Paul Ryan on Syria. The art of the flip flop

I appreciate that sometimes you write things that are pure humor.

This just makes me smile.

 

Then you'd be wrong. Don't worry though. It's not the first time, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

 

You're quoting the Washington Post? Well that's interesting. Despite what the Post say's, history says otherwise, and if you aren't aware of the ban on Chemical Weapons dating back to the end of WWI, then you have a huge gap in your history. Maybe this will help.

The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 7 September 1929.[4] The Geneva Protocol is a protocol to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

It prohibits the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare". This is now understood to be a general prohibition on chemical weapons and biological weapons, but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer. Later treaties did cover these aspects — the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.

So...as you can plainly see...Obama did not create the "Red Line". What he did was remind everybody that it exists. People like yourself will turn themselves into pretzels trying to change history to make a point that's completely false, but there it is.

You may have noticed that at the UN all of the members of the Security Council agreed on a plan today to rid Syria of it's CW stockpile. In fact, Russia has agreed to use their own troops to secure the weapons during the removal.

Apparently Iran has taken our threat to hit Syria seriously. Kerry met with their Foreign Minister today for the first time since 1979 to talk. It appears that the sanctions have been working, and I imagine they understand that if we're willing to strike Syria over their CW...we wouldn't hesitate in doing the same thing to them if Iran continues to pursue a Nuke. And all of this is taking place without firing a shot. Bush launched a war and invaded a country on suspected WMD that weren't there. It cost over 4,000 dead Americans and a trillion dollars. Obama threatens a country that does have them, and they agree to give them up without firing a shot, and not one American life is lost. I'd call that a win.

 

There is a problem with that. If all you're doing is looking for things that agree with your thinking, then you aren't gaining anything. You're looking for things that reinforce what you already believe. That leads to a tendency to think that all these ideas support your views, therefore they must be correct, or true. You'd be using inductive reasoning to arrive at a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's like the person that says All Swans are White. Every Swan you ever saw was white, therefore...the next swan you see will be white. Except that they found black swans in Australia. If all your authors agree with your views already, then all you're doing is looking for people that agree with you. What are you gaining by doing that?

In that case, this exchange has been helpful, and I'm glad if I opened another view. Popper will never reveal in any of his books, what his political leanings are. You'll have to figure that out from what you read. I happen to be friends with the guy that edited two of his books. He was very close to him, and named his own son after him. We've talked a great deal about him and his relationship with Hayek. They were friends but had very different views of things. You'll find that he's opposed to foundationalism, and is a proponent of criticism as the best tool for looking for the truth. He's a scientific philosopher, and sees criticism as the key to rationality. Our ideas aren't rational because we can prove them. They're rational because they can be criticized. That means holding our own ideas up to criticism. If truth is what we're after, then that's a requirement.

All of them are. But you don't offer questions. You offer statements as if they're fact. What I do is examine them through criticism to see if they hold water. They don't, and I've shown you why they don't. That's why the comments are as long as they need to be to cover the problem's with what you're saying.

 

The goal is to get closer to the truth. The way to get closer to the truth is to remove the BS that obscures it. If you want to see a mans face, first remove the mask. I have no intention of twisting the truth. I have every intention of removing the crap that obscures it. And I don't believe in a utopian paradise. I already know that perfection is unattainable. Do you? If you know that, then why would you settle for the status quo? Do you think that you've achieved that utopia? Do you actually think that things are as good as they can be, so there is no reason to try to improve our situation? The idea is to create a "more perfect union" not a Perfect Union. That's unattainable. We don't live in a perfect society and never will, however that doesn't mean that we can't make it work better and serve more than the narrow interests of the smallest segment of the population.

Obviously you don't understand my answer at all. Like most conservatives, you tend to try and paraphrase your observations into things that bear no resemblance to what I'm saying. This is what I said: "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." Your beliefs don't matter. Not to me. They're opinions. And what I'm saying is in complete accordance with this. "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. Was TJ a Marxist?

