Paul Ryan on Syria. The art of the flip flop

Earlier I wrote, "It is the statist, people like you, who are intolerant. Conservatives want everybody to pursue their happiness in the ways that please them. Under conservatism and the free market's ideals you get to choose for you while I get to choose for me."

You should have stopped after the fourth word above. Given your liberalism I wondered how long it would take for you to bring up racism. It is what liberals do. I think it is a talisman for the left.

And here is where you will begin to introduce your deeply held roots, the roots of Marxism. I wondered how long it would take for you to get around to liberalism's fundamental belief.

And this is what all liberals think, isn't it? You and the "Masterminds" will make all of our choices for us. It is who you are. It is why you must be defeated. You do not understand liberty. You do embrace slavery for all who are not you. You have failed to hide who you are and what you really believe.

What do you believe this means? And why do I think from here on down to the bottom of this message you will ramble in that incomprehensible way that only liberals do?

Those are freedoms from government interference. They represent the things government should not interfere with. You missed the freedom to defend ones life and property. Without this right none of the others make sense.

What do you believe this means? Who will determine what a social or economic inequality is? Is this a restatement of Radical Karl's "From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs"? Why not be honest with yourself and admit that you comfortably slip into Marxism?

Who are "WE"? and what will you do? Isn't this your Marxist justification for stealing from the wealth creators to buy the votes of the wealth consumers?

Do you actually believe this crap? I bet you do. Do you live it? I believe you are a hypocrite. Are you unjust? How does your book benefit the least well off?

Oh-oh. Here is another pantload. Do you believe there is some "stash" of income, wealth and opportunities that someone controls and "distributes"? LOL. Perhaps you lived near Harvard for too long.

Let's assume you meant income, wealth and opportunites should not be based on arbitrary factors. Will you convene a board, as in Plato's Republic, to select the people who will rule? What factors would you accept?

I do agree that careers should be open to talent. I see no reason why governments should have the authority to prevent people from pursuing careers. So let's eliminate licensing requirements. Let's get the government out of picking winners and losers.

Let' see. Is this Marxist or earlier socialist nonsense? John Stewart Mill wrote about this nonsense in his book called Socialism. You show your deep socialist roots when you object to the present order and want it replaced by something more to your liking. I believe it is nothing more than replacing what is with something more evil, arbitrary and capricious than relying upon results to determine rewards in life.

You are intolerant for people who are not socialists, er, Marxists, uh, liberals...got it.

And no doubt you have set yourself up as the judge of what is racist and what is not. Let me guess, Blacks cannot be racist. Only white men can be racists. Isn't that the liberal template? And anyone who objects to the Marxist's policies must be a racist because "He" is <whisper> black. </whisper>
You are so obvious. Like most liberals you seethe with anger, envy, and a desire to get even.

It is the liberal orthodoxy that claims such nonsensical things.

See what I mean? A desire to see racism, when one is a liberal, is essential to advance the narrative. Never mind that it is not true. Liberals will believe anything.

 

The United States has become a plutocracy. It's also an Oligarchy. That needs to be rectified.

You've just made an absolute statement. Now demonstrate that it's true. Demonstrate the lie.

That's an assertion on your part. That doesn't demonstrate the truth of your statement. Can you demonstrate the truth of what you're saying, because that's the only thing that matters to me. I'm not interested in your paranoia and BS. I'm interested in facts. You're no providing them.

That's no guarantee of a just society, and that's what's important. I want a government that blocks you and people like you from institutionalizing prejudice toward those you have an irrational hatred for. We have a history of that, and it required an act of congress to deal with it. So don't tell me that it doesn't exist. If it didn't, a Civil Rights Act would never have been needed. There is a place for government, and that place is to insure that every citizen receives fair treatment and equal access to the economy of this country.

 

Earlier I wrote, "Our government is failing us and needs to be cut way back. It is abusive and tyrannical."

