Paul Ryan on Syria. The art of the flip flop

You notice that I said IT DID NOT WORK right? Therefore it is not exactly like the Iraq WMD ruse. They had alot of U.N inspectors in Iraq before they fabricated some evidence as I recall... they did not shoot first and ask questions later. ...The only reason it is opposite from this ... it did not WORK. You cant figure out who Obama's handlers are? Go follow the money trail... follow the shiat trail of the lobbyists that infest Washington... if you cant figure it out after that... calmly insert your head back into the warm comfy hole you had it in before

 

As someone who who watches a lot of MSNBC, I like to think I'm keeping up with what the left is thinking. They didn't buy the "it's the world's red line" bit. That's really saying something. So you and the President's spokesmen are mostly alone on this. I hardly need to defend it further when I've already explained how you've mangled the history, and in this most recent post, you've mangled what international law is. So against such a student, i defy any teacher to teach you!

You presented it as your own. That's called plagiarism.

That isn't an argument, it's a squeal. But it represents one of the biggest difficulties in trying to discuss policy with leftists. You guys find policy hard (and who can blame you considering what you support?) so instead you try to personalize it about being about Obama specifically; not his policies. Sorry, I don't care.

 

I know. I rejected the premise that it must be one or the other. Didn't you notice that?

Not at the expense of liberty for all. I think the pledge in this country states, "with Liberty and justice for all". You have no interest in that, so I have to presume that you have no real interest in this country that you claim is the greatest in the world.

I want to be free from your ideology. Is that ok with you? Or do you think that your "sheepdog" mentality must force me to accept it?

Every Senator is tied to their state. You would take away the people's right to vote for a Senator and put it into the hands of a state legislature that would pick a Senator that reflects the majority rule of one party within that state. Your idea does not make the state "sovereign" at all. It puts it totally under the control of the ideology of the legislature as opposed to the will of the people. You're clearly an opponent of democracy.

How? Don't just say they are this or that. Tell me how and why. You're simply making a statement that doesn't answer my question. You appear to be opposed to a popular vote or selection of our representatives. The State of Wyoming is the smallest population in the country. It still has two Senators just like California which has the largest population. How is Wyoming's influence less than California's?

What on earth are you talking about? Senators are "free agents"?? They all answer to their constituents in their home states. Describe in detail what you mean. You're simply ranting about something without backing up what you're saying. Provide an example at least or something that demonstrates what you're saying is true. Because otherwise...it's just a ton of BS.

And who stops the tyranny within the states governments? What prevents a state with a population that deems it appropriate to deny basic rights to certain ethnic groups? So the individual's rights go unprotected from the tyranny of the individual states. Didn't we see the results of that during the Jim Crow days? Excuse me if I don't share your paranoia. I don't trust the individual states, and I have history giving me plenty of reason not to. Like I said, I'm a citizen of the United States. They issue my passport. Not some individual state. When I'm overseas, I'm not looking for the Embassy of Nebraska to protect my ass.

Not at all. It's highly imaginative. And I can easily envision the extremist type of society that you'd impose. A life of mediocrity is not something that interests me. Sorry, about that. I have no desire to see the second coming of the Third Reich.

That is exactly the form of national government that our founders created. What is this, a love/hate relationship you have with the founders?? You love the founders and you love the Federal Constitution but you hate the idea of a Federal Government as our National Government. They created a Federal Constitution that would establish the national government. Do you ever think about what you're saying, or do you just say it without any thought at all?

Slavery was an institution that was embedded into the Constitution and that was a result of the southern states that insisted on it. It's codified in Article 1 sec 2. Article 1 sec 9, and Article 4 sec 2. Obviously it wasn't the States that got rid of Slavery. We fought a Civil War that dealt with it. And the States that demanded that slavery be left to the states made their intentions clear. Take Mississippi for example.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

“In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the
government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the
prominent reasons which have induced our course. “

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material
interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most
important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging
on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear
exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at
slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution,
and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to
the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to
work out our ruin.”

Left to their own devices, slavery would have continued as long as they could enforce it. And certainly segregation and Jim Crow would have been imposed. We saw that in full bloom after the war.

Oh...we've seen the results of conservatism with regards to civil rights. The sheep dogs were actually German Shepherds used on people in Birmingham. Sorry...we don't trust you on this subject. You have no credibility on this. "States Rights" is just a Dog whistle buzzword for segregation and attacks on civil rights.