We're all fallible. Including you. That means that your ideas could be wrong. I already know that mine could be wrong. The difference between us is that I examine my own to dump those that aren't rooted in authoritarianism and other logical fallacies. Holding to a logical fallacy when you know that's what it is, is a sign of irrationality, and that's something I'd prefer to avoid.

Social justice isn't a belief. It's a goal. When something blocks that, we all lose. What form of justice do you oppose?

What is conservatism based on?

Integrity is a value. Can you give me an example of conservative integrity? What do you base this value on?

Do you agree that Free Trade agreements like NAFTA and the new Pacific Trade Agreement are good for individual freedom when the results are shipping jobs overseas? Does your idea of freedom entail putting people out of work? If these kind of "free trade" agreements are made, and the result is shipping manufacturing of goods to a country like Viet Nam and the loss of jobs here at home...then how can you complain about unemployment, when jobs are being shipped overseas? It's absurd to ship jobs overseas, then criticize those who have lost their jobs, and then criticize them further as being lazy and needing foodstamps to get by. Then cutting the foodstamps and try to block access to affordable health care. So they can lose their jobs, lose their healthcare, lose any means of putting food on the table....and we call this freedom? We are looking at a trade agreement that includes Peru, Chile, and Viet Nam. If you're a cattle rancher here, why would a market buy their beef from you, when they can get from Viet Nam for 10 cents on the dollar? We have no control over the quality since they wouldn't have to comply with our standards, and they'll pay people .25cents an hour. Is this your idea of freedom?

That's a pretty pedestrian answer. The reason that they wouldn't go with what is true is because a belief stands in the way. We're seeing this play out today. Do all conservatives have a problem understanding this. Take Medicare for example. Conservatives fought it tooth and nail. Reagan said it would destroy America. Well, it's the most popular program in America and we didn't become Cuba. If you tried to take it away, seniors would come with torches and pitchforks and send you out of town on a rail...tarred and feathered. We can look at Obamacare the ACA. Beliefs are trying to block this. Statements are being made that it's destroying America, and it hasn't even been implemented yet. It's going to Kill women, children, and seniors. It's Armageddon. It's compared to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. You said this; "If a thing is true, over time it often yields better results than error". How can you KNOW what the results are going to be, if you let your beliefs prevent you from even trying it? Conservatives love to predict the future and then believe their predictions are fact. In this case, they're afraid that the people will love it as they do Medicare, and they'll never be able to take it away as Rush Limbaugh wants to do. Easy for him to say; he's worth millions. I don't think he worries about health care. He only worries about getting scripts for oxycontin.

That's a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with what I said. What does a lame attempt at Orwell have to do with what I wrote? It's like you have no answer to what I said, other than to toss out something totally irrelevant as if it has some significance. You can't provide a response, so you opt for something completely off the wall. You're pretty hopeless.

 

I don't pretend. I presented to you exactly why you're wrong. You failed to offer any counter argument.

They aren't error filled claims sonny. They're totally accurate. You failed to respond to it at all, other than to make the same assertion which you've already been shown is false. Unless you can offer a reasoned argument against what I posted, I'm afraid you're out of luck here.

You have no grasp of the Constitution. You've already shown that from the response above. All you do is call people socialists as a go-to word, when you're at a loss for a reasoned argument. Your cup is empty here.

Such as? Specifically? What error's are you talking about? What fight is taking place in the Amendment process that you claim is happening? Who is fighting this?

You're just spouting garbage. What exactly are you referring to?

Bypass the national government?? So you don't want to respect our laws that are in the Constitution that you claim should be followed? Are you some States Rights guy? Well...how exactly do you intend to "restore" the nation? What exactly are you suggesting? You want to preach to me about the strict meaning of the Constitution, and then tell me that you want to Amend it to make it irrelevant? What would you change in the Constitution that you love so much? Is it even possible for you to make a reasoned argument, or do you think that reason is a left wing plot to take away your rights?

