Mark Levin's Liberty Vs. Thomas Friedman's Tyranny
The media is going to work overtime to ignore Mark Levin’s brand-new book “Ameritopia.” He asks: Do we choose between America as it was founded on liberty or a radically socialist Ameritopia? Levin says we’ve already chosen (b). No one in the liberal media wants that announced so explicitly from their mountain tops.
The arrogance of socialists is apparent on the back cover of Levin’s book. It carries a passage from Adam Smith that aptly defines the modern leftist: “He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.” That perfectly defines utopians like Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, who has explicitly declared his affinity for tyranny. “I think we’re entering an era...where being in politics is going to be more than anything else about taking things away from people.”
Friedman has explicitly described and desired the idea of being Dictator for a Day to fix all of our country's problems. He has enthusiastically promoted how the don't-call-them-communists in China can so "efficiently" impose their will. No one in the liberal media is horrified by the sound of that. He's proclaimed his vision around the liberal TV and radio circuit, the same circuit that doesn't have the "open-mindedness" to cross swords with Mark Levin.
In his book, Levin explores the utopian political philosophers from Plato’s “Republic” to Thomas More’s “Utopia” to Hobbes’ “Leviathan” and The Communist Manifesto. They still echo in modern liberal thought: “The modern arguments over the individual are but malign echoes of utopian prescriptions through the ages, which attempted to define subjugation as the most transcendent state of man.”
What’s chilling is that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels explicitly rejected history, as Levin quotes from the original: “Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality, instead constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience,” which was just a variegated collection of developing “class antagonisms.”
In discussing the rise of liberalism, Levin spends time reminding readers of how Woodrow Wilson pushed for a process of “constitutional adaptation” with “boldness and a touch of audacity” – the audacity of socialist aspirations. Then Levin turns to the revolution that was Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.
He notes that Roosevelt’s redefinition of “freedoms” and “rights” sounded quite similar to a 1936 Soviet list of “fundamental rights,” including the right to work and the right to leisure, the right to universal and compulsory education and the right to “maintenance” in old age. Never mind that neither in the communist U.S.S.R. or in socialist countries like Britain, governments have failed to provide a “right” to health care or other services in reality.
One of Levin’s most quotable lines is “The ‘living constitution’ is a constitution on its deathbed.” That line should land in a 21st century volume of great quotations.
Can you imagine some self-admiring genius like Chris Matthews trying to face off on Hardball with Levin? This author doesn’t need sickening thrill-up-my-leg gushing. He just deserves a few minutes to share his ideas. But no one expects he'll ever darken the door at MSNBC.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Coming To A Dead End, Tommy Buddy
Submitted by rammingspeed on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 1:09am.
Dear Thomas Friedman: In those societies where the government began taking things away from people, THE PEOPLE DOING THE TAKING CEASED TO EXIST. Either nicely, by being thrown out of political office by voters, or not nicely, as in being dragged out of their towers and then, well, you know...
That's what will happen in America, if necessary. Guaranteed.
Friedman would do well to revisit the life story of
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 1:20am.
Nicolae Ceausescu. Old Nicolae thought that taking from the people was just fine, right up until the point was made, violently, that the people were tired of that.
The thing about
Submitted by Bob K on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 2:25am.
people like Friedman is that always assume they will be in the elite after the revolution happens.
Fortunately our Founding Fathers were a lot smarter than Mark
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 4:33am.
"The Occasional Doofus" Levin, whose 'living Constitution' line is nothing more than a curious and impotent relic of the 18th century--like the Second Amendment mandated single shot musket rammingspeed and his fellow revolutionaries would be toting in their mission to topple and execute the US heads of state in the event their guys lose the next election.
Jer
What "living Constitution" line?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 5:10am.
Are you aware of what he is saying there? He is referring to other peoples use of "living Constitution" as in "living breathing Constitution". That is the group that claims you can read things into the Constitution that are not there.
**update**
Here is the wki entry for Living Constitution. Mr. Levin is opposed to this idea. Are you saying, as a retired lawyer, you believe in this concept?
I try to listen to the Great
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 7:14am.
I try to listen to the Great One each evening. I have to put up with Jer maybe 2-3 times a week. Mark goes into great detail on what he believes and why. Jer just hits and runs never really explaining anything.
I rarely duck defending an assertion, rick...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 7:23pm.
On the other hand, you have rarely responded to a comment I have addressed directly to you. You are a coward.
Jer
You're a rare duck, all right, Jer,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 10:54pm.
being a lefty on a conservative site.
If rick 'rarely' responds, that means he has responded in the past; therefore he is no coward.
You, however, ARE a liberal; which means that there are some here who will ignore you merely because you take the leftist lean as your story line.
Did your hiatus from these threads provide an opportunity to attend a messiah seminar, in order to gird your loins so as to be able to support the pitiful Democrat in the White House by making pro Obama statements with a straight face?
MD
Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 7:16pm.
Frankly, I can't recall the last time rick responded to one of my comments or questions, but he and I both have been posting here for approximately 5 years and therefore I know better than to say "never, so I'll stick with and stand by "rarely". And you have been here long enough and know me well enough to recognize that his charge of my "hitting and running" is an absurd, surprising and disappointing cheap shot from rick.
Jer
Had no idea, Jer, that Reagan had you in mind when he---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 7:39pm.
crafted the saying, "There you go again".
Ever the victim; never the cause.
You do get high points for consistency, though.
MD
MD, like a true liberal Jer
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 7:59pm.
MD, like a true liberal Jer is throwing the "card", in his case it is the victim card. :-)
Yeah, Scoob (or yea), and ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 8:03pm.
is it true, horror of horrors, that you didn't acknowledge an apology from Jer?
Wowser.
That must have upset his applecart. :o)
MD
He should learn to make
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 8:10pm.
He should learn to make applesauce then. :-p
Speaking of which, Matthew and Scube...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 9:23pm.
I was thinking about it later and while I believe my recollection is accurate, I'm not 100% certain. What I do specifically recall, however, is some time ago--possibly prior to the archive demolition--Scube trotting out the same, tiresome "you never admit you're wrong" tripe, to which I responded with a link and reposting of my having done so, accompanied by an apology [to Tom Blumer]. Scube disappeared without comment, only to periodically repeat the same false accusation.
Jer
And of course since there is
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 9:51pm.
And of course since there is no evidence to support your accusation we have to take your word that it happened? LMAO!!!!!!!!
Oh that is FUNNY!!!!!!
As a lawyer wouldn't you be jumping to your feet screaming "OBJECTION" if someone had done that in a post?
Listen, Genius...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 10:23pm.
If I were inclined toward dishonest or deceptive behavior for the purpose of peddling a self-serving but bogus claim knowing the evidence was unavailable to either prove or disprove it, I wouldn't have bothered with posting a revision and clarification of my earlier comment.
Jer
You just made a statement and
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 10:52pm.
You just made a statement and presented it as fact. A fact that cannot be substantiated. If another poster here did the same thing you would be all over them.
Oh and by the way, in your response to me about the multiple links I presented to you on Friedman, I was emulating The Vet not Poop Dreck. The Vet even noticed it and called me on it. So are you now trying to slander me? :-p
So, Jer, while you are are not ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 9:55pm.
100% certain that your recollection is accurate, you seem to be indicating that your recollection is 99.99999999999999% accurate.
While you may argue that I didn't include enough 9's after the decimal point; I would argue that if it ain't 100%, it ain't accurate.
MD
Oh please, Matthew...You characterize just about every
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 9:08pm.
objection I make in response to an accusation as "playing the victim card". You have gone on record that since I used the word "rarely", it proved Rick is no coward. Fair enough.
Now, will you please do me a favor and state whether or not you agree with Rick's initial assertion that I am a "hit and run" poster?
This is not a liberal/conservative issue, so ideological bias shouldn't enter into it.
Thanks...
Jer
I, personally, Jer, don't consider you to be a ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 9:47pm.
"hit and run" poster.
That said, my statement in no way invalidates anyone else's opinion.
Hit and run posters like the chipmunk (alvin), melveen melvinger (melvin), are liberal trolls, and are fools.
Others posters like Hank Mud (Henry Clay), the Ashen Equine (Pale Horse), the birdman (Icarus), and Rupe (Rupert Caddell), are liberal fools who are trolls who visit these threads often, and argue/debate enough to be considered not hit and run.
Zippers/ADK's many different accounts, while impressive in number, and his posts, which seem to have reached hit and run status, still bleeds liberal troll when he gets verbally punched out.
All the fore mentioned are pretty much posters who are transient in nature.
You, as a house lib, seem to be pretty much accepted around here as a permanent fixture, though it is rare, extremely so, that anyone agrees with your lefty leanings, opinions, and defense of Democrat politicians and policies.
I wonder why that is? :o)
MD
Some Perspective on lawyers
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 8:54am.
I was reading a book I found on Gutenberg.org called "How to Study", written in 1917 by George Fillmore Swain who was a professor of Civil Engineering at Harvard, and came across this comment in a section about the veracity of sources. I leave it to you to decide whether the comment still applies almost 100 years after it was written:
"The lawyer, however, does not always limit himself to the discovery of the truth, but often seeks to discover and bring to bear unsound but plausible arguments to refute the other side; and by his skill in dialectics he may often deliberately "make the worse appear the better reason.""
26CX,
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 9:37am.
There are many, many lawyers and they are human and therefor I am sure that there are many good and many bad in their ethical approach to the job. In relating to your quote a couple of things stand out to me.
One is the 'best defense' clause has become an overriding directive even beyond criminal law. It appears to the layman that ethics and civic responsibility can now be put aside in the name of presenting the best case for the person paying the hourly rate. While this is an acceptable practice in the business world it does not always fit well in the realm of Justice when taxpayers pay for everything but the legal representation.
Law firms are political structures and to get noticed you have to stand out. To stand out you have to accomplish something that hasn't been done or was thought impossible. Therefore, it becomes imperative to come up with a new twist on words or a graying of an issue in order to accomplish what others could not do before and earn a spot higher on the ladder. Once again, this is something that in the business world, which law firms are a part, is fine; but tax payers pay for every thing except the representation of these law firms.
The question comes down to the ethical question of whether or not the public, taxpayers, are owed a higher ethical level of responsibility and accountability then what they are being offered by the courts they pay for and those who work within their halls? Does the expectations of those who represent the public extend to the private sector because they choose to wage their arguments within the halls of a public domain?