I think we've seen this before. They called it the Gestapo. Do you intend to round up those that oppose you?

It's all about "winning" isn't it? You sound just like Al Qaeda. Do you have as much guts as them? Are you willing to blow yourself up for your ideology? I mean...lets face it, they're willing to go to any lengths to "win". Are you? Or is there a line you won't cross? That would amount to a compromise in your beliefs. So it seems there is a point where even you would say, that's unreasonable and you'd back down. We know that you're willing to tank the US economy to get your way. What else are you willing to do? How far are you willing to go? Or are you just a lot of hot air? Another conservative gasbag?

The Constitution? The Federal Constitution? You hate a Federal Government. What are you talking about?

Of course it is. You're a total ideologue and they're completely invested in what they see as an infallibly correct view of things. You show that throughout your posts.

I would suggest you put up, or shut up. We're bored of the threats. Do you think that this is Syria or some other middle east country that you could overthrow? If you would like to engage in a revolution, go right ahead. Frankly we're all tired of your childish nonsense. I can assure you that violence will be met with overwhelming force. If you actually think that all of your gun nuts have enough firepower to take on the US government, be my guest. We could do without your crap and maybe that's the way it should go. The idea that you or others of your ilk would consider a violent revolution in this country is way overboard. You need a doctor and some heavy duty meds.

 

So you oppose social justice. What other forms of justice do you oppose? I'm curious as to why you would oppose justice. Do you prefer an unjust society? As for being free to make my own choices am I free to reject you? Can I be free From your concept of integrity because it doesn't match up to mine. I think it's lacking.

 

hehe. That's your key? Oh man...l'm afraid that's one of those abigous parts of the constitution that I was referring to earlier that you can't grasp. The text that you bolded does NOT say that you can "bypass" the constitution. That word doesn't exist in the text. In fact, you couldn't even infer that meaning. You're interpreting it that way, and the SCOTUS has NEVER considered the Amendment process as "bypassing" the constitution. The very idea that you're offering shows your contempt for the Constitution that you claim to love. You love it so much that you look for a way...any way...to bypass it if you think it would promote your agenda. You can't create an Amendment that would violate other portions of the document. It would never pass constitutional muster. All the Amendments are in keeping with the reason and logic of the document. To bypass the constitution would be to say that we can make an Amendment for example that prevents certain people from access to any part of the economy. That would bypass the constitution. There was only one Amendment that ever took away our rights. It was the 18th. And it was repealed. The Constitution extends rights. It doesn't take them away. The Amendment would itself be unconstitutional due to the fact that previous Amendments that already exist would illustrate that the proposed Amendment could effect due process or a persons civil rights. You are so out of your territory. You should quit while you're way behind. You clearly do not understand the Amendment process and probably never will because your ideology won't allow you to accept that you're completely wrong.

Remember...you are a fallible human being. You could be wrong. So don't be so quick to think that these wacky ideas of yours aren't full of holes. They are. You cannot create an infallible ideology from a fallible source.

[QUOTEThis is very subtle and required a Constitutional lawyer to tease out of the text and to make the case. Fortunately we have such a man on our side.][/QUOTE]

I'm afraid you'll need more than one man. There's an army of constitutional lawyers that would turn this inside out.

 

You're wrong. What they didn't buy is the idea of launching a missile strike. I disagree with them. They were wrong and I was right. The threat of the strike has brought about these events. Do you actually think that I have to wait to see what they say about things before I form my own thoughts? I'm not a conservative you know.

No. There are quite a few others that agreed as well. And I guess we could draw from that, that I'm part of a select group of those that get it.

I haven't mangled history. It's right there in all the books. Even somebody like you can look it up. As for international law, I'm afraid you're on the short end of that stick as well.

I didn't present it as my own. It's not some new idea of mine. Any fool, even one of your level could figure that out. I didn't invent history. It's public domain information. Your pettiness is duly noted.

A petty retort from a loser. Do you marinate in pettiness?

I'm only a "leftist" by default. What I'm NOT is a conservative. If that makes me a "leftist" that's what seems to be left over when you reject ideology. To the Conservative, those not of their mindset are leftists.

