Paul Ryan on Syria. The art of the flip flop

I suppose that makes for good bed time reading. I have told you at least one time, maybe twice, what conservatism is. Have you ever addressed it? Why do you keep going back to your well filled with errors? Does it make you feel safe to ignore what an actual conservative tells you?

Where in your nonsense have you discussed governments limited in their powers to what is written in constitutions or charters?
Where in your nonsense have you discussed the conservative's love for individual liberty and our rights as individuals recognized and supported by a federal government in a constitutional republic?
Where in your nonsense have you discussed how corrosive rights based on group identies are and how social justice is a thinly disguised means to subvert our real freedoms?

Perhaps those arguments are too difficult for you because they reveal too much of what you believe, your contempt for the American people, and your willingness to subvert the Constitution because it does not comport itself to the necessities of a socialist utopia.

I do not believe you have any understanding of what a great victory that was for eventually freeing the slaves. Without it the south would have been far stronger legislatively as legislative power is based on populations. It was a brilliant master stoke given that eliminating slavery was not possible yet when the Constitution was written. Far from ensuring white supremacy it set the essential condition for the eventual destruction of slavery as a legitimate institution.

I always enjoy your small flights of fancy. They are amusing. Of course you continue to evade the essential conservative arguments (see above) in favor of your fantastic formulations. Bravo I say! Bravo!

LOL. This is great stuff! What other tricks can you do?

 

Clinton was never moderate. His finest accomplishments were forced upon him by the brief resurgence of a few conservatives in the House of Representatives. Of course you know that.

Would a liberal like BJ Clinton select as a political mentor someone who, according to you, was conservative? I am impressed by your mental gymnastics and moral flexibility. But then again you do have a narrative to uphold.

 

Good questions. The state legislatures will select people to attend the convention to propose amendments. As we get closer to the convention I expect many people to propose amendments and wording. Maybe a dozen or so will actually be considered. We can argue over the proposed amendments on boards like this, on talk radio, and, of course in the state legislatures. As long as the amendments return the government to its federal origins, that the states regain control of their senators, that we limit what the government can consume of our wealth, I will be pleased with the reset. And, once you become familiar with individual liberty, so might you.

 

So you're telling me that those Southern Senators were NOT conservatives? So the South is and always has been, a Liberal stronghold? When did that take place....at any time in our history?? So the liberals had the South? hehe. You do realize that you're falling over the cliff right now right? So Strom Thurmond was not a conservative? And the others you listed? Doesn't it strike you as strange that while you're opposed to the CRA as a conservative, and they were opposed to the CRA and the very reason that these guys eventually left the "liberal" Democratic Party was because it turned liberal and of course they were all conservatives despite your total ignorance of our history, that you would now actually deny that these Southern Senators were not conservatives? When has the South NOT been Conservative?

I'm afraid that doesn't prove that Bill Clinton shared the same political views as Fulbright. Fulbright voted against the CRA and and the Voting Rights Act. Bill Clinton has the overwhelming approval of the African/American community, and they don't approve of those that voted against the CRA, OR the Voting Rights Act.

First off, I don't require a "template". You do. Levin is your hero. A right wing radio jock that wrote a "Manifesto for Conservatives". A Manifesto is a guide to how to think like a Conservative. That's your template, so I'm afraid you stand on thin ice with that. You even borrow from his own talking points, by calling people Marxists and Statists. You've been reduced to name calling, rather than being able to present a reasoned argument, but then reason is a Marxist concept isn't it? Secondly, I'm not a Marxist. The only "Karl" that holds an interest for me is Popper. Nor am I a racist which I'm afraid you can't say.

 

Then you could personally be wrong about your interpretation of history as well. Thank you for that admission. But you've revealed more in that statement than you think. You're evoking "historicism" as a basis for your thinking. So did Marx. Bet you didn't know that did you?

Nope. I'm not. I'm not the one reaching for historicism...you are. I'm not an economic reductionist trying to reduce all thoughts and ideas to economic conditions. That's you. You really don't know your own ideology other than to call people Marxists.

Karl Popper criticized Marx for his “historicism,” which he described as the belief that the course of history is predetermined by scientific laws. But Popper also described Marx’s historicism as “economism,” since “Marx, in opposition to Hegel, contended that the clue to history, even to the history of ideas, is to be found in the development of the relations between man and his natural environment, the material world; that is to say, in his economic life, and not in his spiritual life. Told you I was more interested in Popper when it came to "Karl's".