As a side note: The self-serving connection of judges, lawyers and their respective employees to fleece the taxpayer is another rant but one worth pondering.
Agnostic,
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 12:48pm.
Great comments!
I agree with you that there are many, many good lawyers who hold what most lay people regard as "The Truth" in high esteem and adhere to its constraints in doing their work. The problems arise, as you pointed out, when lawyers who feel more or less unrestrained by the conventional definition of "The Truth" stretch and bend things to - as you said - accomplish what others could not do before. That those actions offend common sense and the average person's sense of Justice is secondary (at best) to the lawyer's goal of having their client exonerated or the charges against their client minimized. While it's true a lawyer owes his or her client the best possible defense, most of us expect that the defense will be mounted within the realm bounded by truth, common sense and fairness.
So, the crux of the matter seems to me to be an understanding of what constitutes "Truth". As we often see on NB, different people can look at an event and interpret it different ways, and lawyers have capitalized on that disparity to find some little aberration that can be dragged into prominence and used to confound what seems to most to be an obvious conclusion. It doesn't matter whether the point comports with reality and common sense; it only matters that it serves the lawyer's aim of casting enough doubt (or confusion) over an issue to achieve the lawyer's goal.
This tendency to spin things in favor of their client no matter how the effort appears to the rest of the world is what has turned the public against lawyers as a group. This is not a recent phenomenon, either, as anyone who reads history (or Shakespeare) knows.
And to your point about the higher ethical levels of responsibility and accountability owed the public, you are absolutely right. However, given that judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys are all lawyers, they are all subject to the same influences of their training. If you accept the premise of the quote I offered in my comment above, we're all screwed. ;)
The machinery for correcting this situation is defined very well in your tag line. It's unfortunate, though, that most peoples' sloth and susceptibility to sacrificing long term ideals for immediate gratification make it unlikely that things will ever really change.
26CX,
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 3:44pm.
I agree with your opinions and conclusion.
I can only think of one thing that might help marginally and I believe it to be somewhat impossible and that is to have an absolute separation between judges and lawyers.
No way of knowing who is judging a case, their history, their preferences, etc..., and this would require the constant rotation of the judges around the nation. The judges would have to be completely anonymous and changed frequently.
Yes, I am, Vet...which doesn't mean I endorse unconstrained,
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 9:37pm.
ungrounded, and capricious judicial activism. Some additional reading of your wiki source--with very minor editing--should assist in understanding my position. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is one of the most influential and highly respected Supreme Court Justices in American history, and Richard Posner is considered by many to be the pre-eminent contemporary Constitutional scholar [and is by no means in the "liberal" camp.] I hope 26CX won't further embarrass himself by insinuating that either of these towering judicial intellects and gentlemen of impeccable character possess an ambiguous and inconstant relationship with the "Truth":
Although "the living Constitution" is itself a characterization rather than a specific method of interpretation, the phrase is associated with various non-originalist theories of interpretation. The most common association is with judicial pragmatism.In the course of his judgment in Missouri v. Holland 252 U.S. 416 (1920), Holmes made this remark on the nature of the constitution.
With regard to that we may add that when we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters. It was enough for them to realize or to hope that they had created an organism; it has taken a century and has cost their successors much sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation. The case before us must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago. The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution. The only question is whether it is forbidden by some invisible radiation from the general terms of the Tenth Amendment. We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that amendment has reserved.
According to the pragmatist view, the Constitution should be seen as evolving over time as a matter of social necessity. Looking solely to original meaning, when the original intent was largely to permit many practices universally condemned today, is under this view cause to reject pure originalism out of hand.
This general view has been expressed by the libertarian Judge Richard Posner:
A constitution that did not invalidate so offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law [as the Connecticut law banning contraceptives] would stand revealed as containing major gaps. Maybe that is the nature of our, or perhaps any, written Constitution; but yet, perhaps the courts are authorized to plug at least the most glaring gaps. Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home.... We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution.
This pragmatist objection is central to the idea that the Constitution should be seen as a living document. Under this view, for example, constitutional requirements of "equal rights" should be read with regard to current standards of equality, and not those of decades or centuries ago, because the alternative would be unacceptable. [italics mine]
Jer
Thank you, Jer!
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 10:59pm.
Thank you, Jer, for so aptly illustrating my point that many lawyers have a casual relationship with the truth.
You evidently are ignoring the second line of my response to Agnostic in which I said (I thought very clearly):
I agree with you that there are many, many good lawyers who hold what most lay people regard as "The Truth" in high esteem and adhere to its constraints in doing their work.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/01/20/mark-levins-liberty-vs-thomas-friedmans-tyranny#comments#ixzz1k9CQPPWd
How you would think that was an indictment of all lawyers is beyond me, but I think the quote by Mr. Swain in my earlier comment provides a plausible answer. Let me repeat the quote here to save you the trouble of scrolling back up:
"The lawyer, however, does not always limit himself to the discovery of the truth, but often seeks to discover and bring to bear unsound but plausible arguments to refute the other side; and by his skill in dialectics he may often deliberately "make the worse appear the better reason.""
The "unsound but plausible" argument you raised is that I insinuated that all lawyers "possess an ambiguous and inconstant relationship with the "Truth", when that was clearly not the case when you take all my comments into account.
I appreciate your concern for my well-being, but I am in no way embarrassed that you have misrepresented what I said.
Well, CX...would you kindly explain just exactly what your
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 11:21pm.
purpose was in posting the item offering a perspective on lawyers in response to my and the Vet's [and Levin's] comments on the "living Constitution" and rick's snark about my alleged hit and run tactics?
By the way, I neither stated nor implied that you insinuated "all" lawyers have an ambiguous...relationship with the Truth. In fact, I referred to a grand total of TWO lawyers who I hoped you were not insinuating or would not insinuate had a questionable relationship. I did, however, assume you were perhaps associating that view with "living Constitution" adherents such as Holmes and Posner. Otherwise, I failed to see the point of your initial comment. Consequently, my request for an explanation. I apologize if I assumed incorrectly, and I regret you believe that it was evidence of my casual relationship with the truth.
Thanks.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 11:31pm.
I posted the quote in regards to The Vet's question "Are you saying, as a retired lawyer, you believe in this concept?" Since Vet raised a "lawyer's point of view" question, I offered Swain's opinion about lawyers' approach to the truth. There was no mention in either that comment or my response to Agnostic about "living constitution" or rick's comment.
Your comment that "I hope 26CX won't further embarrass himself by insinuating that either of these towering judicial intellects and gentlemen of impeccable character possess an ambiguous and inconstant relationship with the "Truth"" clearly indicates that you
were extrapolating my comments to include all lawyers when that clearly was not the case.
You assumed incorrectly and I accept your apology. Thank you.
CX...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 12:40am.
And Vet's question which you admittedly addressed was directly and explicitly related to the "living Constitution" issue. As such, one would naturally assume that your response was framed with that in mind--even if the words "living Constitution" were not specifically mentioned--and that those lawyers who embraced such view were somehow lacking a thorough and invariable fidelity to "Truth".
Of course, many attorneys and legal scholars reject that philosophy--Levin and Scalia, for example, who consider originalist interpretation to be not just the preferred but rather the required process in discerning and applying Constitutional "truisms"--a fact of which I am well aware and which also demolishes your argument that I had "clearly" extrapolated a reference to "all" lawyers.
So, your conclusion and contention regarding my inference is not only incorrect but illogical. Whether or not you apologize is up to you.
Jer
Jer,
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 8:01am.
I thought I made it clear that I was responding to Vet's "lawyer's point of view" question and nothing more. There is nothing in my first comment or subsequent response to Agnostic that would indicate otherwise. Your intuitive leap to believing that it was "directly and explicitly related to the "living Constitution" issue" would make Evel Knievel (RIP) envious.
Whether you choose to accept my explanation or reject that I understood the purpose of my own comment is up to you.
I will also say that your last response appears on its face to be another example of the tendency of lawyers to "discover and bring to bear unsound but plausible arguments to refute the other side," to once again quote G.F. Swain.
I have nothing to apologize for.
Disingenuousness does not become you, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 8:11pm.
Below is the Vet's post to which you responded. Please point out where the phrase you quote in your above remarks and contend you addressed--"lawyer's point of view"--appears in his comment? I can't find it. On the other hand, in that very same and very brief post he refers explicitly to "living Constitution" no less than four times...defines it, links it, and asks if I believe in "this concept." Indeed it is the only subject of his post. Yet you insist your reply to the Vet had absolutely nothing to do with the "living Constitution" concept, and that my assumption that it did was a preposterous Knievelesque leap. I'm curious: Is your disjointed jumble of non sequiturs, paper-thin denials and deflections some sort of tryout for the Comedy Club? If intended as serious and rational argumentation, it is absolutely laughable.
Here is the relevant post by the Vet:
What "living Constitution" line?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 4:10am.
Are you aware of what he is saying there? He is referring to other peoples use of "living Constitution" as in "living breathing Constitution". That is the group that claims you can read things into the Constitution that are not there.
**update**
Here is the wki entry for Living Constitution. Mr. Levin is opposed to this idea. Are you saying, as a retired lawyer, you believe in this concept?
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/01/20/mark-levins-liberty-v...
Jer
Cool. A sixteen letter word to try and throw ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 8:24pm.
26CX off track.
Doubt it will work.
MD
Other than possibly subconsciously revealing your own trade
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 8:52pm.
secrets gleaned from "The Thesaurus and Deflective Posting", your observation is utterly worthless.
Whether you believe it will "work" or not, CX is already off track, but he accomplished that all by himself.
Jer
You really should have been a comedian, Jer,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 10:24pm.
as that field is where your true talent surfaces.
Or maybe a psychologist, as you apparently deem yourself capable of pronouncing what is "subconsciously revealing".
Or maybe a
lexicologist soothsayer mind readereditor of the opinion page of a liberal daily.While there are no secrets to be "gleaned" from a thesaurus; when it comes to deflective posting, I must concede that you are an expert in that regard.
MD
Sorry, Jer,
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 9:59pm.
big words neither intimidate nor impress me, so unless you're grandstanding to satisfy your own desire to appear somehow superior, your rhetorical puffery is a waste of time. (It is amusing, though, so don't stop just because I said something about it.)