Sure you do. When Conservatives vote against the very things that they previously voted for, it's not the policy anymore. It's the guy that agrees with them that they can't stand. The Affordable Care Act came out of the Conservative Heritage Foundation. It was used in Massachusetts by a "severely conservative governor". Conservatives loved the individual mandate that made people take responsibility for their healthcare. So Obama agrees, and now they hate it. In other words, there was support for a conservative idea from this president. Once they found that out, they had to be against it. They've done this repeatedly. It's all about Obama, and everyone knows it. If he offered to cut taxes to 10 percent the conservatives would oppose him. Now they (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) that he can negotiate with Putin or with Iran but not with the Republicans. Well duh...That speaks volumes about the Republicans. It's easier to negotiate with Russia, China and Iran than it is with Republicans. At least those guys have some degree of reason and rationality left. Can't say that for the Republicans.

 

Earlier I wrote, "I asked you which you prefer. You might not be able to make up your mind. That is okay with me. Both are equally dangerous, and equally evil."

So which do you prefer? Marxist (as indicated by your social justice comments) or Statist?

Then I shall continue to choose for you as appropriate based on the context.

I also wrote, "And yet it is clear to me, and probably clear to anyone who reads your responses that you are no friend of individual liberty. And wasn't that my point? I want all of us to be free to make our own choices free from government coercion. What do you want?"

This is more evidence that you are not interested in individual liberty. This falls in line with your social justice nonsense. People like you, tyrants, will deny individual liberty to be replaced by group rights. The phrase above means individual liberty and individual justice for all. Do you continue to oppose individual liberty, instead replacing it with your Marxist value system judgments? If not how do you explain your desire to subjugate your fellow citizens if what they do does not advance your Marxist theory of social justice?

 

Earlier I wrote, "I want all of us to be free to make our own choices free from government coercion. What do you want?"

Isn't it telling that you were unable to answer my simple question? Should I conclude that you do not want each of us to be free to make our own choices free from government coercion?

I have no power over you. You can continue to reject the truth but you cannot reject what this tyrannical, national government demands.

 

Earlier I wrote, "Senators have no tie to their states. The whole point of having two houses, one selected by the people and the other by the state legislatures was to ensure that the states would remain sovereign."

In what way? The state has no control over the Senators the people popularly elect.

Yes. This is exactly what the Framers established as the means to tie the Federal government to the State governments that created it. What we have seen is the federal government transformed into a national government with no check on its power. This must be reversed. In my opinion monstrous usurpations of power such as Obamacare could not have happened if the Senators were selected by the states' legislatures.

I also wrote, "Yes. Senators have no tie to their states. The whole point of having two houses, one selected by the people and the other by the state legislatures was to ensure that the states would remain sovereign."

When senators are tied to their state legislatures the states retain their influence in what was intended to be a Federal government. They, the states, cannot be so easily crushed by a massive and national government when the senators are beholden to their state legislatures. This greatly enhances the power, the sovereignty, of each state.

I am clearly an opponent of democracy. Democracy is rule by mobs. The House of Representatives, popularly elected, can represent the passions and foolishness (and occasionally the wisdom) of the people. The Senate must return to the control of the state legislatures to ensure that the states' interests are safeguarded. This, in turn, allows the Senate to take on more of the role of the sheep dog in the constant struggle against the wolves.

I also wrote, "When the people popularly elect their senators and their representatives the states are cut out of influence at the federal level."

See above.

The House of Representatives is popularly elected. The representatives reflect the democratic desires of the people.

Neither state has any say in the national government as neither state has a player in the process. The people are doubly represented, although in truth once a senator is elected they do not answer to anyone, the people or the state.

I wrote, "Not since the people began to directly elect their senators. Senators are free agents. They answer to no one. But most importantly in terms of damage to the Constitution and individual liberty, they no longer answer to the states."

Senators answer to no one. They do not answer to the people. That is shown by the re-election of the senators, term after term after term. They do not answer to the state legislatures as the state has no power with which to influence them.

I understand it is difficult to recognize that senators are in it for themselves.

 

Earlier I wrote, "The states are the last defense against a tyrannical national government. Without them the sheep are devoured by the wolves they vote into office."

The states are not the problem. The national government is the problem. If you don't like what your state is doing you are in a good position to change it. That cannot be said of the national government that rules against the will of the people.

The Article V fight is not to eliminate the Constitution but to restore it. Unlike the One, the Marxist, we are not here to fundamentally transform the nation, to change it from free to socialist, but to return national government to the federal government and to restore the Constitution as a limit of federal powers.