- - - Updated - - -

The truth can be funny at times. Glad you liked it.

 

Nevertheless you are wrong. The US has never been a democracy.

This tells me that you are a fraud. See above.

I also wrote, "The Constitution has been abused by the socialists in both parties."

Wasn't it you who claimed you did not, perhaps could not, understand the Constitution?
Those who are big on central planning, big on control over others lives, big on taking from one group to give to others, on a massive taxing of wealth...people like you, are generally socialists. You may be other things, life is complicated, but it is clear that you are not a friend of individual liberty. Do you prefer Statist to socialist? Most, if not all, socialists are statists. And most statists are socialists. Take your pick.

I also wrote, "We need to restore it (meaning the Constitution) by overturning error and restoring its intent. Article V offers the opportunity to reverse the tyranny we now have at the national level."

Shall we begin with an easy one? A large, but subtle error, was the popular election of Senators. This allowed the federal government to become a national, tyrannical government, where the states no longer have a role. In my opinion this is one of the most damaging things to ever happen to this magnificent nation.

And the Article V fight will be largely spearheaded by the sheepdogs. I doubt the sheep will participate. And if the sheep do participate they will end up on the wrong side. It is what sheep do.

"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."

Yes. The Framers were smart guys. They feared that the federal government might become tyrannical. They included provisions so that the people could bypass the tyrants to restore their government.

Article V is in the Constitution. And I am precisely claiming we should use it to repair the damage done to the rest of the Constitution by one hundred years of Progressivism. The fight will be fought on your behalf as well as against people who believe as you do.

If you mean the soverign states that created the federal government then yes, I am a sovereign states rights guy. The sovereign states are the final bulwark against the tyranny of a massive, out of control, post-constitutional government. And you? Are you just another Statist?

I suggest you read the Constitution. Go directly to Article V. That is exactly what we intend to do. The effort to save the nation will occur within the states. We will encourage, educate, and ultimately insist that the state legislatures call for a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution.

I am not the one who said I would fundamentally transform the nation. I am not the one who has so damaged the Constitution that it can no longer protect the individual's right to live free from an evil and rapacious national government. This is a means to restore the nation to its Constitutional basis.

I can think of a dozen things. None would please you as they would restore power to the people and to the states.

I do not expect for you to understand. It is okay. The sheepdogs cannot expect help from the sheep.

 

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."

It is sad that someone who makes claims of a superior education does not recognize the roots of his beliefs. Liberalism is like that.

 

I love reading Hayek. Some of the things he wrote are profoundly wrong. He was for much of the welfare state. That is muddle-headed, damaging and wrong. I still like reading him. I read three of Radical Karl's 50 volumes. His nonsense sounds good and one wants, in vain, for it to be true. But it is not true. Nor could it ever be. Your assumptions about how I learn are pedestrian.

This is just dumb. I am not out to create new knowledge. I am content with finding useful, existing knowledge that I can apply to my tasks. If one out of a million swans are black then there is no harm in betting that most of the swans I see will be white swans.

And that is pretty cool.

I am interested in discovering what is useful. It seems that Popper may provide additional insights useful to me. And that is good enough.

 

No I'm not. I've pointed out to you exactly how it exists, and you simply deny it without any thought other than to restate your ignorance. But if you think that, then you must agree that there is no such thing as a Separation of Powers. You can't have it both ways. I suppose you can, but you only reinforce your ignorance on this thread and forum when you do. There is no reference to it in the Constitution. There is no separation of powers clause in the text that indicates how the various institutions interact or relate to each other. The principle of democracy, which includes the sub-principle that courts should generally defer to majoritarian decision making, is nowhere specifically mentioned in the constitutional text, and yet it may be the most frequently articulated principle in constitutional arguments like this one. It's the very principle that people most often use to object to courts inferring constitutional principles not specifically mentioned in the text. Is this explanation above your pay grade? Is it too complex for you to understand? There are many kinds of Republics. There is the Peoples Republic of China. The Islamic Republic of Iran. The Czech Republic. Cuba is a Republic. North Korea is a Republic. There was something called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which you may remember. All of them have constitutions that detail their structure. So simply calling us a Constitutional Republic doesn't differentiate us from any of the others. We are a Constitutional Democratic Republic with a Bill of Rights. It's obvious from your uninformed response that you never studied Political Science, and I'm afraid that grabbing books off your shelf that only reinforce your ignorance on this subject aren't going to help you.