Also, Jer, your ad hominem comments betray a lack of serious thought and indicate to the attentive reader that you are apparently bereft of substantive support for the flimsy position you're trying to defend. I know this is a rhetorical device you commonly use in what you believe to be the advancement of your argument, so I'll give your comments the serious consideration they're due (none) and continue my attempts to point out the obvious to you.
Okay, I've said this once before and will repeat it here for your convenience:
I posted the quote in regards to The Vet's question "Are you saying, as a retired lawyer, you believe in this concept?" Since Vet raised a "lawyer's point of view" question, I offered Swain's opinion about lawyers' approach to the truth.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/01/20/mark-levins-liberty-vs-thomas-friedmans-tyranny#new#ixzz1kEur8f5t
Get it, Jer? When Vet asked you "as a retired lawyer" for your opinion, he was asking for a lawyer's point of view.
I also wrote, in an effort to help you understand my point after you demonstrated your inability to grasp what I was writing that:
I thought I made it clear that I was responding to Vet's "lawyer's point of view" question and nothing more. There is nothing in my first comment or subsequent response to Agnostic that would indicate otherwise.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/01/20/mark-levins-liberty-vs-thomas-friedmans-tyranny#new#ixzz1kEyrxFL4
Your assertion that I was responding to Vets living constitution comments is patently false. I explicitly identified the sentence I was responding to and you still seem to be confused. I don't know how to make that clear to you after explaining it to you what is now 4 times.
I have to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you are truly flummoxed in trying to understand what I've tried several times, using simple English, to explain to you. Could it be that you have painted yourself into a rhetorical corner and are trying to confound the issue as a means of escape? I am reminded of the quote I provided earlier in which G.F. Swain said:
"The lawyer, however, does not always limit himself to the discovery of the truth, but often seeks to discover and bring to bear unsound but plausible arguments to refute the other side; and by his skill in dialectics he may often deliberately "make the worse appear the better reason.""
To be honest, I have found Mr. Swain's proposition to be very useful in attempting to understand the ebb and flow of your reasoning as we work our way through an issue.
You have only to accept as true my repeated statements that I was not responding to Vet's living constitution comments for this increasingly futile discussion to come to an end. If, however, you're enjoying this as much as I am, I have plenty of time and energy to continue the debate ad infinitum. It's up to you, Jer.
You failed miserably, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 11:12pm.
Sorry Jer...big words neither intimidate nor impress me, so unless you're grandstanding to satisfy your own desire to appear somehow superior, your rhetorical puffery is a waste of time.
Dang it, CX, you sly dog you...you've gone and busted me and my clever ploy to intimidate you into submission with a string of obscure, rarely used, really, really, BIG WORDS, like, er...well, like...good grief, man, what in the name of Merriam-Webster are you talking about? Please list the "big words" I posted with which you are unimpressed. And this time, will you kindly provide a reasonably detailed response, rather than tossing out a dismissive "it's self-evident" as you have in the past. That type of non-answer is not particularly intimidating, but it's awfully unimpressive.
Look, I could throw darts while blindfolded at Matthew Dean's tracking pages and furnish you with gobs of words and phrases which, unlike the ones I used, are unfamiliar to--or at least never employed by--the majority of NB members, e.g. "pluperfect moron", "you equate being vociferous to being versimilar", "a prodigious prevaricator such as yourself should at least know how to spell lying". "you phony pedantic putz", "parturition", "you sniveling shigella...and chuckleheaded fool", "bite me, you lying piece of sh*t" [Oh, wait, that last one of Matthew's is probably recognizable to most folks. Please disregard.] Anyway, those few examples barely scratch the surface.
That said, even though I kid Matthew about it, I actually enjoy--and admire and learn from--his command of the language But if you are as sensitive about big words as you appear to be, it might be a good idea for you to avoid his comments in the future.
"Also, Jer, your ad hominem comments betray a lack of serious thought and indicate to the attentive reader that you are apparently bereft of substantive support for the flimsy position you're trying to defend...."
Ah...I believe drsam (yet another of one of those dastardly "big word" guys) would place that silly whine in the category of "projection". CX, you promptly sank to the tactic of the personal attack against me and/or my profession via your initial reply to the Vet, and then compounded it with your very first comment to me. By following that up with multiple mischaracterizations of my statements, you demonstrated either an alarming inability to understand plain English, or a deliberate effort to confuse the issue and to reshape the narrative to your advantage--neither of which reflect well upon your motives or conduct.
So, let's take a look at a few specific areas of the dispute and disagreement: Once again, as I noted in my previous addendum, you misstated the context of the phrase I highlighted--which I think even you will surely concede your error at this point. [I had pointed out that the Vet's question was "explicitly related to the living Constitution issue". You somehow misconstrued that to represent an "intuitive leap on my part concluding your reply to the Vet had been "explicitly related etc.". And you suggest it to be more evidence of my casual approach to the Truth, when, in fact, it was merely evidence of your poor reading comprehension skills.] Furthermore, according to you, I accused you of indicting ALL lawyers in your response to the Vet. Wrong...and something you simply pulled out of thin air. Now, arguably that would have been an eminently reasonable interpretation of the post in which you quote Swain's unflattering and unconditional remarks about lawyers generally being inclined toward [sophistry], but the fact remains I made no such claim either explicitly or implicitly.
It IS true that I assumed you were making a connection between Swain's quote and the issue raised by the Vet, i.e. the living Constitution. Why? Because, to repeat, it was the ONLY issue addressed by the Vet. Pay close attention to the following: The Vet didn't seek an opinion from me (a lawyer) about attorneys or their integrity, or about the legal profession, or about the manner in which lawyers analyze issues or what they think about the search for Truth or its importance in the practice of law. HE SOUGHT MY VIEWS ON THE CONCEPT OF THE LIVING CONSTITUTION. And that was the ONLY subject of his inquiry. Thus, I unsurprisingly concluded your post had something to do with that subject, and was not simply a gratuitous slam at lawyers in general, or at a significant subset of lawyers, or at me in particular by implication.
I also believed the area of your discussion with Agnostic concerning the alleged tendency of lawyers to "stretch and bend things [and twisting words and graying issues] to accomplish what others had not done before" was perhaps a (strained) effort to link that practice with "living Constitution" perspectives and advocacy. Otherwise, your earlier remarks would appear to have little purpose and even less relevancy other than merely to express an unprovoked rude and snotty aside.
But, you have convinced me my assumption was wrong. I now believe your observation by proxy [i.e., Swain's quote] had nothing to do with the "living Constitution" but was intended as an out-of-the-blue swipe at the purported cavalier attitude of attorneys toward the Truth--which you subsequently qualified by applying the impropriety not to all lawyers but to an unspecified proportion of the legal profession. Although I, personally, was now more explicitly associated with the scoundrel contingent by supposedly implying you had criticized "all" lawyers. Of course, I had done nothing of the sort.
The following example may be imperfect, but it is analogous enough and simple enough that it should prove helpful: Assume that you, CX, are engaged in the business of selling pre-owned vehicles, and the central question presented in a blog deals with the efficacy, wisdom, and value--and the standard provisions--of service contracts/extended warranties for used cars. You are then asked by the Vet or another poster for your opinion, as one in the business, of service contracts and extended warranties. But prior to your response, I chime in with a comment along the following lines: "Here's an interesting perspective on used car salesmen....Polls show the general public views them as untrustworthy and virtual flim-flam artists whose devotion to truth is far outweighed by their obsession to make the sale and earn a commission", which I then follow up with an observation that there are no doubt many honest individuals in the business. Would YOU be particularly gratified with or approve of such an assessment--which not only was pejorative but essentially skirted the point of the question? I don't think so--especially if I further stated, incorrectly, that since you falsely claimed I had indicted all used car salesmen, you had validated the negative opinion by the public.
If you carefully review this thread, you should agree that the preceding essentially parallels the course and character of our exchanges. And it also reveals your position to be a weak and comprehensive failure. Regrettably, your present misstatements and questionable methods of argumentation are a continuation of some of your less attractive past practices---butting in with unjustified scolding critiques while unaware of the background which precipitated the very posts to which you objected [and then falsely claiming you had apologized for interceding]; expressing selective outrage and then declining to give a reason for it; completely ignoring perfectly civil PMs...the beat goes on.
So, CX...I'm not seeking an apology, but if you would be inclined to tender one, we can wipe the slate clean and make a fresh start. If not so inclined, you can add a few more sarcastic tag lines about thin skin and rally the cavalry to ride to your rescue. In which case, it would probably be better to simply avoid one another in the future.
Jer
Thank you for your response, Jer.
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 12:59pm.
I hope writing that screed was a cathartic experience for you. If not, you've wasted your time.
When considering whether to respond to a megalomaniacal rant I've found it helpful to parse the comments into 3 categories:
1. Sanctimonious prattle
2. Ad hominem attacks
3. Comments worthy of response
As I sifted through the detritus that comprises your response I found nothing that fit into category 3. And since comments in the first and second categories are primarily emotional responses and, therefore, irrational to the extent that attempting to deal with them invariably results in a pissing contest, I'm not going to waste my time and yours replying to them.
But do try again, keeping in mind that the genesis for this "petty feud" (as you described it elsewhere) is a general comment that wasn't directed at you. If you choose to leap out of the stands to declare your umbrage over a quote written in the early 1900's and blow things completely out of proportion that's your burden to bear, not mine.
<edited for formatting problems>
I'm impressed with the big words and rhetorical puffery, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 7:53pm.
Not intimidated, but impressed.
Your utter failure to address the issues substantively or to admit your mistakes is less impressive. I'll take it though as an implied acknowledgement you are throwing in the towel regarding the core questions that have been previously raised. You failed to score a single point.
By the way, your off-topic gratuitous slam, the dominant feature of your introductory post--whether conveyed directly through your own words or via quoting and embracing the negative remarks of another--is indicative of YOUR burden, not mine.
For the record, in the most elementary terms, it boiled down to this:
Vet: Jer, what do you, as a lawyer, think about this?
CX: Here's an interesting opinion about lawyers, Vet. They have a problem with the "truth".
If you don't see the fundamental tackiness inherent in such approach, I suggest you temporarily suspend your officious lectures on posting etiquette and deal with your own issues.
Jer
Rhetorical puffery,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 9:55pm.
utter failure - implied acknowledgement - failed to score a single point - officious lectures; sounds like ol' Jer is describing one of his own rants.