Popper used the term economism to describe “the claim that the economic organization of society, the organization of our exchange of matter with nature, is fundamental for all social institutions and especially
for their historical development." —and he went on to criticize Marx for trying to reduce all thoughts and ideas to economic conditions. (That's Poppers description of Marx, and as it turns out...you as well.) It is important, however, to understand that economism is not peculiar to Marx, and that it is entirely consistent with a free-market approach to economics. Economism is the view that our policy decisions should ultimately be based upon their expected economic consequences. And it is, the view that we should not value freedom as an end in itself, but primarily as a means to prosperity. And that would be you.

Awww...poor boy. Like you've faced a situation where you or your parents were denied access to a water fountain, a swimming pool, a restaurant, a friggin school, a fundamental right to vote, full access to the American economy, even the right to marry someone not of your race...and all because white bread like you have such hatred for others that don't look like you. If it weren't for people like you...there never would have been a need for a CRA or a Voting Rights Act. You want guns for everyone because it's our 2nd Amendment right. So...Why did the conservatives of old deny the slaves the right to a gun? I guess they didn't think they had any rights. That's what slavery is about isn't it?

The fact of the matter is as a conservative you hate any change to existing institutions, and slavery and then Jim Crow was institutionalized in this country, and you were forced to give both up. And of course you hate that the Federal Government forced you to do this. The States Rights idea is that the States should choose if they want slavery or not, and of course they wanted it down in Dixie.

The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict. Don't deny that. It's what makes you a conservative.

The very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/5’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’s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it. That's exactly why social justice matters. If there wasn't any, blacks would still be at the back of the bus, and that drives you crazy that Social Justice prevents that. So you call it Marxism, when the fact is it's a response to your own racism.

Yet you adopt his historicism. I guess you think he got that part right. You used it to justify your response above.

 

I did not make any claim other than I did not find any public statements that they were for individual liberty, limited government, fiscal responsibility or federalism.

Alabama, in 2010, finally shed its liberal democrat one party control. I do not follow other states but I bet the same is true for many states that are finally moving toward Conservatism or at least Republicanism.

The big change here occurred in 2010. Based on the Republicans who were elected in this state we have moved from Democratic liberalism to Republican Conservatism. I see no reason to speculate about other states I did not follow.

You tell me. In Alabama until 2010 the democratic party fell in line with whatever the democratic party at the national level wanted. That did not include fiscal responsibility. It did not include limited government. It did not include individual liberty.

Uh. No. I realize no such thing. I sense your struggles.

I picked the first five or six in a search. I scanned the articles for indications that they spoke out for individual rights, for limited governments, for fiscal responsibility and for federalism. I did not find much. Did you?

I am opposed to the civil rights acts based on your interpretation of them. I have not confirmed that your explanation of them is accurate. I tend to doubt that your assessment is accurate. But I do not care enough to spend the hours it would take to read them all. It is not my argument. It is your argument.

You have a narrative. Otherwise it would be clear to you that birds of a feather flock together. One does not establish a mentor-mentee relationship with someone whose views are opposite yours. An all democrats have had overwhelming approval of the blacks in this nation. It is incredibly stupid on their part and I cannot explain stupidity.

Then why do you lean so heavily upon one?

True enough. I admire brilliance where ever I find it.

Did he? I have several of his books. The Liberty Amendments. Ameritopia. Liberty and Tyranny. I plan to buy Men in Black.

Cool. I never knew. Does he agree with me?

I have been very clear about my template. You have disregarded it up until now. Given that you admit that you are familiar with it how about considering addressing what conservatives actually believe instead of the peculiar things you have written up until now?

And why do you believe that limited government, individual rights, fiscal ressponsibility and federalism are "thin ice"?

Did you notice that it took a while for you to reveal just how much Radical Karl has influenced you? One does not reveal one's love of Marxism all at once. But over time you could not help yourself. It was only after I had seen repeated Marxian formulations and Marxian arguments in addition to other socialist views that I identified the primary driver in your philosophy.

Not reason. But Marx was obsessed with appearing to be scientific.

LOL. Sure.

I cannot say that you are not a racist? Why not?

 

Earlier I wrote, "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."

Were you imagining that I was leaning upon only my understanding? Other than citing your socialist buddies can you show any history of liberty where group rights offered better results than individual rights? Can you explain the differences between using history and historicism? I would love to read your explanation.

"And yet you are steeped in Marxian language and doctrine."

Let's see. Show me how my use of a substantial body of history is the same as your Marxian understanding of historicism. I will wait.

Good point. I really should add free-market capitalism to individual liberty, limited government, fiscal responsibility, and federalism. It is inherent in the list.