Getting something for nothing has a powerful appeal for many. It is also clear that the socialists in your party prefer the real socialists in your party over the socialist-lite candidates that the Establishment Republicans put up. The socialists in both parties lead us into eventual slavery to the state. The only difference is how fast we get there. The socialists in your party want to get us there as fast as possible. The socialists in the Republican party will take us to the same place only just a little bit slower. No thanks. I reject your Marxism just as I reject the Marxists in the Establishment Republican party.

The One, the Marxist, has squandered vast amounts of wealth to ill effect. The best jobs bill is a roll back of the vast regulatory state. It is not giving untold billions of dollars to cronies and to unions.

I also wrote, "We have very few remaining opportunities to regain control of the monster we have created. You should be delighted that there are still some sheep dogs who can protect the sheep from the wolves."

This is more evidence that you do not believe in individual liberty. You believe the monster works for you. And you have no idea that you will not escape the destruction that is coming.

We have to try. So the fight moves to Article V and onto the state legislatures. If we fail the nation will fail. My ideology, as we have already established, is one of constrained government and individual liberty. I understand why you would not want that nightmare forced upon you. It can be frightening to live in freedom.

Sadly you did. But that is more evidence that the sheep need sheep dogs to protect them from the wolves. If the wolves would content themselves with devouring you, the sheep, I might be willing to stand back and watch. You deserve to get what is coming to you. As you said, you voted for it. The wolves are only in it for the wolves. No one is safe as a result of your vote for tyranny.

No. You have rejected freedom. You voted for slavery for yourself and for any children you have had or might have. And you voted the same fate for me.

You did admit that you do not understand the Constitution. It is clear that I should have believed you. The House has the obligation to defund tyranny. And the Senate is designed to act very slowly. Of course the Senators work only for themselves. Progressives convinced the nation to eliminate the States' role.

Hayek did not write of going along with a suicide pact. That is your idea and I reject it.

 

You said,

"I'm all in favor of a constitution. You can't govern a society without one. But I also expect that a government must be responsive to the needs of it's people, and that a constitution must also be flexible enough to address those needs. The Constitution is not an object of worship, and those that do so are wrong. It was a fallible document created by fallible men. Each generation should be required to interpret it according to the times we live in. We should NEVER be locked into the dictates of dead men. Our government is for the living. Not the dead."​

So you were for it ("I'm all in favor of a constitution) before you were against it ("But I also expect that a government must be responsive to the needs of it's people, and that a constitution must also be flexible enough to address those needs.").

Yeah. I interpret your claim as one that essentially believes there should be no limits on government. That is antithetical to constitutional government.

The lie is demonstrated. It is your statement.

 

The original bottom line was "Assad must go." Then there was the red line bottom line, which you, for reasons that you can't seem to explain, don't regard as Obama's red line, then there was Obama's Syria flub which has lead to this point. Assad is in power. Assad has chemical weapons. Assad used chemical weapons. Assad has the support and protection of Russia. Russia denies Assad used chemical weapons.

Now, you say, without any explanation, that Assad cannot use chemical weapons. Why is that? I missed that part.

Meanwhile, I will patiently wait for the UN to gather up all of Syria's chemical weapons, while the war rages on.

 

Ahh...you actually looked it up. Sure I'm a liberal activist. I'm interested in meaningful change. You oppose that, so I critique your opposition.

I do have an agenda. That would be to expose Conservative ideology for it's errors. I have no ideology myself. Critical thinking is not an ideology. There is no dogma to defend. The critical thinking itself is open to criticism. The object, if there is one is to look for the logical fallacy in any idea. Conservatism is foundationalist thinking. The problem is that there is no foundation, for the foundation. It claims conservatism is its own basis, and that's circular reasoning.

I'm sure, but your beliefs are of no concern. Everyone has "beliefs". There is nothing that makes yours more important than anyone else's. You can't demonstrate a belief as true. The belief is based on...something. What makes the thing you use as a basis true?