That's the response of an ignoramus.

No. That was another poster. You have a short memory.

And by this response you're obviously an illogical mess. Your argument is called Bifurcation. It's also called the Black or white, Either/Or, False Dilemma. This fallacy occurs when a writer builds an argument upon the assumption that there are only two choices (You're a statist or you're a socialist) or possible outcomes when actually there are several. Outcomes are seldom so simple as you yourself pointed out. "You may be other things, life is complicated, but it is clear that you are not a friend of individual liberty". Have you considered that I may think your view of "liberty" is misguided and flawed, or are you so immersed in your own infallibility that you can't imagine you could be wrong? Either you must avoid either/or fallacies, or everyone will think you are foolish.

So you want to eliminate the 17th Amendment. You say this: "This allowed the federal government to become a national, tyrannical government, where the states no longer have a role. In my opinion this is one of the most damaging things to ever happen to this magnificent nation." How did it allow the federal government to become a national government. The constitution already established a national government. And just how do the states have no role? Every state has equal representation in the Senate. And more importantly, why should I care about what an individual state thinks? I'm not married to the state that I live in. I can and have moved from state to state. I want Federal laws to insure my rights no matter what state I live in. Why would I think that living in one state that has a set of laws, should be completely void in another state? I'm not moving to another country. Just another state that is part of a country governed by a single constitution that overrides those of the states. Are you suggesting that if one state wants segregation or slavery, that's their business? That would violate the 15th and of course the 14th Amendment. Do you want to get rid of that one too? Why stop there? How about the 13th? We could restore slavery. Would that make you happy? If a state wants to do that, are you fine with it?

No. It's what fanatics do. And they always lose. They do have a tendency to be true believers in their ideology and see themselves as "sheepdogs" and guardians of the "faith". They thought that in Nazi Germany too. They view the ideology as infallible and fail to recognize their own fallibility. Blind faith isn't going to work. Fanatics fly planes into buildings. A skeptic never would do that.

Article V deals with the Amendment process. "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
Where in the Amendment does it say, "Article V gives the people the opportunity to bypass the national government". It doesn't. You're reading something into it that isn't there. Which is not unusual for you, but it's simply a falsehood.

So you would destroy the very government that is created by the Constitution that you claim to love??

So that's your agenda? Use the Amendment process to undo the Constitutional Amendment's that you don't like? Suppose we don't like your proposals? Do you accept the democratic process, or are you so saturated in your ideology that you require a scorched earth approach to getting what you want? That's tyranny. Do you actually think that you have even a fragment of a possibility to do this? You have 50 states and you'd need 2/3 of both houses to manage it. Then you'd need 3/4 of the states to ratify it. So aside from your wishful thinking and dream state of the perfect utopian society do you have anything constructive in mind, or is it all about tearing things down?

I see. Well, whatever state you live in can't declare war, can't issue a passport, and can't violate the US Constitution to do whatever it likes. You can't negotiate private trade deals with other countries that don't comply with US trade agreements. So what sovereignty are you talking about? Your loyalties should be to the United States and not whatever state you live in. Are you an American first or not? Are you some secessionist?

I'm a loyal citizen of the United States. I don't know what you are, but you appear to be an anarchist and right wing extremist. Obviously you're fighting a losing battle. You'll continue to lose elections and I suspect you'll all die off in due time. You're up against a changing demographic that is unstoppable. There will be a minority majority in the country very soon, in fact, they won the last election, and I'm afraid you're on the wrong side of events beyond your control.

