6 dead, 12 injured in shooting at Arizona political meeting

[Rick]

So, you support the Iran Contra affair?

I hesitant to respond to that, because grasping the answer requires a mind capable of discerning nuance, and I don't think you have one, but here we go.


First, I think a lot is lost when you throw away the rule of law. HOWEVER, there are times when not only the moral choice, but the RATIONAL choice is so heavily weighted on the side of breaking the law, that some upstanding people feel compelled to break it. Those persons should also indicate their general support of upholding the law by taking their consequent punishment without complaint, after carefully explaining publically why in this case they felt compelled to disobey the law.

One of the most leftwing congresses in US history was determined to support the nicaraguan dictatorship established by military takeover. That dictatorship quickly began exporting marxist revolution on their model to other south american countries. Note that those congressmen were the same sorts of people who had whimpered endlessly about the US realpolitik decisions to support this or that right-wing dictatorship as part of strategic moves during the world-wide 45 year titanic cold war struggle against the soviet union.

In return for a strategically inconsequential arms shipment to iran, Poindexter and North manage to do just enough to stop and overthrow the Sandinista machine. They broke the law, but made the correct (morally, rationally) decision.

Finally, the liberal/left has absolutely no standing to preach about upholding the rule of law - they overturn it frequently and with indifference, and at the most fundamental constitutional level, when it suits their political goals.

 

[PLC1]

I hesitant to respond to that, because grasping the answer requires a mind capable of discerning nuance, and I don't think you have one, but here we go.


First, I think a lot is lost when you throw away the rule of law. HOWEVER, there are times when not only the moral choice, but the RATIONAL choice is so heavily weighted on the side of breaking the law, that some upstanding people feel compelled to break it. Those persons should also indicate their general support of upholding the law by taking their consequent punishment without complaint, after carefully explaining publically why in this case they felt compelled to disobey the law.

One of the most leftwing congresses in US history was determined to support the nicaraguan dictatorship established by military takeover. That dictatorship quickly began exporting marxist revolution on their model to other south american countries. Note that those congressmen were the same sorts of people who had whimpered endlessly about the US realpolitik decisions to support this or that right-wing dictatorship as part of strategic moves during the world-wide 45 year titanic cold war struggle against the soviet union.

In return for a strategically inconsequential arms shipment to iran, Poindexter and North manage to do just enough to stop and overthrow the Sandinista machine. They broke the law, but made the correct (morally, rationally) decision.

Finally, the liberal/left has absolutely no standing to preach about upholding the rule of law - they overturn it frequently and with indifference, and at the most fundamental constitutional level, when it suits their political goals.

I think even my small, liberal mind can grasp that.

The end justifies the means. Since the Congress would not go and fight communists in Nicaragua (I did get that part wrong, it wasn't El Salvador), it was perfectly justifiable for the administration to sell arms to the enemy in order to raise money for the struggle. That pesky balance of powers thingy does get in the way sometimes, after all.

Further, since the "liberal/left" frequently overturns the rule of law when the ends justify the means that they employ, it is perfectly OK for the "conservative/right" to do the same thing. Two wrongs do make a right, after all.

The only part that confuses my poor addled liberal mind is the details of when the "liberal/left" has overturned the rule of law. Have they gone so far as to jeopardize basic provisions of the Constitution? Do you have some examples for our edification?

 

[Rick]

I think even my small, liberal mind can grasp that.

The end justifies the means. Since the Congress would not go and fight communists in Nicaragua (I did get that part wrong, it wasn't El Salvador), it was perfectly justifiable for the administration to sell arms to the enemy in order to raise money for the struggle. That pesky balance of powers thingy does get in the way sometimes, after all.

Here's a little more nuance for you (try to keep your leftwing brain from shorting out): From some moral systems, eg the Utilitarian, what matters is the total consequences of an action, both the end results, and side-effects from the means. The total net result from action or inaction is weighed to determine the best course. In this case:

1. Inaction: upholding an ad hoc, injust law specifically passed by the leftwing congress to prevent aid by reagan to the democratic anti-sandinista forces in nicaragua, with the result of a castro style dictatorship there for many years, and with their expert help, in the worst case, probably a good part of south america falling to marxist dictatorship.

2. Action: All that prevented, at the expense of violating a single law, which at its core was mostly an expression of anti-reagan hatred, but for which millions of people who pay for their whole lives (if it were obeyed).

The moral choice there would be clear for most people, but not of course the foaming-at-the-mouth leftwing.

The only part that confuses my poor addled liberal mind is the details of when the "liberal/left" has overturned the rule of law. Have they gone so far as to jeopardize basic provisions of the Constitution? Do you have some examples for our edification?

Did you just land here from Mars yesterday???

The first amendment religious and free speech clauses, the 14th amendment equal protection clause, the prohibition against double jeaopardy, endless laws and popular intiatives in california overturned by leftwing courts, the due process clause of the 14th amendment, the use of the interstate commerce clause to gigantically expand state power ............


Once again - YOU NEED TO READ UP. Read LOTS of books.

 

[PLC1]

Here's a little more nuance for you (try to keep your leftwing brain from shorting out): From some moral systems, eg the Utilitarian, what matters is the total consequences of an action, both the end results, and side-effects from the means. The total net result from action or inaction is weighed to determine the best course. In this case:

1. Inaction: upholding an ad hoc, injust law specifically passed by the leftwing congress to prevent aid by reagan to the democratic anti-sandinista forces in nicaragua, with the result of a castro style dictatorship there for many years, and with their expert help, in the worst case, probably a good part of south america falling to marxist dictatorship.

2. Action: All that prevented, at the expense of violating a single law, which at its core was mostly an expression of anti-reagan hatred, but for which millions of people who pay for their whole lives (if it were obeyed).

The moral choice there would be clear for most people, but not of course the foaming-at-the-mouth leftwing.




Did you just land here from Mars yesterday???

The first amendment religious and free speech clauses, the 14th amendment equal protection clause, the prohibition against double jeaopardy, endless laws and popular intiatives in california overturned by leftwing courts, the due process clause of the 14th amendment, the use of the interstate commerce clause to gigantically expand state power ............


Once again - YOU NEED TO READ UP. Read LOTS of books.

Thanks. I'll be sure to read up on individual rights. Should I read up on when it's OK to circumvent basic provisions of the Constitution as well?

 

[Rick]

Thanks. I'll be sure to read up on individual rights. Should I read up on when it's OK to circumvent basic provisions of the Constitution as well?

Yes, or just ask any leftwing judge in america.

 

[PLC1]

Yes, or just ask any leftwing judge in america.

Oh, so it's the left wing who is expert in circumventing the Constitution. Why, then, did the Reagan Administration do such an admirable job of it? Were they being advised by left wing judges?

 

[Rick]

Oh, so it's the left wing who is expert in circumventing the Constitution. Why, then, did the Reagan Administration do such an admirable job of it? Were they being advised by left wing judges?

Obviously, any sane person would reject your premise.