That's a very generic statement that almost everyone would agree with, however you fall apart when you suggest that men and women with integrity are the ones that uphold it. What determines the integrity of those persons. Every one is fallible, so they are always prone to mistakes. Nobody is infallible so when it comes to integrity, all your presenting is a vague value judgment. Clearly we all have values, so what makes yours more important then my own? Neither of us can demonstrate what makes them the values that every one must accept. The difference is that I don't invoke my values on others. I don't lay claim to being a "sheep dog" to make sure that your values don't conflict with mine. I don't see any integrity by my standards within the Republican Party. In fact, I see overwhelming evidence of hypocrisy. I could list it here, but it would occupy an entire post.

You really don't understand the concept here very well. America is an experiment in democracy. It's an unfolding story. It's not finished. It's always a work in progress. It's always tweaked and revisited to address the problems that occur in this country. We don't have a population of 1 million any more. It's over 300 million and that becomes a problem that many of the ideas could not have anticipated. The fundamental structure is in place. The founders created an outline that future generations must use to deal with the problems that they could never foresee. That's as simple and logical as you can get. Why you don't understand that is beyond me.

Thank you. You've just articulated the most basic of all problems in conservative ideological thinking. The Conservative knows that he's right. The Liberal knows that he could be wrong. Knowing,. as I'm sure you do, that we're all fallible humans, which course is closer to the truth?

 

When did I ever say that I was against the constitution? I may be against your reading of it, but that doesn't mean that I oppose it. Fools like yourself assume some ownership of that document. You don't. Get used to it.

Who cares about your interpretation? It's subjective. You don't even understand what constitutes "proof". Your interpretation is not proof of anything. There is nothing in what I said that suggests that there should be no limits on the government. Not one thing. You bring your own bias and conservative ideology to the argument of what constitutes proof.

Your entire argument here demonstrates ignorance. That's all. Your opinion is not proof of anything. You've really elevated your opinion to new heights and that's about all that's taking place here. Do you understand the difference between subjectivity and objectivity? Demonstrate how what you're saying is true. You're assuming through projection what you think I'm saying rather than the substance of what I'm saying.

 

Deny if you wish. It does not matter. Anyone willing to simply read your words can see what you believe. You are for the constitution as long as it does not get in your way. You have the heart of a tyrant.

 

That will probably take place. Just because it hasn't happened according to your timeline, doesn't mean that it isn't going to take place.

The "red line" was established in 1925. You're The Red Line was established before you or I was even born. Obama can hardly lay claim to something that was already set down. Why you have an issue over something like this is something that you fail to explain.

What flub? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes Assad is in power, so to speak. There is a Civil War there so what he's in control of is questionable. Yes he has CW, which he denied having, and now has admitted to having. Yes he used them which prompted a threat of a missile strike.

Yes..he has the support of Russia. Russia owns Syria. Russia has accepted the fact that Syria has the CW and although they try to suggest they didn't use them, the evidence that they did is overwhelming, and Russia knows it.

Yes, and I did explain why. Syria first denied it. They denied they even had those weapons. Now they admit it. Russia admits it. They know that we threatened a strike. The only thing preventing that was Russia's intervention. They offer a diplomatic solution. That's the only thing keeping a strike from happening. If they use them now, there will be no diplomatic move by Russia that will prevent a US response. Russia being Syria's daddy state, will be held responsible for the actions of Assad. Russia is never going to allow that albatross to be hung around it's neck. It would be a disaster for Putin. Putin doesn't want to be held responsible for the use of CW in Syria. This is the second time I've explained this to you.

However long it takes no longer really matters. They'll never be able to use them again. So CW are removed from the battlefield in Syria. And we never fired a shot.

 

Deny? I point out the fallacy of your argument. You fail to understand the meaning of the word "proof". That's what's been demonstrated here.

That's called an opinion. It's doesn't qualify as proof of anything beyond the FACT that you suggest your opinions constitute "proof". You think I have the "heart of a tyrant"? According to who? You? Why does that make what you say, true? Who are you? What is the authority that you carry that can make that determination? As a fallible human being, you must know that you could be wrong. So, how might that be possible? Well, you could be misinterpreting everything I've said when you filer it through your ideological lens. That's one way. Name calling never proves anything. Don't you know that?