Not intimidated - off topic gratuitous slam - fundamental tackiness; sounds like ol' Jer is once again describing being a victimized poster.
Poor lib. :o(
MD
'Rhetorical puffery' and 'not intimidated' are CX's terms, md...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 10:19pm.
And be careful about using "big words" around him in the future. They don't impress him. Apparently, neither do facts. Actually, CX was so unimpressed by the latter that he decided to ignore them.
By the way, you were a little bit slow in riding to his rescue this time. Where you been?
Jer
26CX racks you quite well, Jer, without---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 1:03am.
my help. :o)
Had my mom as a house guest all week. She left So. Cal. for Oregon 34 years ago, so I stayed busy showing her all the changes in the area.
I drove, she talked. We walked, she talked. We ate, she talked. We conversed all day and well into the wee hours - meaning she talked, I listened.
When she talks, I have to nod my head a lot. I can't type too well while nodding my head; and typing, thumbing through the thesaurus, and nodding my head simultaneously is completely out of the question, so computer time pretty much took a back seat.
As of now, Mom is visiting with my sister in Las Vegas, and is quite likely causing her ears to bleed.
I am once again free to watch my fellow conservatives beat up on transient lib trolls while also berating the favorite house lib until his ears bleed, his nose runs, his eyes cross, and his hair stands on end.
MD
MD, I am sure you are
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 9:28am.
MD, I am sure you are grateful that Momma Dean is still around to bend your ear. :-)
Jer, you are acting like one those boxers that just do not know when they are beaten. It is admirable to see you come out swinging but not landing a punch makes it all a bit....pathetic.
The length of your response back to 26CX is quite long. Were you trying the tactic of if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with.......?
Scuba...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 4:10pm.
Yes, clearly I was, in Matthew's words, "racked" by CX--just like Ali was racked by Liston, Patton was racked by the Italian army, and Georgia Tech was racked by Cumberland, 0-212.
CX racked me so convincingly, he has now benched himself and burned his bats. However, you are more than welcome to pinch hit for him and take your cuts. I promise only fastballs down the middle.
Jer
Jer,
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 8:50pm.
Where on Earth did you get the idea that I had benched myself and burned my bats?
You're the one who waited 6 days to reply to my comment. Here I am being courteous enough to wait patiently for you to come up with something else to say and you replay my kindness by saying I had benched myself and burned my bats? It's not even baseball season, for God's sake! Why couldn't you use a hockey analogy or a football analogy and at least show you're in tune with the sports world?
At this point, all I can do is shake my head... ;)
I got the idea right here at Planet NewsBusters, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 10:26pm.
I took your reply seriously. Are you suggesting your comment below was just superfluous posturing?
"....As I sifted through the detritus that comprises your response I found nothing that fit into category 3. And since comments in the first and second categories are primarily emotional responses and, therefore, irrational to the extent that attempting to deal with them invariably results in a pissing contest, I'm not going to waste my time and yours replying to them...." [my emphasis]
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/01/20/mark-levins-liberty-v...
I apologize for the delay in responding, but did you happen to see my comment to cajun elsewhere on this thread about my computer problems? That and some other matters have limited my posting lately--especially lengthy ones. [Btw, six days isn't too bad considering I've been waiting over 45 days for you to reply to the PM I sent you.]
You're the one who made "big words" the topic of yet another CX lecture. Why run from it? And if you thoroughly "sifted through the detritus", you should have encountered plenty of straightforward assertions based on irrefutable facts which you could have challenged. Instead you chose to run from them as well. Thus, my conclusion you had benched yourself.
As far as the sports analogies: a. I'm a baseball guy; b.) I did allude to the infamous GA Tech/Cumberland football game score, and c.) I avoided hockey fearing if I used the word "puck", you might misread it and deliver yet another lecture.
Jer
Jer, you silly goose!
Submitted by 26CX on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 8:23pm.
Surely an erudite individual like you who has been posting as long as you have knows that when someone puts a smiley face at the end of their comments they're joking.
You got all spun up for nothing this time but I appreciate your willingness to wax indignant at the drop of a puck, so to speak.
Goose my butt, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 3:21am.
;-)
I noticed the winky face [not smiley face] after your closing comment. And I tried to go along with the joking about the choice of sports analogies.
Some of the introductory remarks I took a little more seriously. Sorry for misconstruing those. It gets a little complicated at times when dealing not just with you but additional antagonists such as Scuba and Matthew.
Jer
No problem, Jer.
Submitted by 26CX on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 7:05pm.
Other than the "goose my butt" comment, we're good. ;)
For lack of one little comma, the phrase---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 9:51pm.
"Goose my butt", rather than "Goose, my butt', sounds peremptory.
To be fair, though, in San Francisco the phrase would likely be considered foreplay.
Good thing Jer resides in Georgia.
(signed)
A Jer antagonist
Scoob---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 11:55pm.
I am indeed grateful that Momma is still around.
She is only fifteen and one half years older than I. :^O
MD
matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 4:30pm.
My mind is simply incapable of associating Matthew Dean with reticence. Before you fully return to form, how about pretending I'm your mom for a few days where I do all the talking and you just listen and nod your head.
Doing good is its own reward, and I'll understand and even agree to an abbreviated period of silence if you feel your head is about to explode.
Jer
Jer,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 4:31pm.
and humility too!
Agnostic...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 4:41pm.
Humility? What's that? I'm not familiar with it. Did you mean "humidity"?
Jer
humility:
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 4:45pm.
The time period between winning a case on a wonderfully argued point and the time you find out if your clients check cleared the bank.
Actually, Agnostic...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 4:57pm.
I generally spent that time thinking about what toy I would buy for myself, and how I would explain it to my wife.
Jer
good plan
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 7:50am.
no humility like trying to explain the latest purchase to the wife.
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 12:06am.
I am reticent when my mother is talking because she is a conservative and I agree with what she has to say.
The only possible advantage to pretending you were my mother would be that I could understand why people would call me a bastard. :o)
MD
Matthew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 1:33am.
...succinct, humorous, and under 50 words
roflmao
Jer, that was a good post!
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 8:36pm.
In the midst of all the superfluous posturing you got back to the nub of the issue. I have hope for you after all. ;)
Here is the key statement out of your post:
"CX: Here's an interesting opinion about lawyers, Vet. They have a problem with the "Truth".
You are correct that I offered what I think is an interesting opinion about lawyers.
However, what I actually said in my comment is "I leave it to you to decide whether the comment still applies almost 100 years after it was written" . I'm not sure how you got "They have a problem with the truth" out of that but it's probably not worth pursuing. Maybe it was one of those "unsound but plausible arguments to refute the other side" Swain was talking about, or maybe that's just the way you interpret things.
But let's get back to your version of my comment: "Here's an interesting opinion about lawyers, Vet". In that interpretation you have accurately described the purpose of my post. If you would have taken the time to recognize that 9 days ago we could have avoided all this folderol... but it's fun to butt heads with you, so keep up the good work.
Have a good evening, Jer.
CX...You really don't see how I got "they have a problem
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 11:10pm.
with the truth" out of that? That is shocking. I don't see how you could think otherwise.
Here is Swain's quote which you posted.
"The lawyer, however, does not always limit himself to the discovery of THE TRUTH but often seeks to discover and bring to bear UNSOUND BUT PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENTS to refute the other side; and by his skill in dialectics he may often deliberately "make the worse appear the better reason."" [my caps]
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/01/20/mark-levins-liberty-v...
That's why I later pointed out that Swain was accusing lawyers of engaging in "sophistry"--which is defined as follows:
sophistry [ˈsɒfɪstrɪ]
n pl -ries
1. (Philosophy)
a. a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading
b. the art of using such arguments
2. subtle but unsound or fallacious reasoning
Your next comment [after your Swain post] was a response to Agnostic, most of which is provided below:
....I agree with you that there are many, many good lawyers who hold what most lay people regard as "The Truth" in high esteem and adhere to its constraints in doing their work. The problems arise, as you pointed out, when lawyers who feel more or less unrestrained by the conventional definition of "The Truth" stretch and bend things to - as you said - accomplish what others could not do before. That those actions offend common sense and the average person's sense of Justice is secondary (at best) to the lawyer's goal of having their client exonerated or the charges against their client minimized. While it's true a lawyer owes his or her client the best possible defense, most of us expect that the defense will be mounted within the realm bounded by truth, common sense and fairness.
So, the crux of the matter seems to me to be an understanding of what constitutes "Truth". As we often see on NB, different people can look at an event and interpret it different ways, and lawyers have capitalized on that disparity to find some little aberration that can be dragged into prominence and used to confound what seems to most to be an obvious conclusion. It doesn't matter whether the point comports with reality and common sense; it only matters that it serves the lawyer's aim of casting enough doubt (or confusion) over an issue to achieve the lawyer's goal.
This tendency to spin things in favor of their client no matter how the effort appears to the rest of the world is what has turned the public against lawyers as a group. This is not a recent phenomenon, either, as anyone who reads history (or Shakespeare) knows.... [My emphasis in bold and italics]
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/01/20/mark-levins-liberty-v...
Now, do you still wonder how I got "(lawyers) have a problem with the truth" out of that?
Jer
No reason to be "shocked", Jer.
Submitted by 26CX on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 9:15pm.
You've made it perfectly clear why I didn't understand how you got "they have a problem with the truth" out of my comment to Vet.
Here's your synopsis of my comment to Vet:
Vet: Jer, what do you, as a lawyer, think about this?
CX: Here's an interesting opinion about lawyers, Vet. They have a problem with the "truth".
And here is the comment you were restating:
I was reading a book I found on Gutenberg.org called "How to Study", written in 1917 by George Fillmore Swain who was a professor of Civil Engineering at Harvard, and came across this comment in a section about the veracity of sources. I leave it to you to decide whether the comment still applies almost 100 years after it was written:
"The lawyer, however, does not always limit himself to the discovery of the truth, but often seeks to discover and bring to bear unsound but plausible arguments to refute the other side; and by his skill in dialectics he may often deliberately "make the worse appear the better reason.""
A quick comparison of the two shows that it is fair to characterize my comment as "Here's an interesting opinion about lawyers, Vet". However, since I neither attempted to interpret Swain's comment nor offered an opinion on it in that post, the second sentence in your synopsis cannot be attributed to me.
A more accurate summary of my post to Vet would be the following:
Vet: Jer, what do you, as a lawyer, think about this?
