Author Topic: An Illustratative Conversation  (Read 570 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5217
An Illustratative Conversation
« on: July 28, 2016, 10:53:05 AM »

And oh yeah.. I totally stole that sheep/wolf thing from a few days ago.

Quote
So if Comey and the FBI don't recommend charges you will accept that. I think that is fair and I think it is the right thing to do.

I personally believe OJ was guilty of murder. Now if the police had done an investigation and concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to try him, I might also believe he was guilty of murder, but my feelings would have less basis in fact.

I have no idea whether Clinton has committed crimes or not. I do know that conservative ideologues have printed story after story that there is no question to her being guilty of numerous crimes. Its similar to the many stories that were put out about the Benghazi stand down orders. After all the investigations its clear there were no stand down orders issued by the State Department, by the President, or by anyone in the White House or in Senior military positions. And yet the stories persist that stand down orders were issued. That is the insidious nature of stories planted by ideologues. And to be non-partisan about it, it happens on both the left and the right.

The final outcome is less trust in government institutions and in each other. I don't believe that is good for our nation.

Let me give you one example of this. A couple of years ago, Darryl Issa, the former Chairman of the House Oversight Committee was recorded at a fundraiser telling the crowd that he believed Hillary Clinton had issued the stand down order to Panetta. That was a complete lie, and Mr. Issa either knew it or should have known it. That is the kind of behavior that divides this nation from the inside and if left unchecked will further our internal destruction.

Quote
    Adam Weisshaupt  to Jeff

    Its pretty obvious and confirmed she ran a outside email server, and that classified information was hosted there in direct contradiction of the law. That is not ideological. Those are facts. Add that to the shady history of ethics violations ( she was too unethical to work with a group of lawyers.. think about that..) , white water etc, and its pretty easy to suspect that where there is smoke there is fire. But this administration doesn't faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Immigration laws aren't being enforced at all. Te IRS targeted political organizations and no one has gone to Jail. Black Panthers stood outside polling places with Batons and no one was brought up on charges. Fast and Furious ran guns to criminals to try and push gun control via the deaths that they would cause. Obama illegally delayed Obamacare implementation and issued illegal waivers to corporate supporters.

    Now Clinton is meeting on the Tarmac -- why? Who can be sure. But only an ideologue would be so dishonest to not at least admit that it very likely was not a coincidence. There is zero expectation in my mind any investigation will be conducted fairly, because the entire edifice has been proven to be corrupt. Its not a question of breaking the law, is a question of if they will prosecute. Seen any Muslim Bakeries destroyed because they refused to make a wedding cake? No? The law is being applied selectively to punish political enemies.

    ( and if you want to say both Parties contributed to this situation, I would agree. I have always seen the GOP a bunch of traitors whose job is simply to hold the status quo till a Democrat can ratchet the agenda forward again)

    The point is, the system is corrupt, no longer governs by consent and is therefore illegitimate and deserves to be treated as such.

Quote
 
    Jeff  to Adam Weisshaupt

    Adam, I have to disagree with you that the litany you listed above leads to the conclusions that the system is corrupt, that it no longer governs by consent and is therefore illegitimate.

    I'm going to guess that you are one of those "very conservative" people who believe Congress and the Administration is not governing in the manner "We the People" want it to. If that is true (tell me if my assumption is wrong), then you need to realize that your views are minority views in this country and therefore your expectation that your views will be the governing principles are wrong. Although I never voted for Obama, it is a fact that "We the People" elected him twice. Further, the People's House, is probably more right leaning than "We the People" because of gerrymandering by Republican State Legislatures.

    If you want your views to be reflected in the laws of this nation, then you need to get a majority of Americans to AGREE WITH YOU. Right now, they don't.
 
   
Quote
    Adam Weisshaupt  to Jeff

    If the Majority would like to change the Constitution they are welcome to do so. (It takes a super majority by the way) Until then, those are in fact the powers that the government was given consent to use, even if a simple majority believe they should have more, or agree with the government's usurpation of power. The United States is a Limited Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, regardless of what they teach in public schools. If you want to change the constitution and the powers it grants to the federal government legitimately and WITHIN the system then you sir, need to get a super majority to agree with you. Read the Constitution, its quite clear on this point.

    The FBI basically just admitted Hillary broke the law. They just were unwilling to prosecute.. Just another example of how laws are being applied unequally, in violation of the Constitution. Rampant Voter Fraud even makes it questionable if Obama really was elected twice. After all, he was getting 115% of the vote in some places.

    It may also be a good time to remind you that 3% of the Amercian population fought in the Revolutionary war. 10-12% actively participated and supported it. They made their minority views the law of the land - the very law that is being flouted and abused now - by both parties.
   
