quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
But thanks for a great example of religious/ideological zealotry that provides a very good example of what I'm talking about.

Says the guy advocating mass murder.

See?

As I said, you identify yourself.

From my honest and straightforward remarks, adocating nothing, but by simply expressing my opinion in a calm manner, you have - in only a few post - consigned me to the non-human "other" worthy of elimination from not only the discussion, but from the human race.

"Othering" is a method to dehumanize, and to therefore be able to inflict all manners of inhumanity on those with whom you disagree.

It's not re-education camps you would have me incarcerated into now. As a "guy advocating mass murder" (and where the hell would any rational person get that from, in my remarks? ) therefore physical elimination is obviously in order "for the good of all".

It's the extermination camps, now, to which I should go.



Not happening, bud.

Firm

quote:

An "interpretation" simply means that "the rule of law" has no basis in solidity. Form without substance.

quote:

I disagree. Rather strongly, actually, and see the problem as the left forgoing the process. When the law interferes with their political objectives, they either ignore the law or re-interpret the law. I see this as not an occasional thing - a normal occasional defect in the process - but an ideologically driven imperative, . . .

quote:

The destruction of the rule of law in the US by the left is through myriad ways: regulatory edict, Presidential edict, interpreting the clear meaning of our founding documents as something else, making things up out of whole-cloth, ignoring inconvenient laws, failure to enforce laws that exist, using treasonous leaks that impact national security in order to achieve political objectives, etc. . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

What?

Where in any of my posts have I said that I think you should be shipped off to a 're-education camp' or that you must be eliminated from the human race? That is your own paranoia talking, nothing more.

I am arguing against all of this 'they are the enemy, they are immoral, they must lose this fight' BS, NOT saying you should be deprived of any rights or freedoms. You on the other hand have suggested that since leftists apparently don't respect whatever you think the laws should be, that you don't think that they deserve the protections that ANY laws afford them. You want to convince yourself that I think the same way about you that you do about me.

I say you advocate mass murder because earlier in this thread, Aylee made a horrifying prediction about a 'Great Reckoning' that she wanted the left to lose, and you agreed. So if I misinterpreted that, this 'Great Reckoning' involves what, exactly? What deserving fate will the leftists losers of your holy political war face?

It is truly amazing how on the one hand you openly support the use of violence against people with whom you disagree, and then project it onto others and pretend you've made some sort of point.

quote:

What Aylee actually said was that she recognized the very thought process that I mentioned above, in all too many leftists. She too thinks it's possible that it will lead to the very mass killings such as happened in Cambodia. The mass murder which has eventually happened in every nation when leftish took power.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

What Aylee actually said was that she recognized the very thought process that I mentioned above, in all too many leftists. She too thinks it's possible that it will lead to the very mass killings such as happened in Cambodia. The mass murder which has eventually happened in every nation when leftish took power.

Your point is easily argued from the extreme, Firm. I would not debate against it. But the political world is much more subtle than painting all left of center with such a broad brush. Beliefs and ideologies are not necessarily binaries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

What Aylee actually said was that she recognized the very thought process that I mentioned above, in all too many leftists. She too thinks it's possible that it will lead to the very mass killings such as happened in Cambodia. The mass murder which has eventually happened in every nation when leftish took power.

Your point is easily argued from the extreme, Firm. I would not debate against it. But the political world is much more subtle than painting all left of center with such a broad brush. Beliefs and ideologies are not necessarily binaries.

vincent,

I'll try to respond to your more detailed post, later, as I find the time.

In response to this specific post:

I consider "Leftist" as a distinct group from many in the so-called "liberal/progressive" stream of thought. Related, but not necessarily the same.

And even then, nowhere in my posts do I believe I've used exclusivity in my words. Note above I even said "in all too many leftists", not "all leftists".

There are people who entertain a left stream of thought who won't pick up the weapons of tyranny themselves (they are simply sympathetic to the concepts of espoused leftism, often without a lot of deep critical thinking), but would find force or murder to be personally repulsive.