"The Constitution established a federal government."

I did not say national government. They created a federal government. We experienced a slow, rolling coup, that eliminated federalism and replaced it with a national government. We need to eliminate the national government and return to a federal government.

The confusion is totally yours. You use terms incorrectly. They lead to a massive failure on your part. You really should seek a refund or possibly sue your political science teachers for malpractice. You have a case against them for federal versus national, and for democracy versus a constitutional republic.

 

Yes. It is Marxist in its origins. It is used as one more tool to convince the gullible to throw out individual freedom and individual liberty.

You can count me against any concept of justice that is based on groups or upon envy. If it is not based on individual liberty and individual freedom then I am not interested. It is a tool of the left designed to sway those unable to think.

I prefer a free, non-Marxist, society. Look at how easily you conflate the Marxist formulation of social justice with the individual freedom and individual liberty that leads to real justice meaning equality before the laws and equality of opportunity.

Your Marxist professors must be proud of their work.

 

Earlier I wrote, "Article V gives the people the opportunity to bypass the national government in order to restore the nation. So that is where the fight for the soul of the nation must turn next.

Please review the bolded portion. That is the key. This is the phrase that earns the greatest respect for the Framers. They put in a safeguard just in case the Federal government somehow became a national, and tyrannical, government. It has. So now we invoke the Constitution to allow the states to restore the Republic.

I can be gentle with you here. This is very subtle and required a Constitutional lawyer to tease out of the text and to make the case. Fortunately we have such a man on our side. It is absolutely clear once read and understood. This is your opportunity to think clearly and to choose to join the right side. If you like I can send you a link to where you can buy the book that explains it all.

You are a smart man. I believe you can be salvaged. Try this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Am.../dp/1451606273"

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?

One has to wonder why you would do such a thing. Have you run out of intellectual steam and find yourself short of rhetorical flourishes?

LOL. I am not the one who fabricated a lie in order to demolish it. You did that all on your own.

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.

 

Why yes. I was. How clever of you to notice.

 

I've decided to remove you from my ignore list after reading your total bull(*)(*)(*)(*). It needs to be put into the dumpster where it belongs.

Sorry, but you don't get that option. Your authoritarian addiction is on full display here. As I've told you, I reject your Either/Or premise. It's an illogical argument, as you've been shown, and holding a logical fallacy when it's shown to you, is a sign of irrationality. Your irrational behavior is on full display here, so far be it from me to deprive anyone from seeing it for themselves. Logic has no bias to it. The problem with the conservative mind is that they know that they're illogical and that the Liberal will always turn to it. Knowing that it's a liberal weapon of choice, they will always go to the knee-jerk reaction of rejecting anything that smacks of liberalism, so they reject logic. Unfortunately for them, most rational people do not. Conservatism, such as what you display is an illogical and totally irrational ideology. The result is they bath in irrationality and offer irrationalism as the foundation for a baseless ideology, which is why they continue to lose elections. Instead of recognizing that there may be a fundamental problem with their thinking, they determine that they simply haven't gone far enough, so their hate consumes them. It's an example of infinite regress v dogma. They can't reject their dogma, so they continue to spiral down into an abyss of their own making, never finding a justification for the basis of their dogma. In other words that even you may understand, you're digging a hole to nowhere and think that it's leading to Freedom. After all...Mark Levin told you it would. So you wave the flag and talk about Liberty and Justice for All, when you reject both.

I have no issue's with individual freedom and I'm a strong proponent of it. I've taken advantage of it all my life. What I've pointed out is that Individual Freedom does not mean that it gives you the freedom to deny others their individual freedom. Individual freedom does not come at the expense of Liberty for All. When it's denied to one person, it's denied to All. I learned that at a young age. You still haven't. As pointed out. "I think the pledge in this country states, "with Liberty and justice for all". It's clear that you do not subscribe to the PLEDGE and therefore have no love for this country, since you cannot accept the premise stated in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

You'll conclude whatever your limited abilities will offer you. But you'll be wrong regardless. What you can take from this is that everyone should be free From your ideology. To be free means to be free FROM things that shackle them to something else. Whether it's the prisoner that desires to be free FROM prison. The Pilgrim that comes here to be free FROM the religious state of the King. Free From the policies of dictators like Hitler. Free From persecution. I can't be free to practice my own religion unless I'm free FROM yours. I can't be free to take a political position unless I can be free from your authoritarianism.

