mine. I can call you a conservative, only because you identify yourself as a conservative. So I'm not projecting my definition onto you. It's yours by your own definition. Yet you feel compelled to call me and others...Marxists. Of course as you said; "Yes, I could be wrong." So, maybe you're wrong after all. You already admitted that it's possible.

It’s understood that conservatives desperately want to preserve their institutions. Am I wrong about that? They were even willing to fight a civil war to preserve the institution of slavery. (Fighting that conservatism was of course a Marxist plot). They fought against the woman’s right to vote. (Women voting is a Marxist plot). They fought against civil rights. (Another Marxist plot). In fact they fight against every attempt at challenging the authority of an existing institution. (All Marxist plots) They detest radical change. (Marxist) One must wonder when hearing them praise the founders and the establishment of this country and amazingly proclaim the conservative heritage of our nation just exactly how a conservative would handle a change as radical as a revolution against the existing institution of a monarchy? It would go completely against the grain of conservatism to endorse a break with England. It simply isn’t in their DNA. The radical American Revolution was another Marxist plot.!

 

Iraq did agree to the inspection team. They were there for years. They were pulled out when we were prevented from inspecting certain sites, and in 98, we pulled out the inspectors and hit them with 400 cruise missiles targeting the sites that they kept us from. We must have hit something, because in 03...we found nothing left. That's history. The Syrians will adhere to the inspections and removal. They have no choice. The Russians and China are involved in this. Not just us.

 

The most important reason is that I have a real life in addition to this play one. Secondly, your template, while amusing, is way too forced to be useful. And thirdly, you are heavily influenced by Radical Karl and his present day henchmen. And finally, I will get you each of your goofy arguments as I can.

The democrats like Fullbright were not conservative other than in your template. Or do you think BJ Clinton is also conservative? Fullbright was his mentor.

 

While I personally can be wrong, the history of liberty shows that individual liberty is consistently superior to Marxian social justice based on group rights.

And yet you are steeped in Marxian language and doctrine. Social justice, justice based on group identity, rather than on the inherent worth each of us has an individual, is a hateful doctrine. You have implied that it is your most important value. Rawls, an author you relied upon goes even deeper into Marxian philosophy.

Marx got practically nothing right. And yet his ideas are relied upon by the left daily.

I have judged you based upon your words in this message thread.

Don't forget sheep dog. I will continue to try to protect the sheep from the wolves.

I could be wrong. You could use Marxian language and Marxian philosophy without being a Marxist. Perhaps you are still in the closet.

You have a peculiar way of looking at things. Yes. We want to protect individual liberty from people like you who find a greater value in such goofy ideas as distributing opportunity and wealth based on group identity.

You do go out of your way to increase the circle of error you operate within.

 

I am happy to admit quite a bit. What do you think I am reluctant to admit?
Is it your falsehoods? I am willing to admit them.
Is it your subtle lies where you change one phrase into another? I am willing to admit them.

I tire of this. Your behavior is morally reprehensible. But then you are a <whisper> closet </whisper> Marxist.

 

We could rid ourselves of the expense of the Obama regime's Justice department with no damage to justice. I like your idea. I am all for it.

What I actually said is that if the law says what you claim it does then I oppose it. I have yet to see if the Civil Rights Acts are intended to recognize rights based on group membership. I tend to doubt it but I have not taken the considerable time it would take to look at all of the laws covered by the Civil Rights Acts.

There is that template again. We know they were segregationists. We know they were democrats. We know that one was BJ Clinton's mentor. Was BJ Clinton a conservative? I do not recall seeing any evidence of his conservatism. Would you point it out to me please?

There is that template again. I suppose it is useful as it reduces your reliance upon thought. Go for it. I will support you. After all, conservatives want you to choose for yourself. And we will choose for us.

You can obfuscate if you like. Didn't you imply, if not outright say, that your highest value was social justice which is a repackaging of rights based on group identity? I could be wrong. I thought you wrote that a couple of hundred messages ago. I can call you a closet Marxist if that makes you feel better.

"It is clear you are a closet Marxist. So is Rawls. And individual liberty is justification for individual liberty..."

It is humorous. And we do agree. If it quacks like a duck...and all that.

I downloaded one of the papers he authored. He concealed it as best he could but his problems and their formulations smack of Marxism. But if you want a fig leaf let me throw you one. I suppose one can sound like a Marxist, make Marxian arguments but not actually be a Marxist. Really. I suppose.

What? You want a second fig leaf?

No. Just the Marxists. Some are foolish. Some have no idea what they believe. Some are trying to be fashionable. And some...are Marxists.

I suppose it is possible. I have been exposed to the math behind the alternative universe theory.

