House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

@reasoning logic,

About all I can say, rl, is for someone that goes by the name "reasoning logic," but cannot seem to write a cogent sentence or question, I think I am wasting my time talking with you?

2 Replies

@okie,

Yes I do understand, But thanks for trying your best anyways!

0 Replies

@Fido,

The simple minded are dangerous. They fail to recognize truth. Most can not read well. Most have vocabularies that are too small to allow for a decent conversation.

0 Replies

@Fido,

No, you can not say that if religion is right, everything else is wrong.

0 Replies

@okie,

There was nothing weird about JTT's comment that perplexed you so. You need to get out more.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

But, david, the Founding Fathers were liberal in that they asked for a government not headed by a king. They were, to you, deviants. But you have a strange view of deviance, which is why so many of us are glad you removed yourself from the gene pool.

1 Reply

@okie,

I think Chomsky would be more patient with you. He's a rather nice man.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, I would opine that you are a quite decent man, an honest and reliable citizen and essentially a moral stalwart in your community however your ideological rigidity is not at all unlike the ideological rigidity demonstrated by the majority of the "liberal" posters you seem to interact with here on a2k. It's a child like rigidity often seen in "converts" be they political or religious. Scan/reading your posts is most like scan/reading a Readers Digest, momentarily interesting but ultimately shallow, every bit as shallow as those you post against in argument. perhaps adding a paragraph or two of humour every few pages would help.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

But, david, the Founding Fathers were liberal
in that they asked for a government not headed by a king.

YES; by the criterion of monarchy, that was indeed liberal, even RADICAL, qua monarchy.

plainoldme wrote:

They were, to you, deviants.

YES; its a fact.
I join in that deviation. If I 'd have been then,
I 'd have joined the Sons of Liberty.

The propriety of deviation
depends upon from WHAT one deviates.

I was very pleased -- thrilled -- when Boris Yeltsin
quit the communist party. It is good to deviate away from evil.
When Rudolf Hess flew to Scotland in May of 1941,
in an effort to establish peace, against Hitler 's wishes,
he was being a LIBERAL nazi because of that deviation from nazi policy.

If a poker player claims to have a flush
and he rakes in the pot when he has
4 spades and a club, he is taking a LIBERAL vu
of the rules of poker that require 5 cards of 1 suit for a flush.
(Of course, he will be killed.) If he claims to have a flush
with only 3 spades and 2 clubs, then he is MORE liberal, as to the rules of poker.
If he claims to have a spade flush with only 2 spades, 2 clubs and a heart,
then he is yet even MORE liberal and will be killed FASTER.

A person EITHER deviates or does NOT deviate
from any body of rules
and whether he does or not determines whether he is orthodox or liberal,
be that good or bad.

plainoldme wrote:

But you have a strange view of deviance,
which is why so many of us are glad you removed yourself from the gene pool.

Please include ME among the GLAD. That is very, very convenient.
There 's an English Christmas Carol that I saw on TV:
"Its a gift to be single; its a gift to be free. . . . "

I am 1OO% immune from any domestic strife, however slight.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

plainoldme wrote:
But, david, the Founding Fathers were liberal
in that they asked for a government not headed by a king.
YES; by the criterion of monarchy, that was indeed liberal, even RADICAL, qua monarchy.

plainoldme wrote:
They were, to you, deviants.
YES; its a fact.
I join in that deviation. If I 'd have been then,
I 'd have joined the Sons of Liberty.

The propriety of deviation
depends upon from WHAT one deviates.

I was very pleased -- thrilled -- when Boris Yeltsin
quit the communist party. It is good to deviate away from evil.
When Rudolf Hess flew to Scotland in May of 1941,
in an effort to establish peace, against Hitler 's wishes,
he was being a LIBERAL nazi because of that deviation from nazi policy.

If a poker player claims to have a flush
and he rakes in the pot when he has
4 spades and a club, he is taking a LIBERAL vu
of the rules of poker that require 5 cards of 1 suit for a flush.
(Of course, he will be killed.) If he claims to have a flush
with only 3 spades and 2 clubs, then he is MORE liberal, as to the rules of poker.
If he claims to have a spade flush with only 2 spades, 2 clubs and a heart,
then he is yet even MORE liberal and will be killed FASTER.

A person EITHER deviates or does NOT deviate
from any body of rules
and whether he does or not determines whether he is orthodox or liberal,
be that good or bad.

plainoldme wrote:
But you have a strange view of deviance,
which is why so many of us are glad you removed yourself from the gene pool.
Please include ME among the GLAD. That is very, very convenient.
There 's an English Christmas Carol that I saw on TV:
"Its a gift to be single; its a gift to be free. . . . "

I am 1OO% immune from any domestic strife, however slight.