CX: Here's an interesting opinion about lawyers, Vet.
C.F. Swain: They have a problem with the truth.
Now, if you want to talk about the discussion I had with Agnostic about Mr. Swain's opinion, that's a whole different conversation but you can't in good conscience try to combine the two comments and represent them as one.
You failed to alleviate my shock, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 1:16am.
A quick comparison of the two shows that it is fair to characterize my comment as "Here's an interesting opinion about lawyers, Vet". However, since I neither attempted to interpret Swain's comment nor offered an opinion on it in that post, the second sentence in your synopsis cannot be attributed to me.
A more accurate summary of my post to Vet would be the following:
Vet: Jer, what do you, as a lawyer, think about this?
CX: Here's an interesting opinion about lawyers, Vet.
C.F. Swain: They have a problem with the truth.
Now, if you want to talk about the discussion I had with Agnostic about Mr. Swain's opinion, that's a whole different conversation but you can't in good conscience try to combine the two comments and represent them as one.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/comment/reply/53149/1633714#ixzz1l5sr2lwj
I boiled down the Vet's post and your post to their essence. As for Swain, he's dead and posted nothing.
I abbreviated the posts--in an effort to simplify--but there was nothing inaccurate or misleading about the manner in which I condensed and presented the exchange between you and the Vet. Nor did I attribute the second sentence in my synopsis to you. If that had been my intent, I would have summarized it something like this: CX: My opinion about lawyers, Vet, is that they have a problem with the truth.
Having said that, it should be noted that Swain's words didn't require your interpretation to establish their negativity, and you neither rejected his thesis nor did you qualify it with an observation such as "I'm not suggesting that Jer falls within the unflattering category of lawyers described by Swain." Which brings me once again to the question I have posed before and have yet to receive an adequate response from you. What was the purpose of your comment? As I tried to illustrate with my used car analogy, no matter how you slice it, parse it, or dance around it--whether intentionally or by effect--it pre-emptively raised a question about the credibility of any forthcoming opinion regarding the concept of the living Constitution I might render. [It literally screams Vet, in weighing the merits of Jer's opinion, you should first consider Swain's remarks about lawyers and their tendency to shade and twist the truth.] The suggestion that you were just throwing out a random quote about lawyers for the heck of it seriously flunks the smell test. And your subsequent statements to Agnostic remove any and all doubt concerning your endorsement of Swain's cynical views about lawyers and their problem with the "Truth". That was the reason I included the excerpts of those statements in my prior post. It confirmed what was at least implied in your first post.
Jer
Ohhhhh! Now I see what your issue is, Jer!
Submitted by 26CX on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 7:46pm.
Check out these two lines from your post above (bold text is mine) :
"...nor did you qualify it with an observation such as "I'm not suggesting that Jer falls within the unflattering category of lawyers described by Swain."
[It literally screams Vet, in weighing the merits of Jer's opinion, you should first consider Swain's remarks about lawyers and their tendency to shade and twist the truth.]
I get it now, Jer. This is all about you, isn't it?
Instead of following such a serpentine path to what was really bothering you and pretending that there were other issues with what I had written, why didn't you just ask me if I was referring to you? That would have saved us both a lot of time and NB some server space.
The answer to the question you should have asked in the beginning is, was and always has been: NO, I was not talking about you. When I talk about you I will always refer to you by name. My comment was, as you described it, that it is an interesting opinion about lawyers.
Not you, Jer. Lawyers in general.
Get it?
Wait...CX*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 8:47pm.
"serpentine path".....Is that the same as "circular excess wordiness"?
Sort of, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 9:42pm.
It's the sly and sneaky approach we slithering snakes in the legal profession employ to deliberately confuse the issue and obscure the Truth. :-)
Jer
Well Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 9:47pm.
You being aware of my prior association with lawyers will be why I stay out of this fray. Course if I wanted to be insulting to Jer, the lawyer, I would have called him.....Jeriallies....;-)
This is the song that never ends,
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 10:18pm.
yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because...This is the song that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because...This is the song that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because...This is the song that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend.
I do get it, CX. I don't think you do.
I'll probably try again at the bottom of the thread. I'm well beyond the "a little bit miffed" stage. It's kind of fun.
Jer
Do try again, Jer.
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 9:24pm.
But now that we've ascertained that I was responding to a specific phrase in Vet's post with a quote about lawyers in general that didn't refer to you I'm not sure where else there is to go.
I whole-heartedly agree with you that it's kind of fun!
If nothing else, you certainly have a flair for irony, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:25am.
Having dumped me in Swain's black hole reserved for deceitful and dissembling barristers--while making it crystal clear you did indeed embrace the Civil Engineer's cynical and unflattering views on the legal profession--based on your singular and stunningly fictitious claim that I had accused you of having "indicted all lawyers", I must remind you that I had done no such thing and made no assertion whatsoever which could possibly justify even the slightest inference to the contrary.
Yet somehow YOU managed to tweeze from my words just such an improbable inference and then bootstrap it into a broadside against my integrity and fidelity to truth. Interestingly, and ironically, you now say your first post contained a quote--which you didn't challenge and subsequently endorsed--that referred to "lawyers in general" and was never intended to discredit me personally either directly or by implication. Presumably, you thought its placement, timing and content were perfectly appropriate, civil, and in accord with posting etiquette. But, I'm curious: Levin's a lawyer who offered his opinion on the living Constitution as a lawyer. Why not post Swain's quote as a general comment on the blogged article rather than gratuitously inserting it as a reply to a question posed not to you but specifically to me?
So to summarize your position, it was unreasonable of me to assume your response to the Vet addressed the very issue he raised. It was unreasonable for me to accuse you of indicting all lawyers, even though I never made any such accusation. And it was unreasonable of me to believe your comment containing Swain's unvarnished disparaging remarks about lawyers could be construed as even an implicit negative reflection on me--even though yours was an unsolicited reply to a post specifically addressed to me asking for my opinion as a lawyer, and even though in your very first comment to me you explicitly threw me under Swain's bus.
Jer
By the way, CX, after you finish your predictable Astaire tap dancing response, I want to ask you a few direct questions to which I hope you will provide straightforward answers. And please feel free to reciprocate with some of your own addressed to me. Thanks.
All spun up again, Jer?
Submitted by 26CX on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 8:38pm.
Just as a reminder, Jer, when considering whether to respond to a megalomaniacal rant I parse the comments into 3 categories:
1. Sanctimonious Prattle (SP)
2. Ad Hominem attacks (AH)
3. Comments worthy of response
And, as I mentioned before, since comments in the first and second categories are primarily emotional responses and, therefore, irrational to the extent that attempting to deal with them invariably results in a pissing contest, I'm not going to waste my time and yours replying to them.
I've shown my editing in a copy of your post below, including the category to which I assigned some comments. Italics and bolds are mine. After each paragraph I've replied to the comments that I think are worthy of response. Perhaps this format will give you better insight into how I attempt to make sense of your remarks.
Having dumped me
in Swain's black hole reserved for deceitful and dissembling barristers--while making it crystal clear you did indeed embrace the Civil Engineer's cynical and unflattering views on the legal profession--based on your singular and stunningly fictitious claim that(SP) I had accused you of having "indicted all lawyers",I must remind you that(SP) I had done no such thingand made no assertion whatsoever which could possibly justify even the slightest inference to the contrary.(SP)Once again, Jer, my intent in posting Swain's quote had nothing to do with you. And your insistence that I intended the quote to apply to you personally and potentially a Supreme Court Justice pretty much covers the spectrum, from bottom to top, of all lawyers.
Yet somehow YOU managed to tweeze from my words just such an improbable inference and then bootstrap it into(SP) a broadside against my integrity and fidelity to truth.Interestingly, and ironically, you now say your first post contained a quote--which you didn't challenge and subsequently endorsed--that referred to "lawyers in general" and(SP) was never intended to discredit me personally either directly or by implication.Presumably, you thought its placement, timing and content were perfectly appropriate, civil, and in accord with posting etiquette. But, I'm curious: Levin's a lawyer who offered his opinion on the living Constitution as a lawyer. Why not post Swain's quote as a general comment on the blogged article rather than gratuitously inserting it as a reply to a question posed not to you but specifically to me?(SP)I have only pointed out which of your comments seemed to me to support Swain's quote. Nothing I have written could reasonably be considered a “broadside against your integrity and fidelity to truth”. And, again, my intent in posting Swain's quote had nothing to do with you.
(Note: I've numbered your points in the following paragraph to make it easier to show my responses)
So to summarize your position, (1) it was unreasonable of me to assume your response to the Vet addressed the very issue he raised. (2) It was unreasonable for me to accuse you of indicting all lawyers, even though I never made any such accusation. (3) And it was unreasonable of me to believe your comment containing Swain's
unvarnished disparaging remarks about lawyers(SP) could be construed as even an implicit negative reflection on me--even though yours was an unsolicited reply to a post specifically addressed to me asking for my opinion as a lawyer, and(SP) (4) even though in your very first comment to me you explicitly threw me under Swain's bus.(1) Yes, it was an unreasonable assumption as I have explained to you several times
(2) Yes, you made an unreasonable accusation
(3) Yes, that was an unreasonable and somewhat egotistical assumption
(4) My very first comment actually addressed to you was in response to this statement you made: “I hope 26CX won't further embarrass himself by insinuating that either of these towering judicial intellects and gentlemen of impeccable character possess an ambiguous and inconstant relationship with the "Truth”.” I felt it was both reasonable to respond to your comment since you mentioned my name and to point out its applicability to Swain's opinion. I think it's fair to say you injected yourself into the discussion about Swain's quote and have worked hard to make yourself the center of attention.
Jer
By the way, CX,
after you finish your predictable Astaire tap dancing response(AH), I want to ask you a few direct questions [to which I hope you will provide straightforward answers(AH). And please feel free to reciprocate with some of your own addressed to me. Thanks.By all means, Jer, ask away, keeping in mind that I will not answer questions that are condescending, insulting or personal. I, on the other hand, have no questions to ask of you as I have already learned all I could ever want to know about you by reading your posts on NB.
That's just plain pathetic, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 2:42am.
and incredibly childish. By the way, that's twice you've played the "megalomaniacal" card--a serious accusation, assuming you are reasonably familiar with the term, Big Word Dude.