It's about time you recognized that. I intend to keep it that way as do the majority of the people in this country.

I reject you and your ideology since it has nothing to do with the truth. You cannot demonstrate it as truth, therefore it has no rationality for me. Any attempt to prove something, especially an ideology, as true is bound to fail. You haven't learned that yet. You're still in the juvenile stage of development when it comes to this. It's a desperate need that the conservative has to be right. "the conservative knows that he's right, the liberal knows that he could be wrong. Which one is closer to the truth?"

I live in a country today that provides more freedom than the one that I grew up in. And it will continue to move in that direction and there's nothing you can do to stop that. The progress that has been made on behalf of all the people will not be reversed by ideologues like you. So you're fighting a losing battle. "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

We do not have a perfect government. We never will. But with some cooperation, we can make it work better than it did previously and serve the interests of the least of us. A very Christian concept.

"The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ - Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Of course. It does have some flaws. The Framers recognized that flaws would emerge over time that would need to be corrected. They were very smart men.

Actually I despise you liberals for destroying the Constitution. It is a shame that lies steadily creep into your answers. I have never said it was perfect. I have said it is easily understood. You would do a little bit better if you did not feel the need to add to or change my words. I may be asking too much.

And here you continue your earlier error. Do you believe a provision that is in the Constitution, can be unconstitutional? Article V, to refresh your memory, refers to Article V of the US Constitution. Do you think that no one one recognizes your distortions?

I also wrote"You are loyal to a national government. A coup has taken place and you have sided with the coup plotters against the nation and it s once free people. Now is the time to come to your senses. You can. But you have to want to be on the right side of history. I know it is a hard task. Being a liberal is such an easy choice. It requires no courage. I see more in you."

I am one who reads your words day after day after day.

Do you believe that recognizing historical trends means I am advocating revolution? I am a former soldier and I have studied revolutions. Almost none of them go well.

LOL. I may leave as we grow closer to failure and dissolution.

The Gestapo were an instrument of national political power and coercion. I have steadily argued for constraining national power. You have argued against me. If a national secret police force emerges it will be your doing, not mine.

LOL. Don't hold back. Tell me what you really think. But then realize that everyone who reads our exchanges can clearly see that throughout I have argued for reducing federal power and the government's ability to interfere with our lives. I have consistently argued for individual liberty and individual freedoms. You have taken the opposing view.

I do not believe you know what the United States means. You have consistently believed that the US is a democracy instead of a constitutional republic. You mistake a federal government for a national government. You are loyal to what the US has become, not what it was designed to be.

If you refer to national elections the voters had two choices. The first, the winner, was and is a fraud, a Marxist, and a charlatan. The second was a decent man, a competent man, but an establishment Republican. Both are statists. And among the voters the takers chose the true Marxist over the statist, socialist-lite candidate. Conservatism was not represented at the national level. And about 4 million conservatives stayed home preferring to stop voting for the lesser of two evils. That is a lesson for the establishment Republican party more than one for the socialist democratic party.

Actually it is fine, thank you.

If your beliefs about conservatives and conservatism were true you would have a point. Yur beliefs are not true. You do not have a point.

I am not going to complain. Your outbursts are humorous, nothing more.

It is more that you long ago sided against the people and the US as it was established. That has nothing to do with me. You are loyal to a dangerous and evil national government. You fail to recognize that the coup plotters do not represent the US. It is one of several fundamental errors you have made throughout our exchanges.

Thank you for putting Mark and I on somewhat equal footing. Fortunately he and I know enough to carry the Article V fight forward.

The good news is that we don't have to. Individual liberty, protected and nurtured by a US Constitution is far better than group rights/social justice under your Marxian formulation. And that is good enough for me.

Uh-oh. Another sensitive, caring, inclusive liberal is about to blow his cover.

Darn. I suppose it was bound to come to this. Socialists run out of other peoples' money and liberals eventually run out of intellectual steam and rhetorical flourishes.

I only wish you had told me sooner before I spent all of those hours responding to your overly lengthy, bombastic messages.

 

They are representing the interests of the people of their states. The people that elected them. At least that's what my Senators do. I can't speak for yours. If you don't like your Senator, then you can vote him out. It's much easier than getting rid of a House member because of the Gerrymandering of the districts.