   

Quote
    Jeff  to Adam Weisshaupt

    Here are a couple of points in response to your post.

    The meaning of the Constitution has been decided by all previous generations of "We the People". The limits of the power of the Federal Government has been a topic of debate since the founding of our nation. The clauses, specifically the General Welfare Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause have been used to justify the expansion of powers well beyond the enumerated powers. This goes on to the present.

    The idea that we need to get back to the original limits of the constitution is a valid idea or goal, but that in itself is not an authoritative view. Besides that belief, People are also free to believe the constitution is a living document that is interpreted according to the times we live in. Under our system of government both views are valid.

    The truth of the matter is that if you want to return to what you believe is the original limits of the Federal Government you need to convince a majority of Americans to agree with you, have them elect Presidents, Senators, and Representatives that also believe that way, and have the President recommend and the Senate confirm Judges that also believe that way.

    The FBI did not say Clinton broke the law. They said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against someone who acted in that manner.

    Obama didn't win because of voter fraud. He won because he received more votes. Let me be clear, he received more legitimate votes than his opponents.

    The fact that a small percentage of people participated in our initial violent revolution has no bearing on today. Given our representative form of government, any attempt by a majority to overturn the "Will of the People" as expressed by our elected officials would be and should be viewed as illegitimate.


Quote
 
    Adam Weisshaupt  to Jeff

    Only the founders made it VERY, VERY clear the only valid method of changing the constitution was via amendment, because only that method would preserve the consent of the governed. You can believe 2+2=5 as well, but that won't make it right - even if a super majority believe it.

    And Yes, the FBI did say she broke the law. They said they couldn't prove criminal intent - but the law doesn't require criminal intent.

    And how would one know if Obama got more votes or not when no one knows how many were fraudulent - and why should we trust a system that allows fraudulent votes?

    If we aren't following the Constitution - and you have admitted as much - then what are we following, and why do you think its representative of the will of the people? Because of a fraudulent voting system? Some totalitarian systems had those as well, and 100% votes for the dictator was proof of the will of the people there I take it?

    And if a majority voted to enslave black people again, and the courts upheld it, then any attempt to resist would also be illegitimate? After all blacks are a minority, and therefore have no rights if the majority doesn't think they should have, right?

    And that small percentage of people - whoever they may be , once they have had enough of being bullied might become very relevant very, very quickly. But go ahead, get a majority vote to take the guns and find out.

    What is illegitimate is claiming that the government has the right to determine what our rights are - and if you need clarification on that point, I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence again, specifically what our duties are when confronted with such tyranny ( and that includes the tyranny of the majority)
 
   
Quote
    Jeff  to Adam Weisshaupt

    No matter what the founders thought, the practice over the past 229 years has been substantially different.

    The FBI said that they couldn't find a precedent for charging someone like Ms. Clinton for the actions she took. I haven't heard anyone dispute that statement from Mr. Comey.

    Elections are run at the county level in the United States. The idea that our elections were rigged was the nonsense of the left in the early 2000s. Today, there equally misinformed people who can't understand how Obama got elected and so they think (incorrectly) that the election had to be rigged.

    The reason we are not following the constitution in the way you think it should be followed, is because there is no authority that requires us to follow it in the way you think it should be followed. "We the People" decide what is constitution and unconstitutional through our elected officials and their judicial appointees. "We the People", through our elected representatives and our judicial appointees, decide what government can and cannot do.

    If you don't like what our government is doing or not doing, don't waste your time arguing that it isn't in the constitution or that the Founders would not improve. Make the case for why what you are proposing is better for Americans. If enough of them agree with you and thus support candidates that think the same way, you might be able to change the government in the manner you want it changed.

    I could argue that the Founding Fathers were greatly opposed to allowing a standing Army, and yet we have had one for the past 70 plus years. How effective do you think I would be in arguing we have to get rid of our standing Army because the founding fathers opposed standing armies? I don't think it would be a very effective approach.

    Of course government decides what rights we have or don't have. If you don't believe me ask Christians who lived behind the Iron Curtain whether the fact that they had a God given right to practice their religion made any difference to the governments that persecuted them.

    The difference in our system is that our government represents "We the People", so in theory the rights that "We the People" want are the rights granted to us by our government.
 
Quote
    Adam Weisshaupt to Jeff

    Yep. The elections aren't rigged. Certainly not the Democratic Primaries anyway, right?

    The perception of a legitimate election is not the same thing as being legitimate. So even if your vote counts are 100% correct, but you offer no counter evidence that they are other than an assertion, you aren't going to change that perception, are you?

    "No matter what the founders thought, the practice over the past 229 years has been substantially different."