They share some guilt (polezniye duraki), but aren't the type of true-believers who are active members of oppression.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

What Aylee actually said was that she recognized the very thought process that I mentioned above, in all too many leftists. She too thinks it's possible that it will lead to the very mass killings such as happened in Cambodia. The mass murder which has eventually happened in every nation when leftish took power.

Your point is easily argued from the extreme, Firm. I would not debate against it. But the political world is much more subtle than painting all left of center with such a broad brush. Beliefs and ideologies are not necessarily binaries.

vincent,

I'll try to respond to your more detailed post, later, as I find the time.

In response to this specific post:

I consider "Leftist" as a distinct group from many in the so-called "liberal/progressive" stream of thought. Related, but not necessarily the same.

And even then, nowhere in my posts do I believe I've used exclusivity in my words. Note above I even said "in all too many leftists", not "all leftists".

There are people who entertain a left stream of thought who won't pick up the weapons of tyranny themselves (they are simply sympathetic to the concepts of espoused leftism, often without a lot of deep critical thinking), but would find force or murder to be personally repulsive.

They share some guilt (polezniye duraki), but aren't the type of true-believers who are active members of oppression.

Firm

Yowsa, Firm . . .

I am surprised that you agree with Aylee on the possibility of a Khmer Rouge type catastrophe in America. The gulf of differences between the two societies is beyond obvious; it screams out so loudly I won't bother to insult your intelligence by quantifying it.

At the opposite pole there are many on the progressive left (I am not yet among them) who fear the possibility of a right wing tyranny, which has been so much more prominent in world history. Here is a list of 39 right wing totalitarian governments in world history. And that list does not include the petty dictators we supported in Latin America. Here the Latin American Dictators are included in this list of 91 authoritarian regimes that have been supported by the Unites States at one time or another in history. Aside from Stalin and Tito in the 1940s there are not many from the Left.

The historical odds of a right wing totalitarian regime are just so much greater than a left wing dictatorship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Yowsa, Firm . . .

I am surprised that you agree with Aylee on the possibility of a Khmer Rouge type catastrophe in America. The gulf of differences between the two societies is beyond obvious; it screams out so loudly I won't bother to insult your intelligence by quantifying it.

At the opposite pole there are many on the progressive left (I am not yet among them) who fear the possibility of a right wing tyranny, which has been so much more prominent in world history. Here is a list of 39 right wing totalitarian governments in world history. And that list does not include the petty dictators we supported in Latin America. Here the Latin American Dictators are included in this list of 91 authoritarian regimes that have been supported by the Unites States at one time or another in history. Aside from Stalin and Tito in the 1940s there are not many from the Left.

The historical odds of a right wing totalitarian regime are just so much greater than a left wing dictatorship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Yowsa, Firm . . .

I am surprised that you agree with Aylee on the possibility of a Khmer Rouge type catastrophe in America. The gulf of differences between the two societies is beyond obvious; it screams out so loudly I won't bother to insult your intelligence by quantifying it.

At the opposite pole there are many on the progressive left (I am not yet among them) who fear the possibility of a right wing tyranny, which has been so much more prominent in world history. Here is a list of 39 right wing totalitarian governments in world history. And that list does not include the petty dictators we supported in Latin America. Here the Latin American Dictators are included in this list of 91 authoritarian regimes that have been supported by the Unites States at one time or another in history. Aside from Stalin and Tito in the 1940s there are not many from the Left.

The historical odds of a right wing totalitarian regime are just so much greater than a left wing dictatorship.

Here is a nice link with LOTS of hyperlinks to books and articles regarding the left's historical support for tyranny and terrorism. It is very nicely laid out and easy to read in chronological order.

http://markhumphrys.com/left.tyranny.html

The first steps to this terrible outcome are being taken by the suppression of speech. The boycotts, firings, threats, violence and such directed at the right are all forms of censorship. True, it is not the government doing it at this time, but for 8 years it was accepted that the government was helping in the suppression of speech. See weaponizing of the IRS as an example. TEA Party organizations were being denied their correct statuses. So far, no one has been fired or prosecuted. This needs to change. The heckler's veto and the thug's veto on campuses and rallies needs to be prosecuted. Denying people free speech is the first step to Pol Pot, Siberia, Auschwitz and so forth. And it is absolutely the left doing these things.