I have. I even posted Article V for your benefit.

You intend to use the Amendment process to deconstruct the Constitution? And you think you can do this?

A rabid sheepdog is of no use to anybody. They get put down.

 

I've already pointed out your roots of belief. You needed that, since you're totally unaware of them. You have no clue about your own conservative ideology or where it comes from. They're theories of rationality that have been handed to you. It's entirely authoritarian in nature and those are to be opposed. Fortunately for me, I have no "root's" of belief, since I don't rely on beliefs. You can't demonstrate your beliefs as true, and that's all I'm concerned with. Truth is not on your plate, and that's what interests me. Not some bogus belief system that radicalizes people into irrational extremists.

 

You miss the point. That's simply an example of why inductive reasoning fails to prove a theory. You might project that, but you can NEVER prove it. You should understand the general claim from the proven claim. There is a difference, and that applies across the board. I'm interested in what is factually true. You run on generalities and we've seen how those always get us into trouble when we ignore the facts.

 

I find it a bit irritating that I go to the trouble of educating you, and then you try to turn it around and try to educate me on what I've told you.

Not only do you not remember the most important part of what I was trying to teach you, but you fumble it so bad that I'm ashamed of trying to educate you.

But what really irritates me is your plagiarism. You quoted this site http://www.empowernetwork.com/geoffbeal/blog/geneva-protocol/ but you didn't credit it, or indicate with quotation or italics that you were copying some one else's work. That is entirely disreputable.

 

Actually it is you who missed the point. I am not interested in proving theories. I am interested in finding ideas that are useful.

Have you ever taken a statistics or probability class? I just wonder.
Have you had these feelings long? You know the one where you are incapable of anything unless you can prove it.

I cannot imagine you are effective in real life. You are a one-trick pony.

 

In addition to believing the Constitution is not understandable you also believe that the US is a democracy. That is really cute.

What? Democracy equal separation of powers? LOl. Sure it does.

Talking to you is like talking to a small child. I do not think you know what a democracy is.

LOL. You don't actually know what a democracy is. I admire bold ignorance that knows no bounds.

Just in case there is anyone that remains unaware...kook alert.

 

Again I just have to smile. I believe, as today's conservatives believe, that government must be constrained by written Constitutions and kept by men and women with integrity.

You, on the other hand, with social justice as your goal, are essentially Marxist without even knowing it. Evaluate the difference. I want you to be free to make your own choices. And you, if you can be believed, want the government involved in every facet of my life.

 

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.

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?

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 the people popularly elect their senators and their representatives the states are cut out of influence at the federal level. Reversing that would prevent (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s like John McCain from voting against the state of Arizona.

Unfortunately the political science course you took was deficient. The Constitution established a federal government. You should ask for a refund. Seriously. You were robbed.

The states have no representation in the Congress. That is how the states have no role.

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.

Sheep dogs know the answer. No sheep do. I will share it with you. The states are the last defense against a tyrannical national government. Without them the sheep are devoured by the wolves they vote into office.

Your perspective is wholly pedestrian.

Slavery comes from the national level. Slavery can only be stopped by the states. Don't worry your pretty little head about it. The sheep dogs have this fight.

I also wrote, "And the Article V fight will be largely spearheaded by the sheep dogs. I doubt the sheep will participate. And if the sheep do participate they will end up on the wrong side. It is what sheep do."

We will fight for as long as it takes to win. It could go very quickly. Many think it will take dozens of years. I do not.

Guardians of individual liberty as protected by a once functioning Constitution not the faith. We will undo the massive damage that people who believe as you do have done to our liberty and to this nation. This is not blind faith. It is a simple recognition that there is only one more opportunity to preserve the nation. If this fails then revolution is the logical next and final step.

 

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-Amendments-Restoring-American/dp/1451606273

 

I don't believe I said it would be easy. The states call for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. The states send their representatives to the convention to propose amendments. I hope that the ones able to restore the nation, the constitution and individual liberty will be among those considered. It is what I shall fight very hard to accomplish.