 

WELL, the one good thing the Tea Party has still got going for it is - they can still tune in to Fox and watch

Mike Huck-a-buck !!!

 

Welcome. I am glad to see someone else is reading this.

 

Ah yes, "its the best of all possible worlds."

 

I described it above. What part do you disagree with? Here it is again, " 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 Are you saying this isn't true? I've asked you what your conservatism is based on. Now you tell me that you defined it. You've listed a bunch of "values". I don't want to hear about your values. Everyone has those, and yours aren't important enough to impose them on everyone else that might have their own. I want a concrete basis. Can you offer that? You can't demonstrate your conservative values as true.

You haven't pointed out a single error yet. You keep saying there are errors, but you don't point to even one to back up why it's an error. Why not? Stop the accusatory crap, and point to what I said that isn't true or accurate.

I've already pointed out that Liberty and Justice for All means exactly that. For ALL. Not just for some. And if somebody like you wants to deny that to anybody, then you have no love for individual liberty or rights of individuals at all since you're more than willing to deny to some the very thing you want for yourself. As for what you call corrosive rights based on group identities and how social justice is a thinly disguised means to subvert our real freedoms?...then you ignore over 200 years of history that denied those rights based on the fact that some people were in the wrong group in your own racist eyes. The very notion that you would have contempt for any form of Justice speaks volumes for exactly how self-indulgent people of your ilk can be. You don't differentiate on what kind of Justice you want, and what kind you reject. You either subscribe to the concept of justice or you don't. The idea that you can cherry pick something like that could only come from the mind of a conservative.

Eventually...it only took you another 100 years and a war to show you the error of your conservative ways. Some people will cling to an ideology at any cost. In this case, over 600,000 lives. Then of course you need Jim Crow after that and another 100 years to force you to give up on that. And the racism lives on. It's embedded into the ideology.

Saw em all. They've been taken apart. You're really easy on that front.

The essential conservative argument has been shown to you going back to Burke, and Russell Kirk. Did you miss this:

In his lecture on “The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement” given to the Heritage Foundation in 2003, Dr. Lee Edwards cited Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind as providing the central idea upon which American conservatism is essentially based, calling it ordered liberty.

Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:
1.A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;
2.Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;
3.Civilized society requires orders and classes;
4.Property and freedom are inseparably connected;
5.Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason; and
6.Society must alter slowly.

That's from the guy that wrote the book on conservatism, long before Mark Levin.

Lest we minimize the writings of Kirk, we should point out that one of his biggest supporters was “Mr.Conservative”, President Ronald Reagan. Reagan said this of Kirk:

“As the prophet of American conservatism, Russell Kirk has taught, nurtured, and inspired a generation. From . . . Piety Hill, he reached deep into the roots of American values, writing and editing central works of political philosophy. His intellectual contribution has been a profound act of patriotism. I look forward to the future with anticipation that his work will continue to exert a profound influence in the defense of our values and our cherished civilization.”

—Ronald Reagan, 1981

For several years he was a Distinguished Scholar of the Heritage Foundation. In 1989, President Reagan conferred on him the Presidential Citizens Medal. In 1991, he was awarded the Salvatori Prize for historical writing. Dr, Kirks conservative credentials are established. He is a conservative. He is qualified to speak on the meaning of conservatism. Far more so then Mark Levin.

Of course you continue to evade the essential conservative arguments (see above) in favor of your fantastic formulations

I don't think I've evaded them at all. In fact, I cite them over and over again. You seem to have a problem with reading. Don't blame me if you don't agree with this stuff. Blame your own conservatives that created it. I'm just posting what they said.

 

We have been over all of this. Haver a good evening.

 

I'm really surprised that you actually think this kind of nonsense is possible. You're actually going to hash this stuff out on talk radio? You know...you seem to think that because you have the gerrymandered districts working for you, that this kind of thing would be an acceptable idea throughout the rest of the county. You know...that part that operates in the real world.

 

In a way, I guess I can't complain about you holding an idea that virtually the entire rest of the world finds ridiculous. You're free to make up whatever you want to think, but don't expect anyone else to take that red line idea seriously.

I will anxiously await your documentation.

Look, you copied, and pasted from another site word for word, and didn't attribute it. So yes, you plagiarized. Interestingly, since you seem so brazen about it, I wonder how many of your statements are actually your statements.

Yawn, an insult from a plagerist. I'm so offended!

I can see that you are drifting rather far afield from the thread topic. No doubt you are bubbling with lots of inaccurate talking points that I've already heard a thousand times before.