You whine about ad hominems, condescension, and big words and yet the vast majority of your posts on this thread literally reek of them all. So, I will respond once again, and this time it will be at the end of the thread, along with a healthy dose of reciprocated condescension and more reason, I suppose, to support your comically arrogant declaration that you "have already learned all [you] could ever want to know about [me] by reading [my] posts." Just how old are you, CX? You exhibit the emotional maturity of a nine-year-old.
In the meantime, your case has utterly collapsed, ensnared in its own illogic. [An important rule in polemics: An argument is poorly served by self-contradictions]
Later,
Jer
Ahh, once again, Don Jer Key-ho-tay, lefty ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 4:21am.
extraordinaire, tilter at any and all conservative paradigms; rides his liberal jackass hard against his foe, and is rewarded, per usual, by getting thumped, bumped, humbled, rumbled, and having knots put upon his head faster than he can cover them up - each successive blow ringing more severely than it's predecessor.
Refusing to be shamed into submission, our dauntless left leaning Democrat house lib
loins his girds xxx girns his loids xxxpulls his pantaloons up from around his ankles and proceeds to blast away with every known insult in his not insignificant verbal repertoire.
"Just plain pathetic, "incredibly childish".
Jeringo then swings a roundhouse punch with the seven syllable "megalomaniacal". Wowser !
He misses and falls on his prat, but scores a 10 for a perfect prat-fall.
Seeing the ten light up the scoreboard, Jeringo, feels an adrenaline surge; he uses reverse psychology, accusing his conservative nemesis of "whining", and whips out the old standby, calling his opponent "Big Word Dude". He surfs the adrenaline wave with abandon, flinging the charge of complaints about "ad hominems" -"condescension" - and "big words" (only this time not capitalized).
Then Jer feints with "your comically arrogant declaration" in order to set his adversary up for the devastating "Just how old are you, CX?"
Alas, Jer is gonged, then gigged four points, for being trite. And, horror of horrors, our intrepid jackass jockey sustains even further loss of face when assessed an addtional six point loss for having committed the unpardonable act of terminal triteness by actually typing out "You exhibit the emotional maturity of a nine year old".
With this ruling, Jer faints.
But is it merely another feint?
Why, yes it is.
Jer , collapsed upon the deck, utters '"your case has utterly collapsed," (earning back two points) and snares two more points with "ensnared in its own logic."
Jeringo then rallies briefly to earn two final points for being able to pronounce the word polemic properly in the midst of puking while prone, and getting completely through a whole post without using the word "absurd".
Score: CX26 - Winner with a plethora of points and still Champ.
Jer - Ends up with six
measlyhard won pointsRespectfully submitted,
Free Stinker
Official NBs scoring dude
MD
Matthew, if you're determined to spend so much of your time
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 4:05pm.
squeezing yourself in between CX's and my posts, why don't you at least devote a few minutes to reviewing the entire thread and noting the inconsistencies, misstatements, and common sense defying assertions and conclusions scattered throughout his comments. They're not that hard to spot.
Jer
Oh, and maybe you could PM him some more big words to use. He's wearing out "megalomaniacal" and "sanctimonious prattle".
I'm pretty much determined, Jer, to ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 9:01pm.
do whatever I want to do.
Quit playing the ass by trying to insult my intelligence; I peruse the threads and read the comments, and I happen to state what I believe, which is that while you are articulate, that is not a guarantee that you win or that your opponent loses.
Again, while I don't agree with the absolute majority of what you have to say, or how you say it; that in no way interferes with your continued ability to speak lefty, act like a Democrat, or defend any of the hideous liberal practices of the day.
I note no "inconsistencies, misstatements, and common sense defying assertions and conclusions scattered throughout his comments" , because those silly accusations exist only in your liberal mind as a way of belittling your conservative opponent in an attempt to make yourself look and feel better.
Though expected from libs on a conservative site, that kind of bullshit doesn't fly well at all.
MD
You're not throwing in the towel are you, Jer?
Submitted by 26CX on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 8:51pm.
Okay, Jer, I'm sure you are by now familiar with the format of my responses to megalomaniacal rants. Bolds and italics are mine:
That's just plain pathetic, CX...and incredibly childish.(AH) By the way, that's twice you've played the "megalomaniacal" card--a serious accusation,assuming you are reasonably familiar with the term, Big Word Dude. (AH)I'm very familiar with the word "megalomaniacal", Jer. What "serious accusation" do you imagine I'm making?
You whine about ad hominems, condescension, and big words and yet the vast majority of your posts on this thread literally reek of them all. So, I will respond once again, and this time it will be at the end of the thread, along with a healthy dose of reciprocated condescension and more reason, I suppose, to support your comically arrogant declaration that you "have already learned all [you] could ever want to know about [me] by reading [my] posts."(SP) Just how old are you, CX?You exhibit the emotional maturity of a nine-year-old.(AH)Is that one of the direct questions you said you were going to ask me? Do you remember me saying I was not going to answer any personal questions? That is a personal question. I'm not going to answer it.
In the meantime, your case has utterly collapsed, ensnared in its own illogic. [An important rule in polemics: An argument is poorly served by self-contradictions](SP)Later (?)
Is that it, Jer? Are you quitting?
Addendum...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 8:44pm.
You also blew it with the following misstatement:
"Your intuitive leap to believing that it (CX's reply to the Vet) was "directly and explicitly related to the "living Constitution" issue" would make Evel Knievel (RIP) envious."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/comment/reply/53149/1628446#ixzz1kEm0REhr
More comprehension difficulties, CX. Reread my earlier post, please. It is patently clear my "directly and explicitly related to the living Constitution issue" language referred to the Vet's comment, not yours. And it supports the reasonableness of my assumption concerning your reply.
Jer
Meaning what
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 8:50pm.
?
Meaning he misstated
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 8:54pm.
what I had posted, Boudin.
Jer
vacation over Jer?*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 9:01pm.
Thought those numerous posts sounded like a lib lawyer.
Hope you enjoyed your vacation.
Nah...cajun
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 9:36pm.
I've been tinkering with my computer and I think I broke it. For example, when I booted up today I got a frightening "Danger" message, after which it took almost twenty minutes to access the internet. I have some additional tinkering to do which will probably finish it off.
Sorry about the numerous comments. But apparently the alternative is an accusation of being a hit and run poster.
Jer
Jer is a hit and run poster?*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 10:35pm.
What idiot would call the Jerster "hit and run"?
Jer, the poster who will reply/reply/reply on multiple threads simultaneously til wee hours of the morning.
You might want to de-frag Jer. Probably have your bookmarks at max memory...;-)
He's not an idiot...he's just wrong.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 10:48pm.
I try to listen to the Great
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 6:14am.
I try to listen to the Great One each evening. I have to put up with Jer maybe 2-3 times a week. Mark goes into great detail on what he believes and why. Jer just hits and runs never really explaining anything.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/01/20/mark-levins-liberty-v...
I think you may be right about the bookmarks. I've got tons of useless, duplicated junk in three separate Favorites files in desperate need of a cleanup.
Jer
Jer, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 12:02am.
Rick did not, in his post, italicize "hit and run", as you did.
While I understand that you may have italicized your version in order to draw the reader's eye to that particular point; it is quite possible, IMO, that Rick could have meant 'hit and run' as in:
Actually, I have NO idea what ricklail meant by 'hit and run' when referring to your endeavors; but I favor the last bullet point. :o)
MD
agree Matthew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 12:38am.
Not realizing it was ricklail who posted the "hit and run", I agree with you that he did not mean hit and run as in troll. Jer does, at times, have a way of circular excess wordiness when trying to explain his points, even when he makes a correction or apology.
Ric could have meant points one through three or all of the above..
In Jer speak, that is cajun's apology to ricklail...;-)
In that case, cajun..
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 2:38am.
Why hasn't Rick--at some point in the last five years--posted his concerns directly to me in a straightforward manner, rather than taking a cheap shot ad hominem behind my back? Nor has he bothered to clarify or explain his criticism or provide an example of my hit and run tactics since the time of his posting the personal slam--while apparently relying on others to cover for him and speculate on what he may have really meant.
As far as my linking sources, there are several who definitely do so more frequently than I--but not very many. I would be absolutely amazed if not enough linking was one of Rick's objections.
Finally, I would really appreciate an example of my "circular excess wordiness when trying to explain [my] points". If I can see an actual case of that tendency in my posts, it will help me in trying to correct the problem.
Thanks...
Jer
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 2:46am.
see above post by Jer at 1:38am
cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 3:09am.
How so?
Jer
The "linking" bullet point, Jer, was ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 3:10am.
pure sarcasm. On my part. Did you somehow miss that?
Why would any poster direct his/her concerns about you, directly to you, if they didn't feel like doing so? Is there some requirement along those lines? Requirement, not your wants, wishes, or whims.
You, Jer, are very articulate; but you also were educated to be, and employed as, a lawyer.
The phrase "circular excess wordiness", as applied to you, should be music to your ears; taken as a compliment; seen as proof that you not only did indeed, succeed, but managed even, to exceed, as a
shysteroops, sorry - lawyer. :o)MD
Unfortunately Matthew, cajun appeared to take it seriously
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 3:27am.
and it was her post I addressed.
As far as Rick personally addressing his concerns to me, it is of course not a requirement that he do so. But in my opinion it would be a more appropriate and productive approach.
"Circular excess wordiness trying to explain a point" is not a compliment to or about anyone, especially lawyers.
Jer
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 3:41am.
You should know cajun by now. This time of night, just my snarky attempt at humor while "poking" Jer. Lighten up Jer..;-)
Well maybe I'm just dense, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 4:12am.
So the following reply to Matthew was not a serious comment, but simply late-night snarky humor?
Not realizing it was ricklail who posted the "hit and run", I agree with you that he did not mean hit and run as in troll. Jer does, at times, have a way of circular excess wordiness when trying to explain his points, even when he makes a correction or apology.
Ric could have meant points one through three or all of the above..
My snarky humor detector is generally pretty good, but I guess I'm slipping.
Jer
How about---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 3:51am.
"roundabout verboseness" ?
Did you miss the point of cajun's very sly "excess wordiness" ? That was cool.
Besides, by saying you addressed what was apparently cajun's appearing to take it seriously when you supposedly knew it was meant differently, without apprising her of the situation, you actively chose to avoid 'setting her straight'. Shame on you. cajun is your friend.
