Is the American sense of justice and morality dead?

As you can see accountability to reason is quite lacking with selectivity being the only real mode of exchange. Maybe you will do as I've done which is end efforts to communicate with those stuck in that mode.

I select the intentions of the framers for discussion. I do this with the awareness that they were operating in an environment of intense social competition. Because of that competition, the framers were not able to include certain concepts and included concepts were not worded or expressed as they wanted. Accordingly, in order to get down to exactly what they intended, we must use implication and inference to competently deduce what their intentions were.

We've been around once with this, I decided you needed to experience the greater nonsense levels here in order to appreciate my approach, which is rudimentary and anchored in ideals.

The reason I do this is to reduce partisan conversion into dominant media buzz phrases. When I see a return to the DOI and unalienable rights, I must attempt again to establish communication on that level, once again.

This inquiry is designed to reveal prime constitutional intent and promote agreement upon it.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

This agreement, BTW, I'm quite sure, supports quality American morality and justice.

 

Unity must precede activism, even a passive form of activism. I'm sorry, but while our ideologies are similar, I still cannot support your proposed response.

Have you considered my previous suggestion to attempt revival of the Fairness Doctrine? I think you would get much more support for that.

 

??????????????????????????????
Kslcmsjdnc kldnkojm? Gsjwk ksklejrb ldiuhej eknf?

 

Morals mean nothing to the democrat party. They will get in bed with any immoral low lifes if they think they can garner their vote.

 

Agreed on the sequence of unity and activism.

It appears it's too late for the fairness doctrine.

"The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine."

It appears their is no intention left in government to allow any fairness. And that matches what we see in many other areas.

If free speech does not have the ultimate purpose of enabling the unity to alter or abolish, what do you think the framers intended to serve that purpose for Americans to use their right to alter or abolish?

 

So you don't know what the hell you are talking about? I was beginning to suspect as much.

 

And just how much of their money are you folk entitled to eh? How much of the product of one's investments or labor, or indeed inherited Wealth, are you entitled to take for your own purposes?

 

In order for two people to communicate on ANY scale, they must have a common vocabulary and at least a rudimentary understanding of the topic under discussion as a frame of reference. You demonstrate neither.

KARL MARX MOST CERTAINLY WAS A SOCIALIST!!! You say that anarchism "is the ever lasting trouble of dealing with human beings who are selfish and self-centered animals as well as social animals", yet you have the audacity to say that " Government serves as the conscience of those who have none" is illogical. Oh, and you'd better look up "declaim" in the dictionary before using it again.

Abraham Lincoln once said: "It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and leave no doubt." Don't discuss things you don't understand using words you don't know the meaning of.

 

Nope Karl Marx was a communist. He thought socialism was but a passing fancy and a necessary step on the way to the stateless state. A socialist of the sort we have in Europe - really more fascist than socialist - are people who understand that any government that is large enough to make even a half hearted attempt at assessing means and needs isn't going anywhere of it's own volition.

Government is there to bare the sword against evil men. It is at best the ultimate arbiter of Justice. To equate this with a conscience is a fool's errand. You cannot create a conscience in the conscienceless all you can do is discourage them from doing harm.

 

Saying that Karl Marx was not a socialist because he was a communist is like saying that Lassie was not a dog because she was a Collie. To say that "Government is there to bare the sword against evil men" is an appropriate metaphor, but " Government serves as the conscience of those who have none" is not epitomizes the same arbitrary judgmentalism that has characterized every one of your posts. Borrowing one of your phrases, I believe it would be a "fools errand" to try to attempt MEANINGFUL communication with you.

 

There is nothing arbitrary about it. It is about an unwillingness on your part to precisely use language.

 

Whatever % is required to bring this graph to the ideal suggested.

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

Regards
DL

 

"whether or not that guilt can be proven means nothing to vigilantes."

A vigilante will believe that he knows there is guilt and is willing to put his life on the line as executioner to redress whatever evil he believes he is avenging.

For instance, if a vigilante was to attempt to kill the pope, he would be doing so sure that many children who have been raped deserve redress that they did not get from the courts.

Regards
DL

 

The graph is bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Then get one that you think is not.

All you are saying without one is that you do not like mine, --- based on nothing.

That is what B.S. is so stop spreading it around.

I showed you mine. Let's see yours.

Regards
DL