 

Of course. And it shows that you fail to recognize your obvious biases.

I also wrote, "That means you do have an agenda and an ideology"

Cool. Gnats and camels.

And of course, being a liberal activist you have no ideology. That may be true. Your ideology appears to be borrowed from Radical Karl.

My you do blather.

I also wrote, "And me? I have one fundamental belief. I believe that governments must be constrained by written constitutions upheld by men and women with integrity."

I understand why they are of no concern to you. Such beliefs get in the way of the liberal masterminds, don't they?

I am also not surprised that you are unfamiliar with integrity. I may be wrong about you being a sheep. You appear to align yourself with the wolves.

And then, "I know that something so simple, so fundamental, so in line with the creating of this nation will appear to be rigidly ideological to people like you."

It used to be a constitutional republic. It was never a democracy. And now it is an oppressive tyranny. So the Article V fight moves to the state legislatures. If we win there we save the nation. And if we lose, well, the nation was already lost.

And finally. "I can live with that. I am right."

We both know liberals are wrong. And we both know that I am right. I understand why you cannot admit it. Just look at all of your errors.

 

Somehow I knew you would hold such an idiotic belief. Almost everything I know is a result of self study. How could it be otherwise? With an undergraduate degree and a masters degree had I stopped then I would have missed many of the best things I have ever learned. Your mileage may vary.

I assume that anyone with an interest can learn anything they want to learn. I have yet to fail to learn anything I have chosen to learn. Philosophy is inherent in everything. I follow the threads that interest me. I followed the problems of knowledge, dipping into a variety of books along the way. I have done the same for many interesting questions as I discovered my interest.

Logic courses are covered in basic engineering undergraduate programs. Probability and statistics are also covered. For those who are interested there are many good books to be had and enjoyed.

As far as critical reasoning is concerned I am sure there are many good books. None of my titles specifically address critical reasoning. I do have five books on my bookshelf that cover critical thinking. I used them to help a junior engineer I was coaching develop his problem solving approach. They all have thought or critical thinking in their title so I am reasonably certain that you will find them lacking. That is okay. I did not buy them nor read them to please you. I bought them to meet my needs.

Okay.

I also wrote,"As far as Political Science how could one escape one's Marxist professors?"

My point was that every university has their Marxists. They tend to end up in the economics and political science departments. They tend to be the ones who teach undergraduates. They cannot be avoided.

 

Earlier I wrote, "I just pulled four volumes from my bookshelf. Have I "had" a philosophy course if I have read Kant's Metaphysics of Experience or Plato's Republic or Knowledge and Value or Knowledge, Mind and Nature. Or is it only a valid experience if I sat in a classroom?"

That was not my question. In your opinion is it only valid if I sit in a classroom?

That is one option among many. It is not the best option for me.

I eliminated the rest of your post. You have an annoying habit of answering questions not asked. I think you have a deep need to believe you are superior.

 

Nope. If by Karl, you mean Karl Popper, then yes. However Critical Rationalism isn't an ideology. Philosophy and ideology are two different things and you should understand the difference. Philosophies tend to adapt. Ideologies don't. They're dogmatic. This framework permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals, and decisions, and his basic philosophical position itself, open to criticism; one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position. I'm willing to critique my own position. Are you? I'm a fallibilist. That simply means that I know I could be wrong about a bunch of things. When I find that I am, I correct it. Can you say that?

I know. I already addressed that. Integrity is a value judgment. Why should I think that you recognize integrity when you see it? You can't demonstrate your values as being true, and those you see as having integrity, I see as being hypocritical morons. So your view of integrity is not in line with mine.

Nope. It's because they are beliefs. They can't be demonstrated as true, and I'm more interested in the truth than somebody's beliefs, including yours. I'll ask you a question that I'm sure you'll avoid, but I'll ask it anyway. What's more important to you, your beliefs, or the Truth? They aren't necessarily the same thing. Would you compromise your beliefs in favor of the Truth, or would you hold onto a belief knowing that it was demonstrably false? Being the ideologue that you are, I think I know the answer. The truth is expendable if it means maintaining your belief in the ideology. I would find that unacceptable and not evidence of integrity at all.