State Senators answer to the State legislatures, and they can be re-called as we just saw take place in Colorado. Political parties can control state legislatures and that bears no resemblance to representation of the people's voice in the US government. What it means is that one political party can dominate the policies of the country rather than through the popular vote.

If you mean a person like Ted Cruz, I'd agree. He's a pretentious self-promoter. However a Senator like mine doesn't fit that description. He has no ambition for higher office and is much loved by the people here. He completely serves the interest of the people here and always has, and nobody questions that.

 

No you aren't. It's next to impossible. Your major representation to congress is your local representative and as a result of re-districting it's not an option. The Republican Party is held captive to fanatics that will primary everyone that they feel is actually going to congress with the purpose of governing. Left to their own devices some of the states will legislate authoritarian laws that would deny people their civil rights. We've seen it. It's part of our history. Nobody is going to believe that your views on these matters have changed when everything that comes out of your mouths proves that you haven't.

I heard you. The Federal Government IS our national government.

Oh please...you want your paranoia to be an acceptable excuse for implementation of your ideology? I can only assume that you're a devoted follower of Glenn Beck and Alex Jones. Curb the conspiracy theory. A "rolling coup"? Nobody is ever going to buy into this extremist position, other than those totally dissatisfied with their own lives, and looking for somebody to point their accusatory fingers at. "You're responsible for my unhappiness". Boo Hoo.

You are hopeless. You live in your conservative bubble. You know nothing of the subject other than what's been fed to you by other ideologues that validate your own paranoia, and extremism. I find you pathetic. Your ideology has been rejected repeatedly and you're losing more and more credibility among the people. Instead of re-thinking your position you double down. You never consider the remote possibility that...you could be wrong. Answer that question. Could you be wrong?? Is it possible? Or are you going to tell me that your ideology is infallibly correct? Which is it? Is it possible that Mark Levin has his head up his ass and has brought you into that dark and nasty place with him?

 

Listen, public opinion changed dramatically this year because now people know for a fact that the Al-Qaeda rebels used the CW's. Besides, would you really want a mideast war if you're liberal and against the Iraq war? I'm against both, but this "fake" liberal movement has gone far enough. You're not a real liberal if you want war with Syria.

 

I see. Then you would oppose the Civil Rights Act, and the concept of civil rights in general. There is no clearer example of Social Justice then the Civil Rights Act....so you would oppose that on ideological grounds. Now I'm sure you'd deny being a racist, nobody wants to admit to being a scumbag, however your conservatism is merely a justification for racism. You would oppose the Civil Rights Act. That reveals a lot.

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. Segregation would be one such institution. 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. Do you wish to challenge any part of that?

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 – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict. Would you want to challenge any part of that?

So what other forms of Justice do you oppose? You use Marx as reference point in order to justify a racist position and ignore the others that I spoke of such as Aristotle, Bentham, Mill, Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Nozik, Rawls...and instead focus all of your attention on Marx. Bad evil Marx! But...if it means that we can use him to justify our racism...lets go for it. Even though you accept his theories on historicism which you're completely unaware of. You actually think that Justice in a social context is wrong. So the Civil Rights Act is wrong in your view. Injustice like segregation and laws against inter-racial marriage should be applauded then. So, it doesn't surprise me that you would oppose equal rights to a segment of the population. You can hardly deny that since you oppose "social justice". You would then agree that discrimination and segregation are acceptable, and of course within a State like, lets say, Alabama, that segregation was acceptable since that's what the rednecks in the state wanted, and being in the majority, their absolutist view of democracy would prevail at the expense of others. Democracy in it purest form is majority rule. That form was in fact rejected by the founders. However Democracy with a Bill of Rights was acceptable. The Bill of Rights was put in place to insure that the rights of minorities would be protected against the tyranny of the majority that would be more than happy to deny them equal justice under the law. So majority rule, tempered by a Bill of Rights was the system that worked. You may reject the notion that you're a racist, but your ideology is clearly racist. So...you're in denial. Bravo.

So you're against the Civil Rights Act. We got it. You've boxed yourself in. You embrace racism.

You prefer a racist society and the freedom to exploit people and even oppress them on a racial basis. We get it. Any form of justice that would prevent that is something you'd oppose.Your concept of "freedom" includes the freedom to oppress others without recrimination.

Actually, I'm looking at how easily you use your opposition to Marx to justify your racism and the ideology that underlies it. As if Freedom is a justification for racist policies. You're a real piece of work.