    Yes the Practice is different - and therefore does not enjoy the legitimacy of CONSENT. The practice was not consented to within the process we agreed to and which formed the government. Our agreement DOES NOT, and in fact explicitly forbids the idea that

    ""We the People" decide what is constitution and unconstitutional through our elected officials and their judicial appointees. "We the People", through our elected representatives and our judicial appointees, decide what government can and cannot do."

    No. the Constitution that formed the government defines what it can and cannot do and it can only be changed Via Amendment. That is what the Agreement we made SAYS. Any other process is OUTSIDE of that agreement, and what you are describing amounts to nothing more than Mob Rule.

    Democracy: two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch

    Republic : A democracy where two hundred Wolves, and one hundred lambs elect two wolves and one lamb to vote on what to have for lunch

    Constitutional Republic: A republic with a Constitution guaranteeing that lamb is not on the lunch menu. Eventually the Supreme court rules - five wolves to four lambs, that mutton is not the same as lamb.

    (Or a penalty is the same as a tax. Or that Interstate commerce is growing your own wheat. Or that Abortion is a right because you have a right to privacy. Or that a man is a slave even if he is taken to a State where the laws state slavery is illegal.)

    The Constitution is a binding document placing it in authority over the people and the government it forms through a voluntary ceding of their sovereignty. If that is untrue there is no purpose in having a constitution at all. And yes, its better for the Lambs if the Constitution is followed, because , being a minority, they are unable to guarantee their own rights via the system you propose. So while you ignored my question about black slavery, you are admitting here that yes, you do think a majority population can legitimately enslave a minority, because they only ave such liberties as the majority deems it prudent to grant them. .

    The constitution does not FORBID a standing army does it? I am not arguing that anything the founders intended or wanted is law, that is a strawman of yours.. Only statements actually in the Constitution are RATIFIED by the CONSENT of the governed - and the Constitution is the Nation's HIGHEST law - under which all other laws are to be passed. Laws passed in disregard to the Constitution are therefore illegitimate.

    You say:
    "Of course government decides what rights we have or don't have. you don't believe me ask Christians who lived behind the Iron Curtain
    whether the fact that they had a God given right to practice their
    religion made any difference to the governments that persecuted them."

    As a practical matter force is the fundamental principle behind all human government. However, just because one is forcibly restrained from excising a right doesn't mean that one does not possess it. That is what Jefferson meant by "inalienable" . Did black slaves not have the right to be free when they were slaves? Does the principle that one man cannot legitimately or morally own another man become false when a majority felt it should be so?

    "Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form. Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn it whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent." -- Abraham Lincoln. Speech at Chicago, Illinois | July 10, 1858

    The Founders felt there was a natural law that civilized men could call upon to guide them- that would supersede the law of the jungle where the strongest wins. The constitution's primary purpose was to limit the power of government in such a way that this natural law and the rights it implied could not be violated or suspended by use of government force as happened behind the iron curtain.

    If these rights are suspended by one man , a small group of men, or a majority, does it matter to the person who is so violated?

    You obviously feel that a system that declares certain rights to be inviolate is not to the benefit of the American people, and therefore argue for a system where "rights" are determined by a majority and by force. By the rule of the jungle. Your claim to legitimacy does not rest upon consent, but upon the application, ability in and willingness to use force to impose your will on everyone else. No sane sheep would consent to being eaten for lunch would they?

    You are basically saying that "If one can't stop you , then your (group) application of force is legitimate" After all- the sheep were outvoted. That is the tyranny of the mob. The Sheep don't have rights because they are "the other"

    And since your claim to legitimacy is the ability to apply force, someone with a greater ability to apply that force is just as legitimate, are they not? If you choose to live by the sword, you will die by the sword.

    "The difference in our system is that our government represents "We the
    People", so in theory the rights that "We the People" want are the
    rights granted to us by our government."

    So ask yourself-- does a government consisting of Two wolves and One Sheep really represent the interests of the Sheep? Of Do minorities deserve to be protected. Do minorities have rights, and are there things the majority should be prevented from doing with Government power?

    You seem to suggest that there should be no limits other than those the majority agree to impose, and in so doing reject the most fundamental premise of our Nation's Declaration of Independence . That is the difference in OUR system. The idea that EVERYONE has rights, and those rights do not come from other men, or from the government, but as a natural extension of that man's mere existence, and that TRANSCENDS any allegiance to race, tribe or culture. The normal state of man has been to do what you are suggesting should be done- that those who are full members of the dominant tribe have rights, and the "other" has none but enjoy what liberties the dominate tribe allows them. And under that system the Other has no obligation to respect your rights in the absence of your applied force, because you have failed to reciprocate and acknowledge his.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
    that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
    that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That
    to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
    their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any
    Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
    the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
    laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
    such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
    Happiness."