Cool. Would it be better if I reworded it thusly: individual liberty is justification for, uh, well, individual liberty?

I suppose I could create a reading list for you.

"I just love watching you self destruct."

Sure.

 

Earlier I wrote, "The segregationists were part of what is today the democratic party."

Cool. So Fullbright, who was BJ Clinton's mentor was a conservative and is now a Republican? Awesome. How did that happen? And what makes you think he, or they, were ever conservatives? Did they believe in individual liberties? Did they believe that all governments must be constrained by written constitutions or charters? I am sure you will point me to the evidence of such things. I only looked for a few minutes.

We certainly agree here. The Democratic party is led by hard line Marxists. So we do agree. The establishment Republican party is led by soft-line socialists. They are just as dangerous as the Marxist-democrats only they want to take us to the same place a bit more slowly.

This is also true. There have been a few conservative over the years in the Democratic party. Today all of them are Marxist, foreign, alien.

Other than your template can you point me to the evidence that you and BJ Clinton used to determine that this gentleman was conservative?

I found no evidence of conservatism. Perhaps you can point out their public statements that give evidence that they believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility and Federalism.

Now you know you are lying. But I find it humorous that you must make the case when it is so obvious that you are a liar. It is a shame that you are so sick.

I found no evidence. Perhaps you can point out his statements supporting limited government. Or fiscal responsibility. Or anything I might recognize as conservative.

i love the way your lies make me smile. I bet you can fit anyone into your template. Even you if you wanted to.

 

Yes?

Cool. Are you still arguing that all of those laws are based on Marxian group rights? If so they were right to oppose the legislation in the form it was in. But I only have your word to go on and I already know that you lie easily. In fact, as easily as BJ Clinton and what's his name, oh yeah, Barrack Hussein Obama.

Actually no.

Isn't this clear by now. I am conservative. I believe that governments should be limited by written constitutions and that individual liberty is vastly more essential to freedom than rights governments recognize as a result of group membership. Why does individual liberty cause you so much difficulty my Marxist acquaintance?

LOL. I did not make that case. I point out that people, like you, who use such a simple template are likely to get more wrong than right based more on their desires than the record. So BJ Clinton's mentor is a conservative in your goofy world view. I do love it. Are you trying to make the case that you are as intellectual as a box of rocks? I do believe you have succeeded. Congratulations.

 

Bill Clinton was a moderate at best at that time, and a Centrist as President, and being "mentored" does not mean being cloned. They were both from Arkansas and both Democrats, and Fulbright was an important figure to know at the time, and yes Fulbright was a conservative Democrat. You confuse being "mentored" with being indoctrinated. He learned the art of Politics. That's it.

 

Misterveritis:

When you restore this power to the people...what makes you think that the "people" are all going to agree on everything? Knowing that they won't, what will be the process you use to determine what gets done, and who gets what they want? There will always be interests that counter each other. How do you determine what the "people" want? What makes you think they'd want whatever it is you're selling?

 

Situationally, conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values.

The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and
conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status &#8211; quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict.

The very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/5&#8217;s of a human being, now having equal footing with those that actually believed in this idea, is a direct challenge to a long held social concept. It denied the idea of white supremacy as legitimate. It&#8217;s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it.

The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. &#8220;Sure, life is tough. But at least I&#8217;m White.&#8221; They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it. So of course that change must be "Marxist". I guess it's the "Marx Card" that is being used every time change occurs.

You're a textbook Conservative alright. You fit this description to a tee. Conservatism is always about preserving existing institutions. Today what you want to do is return to those institutions that were taken apart precisely because they were unjust and targeted those that you have a deep seeded animosity for. So your hate for those that were emancipated against your will, and for those that supported it, which would be the liberals, rears it's very ugly head.

Thus, hatred for African-Americans and for the Liberal&#8217;s and liberal policies that endorse their equal status is fully embraced by the conservative.

 

That you're a racist, and you use the Marx Card to come to your hopeless defense. As if that's going to work. Everyone that opposes your moronic ideology is a Marxist. You embrace racist policies, and when it's pointed out, you call them a Marxist. If somebody says your ideas are nuts, they must be a Marxist. You're an empty suit...so that makes me a Marxist.

 

I suppose it is possible that one can make Marxist arguments using the same Marxist formulations that Marx and Engels and many other socialists have made even to make the socialist claims about social justice being your most important value without being a Marxist or a socialist. But that is not the way to bet. The difference between our two claims about the other is that your words have told the story. In my case you have applied your one-size-fits-all liberal template. For a liberal anyone who wants limited government must be a racist. Unfortunately for you the liberals have way overplayed the race card. It is not as effective as it once was. Personally, I am amused by it.