 

Earlier I wrote, "I did not make any claim other than I did not find any public statements that they were for individual liberty, limited government, fiscal responsibility or federalism."

I have been here since 2005 or 2006. The entire state was run by democrats who towed the national democratic line. And today the entire state infrastructure is Republican and Conservative. They talk about fiscal responsibility. And they act responsibly. They have integrity. They believe in individual liberty and not state-recognized rights based on group identity. It seems like a dramatic shift to me.

 

.

I have no idea what kind of bizarro world you live in, but I suppose it's the one where you would criticize the president if he does nothing, and then criticize him if he does something. He threatened to send missiles, the Russians knew he'd do it, and stepped in. And now all the members of the UN Security Council have agreed to remove the CW from Syria and Putin is nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for averting a missile strike and being the guy that proposes a diplomatic solution to remove the CW that everyone knew were there, despite Syria's contention that they didn't have them. NONE of that would have taken place without a credible threat of a strike. Now as a result of the Nobel nomination, Putin has the spotlight on him to make good on his proposal. The political pressure on him to follow through is established. Mission accomplished. Do you actually think that any of this would have happened without the threat of a missile attack? You might, but then you'd be part of that "virtual rest of the world" that exists only within your own mind, and not in the Real World as opposed to your "Virtual World".

So what? It's all public domain information, that exists in every history book. And none of it was used to make money on. That's how publishing works. I doubt that you're familiar with that. If you use information that you don't credit for the purposes of making money like in a book that you're selling or putting up music that isn't yours and selling it, you're violating copyright. In music you can even record and sell music that's in the public domain without violating copyright. Copyright lasts for 70 years. After that it becomes public domain. Your problem is that now that your little bubble has been burst, you're desperately looking for something else to bring up so that you don't risk losing your status as a prime weasel.

Yeah...like I'm going to lose sleep over what a weasel thinks.

It's a response to your garbage. Dump it somewhere else and the topic won't drift. I've got a great idea...find another thread to slither through.

 

For you to suggest that Alabama, one of the most Conservative states in the country, was ever a liberal state, is over-the-top nonsense. If you live in Bama today, then you should know better. There is nothing Liberal and never has been in that state. When I moved there I was asked 2 questions; Bama or Auburn was first. The Second was what church I attended. In that order. The true religion there is football. It's in the heart of the Bible Belt and there is NOTHING liberal going on in the Bible Belt. People homeschool their kids, they vote for nutjobs like Judge Roy Moore as Chief Justice for their Supreme Court, who puts a 5 ton marble monument to the 10 Commandments in the entrance of the building. They're opposed to a lottery since it offends the Baptists. Their history is that of ground zero in the civil rights movement. To suggest that because you think that the legislature of the state was predominantly democrat means that it must have been liberal, shows that you assume that Democrat=liberal. You don't know your history pal. The Capital of the Confederacy was not a state with a liberal mindset. There's a huge Confederate Flag flying on I65 just north of Montgomery heading toward Birmingham. If you think that's a liberal demonstration, you're delusional.

 

You have your say. I have had mine. You drone of as much as you like. I will do something else.

 

Google. Geneva Protocols. Or Chemical weapons ban. Or even try this. Legal authority of the ban on Chemical weapons
Here's a few links for you.
https://www.google.com/search?sourc...egal+authority+of+the+ban+on+Chemical+weapons

http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule74

I'm sure you can handle the rest. Or you could consult a few history books.

 

Did any of those references say we, the US would bomb places that have chemical weapons?

 

Unless the U.S. was to use some very specialized Non-Nuclear Weapons which are very powerful in their yield...and are capable of vaporizing Chemical Weapons stored in tanks or weaponized....we would need to use Rangers and Special Forces to secure them.

AboveAlpha

 

So do you believe we should invade any nation that has chemical weapons?

 

They don't have to. The Protocols weren't written just for us to enforce. The entire world can take action. Certainly the UN will be able to. They're doing it now. Do you think it's a wise thing to allow these kind of weapons to be used on the battlefield, and have our own troops exposed to them? I find it amazing that you wing-nuts hate Obama so much, that when he takes action to prevent the use of CW or any WMD, you go ape-(*)(*)(*)(*), and yet had no problem invading Iraq over just the suspicion of WMD. You marinate in hypocrisy.

 

We won't have to use either. Russian troops will be providing the security in the removal of the garbage which will then be destroyed with UN oversight. The CW will be removed and we didn't fire a shot or risk a single troop.

- - - Updated - - -

Bush and Cheney and the Republicans did. When did you change your tune?