Alas, you are right about lawyers; I have never heard anything complimentary about one.
MD
thank you Matthew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 5:30pm.
You get cajun's weird sense of humor and that is why Matthew is my friend...;-)
No addendums, Jer.
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 10:03pm.
But please see my response above. And let's try to keep our discussion consolidated in as few locations as possible, k?
I'm all for that, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 10:36pm.
but what should I or we do differently to further that objective?
Jer
Jer,
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 10:47pm.
I can only offer as a suggestion my method, which is to take some time to think through what I want to post and try to make sure all my thoughts are contained in that one comment.
On the occasions in which I think of something after I've saved a comment, I hold the thought until the next comment.
Bifurcating a thread only makes it more difficult to follow the core point of an issue, and I appreciate your willingness to keep things simple.
See, we can get along! ;)
If I had realized the addendum would be separated from
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 11:31pm.
its related post to the extent it was, I would have handled it differently. When I began typing it, I mistakenly thought it would appear directly beneath my previous reply with which it was associated.
If I try the editing option, I often find that Matthew has already chimed in resulting in an "Access Denied" message requiring me to restart from scratch.
It is rare that I can carry on a dialogue without dealing with a number of interjections--some friendly, most not so friendly--which presents the dilemma of either ignoring them and being accused of dodging, or responding and creating more thread clutter and problems with continuity.
Jer
Good one, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 11:42pm.
"--I often find that Matthew has already chimed in resulting in an "Access Denied" ---
Is that your version of Obama's trademark "It's Bush's fault"?
Too funny.
MD
So your for Freidman"s
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 9:53am.
America, Jer ?
Why is the left so quick to secure the shackles of tyranny?
⇒ Why? You ask?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 10:29am.
Because they have beheld the chiseled pectorals of Areola Barryalis which liberally supplyeth the milk of their sustenance.
Well, of all the reasons I have ever heard
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 11:04am.
This is about the best
Boudin, Jer says Friedmans
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 4:14pm.
Boudin,
Jer says Friedmans a "Centrist". Even when shown how far left Friedman is he covers his ears and goes "La la la la la la".
Check out the entire thread on that blog.
Yes, Scuba....
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 8:55pm.
I would highly recommend you and others check out the entire thread. Doing so would reveal that I never said Friedman is a "centrist", so I would appreciate a correction of your misstatement. My position, stated unequivocally, was crystal clear: Friedman is "LEFT OF CENTER", but not a "radical leftist" as you and several other posters insisted--and I provided a wide variety of sources to support that view. And while Free Stinker and Galvanic put him farther to the left than did I, both correctly agreed he is not a radical leftist.
On the other hand, you splattered a Pop Tech style string of past NB blogs which [gasp] highlighted a number of Friedman's liberal views--although not a single one of those bloggers saw fit to label Friedman a "radical leftist". They know otherwise. [And, by the way, my offer extended on that thread challenging you to produce one NB staff member agreeing with your characterization--the article posted by Noel concerned Friedman's favorable comments about Bush's foreign policy and Obama's success at executing that policy--still stands.]
Your feeble trump card was Friedman's suggestion that Obama go "radical" on the environment, as if the very utterance of the word conclusively established his radical leftism. If that were the metric for ideological positioning, there is virtually no politician or pundit--liberal, conservative, or independent--who could escape the "radicalism" charge regardless of the issue. Random and isolated stances such as Paul Ryan's Medicare proposals, Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan, Rick Perry's abolition of various cabinet department, Santorum's delegation to the states of virtually unrestricted authority to regulate/ban matters of personal sexuality would, under your approach, land each in the philosophical box reserved for radical politicians.
Your reasoning was flawed when we originally debated this topic, and it still is.
Jer
And as usual you cannot admit
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 10:17pm.
And as usual you cannot admit that you are wrong.
Scuba...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 12:49am.
I have admitted to being wrong on quite a few occasions--even to you, including an apology, which you conspicuously ignored.
Jer
I've read the Second Amendment
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 11:52am.
and I can't find a single reference to a single shot musket. Must be I've missed the "nuance" yet again.
I have not been this confused by Uncle Jer in a long time.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 1:45pm.
"I am trying," Scalia argues, "to put us back where we ought to be--where a democratic republic ought to be--which is with our laws not being made by judges but through the democratic process."
With both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government currently intent on expanding the power of the state in ways the Founders could scarcely have imagined, listening to a member of the judicial branch proclaim his fidelity to words that date back more than two centuries can prove bracing. Especially if you ask him to comment on "the living Constitution."
"Much of the harm that has been done in recent years," Scalia growls, "… is made possible by [the] theory … that is generally paraded as 'the living Constitution.'"
Whereas any ordinary law always means what it meant when it was enacted, the theory of "the living Constitution" holds that the Constitution changes. It reflects, to quote Chief Justice Warren in the 1958 Trop v. Dulles decision, "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
"In other words," Scalia says contemptuously, "we have a morphing Constitution. Of course, it is up to the Supreme Court to decide when it morphs and how it morphs."
If he is trying to argue that originalism is a flawed, then his best argument, and he should present the best argument, is really nothing more than a really poor straw man fallacy. No one advocating orginalism is claiming the Constitution only authorizes muskets. Oh wait, those that argue against originalism love the argument that the originalists interpretation only authorizes muskets.
If we follow this simple principle, as Scalia and other originalists argue, then it is obvious that the right to keep and bear muzzle-loading flintlock arms is absolute. And the muzzle-loading weapons to which we have a divinely established right can be muskets, rifles, shotguns and pistols, and some of them can even be double-barreled, because the people of the 18th century knew about all of those.
But neither center-fire weapons nor even percussion (or cap-and-ball) muzzle-loaders (not invented until the 19th century) were conceivable to the Founding Fathers. Of course, when they said "arms," they also had in mind hatchets, tomahawks, swords, pitchforks, cudgels and the like, which certainly we the people may own and carry. I assume all red-blooded patriots already do.
But flintlock guns are the big issue. This causes quite a problem for tea partyers, Minutemen and backwoods militia who think that they need to be as well-armed as the U. S. Army. They apparently believe that the intention of the authors of the Second Amendment was to encourage a sort of perpetual preparation for revolution. The problem is that flintlock muzzle-loaders are notoriously slow to load and fire and so, while tough on rabbits, cannot stand up against the local police or even mall cops, much less the U.S. Army. Thus, our supervigilant friends want to arm the citizenry with weapons as powerful as the government's forces (with assault rifles, machine guns, Humvees, artillery, tanks and the like). Shame! Shame! They commit the "original intention" fallacy, which we know opens the way for interpreting the Constitution any way you want. We Scalia-like originalists are sticking to our flintlocks.
Whoops. I think they are actually serious in this argument after all. Sad that Uncle Jer buys into it.
Just a quick observation...
Submitted by Kaleidoscopic God on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 9:01pm.
I didn't see Jer come back until Wikipedia was back up. Coincidence?
Check with the Vet, K-God...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 10:40pm.
He sourced wiki. I simply added a quote from the page he linked.
Jer
Nothing wrong with wikipedia in a lot of cases.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 8:49am.
In this instance, the link was to give someone an introduction to an argument. You are free to read as little or as much as you want on the topic on that page. It was not meant to serve as a case of "here is the facts....."
Vet, a little slack please...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 2:20am.
The 'second amendment single shot musket' originalism argument is admittedly not a strong one, but I took some dramatic license in order to weave in a bit of a swipe at rammingspeed's qualified but not so veiled threat of a murderous coup to take out the President of the United States. While I understand his point--the tree of liberty and the blood of tyrants, etc.--it is nevertheless disturbing and reckless rhetoric, yet hardly an isolated case of "better watch your step" bravado strutting around this website.
He seems to be a smart and decent guy who unfortunately conflates political differences with ruthless totalitarianism necessitating violent remedies. That should be more worrisome than my putting forth a somewhat flawed example of originalist pitfalls in constitutional interpretation.
Jer
Agree. Understood. Dropped.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 8:45am.
Ramminspeed did say it could happen nicely. He mentioned "those" societies, no just ours. And historically, all governments have ended in collapse. So the possiblility of revolution is alway on the horizon. Not likely. Not even remotely likely in the near future. The nice way should do us for a long time.
And while your musket argument is not strong, it is not unheard of either.
the world according to Jer
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 9:01pm.
" the Second Amendment mandated single shot musket"
Tell me counselor, what part of the second amendment refers explicitly to any particular class of firearm? I must have missed that part.
"'living Constitution' line is nothing more than a curious and impotent relic of the 18th century"
This remark doesn't surprise me at all coming from someone who thinks the Constitution is an impotent relic from the 18th Century that should not be allowed to interfere with the wise and fair governance of enlightened intellectuals such as yourself or Barack Obama.
The Great One said last night
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 7:54am.
The Great One said last night he had not been invited to any of the morning shows. That didn't bother him. His book Liberty and Tyrrany sold by word of mouth. This one would too. Right now it is Amazon's bestseller. Today the book will be available at Walmart, Cosco, Target, Sam's etc. I see it hasn't made the NYT best seller list yet. I haven't got it yet but I will in the next few days. I've got to get American Sniper too.
Mr. Levin
Submitted by MacWell on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 9:20am.
Mark Levin, imo, is the modern day version of great patriots of the past. He doesn't give a rats ass what the media thinks of him, nor does he care what they say about him. It's obvious to anyone who's listened to his show for any length that he is unflinching in his love for America and her values. That being said, I believe I understand just why America has been allowed to deteriorate into the shell of the country it once was.
The career politician!
The career politician has, by their allegiance to reelection first and foremost, sold their integrity to the highest bidder. Our Congress has forfeited any argument to believe what they say. These people trade their votes on legislation that affects us all like so many baseball cards. "I'll give you 2 Solyndra's for 1 XL pipeline", and such.
Ask yourself this, if we are to believe that Congress is supposed to represent "we the people", then why are most of our Congressmen lawyers?
Wasn't the intent of the founders to have a cross section of Americana sent to DC to give voice to the people back home? You know, farmers, and blacksmiths, and librarians, and school teachers, and laborers, etc. etc.
Well, I guess if you're a lawyer, they've got you covered, if not, then you're screwed.
Also understand that this, "good old boy's club" has been long in the making.. They've set up the club to be bullet proof, free from outside interference. One simply has to look at how they circle the wagons when one of theirs is caught breaking the very laws that they produce. Until the scandal effects their reelection chances, they simply turn a blind eye to the problem.