There is a difference between restoration and wrecking. The One, the Marxist, is a wrecker. I prefer restoration. The Constitution has some flaws. We can use this process to fix those flaws.

"I am a sovereign states rights guy."

As originally proposed, written and ratified it was the united States. We need to return to that. The federal government was a creation of the sovereign States. That is history, not philosophy. The Federal government was given huge, but limited powers. The Federal government has gone beyond those powers and now it needs to be stopped. Cold. It is time for a reset to return the Constitution to its rightful place as the limit on federal power.

Unfortunately that is not really true. 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.

 

Then if that's true, you'll look for the holes in what you think works and not allow your prejudice or bias influence you in anyway. I've already pointed out where those things get in your way. Looking for things that support your bias never provides you with the answers you're looking for. It only takes one thing, to show why your theory is wrong. That 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. When you can say that, let me know. Until then, you're just another ideologue with a desperate need to define others according to your own prejudice.

Yes. They're exercises in inductive reasoning. A person knows that it takes 30 min to get from home to work. He knows the route, and the speed limit. Every day it's the same thing. 30 min. So he assumes that it's a 30 min process. Then one day he encounters a traffic accident, and doesn't get there for an hour. Or he finds that they're doing road construction and he has to take a detour that blocks him from arriving in the 30 min as expected. He bases his travel time on known factors, but never allows for the unknowns. Just because it has always taken 30 min doesn't prove that it takes 30 min.

Knowing that we provided WMD to Saddam in the 1980's and that he used them before, doesn't prove that he still has them in 2003. Although we removed 95% of what he had, we assumed that he had more. We couldn't prove that he did, and instead we demanded that he prove that he didn't. We demanded that he prove a negative. Try proving to anybody that you don't have something. How would you do that? So we launched a war to prove our theory, (at least the one promoted by the administration) and it cost us 4,000 American lives, over 100,000 Iraqi lives, over a trillion dollars, contributed in a huge way to tanking our economy, and it turned out he was right and our theory was wrong. That's a high price to pay for using inductive reasoning. When you claim that Saddam's purchase of aluminum tubes means that he's using them for a reactor, and the Atomic Energy Commission tells you that they are the wrong kind of tubes for that use, you don't argue with experts in that field and dismiss their findings and make the claim that you know better when you have no expertise in the subject. That should inform you that they aren't interested in the truth. They're only interested in starting a War. That's what ideology provides. The problem with any ideology is that it gives you the answer before you’ve looked at any of the evidence. You’ve got to mold the evidence to give you the answer that you’ve already decided you have to have.

I never take anything for granted. I never assume. I never pretend that life works according to my schedule or plan. And I dismiss those that do, as the fools that they are. There are always unintended consequences to account for. Life resembles chess more than it does checkers and I learned that game when I was very young. I find that it helps to think several steps ahead.

That's because you have a limited imagination. I can't help you with that.

 

I believe it is possible that you are not grounded in the real world. Everyone allows their biases free play. Everyone including you. What I do works just fine for me. I earn a low six figure income (and no, I don't mean 100K), make good decisions and, despite your protests, do quite well finding facts and insights withouth having to prove how electricity flows before I am confident enough to turn on a light switch. Your mileage may vary.

 

You've been attempting to credit Obama with the "red line" comment, and I've told you repeatedly that he didn't draw it. It was set in 1925. You keep trying to prove something that is nonsense. If you already know this, then why do you continue on this crap?