You can take a look at this forum for further examples. How many threads are derailed by leftists? Most if not all. They use attacks on character and people to do this. Ideas are not exchanged at all. Only the character assassination and the "othering" of the "enemy." The left has defined speech as violence and is responding with violence. This is quite unacceptable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Yowsa, Firm . . .

I am surprised that you agree with Aylee on the possibility of a Khmer Rouge type catastrophe in America. The gulf of differences between the two societies is beyond obvious; it screams out so loudly I won't bother to insult your intelligence by quantifying it.

At the opposite pole there are many on the progressive left (I am not yet among them) who fear the possibility of a right wing tyranny, which has been so much more prominent in world history. Here is a list of 39 right wing totalitarian governments in world history. And that list does not include the petty dictators we supported in Latin America. Here the Latin American Dictators are included in this list of 91 authoritarian regimes that have been supported by the Unites States at one time or another in history. Aside from Stalin and Tito in the 1940s there are not many from the Left.

The historical odds of a right wing totalitarian regime are just so much greater than a left wing dictatorship.

Just a quick glance reveals that your Wikipedia lists, are laughable

Literally laughable.

It includes Islamic states, as "right wing"

All military-controlled states, all monarchies, anyone who isn't self-declared communist...

I saw one "right wing" government that was included from the last century, that lasted only four years.

Not exactly TEA Partiers, any of them

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

An "interpretation" simply means that "the rule of law" has no basis in solidity. Form without substance.

Hey, Firm . . .

To me the “rule of law” is a philosophical understanding about law apart from laws themselves. It has more to do with the purpose of the law (generic and as a body) and how it is processed. I would not wish to be without a body of law and an honest appellate process. Anarchists never fail to puzzle me.

I would not wish to live in a socialist nation but, as I have stated elsewhere, the Classical Liberal foundation of our Constitution is troubling. Well, Classical Liberalism is troubling.

The central point of CL is individual liberty. But, our national history has been a bloody dog fight in the streets and courts to seek relief from the power structure and to gain Liberty. The father of CL, John Locke, profited from the slave trade and helped write a Constitution for the colonial Carolinas, which favored land owners and slave holders. The more slaves you brought the more Carolina land was ceded to you. Madison and Jefferson and that lot were slavers. Saying that classical liberalism is the basis of our constitutional system of law and that it promotes individual liberty seems more than a tad unreal to me.

I have read that in his writings, which I have not read, Thomas Hobbes said something to the effect that the rule of law holds only if you have a strong authority to assert the law. The judicial philosopher, Carl Schmitt wrote that the rule of law requires someone who will finally say 'this is it.'

“Subjects of the law may admittedly have to accept that a final decision might turn out to be binding even though wrong. And in this limited sense, Schmitt is right to appeal to Hobbes's dictum that it is authority and not truth that makes the law.”

Schmitt was a German jurist who justified Hitler and Social Nationalism. That is why I disagree with your insistence that the Nazis did not have a rule of law. They had one, just not one you or I approve of.

quote:

I disagree. Rather strongly, actually, and see the problem as the left forgoing the process. When the law interferes with their political objectives, they either ignore the law or re-interpret the law. I see this as not an occasional thing - a normal occasional defect in the process - but an ideologically driven imperative, . . .

Funny you should ascribe that behavior to the Left only. It is not the reality I have witnessed. Look at Nixon: “When the president does it, it is not against the law.” ~ words to that effect are just one example that comes to mind.

Interpretation is Everything in our system; it’s flaw is that it cannot be impartial. Take the issue of torture, for example.