David

It was not so great a deviation to have gotten rid of the king because the king at that point had less power by far than our president has today... What would have been great, and a real deviation would have been to get rid of the parties... Nothing was said about parties in the constitution, but with free association allowed, parties were inevitable... The thing is, that inertia was already built into our government... Democracy was limited and denied at every turn... The parties have made it almost impossible for anyone to get to the national government with a problem without first moving our national parties... I mean, we deal with government by party when it is no part of the constitution and we can do nothing about it because we have government by parties, and at least on that fact they can agree when they can agree on nothing else but that we should be divided and held powerless... There is nothing radical to you... The time you would like to go back to had most of the people holding all of the commonwealth and now few of the people hold all of the commonwealth... And the time you like best, we had real representation in the house, our one democratic body... Where those people had one rep for every thirty thousand, we have one for every 600 thousand, which only You should consider that there are very good reasons their government worked for them as ours does not work for us, and it has nothing to do with liberal or conservative as labels... It is the parties which have destroyed our democracy... It was with the rise of the parties that the number of reps was limited and fixed... They want to govern... Well let them get elected, because we have as many people working in the house, but only a fraction of them are elected by the people...

1 Reply

@Fido,

1. Let the record indicate that I do not accept your reasoning
and
2. I believe that the political parties r OK
and
3. We were never a democracy, nor did we claim to be one.

David

2 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

okie, I would opine that you are a quite decent man, an honest and reliable citizen and essentially a moral stalwart in your community however your ideological rigidity is not at all unlike the ideological rigidity demonstrated by the majority of the "liberal" posters you seem to interact with here on a2k. It's a child like rigidity often seen in "converts" be they political or religious. Scan/reading your posts is most like scan/reading a Readers Digest, momentarily interesting but ultimately shallow, every bit as shallow as those you post against in argument. perhaps adding a paragraph or two of humour every few pages would help.

dys, thanks for the compliments, in part at least. I will remind you and others of a principle, that might help you explain why I seem to be rigid and post as I do. It can be summed up as follows:
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.

Also dys, you can choose to be like a river that runs wide but very shallow and somewhat directionless, or you can run more defined in a more narrow path in a certain direction, but very deep.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

1. Let the record indicate that I do not accept your reasoning
and 2. I believe that the political parties r OK
and3. We were never a democracy, nor did we claim to be one.
David

Agreed 100%, David. There is no perfect political system, but a representative republic is better than a pure democracy, and about the best that we have found so far.
I would add too that political parties are appropriate, because they identify platforms of belief that we the people can choose to agree with and align with. It helps us to know what the candidates actually believe and what they should or will support if elected. As an example, if the Germans had understood what the Nazi Party actually favored, such as the Leftist philosophy that Common Good trumped Individual Good, perhaps they might not have fallen for Hitler? Or maybe they knew it and fell for it anyway?

2 Replies

@okie,

But the election of 1930 was only seriously contested by two parties both of which stood for the Common Good trumping Individual Good. "Trumping" being too mild a word and a gross understatement.

1 Reply

@spendius,

There is another factor in play however, spendi, that being the judgement of personalities involved in elections, and a press that will openly provide a wide range of information and opinion.

I also believe something else important. Much rides on the moral judgement or mood of the voters. We need voters that are good judges of character, and that ability also can be determined in large part by their own collective character and moral judgement. To boil down the point of what I am saying, I think often the people receive pretty much what they deserve and want. If they want to be taken care of as wards of the State, they will probably end up with a State that will oblige them. It follows that a State big enough to take care of you is also big enough to abuse you and take away your rights.

Am I also right to say that in the pre war years of Germany, the people were suffering economically and otherwise, and were subject to the expectations of something like a Big State national socialism supposedly had to offer, as well as scapegoating the Jews, capitalism, etc.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

. I will remind you and others of a principle, that might help you explain why I seem to be rigid and post as I do. It can be summed up as follows:
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.

I think it is more likely
If you fall for everything, you will think you stand for something.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I would add too that political parties are appropriate, because they identify platforms of belief that we the people can choose to agree with and align with. It helps us to know what the candidates actually believe and what they should or will support if elected. As an example, if the Germans had understood what the Nazi Party actually favored, such as the Leftist philosophy that Common Good trumped Individual Good, perhaps they might not have fallen for Hitler? Or maybe they knew it and fell for it anyway?

You sure like to rewrite history okie. Hitler was never elected by the German people.

Germany was a republic though.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Am I also right to say that in the pre war years of Germany, the people were suffering economically and otherwise, and were subject to the expectations of something like a Big State national socialism supposedly had to offer, as well as scapegoating the Jews, capitalism, etc.

It certainly depends on how long you consider "pre war years" to be (I suppose, you mean WWII) and to what other countries and time you compare it.

Generally spoken, there haven't been many who suffered economically.

But your cringeworthy speculations about the German history can't be corrected, I've learned.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter, will u confirm or deny that
the Weimar Republic intentionally brought on the big inflation
to avoid paying the reparations of war required by the Treaty of Versailles?

David

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Hitler was never elected by the German people.

I thought he was. I made a typo earlier. It was 1933 I think.

Over to you Walt.

0 Replies

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know