I never had any, but I'm sure you'd fit right into a Klan rally. Burn any crosses lately? Do you hang out at Storm Front and other White Supremacist sites you'd rather not talk about?

Conservatism is a racist ideology. It never fails to reveal itself. All you have to do is push hard enough and it pours out. They can't help themselves.

Clearly, equal opportunity is not something you endorse. You prefer the freedom to deny freedom to others.

How do you prove envy exists in somebody's mind? That's a projection on your part, and an assumption that you can read the mind of another. So you think that you can prove that somebody "envies" you? What on earth makes you think that anybody would want to be like you? Your way of thinking is repulsive.

 

You can't make a case for Amending the constitution claiming that you're not bypassing it, and then assume that you can make a cogent argument that it's not the constitution that you're bypassing but rather a national government. You can try, but you'll be ground into the cement like a squashed bug for being a total ignoramus. You're presenting the dumbest argument for bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that I think I've ever heard.

Your argument has crossed into the absurd a long time ago.

You're sitting on the end of a branch and sawing it off behind you. You have to be one of the more foolish people I've encountered on this forum.

This has nothing to do with Marx son. This is all about the TRUE statement presented to you. I prefer to deal with Truth. Here's my comment; "Remember...you are a fallible human being. You could be wrong. So don't be so quick to think that these wacky ideas of yours aren't full of holes. They are. You cannot create an infallible ideology from a fallible source. Deny it and show all of us what a tool you are. At this point I've decided to simply play with you because you're so easy. The question for you to answer which I know you'll avoid is this; Knowing that you're a fallible human being, is it possible that you could be wrong? Yes or No? Perhaps you think you're infallible, and that would solve your problem. Just say so. Man up. Yes or No?

- - - Updated - - -

It wasn't really clever of me. I can't take credit for that. You offered the link. That was your big mistake. It tells me everything I need to know about you and who's behind your ideology.

 

As you have described it yes. I oppose your description of the civil rights act. It is time to end it.

As you have described it the law, if you are right that it allocates rights based on groups then yes, I oppose it.

Do you think my answer will change based on asking me three times? If the law is as you say it is then the law itself is a racist law and should be opposed by everybody who believes in individual rights and individual liberty. You have already given your answer. You oppose individual rights and prefer a more marxist interpretation of rights. I believe that all rights are individual rights and that we should all be equal before the law. And finally it is my opinion that the party who brings up racism as a weapon, which you have done several times, is usually the racist.

Depends. What do you believe you said? The segregationists were part of what is today the democratic party. Conservatism is based on a belief that governments must be restricted by written constitutions or charters, limited in their ability to meddle beyond those areas agreed to and ratified in the constitutions. Beyond that conservatives come ready-made with all sorts of additional beliefs.

J. William Fulbright - Democrat. Segregationist. Mentor to BJ Clinton.
Harry F. Byrd, Sr. - Democrat. Segregationist
James D. Johnson - Democrat. Segregationist
Lester Maddox - Democrat. Segregationist
James H. Gray, Sr. - Democrat. Segregationist
Robert Byrd - Democrat. Segregationist and member of the Ku Klux Klan.
William Arthur Winstead - Democrat. Segregationist. "Like nearly all of the state's Democrats, he was an ardent segregationist"

Is your argument that these gentlemen were all conservatives? Fullbright wasn't, was he? Byrd Sr.? R. Byrd? No.

Sure. Just as in ending slavery and racial discrimination conservatism play a large and positive role. Members of the democratic party, people who believe as you do stood opposed more often than they supported. And the bolded part could have been written by Radical Karl or F. Engels. Awesome!

Radical Karl put it all together in a convenient package for those on your side of the issue. So he gets the credit. He did not appear to be an original thinker but that hardly matters.

My you do blather on. And it is clear that you are out of ideas as you have reverted to an attempt, once again, to use a charge of racism as a weapon. It does not work anymore. Evil try though. I know it used to work for liberals but you and yours way over used it.

You are not a serious person. But your buffoonery does make me smile.

Do you have a fundamental problem with liberty for individuals? I think that you do. There is no reason to continue to show that you are not a serious person. We already get it. You are not a serious person. Understood.

You are not a serious person. Awesome. Why not just say you have run out of intellectual steam and need to revert to racism charges because that worked for you in the past? At least that would be honest. But you are not honest.

LOL. Yeah...I bet you got so excited you wet yourself.