In the 1930’s the Supreme Court ruled on a case out of Mississippi that a confession cannot stand if it was obtained by repeatedly hanging a man from a tree and whipping him.

In 2008 the Supremes decided that foreign prisoners in Guantanamo were entitled to all of the constitutional protections afforded American prisoners.

In 2012 the Court declined the petition of four tortured British detainees to sue after they had been released from Guantanamo.

Justice Scalia opined outside the Court that there was nothing in the Constitution to prohibit torture because the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment applied only to punishment. Torture is allowed as long as it is not punishment, ignoring the right of any to forego self-incrimination (the Fifth.)

Thereafter, the court rejected an appeal by an American citizen, Jose Padilla, who was disappeared into a navy shipboard brig and tortured unmercifully and brutally for two years.

By rejecting Padilla's appeal the Court has deferred to the President. In a time of emergency declared by him with little push back from the Legislature the Court ceded to the President the right to target and torture even American citizens. Not something the Left championed. The Court gave an exception to the Presidency.

The philosophies of Hobbes and Schmitt (the Nazi apologist) are in play in America in the 21st Century.

Citations are available if you wish them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The destruction of the rule of law in the US by the left is through myriad ways: regulatory edict, Presidential edict, interpreting the clear meaning of our founding documents as something else, making things up out of whole-cloth, ignoring inconvenient laws, failure to enforce laws that exist, using treasonous leaks that impact national security in order to achieve political objectives, etc. . . .

Ironic that you write that on a day when there seems to have been a massive vomiting of CIA documents by wikileaks and the accusations of collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russians. . . . sheesh!

I don’t offer any solutions, but I do wish to point out the unclothed emperor and contest your accusations against the Left alone. History does not support your contention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Sorry I ran long on here. Thanks for your patience.

Good luck and maybe we will see you again in the future.

quote:

Not a problem with the length. I do like good discussions that both challenge and make me think. And/or to see if I can gain a greater understanding of people who have opinions that do not match mine.

quote:

I see a basic problem with you logic however. The basic assumption seems to be that there is something better than Classical Liberalism. I don't see what that is, even if I can acknowledge that it's not perfect in execution. But it is the only system of beliefs that have lead to the greatest good, for the greatest number.

What system will you replace it with?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

Welcome back, Firm

I would add to that that the left, Vincent included, see "justice" as what we suffered under Obama. Leftist political hacks in charge seeing nothing wrong when it is another leftist committing flagrant violations of the laws, while working overtime to find and even manufacture violations whenever they believe they may have a white or a conservative anywhere near their cross hairs

And working with leftists in the media to further those same ends

Please review your PMs.

I think "justice" to the left, isn't the historical, Western definition of "justice" we might believe it is. Not sure which camp vincent is in, yet.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I see a basic problem with you logic however. The basic assumption seems to be that there is something better than Classical Liberalism. I don't see what that is, even if I can acknowledge that it's not perfect in execution. But it is the only system of beliefs that have lead to the greatest good, for the greatest number.

What system will you replace it with?

Firm,

I said that Classical Liberalism was troubling to me because its Founders were exploitative of other humans. Justice and Liberty have been naught but bumper sticker slogans throughout our history. I will add that the enshrinement of Classical Liberalism as some philosophical or societal good is a delusional behavior.

Social structure comes about through forces and disruptions that are often undervalued as change agents: the automobile, the birth control pill, internet, and now robotics. Sometimes there are social conditions waiting for a revolution: the fall of kings, the demise of colonialism. We have undergone a number of changes during our history, a number of social, economic and political changes. For a while we were on track for a more just society but there has been a backlash against the progressive agenda the last few decades in my opinion.

I would not be so arrogant to offer a replacement for our system of social interaction. You don't simply take an entire system and replace it with another. That is utopian delusion. You work in areas where you perceive that fairness is lacking, or where some other value is perceived in need of improvement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Live well, Firm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

No PMs.

You have far more patience with them than I , not sure that's necessarily good. You are right on in general, regarding where the political climate is headed though