@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Bullshit, David,he took a CONSERVATIVE position, the traditional position of kings,
nobility, oligarchs, and robber barons, the position that dates back
thousands of years to the first states, coercive all of them until the
LIBERAL changed theposition to government BY the people, FOR the
people. That ultimately CONSERVATIVE position is "What's mine is mine, what's yours is mine too."
Jack (I hope u don 't mind my calling u Jack instead of MIke),
I 've explained this to u several times already.
OK -- lemme just take the vu that u r a busy fellow who did not see those posts.
One more time:
the words liberal and conservative were
not chosen at
random
to describe interpretation of degrees of fidelity.
Thay already
MEAN something, to wit:
liberal means DEVIANT. Conservative or orthodox means
NON-deviant.
In the
absence of
DEVIATION there can be
no liberalism.
Infidelity = liberalism.
Rigidly unbending adherence to some concept (e.g., an agreement) = conservatism.
Conservative Barry Goldwater condemned liberals for their
deviation
from constitutional practices, that limit the jurisdiction of government.
I am liberal about spelling because I
reject n deviate from prevailing usage (to some extent).
We can throw away the words "conservative" and "liberal"
and substitute "rigidly unbending and non-deviant" for conservative
and substitute "deviant" for liberal.
The entire issue turns upon whether
DEVIATION exists or does
not exist.
Madoff
DEVIATED from paradigmatic accounting practices
and deviated from accepted standards of honesty in his fiduciary obligations
(obligations of trust n confidence) to his clients.
For that reason he was
liberal.
If Madoff had been conservative, then he 'd simply have implimented
rigidly accurate accounting practices n told the truth to his clients.
He did
not relate to practices of royalty nor of oligarchy,
because he did not have that ability, because he was neither a king, nor an oligarch.
Therefore, he coud not possibly have been either liberal or conservative as to those practices,
as to which he was
unrelated.
He was like someone who takes a
liberal vu
of the rules of poker when he rakes in the pot claiming a flush,
when he has 4 spades and a club (hoping that no one will notice).
He 'd be even
MORE liberal , if he claimed to have a flush
with 3 spades and 2 diamonds. (Of course, he 'd also be killed for his liberalism.)
Political liberals in America don 't like the constitutional freedom
that Individualism protects in American citizens, because domestic
government jurisdiction and personal liberty are
INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL
and liberals want jurisdiction expanded so that government
can help the poor at the expense of the middle class and the rich.
That plot will be defeated by pure individual freedom from interference,
so liberals want deception to support illicit expansion of jurisdiction.
I 'm not sure whether u r trolling me about this n having a little fun at my expense.
Maybe it coud be possible.