I wrote about the sheep in the corral who were a metaphor for the conservative and the black sheep that sees freedom beyond the fence of the corral who was the metaphor of the liberal. I'm not going to post it again. I align myself with free thinking people everywhere. To you that's a wolf. To me that's what freedom is about. And I can tell you that I hold no beliefs dogmatically. Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question) and this justification by an appropriate authority makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it.&#8221;I'm not a foundationalist. So belief systems aren't part of my makeup. I examine beliefs critically. I can't understand why people fear that, except that they probably hold their beliefs out of fear. Letting go of them is scary to most people, but if you're really interested in finding the truth, then you'll need to let them go since every belief leads to infinite regress v your dogma. Beliefs are held through appeals to authority and those are always logical fallacies. I prefer to avoid those since holding onto a logical fallacy is a sign of irrationality. That's a good start for establishing integrity. What's yours? You seem to have cornered the market on it.

I already responded to this.

You're wrong. Again. I spoke to this as well. Apparently you don't read the posts. I said that although the principle of democracy does not directly appear in the text, we infer it from the various textual features that presume democracy and from the basic character of our government as a representative and democratic republic. It also informs our construction of other principles found in the text like freedom of speech and equal protection of the laws. Many of our principles don't exist in the text. For example there is no single separation of powers clause in the Constitution; rather we must derive the principles of separation of powers from how the various institutions and structures outlined in the constitutional text relate to each other. The principle of democracy is no different in that respect. We've gotten to a point in this where you respond to each of my posts with banality rather than substance.

Article V?? The Amendment process? What fight is there on the Amendment process? Are you fighting to change the Amendment process? Do you want to change the constitution?

That's a pretty weak argument. But it's totally expected. You've shown yourself to be weak throughout this exchange. What we both know is that you just demonstrated my point. The conservative knows that he's right, while the liberal knows that he could be wrong. The question is which one is closer to the truth? Being a conservative you actually believe that you're infallible and have no interest in truth. You know that you aren't, but you want to believe that the ideology is infallible. Even though a man-made ideology cannot be infallible. You can't get an infallible result from a fallible source. So...we know that your an irrational fool. Having demonstrated that, it's pretty clear you have nothing of substance to offer. Only a desperate need to feel that you're right. Far right. I'd say you've had your ass handed to you.

 

That's a pretty broad brush you're using. I never ran into a Marxist. I've experienced Libertarians, Communitarians, Liberals and conservatives, but never what I'd call a Marxist. Communism isn't popular. People like to own things. Me included. You'd call any liberal a Marxist so I don't regard that is having any significance.

BTW...I have no issues with self-study on subjects that matter to you. Learning should be a lifetime practice. When you stop doing that, you might as well dig a hole and jump in. You're finished.

 

NO. It's not only valid. Is certainly better than sitting around like some ignorant mass of bile. However it's important to have others to bounce your ideas off of, rather than simply consuming these things in a vacuum. All these things are theoretical and should be examined with a critical eye.

You think this works better? As far as I'm concerned, Political forums like this are simply venues to challenge conventional thinking.

What I have a need for, is to answer the question as completely as possible and include examples of why the answer makes sense. I don't offer short quips. If you think an answer doesn't make sense then point out why. Simply saying "I'm right and your wrong" won't get it. Tell me WHY you're right. Demonstrate it for me. My attitude regarding these forums is not to come here to hang out, but to challenge the way people think. That means that the threads I post to, are going to be things I'm pretty solid with. I'm going to give you a rational post. I'm not interested in lowering the bar. I'm interested in raising it. If a poster isn't up to it, then I'm not interested in wasting my time.

 

I am sure there are tons of people that believe Marx's tenets. I believe the 10 short term demands at the end of chapter 2 are supposedly the foundation of communism.