The answer to your question is YES. They will have to submit. Your argument is absurd, since you and I both know that Russia IS signed onto it, and Russia is Syria's ally and number one supporter. Russia is not immune to this argument. If Syria uses them, Russia gets held to account, and they know this even if you don't. That's why they've intervened. In fact that's why yesterday ALL 5 members of the UN Security Council...the US, UK, France, Russia, and China came to a unanimous agreement to remove the stockpile of CW that Assad claimed he didn't have, then admitted that he did, and take them to a spot to destroy them. Your argument is false because it uses the same logic that would imply that you would be immune to prosecution for a crime like robbing a bank, or murder just because you didn't sign onto an agreement that those crimes would apply to you. Saying that you never agreed to such a thing won't get you off. A person could claim that human sacrifice is part of their religious practice and they're simply applying the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment to justify murder. Using your religion as an excuse for murder won't protect you from the charge of murder. Claiming that you didn't sign onto an agreement not to use CW won't excuse you from using them in the battlefield.

Perhaps it's because you have nothing to teach. OR...maybe you're a horrible teacher.

Oh brother. It's public information that was posted to educate you. For you to actually think that I came up with this and was presenting it as my own, is a pathetic attempt to save your butt. I even posted this: "So...as you can plainly see...Obama did not create the "Red Line". Anybody with the least bit of reading aptitude can see that I didn't make this up. You actually need to make this an issue? I have repeatedly told you this stuff, and you could have looked it up for yourself, since it's a matter of history. Not my own creation. Now that you've been discredited in your argument, you're simply looking for anything to avoid admitting that you're wrong. Your pettiness is becoming legendary.

You're animosity towards this president is obvious and you're willing to cast everything he does in a negative light.

[video]<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc1e08a4" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=53128934&amp;width=420&amp;heig ht=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc1e08a4" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=53128934&amp;width=420&amp;heig ht=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=S hockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>[/video]

 

QUOTE=Lil Mike;1063135855]I find it a bit irritating that I go to the trouble of educating you, and then you try to turn it around and try to educate me on what I've told you.



Not only do you not remember the most important part of what I was trying to teach you, but you fumble it so bad that I'm ashamed of trying to educate you.

But what really irritates me is your plagiarism. You quoted this site http://www.empowernetwork.com/geoffbeal/blog/geneva-protocol/ but you didn't credit it, or indicate with quotation or italics that you were copying some one else's work. That is entirely disreputable.[/QUOTE]

You've been attempting to credit Obama with the "red line" comment, and I've told you repeatedly that he didn't draw it. It was set in 1925. You keep trying to prove something that is nonsense. If you already know this, then why do you continue on this crap?

The answer to your question is YES. They will have to submit. Your argument is absurd, since you and I both know that Russia IS signed onto it, and Russia is Syria's ally and number one supporter. Russia is not immune to this argument. If Syria uses them, Russia gets held to account, and they know this even if you don't. That's why they've intervened. In fact that's why yesterday ALL 5 members of the UN Security Council...the US, UK, France, Russia, and China came to a unanimous agreement to remove the stockpile of CW that Assad claimed he didn't have, then admitted that he did, and take them to a spot to destroy them. Your argument is false because it uses the same logic that would imply that you would be immune to prosecution for a crime like robbing a bank, or murder just because you didn't sign onto an agreement that those crimes would apply to you. Saying that you never agreed to such a thing won't get you off. A person could claim that human sacrifice is part of their religious practice and they're simply applying the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment to justify murder. Using your religion as an excuse for murder won't protect you from the charge of murder. Claiming that you didn't sign onto an agreement not to use CW won't excuse you from using them in the battlefield.

Perhaps it's because you have nothing to teach. OR...maybe you're a horrible teacher.

Oh brother. It's public information that was posted to educate you. For you to actually think that I came up with this and was presenting it as my own, is a pathetic attempt to save your butt. I even posted this: "So...as you can plainly see...Obama did not create the "Red Line". Anybody with the least bit of reading aptitude can see that I didn't make this up. You actually need to make this an issue? I have repeatedly told you this stuff, and you could have looked it up for yourself, since it's a matter of history. Not my own creation. Now that you've been discredited in your argument, you're simply looking for anything to avoid admitting that you're wrong. Your pettiness is becoming legendary.

