Advocate wrote:Dys, Dave, I defy you to give me a single example in which a liberal swiftboated a conservative. It is always the opposite.
I don 't mean to discuss the merits of character assassination.
I meant that if a man rigidly adheres to some rule, or body rules,
then, as to that body of rules
he is a conservative,
in that he has 100% rigidly conserved it, with
no deviation therefrom ;
whereas if he decides " that 's close enuf " and accepts results
which approximate it, but
differ somewhat from the said rules,
then to the extent of the inconsistency he is a liberal.
For instance,
if a man wears a clean tuxedo to a formal event,
he is rigidly conserving and inflexibly applying the customary rules of dress therefor;
whereas, if he wears a somewhat stained tuxedo, with sneakers,
( deciding " that 's close enuf " )
then he is bending the rules of customary proper dress,
and therefore, concerning those rules, he is taking a
liberal interpretation
of what is " close enuf. " If he shows up at the event naked,
then he is taking a
RADICAL vu,
extirpating all the rules of dress.
The liberalism inheres in the degree of his inconsistency with the paradigm.
If a court construes a statute, or a contract,
in a manner that is inconsistent
with its original intendment, then it is liberal to the extent of the difference.
If one is playing poker
and declares that he has a
FLUSH
when he has 4 diamonds and a heart,
considering that to be " CLOSE ENUF " to 5 cards of one suit,
then to the degree of his inconsistency with the paradigmatic hierarchy
of winning hands in poker,
he is a liberal and shud be dealt with accordingly.
David