OmSigDAVID wrote:Such is the mind of liberalism.
Thomas wrote:I'm a liberal, too.
That saddens me.
For several years, I have held your mind in the highest esteem.
I continue to do so, admiring your sublime analytical abilities,
your honesty, your erudition, and your good manners.
We cud use u on the side of Orthodox Americanism
(e.g., James Madison), as amended per Article 5.
I understand that u make a living from the laws of Nature,
not those of Man, but I 'd have believed that u were a
good lawyer, from your well-considered posts.
Thomas wrote:If I weren't a liberal,
I would not take such a hard line on the presumption of innocence.
From that notion, I must respectfully dissent,
(depending on how u define "liberal").
I understand it to address the question of whether or not
there is variation, or any
inconsistency, with a designated criterion,
be it a philosophy, a contract, a constitution, a statute,
or any body of rules or style.
I voted for Barry Goldwater and I represent his philosophy
of the Orthodox Americanism of the Founders of the Republic.
As such, it comes naturally, inexorably to me
to support
the presumption of innocence. If I were so fortunate
as to successfully convince u to adopt my point of vu,
wud u then
abandon the presumption of innocence??
If u actually
wud,
then will u explain your
rationale for so doing??
Thomas wrote:I would not feel so strongly that the jury needs to acquit Zimmerman,
given the prosecution's poor evidence.
The presumption of innocence is an
Orthodox American principle,
extant long before the births of the Roosevelts or of the Kennedys.
For what reason do u indicate that it is
LIBERAL??
Liberal in reference to
WHAT??
Thomas wrote:May I suggest that you hang out with real-life liberals more often,
broaden your perspective a little?
I have done that, Tom.
2 of my best friends r liberals
(2 retired NYC schoolteachers) from the 1930s.
I do that a lot; I love to argue.
Libertarians r disproportionately well represented in Mensa,
but it has liberals in it, too; arguable.
David