Imho, we the people have one more chance to begin to rid OUR Congress of these parasites, and that chance is this November. If we don't do something to rid American politics of people who's only interest is to which committee brings the most perks, or their next election, America will indeed fall.
God blessed America to bring a light to a world filled with tyrants and despots. People who have no compunction about killing anyone who opposes their will. People who will enslave their nation for the sole purpose of retaining their power. Since we have allowed a small minority, sometimes less than 1% of the population, to dictate how the rest of us shall live. We see or hear of it everyday. This new law, that new regulation.
It wont stop unless we the people, the former silent majority, speak up with one voice in November and throw as many career politicians out of office as we can. Sure, it'll take more than one election cycle to accomplish this goal, but, unless we at least start the process in November and remain steadfast, America will be no more.
America is already a utopia.
Submitted by johnsonl on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 9:36am.
I don't see anyone clamoring to sneak into Yemen for religious freedom or Mexico for employment opportunities.
Mark Levin
Submitted by almostacowboy on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 8:46am.
is the kitchen light that causes liberal cockroaches to scurry back to their sewer holes.
My response to Uncle Jer's lawyer and wiki quotes.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 8:40pm.
Or should I say the quotes from two well known minds quoted on the wiki page.
Holmes:...only question is whether it is forbidden by some invisible radiation from the general terms of the Tenth Amendment. We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that amendment has reserved.
I am unfamiliar with the treaty he was arguing and I refuse to look. Let's get the 10th Amendment though -
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
The 10th amendment is nothing more a decision point in a logic flowchart.
A. Is this explicitly mentioned as a power of the federal government in the Constitution?
B. Is this explicitly prohibited to the States in the Constitution?
How is this confusing? Where in that is some invisible radiation? A logic decision point is a logic decision point is a logic decision point. There is no need to worry about what the country has become.
Wiki page - According to the pragmatist view, the Constitution should be seen as evolving over time as a matter of social necessity.
The Constitution does change over time. The Constitution has changed over time. The Constitution is not a document that was written over 200 years ago and is fixed in stone. It has been amended 27 times. An amendment is part of the Constitution. And as such, it was partially rewritten a scant 15 years ago with the 27th Amendment. All without the concept of a living constitution.
Wiki page - Looking solely to original meaning, when the original intent was largely to permit many practices universally condemned today....
Let's get a few things straight here. The Constitution is largely a framing document that set out what the federal government is, lists a few functions of said government, and sets some restrictions on said government. The original document did not mention many universally condemned practices AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN. That is why the Bill of Rights was proposed and added before it would be ratified.
And yes. there were a few universally condemned practices that were later seen as universally condemned practices as time rolled on. Slavery and women's right to vote being two. And the Constitution WAS UPDATED to show they are universally condemned. All without the concept of a living constitution.
Judge Posner - A constitution that did not invalidate so offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law [as the Connecticut law banning contraceptives] would stand revealed as containing major gaps.
The Constitution does not invalidate homicide either. It left it up to Congress to make laws or pass the function of laws against murder to the States. The Constitution is not the end all and be all of government. It did allow the existence of States and state governments. Sorry. THAT IS BY DESIGN.
And if an offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law is universally condemned, there is a way to correct this. Amendments. The Constitution itself laid out the exact process to do that.All without the concept of a living constitution.
Judge Posner - Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause?
Yes. It does. BY DESIGN. How does that confuse you?
Judge Posner - This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home....
First of all, this has never happened and likely never will. Why?
1. Such a state would soon become an empty state. People are free to leave and settle in one of the other 49 states.
2. There are 49 other states full of very vocal Americans that would roundly condemn the practices of such a state.
Judge Posner - We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny...
This presupposes it is only the courts. There are also voters that will rebel against that tyranny. And other States.
Judge Posner - ......even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution.
Again. By design. The Constitution is 5000 words largely framing what is the federal government, what it's various parts are tasked with, and the few functions they are tasked with. It is not meant to foresee the future. It left it up to the future people themselves to deal with it through the representatives they voted into office in the federal, state, county, and municipal governments.
Wiki - ...constitutional requirements of "equal rights" should be read with regard to current standards of equality, and not those of decades or centuries ago.
Again. The Constitution is not in fact a document from 2 decades ago. It has updated with regard to current standards. They are called amendments.
Wiki - ...because the alternative would be unacceptable..
27 times the alternative was found unacceptable. 27 times the Constitution was changed to show the alternative was unacceptable. All without the concept of a living constitution.
****Updated to correct spelling and grammar. I always reserve that right. Don't like it? Whah.****
I do get so lonely down here.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 3:25pm.
Too bad there was a big brouhaha above about Uncle Jer cutting and running and not finishing up with conversations and I got left hanging down here with an unfinished conversation. Ah well, I do have Newt Gingrich' Magic Unicorn Poop Cookies to keep me entertained.
Vet, you may want to get a
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 3:47pm.
Vet, you may want to get a good supply of those while waiting for a response.
And in response to your above post, isn't it Waaa not Whah?
You are correct Sir.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 3:58pm.
I should prolly edit that. I have reserved the right after all.
Sorry, Vet...I didn't notice your comment way down here. Nor
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 4:33pm.
did I realize there were those on this thread, such as yourself, still interested in engaging in serious dialogue. [Plus, I've been out of pocket for the past couple of days.]
I'll have more to say on this topic later. Unfortunately, there is still some housecleaning to take care of in connection with the continuing petty feud between CX and myself--and maybe even with respect to Scube who apparently is laboring under the impression we are in a court of law and subject to the legal rules of evidence, rather than commenting on a political blog where generally someone's word is accepted, or at least not laughed off, particularly where documentary corroboration was a casualty of website renovation.
In any event, this article should interest you and others inasmuch as it deals with originalism, the living Constitution, and the relationship of those concepts with the Second Amendment in general and the Heller decision in particular. Here is an excerpt:
"So why think about living constitutionalism and the Second Amendment? First of all, it may be true that “we are all originalists now”in Second Amendment interpretation—if “we” means the Justices of the Supreme Court and almost all scholars who have written on the Second Amendment. But there are still important analysts who reject originalism entirely, and at least one of them, Cass Sunstein, has often been mentioned as a potential nominee for the Court. Sunstein argues that Heller was rightly decided under living constitutionalism—because it respected the moral intuitions of millions of Americans that they have a right to arms for self-defense. Other scholars too, including Jack Balkin and Adam Winkler, have written that Heller was properly decided under living constitutionalism.
Second, there are living Constitution elements in Heller. The Heller list of presumptively constitutional gun controls includes controls that were not practiced in the Founding Era and cannot reasonably be derived from the controls that were practiced. A few other aspects of Heller’s reasoning arguably have a hint of living constitutionalism.
Moreover, in the current Supreme Court, only two of the nine Justices describe themselves as committed originalists. Accordingly, a more precise analysis of the Second Amendment in the living Constitution may provide some background in understanding Heller, and also guidance about the scope of permissible gun control post-Heller...."
"Finally, if there were no National Rifle Association, the story of the last hundred years would have ended very differently, with the Second Amendment lying is the graveyard of the dead Constitution, along with the Contracts Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The modern, living right to arms would not exist if not for the NRA, just as without the American Civil Liberties Union we would not have the robust First Amendment of today, and without the NAACP, the Equal Protection clause would have remained constitutionally near-dead." [my italics]
Jer
So says the one that will
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 5:02pm.
So says the one that will split hairs and argue every point as if he were in a court of law.
Scuba...THIS is just one of countless hair-splitting examples
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 5:35pm.
by the master of same, and your sidekick--actually every conservative's sidekick and self-appointed spokesman when a lib poster is the target--Mr. Dean:
So, Jer, while you are are not ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 8:55pm.
100% certain that your recollection is accurate, you seem to be indicating that your recollection is 99.99999999999999% accurate.
While you may argue that I didn't include enough 9's after the decimal point; I would argue that if it ain't 100%, it ain't accurate.
MD
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/01/20/mark-levins-liberty-v...
But Matthew is useful to libs as well. I'll also be pointing out Matthew and his arcane vocabulary choices to CX who has an interesting perspective on what he considers "big words". [He wants us to know he is neither impressed nor intimidated by them.]
Jer
Dude?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 1:12am.
Uncle Jer: "The Occasional Doofus" Levin, whose 'living Constitution' line is nothing more than a curious and impotent relic of the 18th century...
From the article here: One of Levin’s most quotable lines is “The ‘living constitution’ is a constitution on its deathbed.”
From Uncle Jer's article: The return of originalism was intended to stop living constitutionalism, which at the time was often a euphemism for a dead Constitution. Under dead constitutionalism...
A contradiction (?), Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 2:21am.
as follows:
"--who apparently is laboring under the impression we are in a court of law and subject to the rules of evidence, rather than commenting on a political blog where generally someone's word is accepted, or at least not laughed off, particularly where documentary corroboration was a casualty--"
if you truly believe that, why then the continual on and on about matthewdean having never posted a link?
You recently left off using that line as a basis for argumentation, and while I would like to believe that happened as a result of my tag line; I somehow doubt that was the reason.
Just curious as to why you belabored that point, as you now seem to be saying that accepting someone's word was, or should have been, the norm.
MD
Oh, and just one more quick note, Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 5:08pm.
regarding one of your observations [which I pulled at random.]:
Judge Posner - Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause?
Vet: Yes. It does. BY DESIGN. How does that confuse you?
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/comment/reply/53149/1628472#ixzz1kVQ2yKSm
Look, the Vet not only possesses a fine mind, but has consistently demonstrated a superior ability for legal analysis and statutory interpretation, and, as I have often noted, is without peer in researching and sourcing. That said, whether or not you are referring to my or Posner's "confusion" or to the both of us--and even though the following is a clear "appeal to authority" argument--it must be pointed out that in matters such as this, Posner is anything but "confused".
Posner has been called "the world’s most distinguished legal scholar."[1] He is the author of nearly 40 books on jurisprudence, economics, and several other topics, including Economic Analysis of Law, The Economics of Justice, The Problems of Jurisprudence, Sex and Reason, Law, Pragmatism and Democracy, and The Crisis of Capitalist Democracy. The Journal of Legal Studies has identified Posner as the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century.[2]
Jer
Posner.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 10:40pm.
Literally.