You're animosity towards this president is obvious and you're willing to cast everything he does in a negative light. He nails Bin Laden, he ends one war, and is winding down another, he gets Syria to give up his CW without firing a shot, and now he breaks ground with Iran for the first time since 1979, and it appears that we'll get the desired results without another war. None of this of course could have anything to do with the Black community organizer, who "everyone knows" was born in Kenya and should be impeached for bringing affordable healthcare to 40 million people. Not government healthcare, mind you, but healthcare insurance provided by PRIVATE insurance companies for a cost lower than your cell phone bill. That's certainly a reason to impeach him, or at least shut down the government. Even threaten to default on our bills unless he takes back his signature legislative achievement, despite the fact that it was an election issue and he ran against a guy and a party that wanted to undo it...and He won. He won in getting it through congress. He won in the Supreme Court. He won in the election, and now the Republicans want to enact the same policies that Romney/Ryan ran on...despite the fact that they lost, and instead of respecting the fact that their ideas were presented before the country...and they lost the argument, they're willing to shut down the government...or default on our debt as a tactic if he doesn't accept their demands to do what they want. Holding the US and world economy hostage, just to get your way? Don't they understand that we don't negotiate with terrorists?

 

You suffer from comprehension disorder. I never said that the Constitution is not understandable. What I said was that when the text provides an unambiguous, concrete and specific rule, the principles or purposes behind the text cannot override the textual command. Look back at my previous posts and you'll see that. By your comment, it's clear that you have comprehension disorder. You don't understand what it is that I said at all, despite the fact that you even agreed with what I said.

It wouldn't be the first time that fallible you would be wrong. It won't be the last.

You miss the point again. Separation of powers doesn't exist in the Constitution. There is no separation of powers clause that indicate that this is what we want. So the question for you is do we have a separation of powers or not? Separation of church and state does not appear in the constitution. Even though when you apply the Amendment, that's what you arrive at. Does it exist or not? Democracy doesn't appear in the constitution, even though the entire concept of majoritarianism exists throughout every aspect of how our institutions interact with each other in this country. Our Supreme Court is set up for majority rule.Our very elections are democratically held. But you want to tell me that this is not a democracy.

Obviously the text is ambiguous since it doesn't clearly state what is intended in every instance. In cases like this it offers a general or abstract standard or principle and we have to look to the principles and purposes behind the text to help us understand how to apply it in current circumstances. That's what you don't understand, and it's why people like you muck up the works with your absurd notions about the constitution of the United States. You can read it a thousand times and you still don't get it.

That's not an adult answer to this statement; "There is no separation of powers clause in the text that indicates how the various institutions interact or relate to each other." So sonny...is what I said true or not? Yes or No. You say you understand the Constitution. Is this a true statement of fact or not?

Again you fail to address what I said. You can't argue against it so you sink to insults. What part of what I said isn't true? It apparently is above your pay-grade. You clearly can't deal with it. Instead of resorting to insults, why can't you point to where what I'm saying is wrong, and WHY it's wrong?

I think that's your third strike. Yerrrrrrrrrrr OUT!

 

Hmm. I thought you agreed with someone else who said it was too hard to understand it. It is not worth searching for the thread.

What a goofy way to look at the world. The architecture of the document is what creates the separation of powers.

When I was a child I spoke as a child. When I became an adult I put away childish things. When do you think you will put away your childish things?

It is unconstitutional for the federal government to establish a national church. There is no separation of church and state as it has been twisted today. When the Article V fight has been won perhaps an amendment clarifying the intention of the first amendment can be added.

Sure. The USA is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. Or at least it used to be.

I see no need to complicate something that is not complicated. I believe that you do.
" I do not think you know what a democracy is."

It is true and it is also irrelevant. It is the structure of the Constitution which creates the separation of powers. This is clear to anyone who made it out of high school.

LOL. It is true that I understand the Constitution.

And I cannot help that you do not know what a democracy is. That problem is your's to solve. See your seventh grade teacher.

It is too basic to have to explain to an adult the difference between a democracy and a republic. That is junior high school level effort. See your seventh grade teacher.