 

Marx subscribed to the theory of Historicism and that was an idea that was debunked a long time ago. Oddly enough there are a lot of current economic reductionists today that do subscribe to that very idea. They permeate the Republican Party. People like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul. I wonder if they know that they have much in common with Marx?

 

But in the end, even Marx, unrecognizing his mutated creation, claimed he was not a Marxist.

 

If memory serves, didn't Marx create the idea of socialism at a time when no country ever tried it, and ended up living his life in the lap of luxury in London? It was just an idea for him but I don't think anyone even tried to realize it until long after he was gone. I don't agree with his idea because I think it removes motivation from people. Why would I go to school for 13 years to be an MD when some garbage truck driver gets a bigger apartment because he has a wife and some kids? If I stuck through 13 years of university, reisdency, and specialization I would sure as heck want some kind of major reward for that on the back end. The only cool thing about Marx's idea was that if you did some job for 20 years and decided it sucked you could just ask the State to give you a new career and they would (assuming there was a need for that new career). In capitalism, while doing the career change you have to stop making money and will burn through your savings. Other than that I don't see anything cool about Karl's vision.

 

Earlier I wrote, "And of course, being a liberal activist you have no ideology. That may be true. Your ideology appears to be borrowed from Radical Karl."

Radical Karl. Karl Marx.

 

Even the Washington Post gave that "not my red line" story Pinocchios.

Anyway, time will prove me correct.

 

Earlier I wrote, "I just pulled four volumes from my bookshelf. Have I "had" a philosophy course if I have read Kant's Metaphysics of Experience or Plato's Republic or Knowledge and Value or Knowledge, Mind and Nature. Or is it only a valid experience if I sat in a classroom?"

I prefer to learn by reading and mind mapping the best authors I can find in an area that interests me. I tend to learn more and remember more using this method than I ever did in a classroom. I write down questions as I go and seek to answer them from a variety of sources. In some cases I end up with 3-ring binders full of colorful maps. Over the last decade I have switched over to a mind mapping tool that makes it easier to create and to link.

I use resources like this to find additional things to learn. As a result of our exchanges I have moved Popper higher in my list and downloaded a half dozen YouTube interviews. While I won't adjust the things I am studying at this moment when I am ready I will have books, articles and videos to set the stage for immersion. I used the same technique for studying the pre-bronze age Minoan and early Greek histories. I used the same technique for studying America's early history and pre-history. It works for me in most cases.

That would be fine if your answers were related to the questions.

 

I was certain of that as I wrote it. Do you believe your goal justifies the means used to achieve your goals? Will you twist the truth if you think it will allow you to achieve your utopian paradise?

I also wrote, "And me? I have one fundamental belief. I believe that governments must be constrained by written constitutions upheld by men and women with integrity. Such beliefs get in the way of the liberal masterminds, don't they?"

So, if I understand your answer you trash the nation's form of government and seek to replace it with a socialist utopia. So what is your truth? From an earlier post I believe your "truth", since you don't believe in beliefs, is social justice. Marxism.

My beliefs are based on as much truth as I am able to discern. Conservatism, governments constrained by written constitutions and upheld by men and women of integrity, provides the greatest amount of liberty, wealth and the opportunity to pursue happiness of any system thus far tried. Free markets barely tampered with by governments, are essential to individual freedom.

What pedestrian assumptions liberals make. If a thing is true over time it often yields better results than error. Why wouldn't everyone go with what is true? Do all liberals make such assumptions?

War is peace. Up is down. The lie is truth. Got it.

 

Earlier I wrote, "It used to be a constitutional republic. It was never a democracy."

Sure. You believe the United States of America is a democracy? And you also pretend to be educated? Awesome.

I respond to this sort of goofiness appropriately. This is a fine example of your effort to appear educated even while making your error-filled claims.

The Constitution has been abused by the socialists in both parties. We need to restore it by overturning error and restoring its intent. Article V offers the opportunity to reverse the tyranny we now have at the national level. Article V gives the states the opportunity to call a Convention to propose amendments. This is where the fight must move to next. 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.