    These truths are apparently not self-evident to you, even though that is what make's the Founder's system unique in human history, and what led to this nation's rise to power. . You, like the wolves, seem intent on your own gain, and feel that you will never need your rights protected because you think your tribe will always be in the majority. In fact, you deny you have rights at all- what you have is liberties - granted by the Mob, and which can just as easily be revoked by the mob . If a different Tribe rules, then obviously you SHOULD be subjugated and enslaved. Its only fair, right?

    If my interpretation of the Constitution is followed, we have a system that boldly states at ALL people will be treated before the law equally, and bases that assertion an a self-evident truth of natural law. Being run by humans, that system will inevitably fail in that endeavor upon occasion ( If Men were Angels we would have no need of Government) But an occasional mistake is far different from asserting that the entire system is a mistake - as you seem to suggest. You apparently oppose such a system and favor one which benefits the majority to the detriment of the minority. But then "Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz" is the justification the left always uses for its tyranny.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 11:09:11 AM by Weisshaupt »

Online Alphabet Soup

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Hier standt ich. Ich kann nicht anders
Re: An Illustratative Conversation
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2016, 11:04:59 AM »
Not to sidetrack this narrative but could someone - anyone - show me where it was proven that "no stand-down orders were given"? This flies directly in the face of much that I have read.

Online Alphabet Soup

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Hier standt ich. Ich kann nicht anders
Re: An Illustratative Conversation
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2016, 11:20:07 AM »
And, addressing the narrative directly...



Your opponent appears to be one of those "show me" types who could stand knee-deep in shyt and deny a odor. I'm happy for him that life is (in his universe) so rosy.

I despise this sort. They are worse than the rabid lefties because, in their insistence that "It's all good!" and "It's not my problem!" they leave the door open for the worst of the worst to ply their trade.

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5217
Re: An Illustratative Conversation
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2016, 11:23:57 AM »
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_26124317/apnewsbreak-no-stand-down-order-benghazi

You will notice I don't engage him  on that point. Or really much on any current events other than as jabs. They want to talk about those tings so they can drag you down a rat hole of "he said, she said" - You can see how the legitimate points you do bring up will be ignored anyway.  You have to assume they will NEVER respond to your points, and your responses must be designed to elicit a statement of principle ( because they have none)  that you can then use to hang them.

Then use their OWN statements to force them into  admitting they are Totalitarians who wish to persecute "the other" and deny the very existence of rights, citing "the greater good" backed by force  as their justification.  Its very much against their self image and ego so the more you can get them to stare at it the angrier they will become. Especially if you ask them questions. ( they love lecturing.. but can't lecture on this) 

I suspect this guy will not respond - but its a long drawn out conversation with weeks between responses.. as I don't look at DISQUS often anymore.  He has been civil, so I have continued to respond, and he - for whatever reason has felt inclined to reciprocate.  He might not even see it-- its been a week or two since the last one. If he does come back I suspect it will be "But we have the elite master race on the supreme court or override the masses when they are "wrong"" argument.  But he is just digging deeper if he does...if Rights are now determined by a small group of  un-elected people, I just hang him by his " the majority is always right" assertion..  The Wolves and Sheep on the Supreme court thing is brilliant, because it illustrates that  if they aren't following or constrained by a set of outside rules, then the court is really just a super legislature  - and not a court deciding on what a Law says, but what it SHOULD say.  Black is white. White is Black. Red is the color that you bleed. Here, let me show you.


Online Alphabet Soup

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Hier standt ich. Ich kann nicht anders
Re: An Illustratative Conversation
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2016, 11:36:09 AM »
Just as I thought - it is EXACTLY "he said, she said".

Quote
The Special Operations detachment leader's name is omitted from the testimony transcript, but he previously has been identified as Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson. More than a year-and-a-half later, Gibson, who is now a colonel, agreed that staying in Tripoli was the best decision.

"It was not a stand down order," he testified in March. "It was not, 'Hey, time for everybody to go to bed.' It was, you know, 'Don't go. Don't get on that plane. Remain in place.'"

In other words, it was a Stand Down order that was never to be referred to as a stand down order.


Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 42500
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: An Illustratative Conversation
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2016, 12:09:36 PM »
I don't know where this Jeff asshole came from, don't really care, pretty sure he is one whom I wouldn't flinch from shooting in the face.  Maybe a majority of his pals will hurl themselves in front of the bullet and save his idiotic ass...

I'm sure somebody will be there for him when the time comes...
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5217
Re: An Illustratative Conversation
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2016, 12:19:22 PM »

In other words, it was a Stand Down order that was never to be referred to as a stand down order.

Mutton isn't Lamb.
Same semantic word magic  they always use.  If I refuse to name it ( Islam)  it doesn't exist
If I change the meaning of a word , the reality changes with it