Maddy wrote:moda0306 wrote:Maddy,
I don't mean to apply intentions, opinions or priorities to you that don't actually exist, but you seem to be far more concerned about some pretty standard political posturing and bad faith arguments against the president than what you seem to agree are outright crimes of his administration (and others).
Moda,
My view is this: If you have a legitimate viewpoint, make it in a straightfoward, intellectually honest manner, without hyperbole, drama, or fudging of the facts. I have no respect for any political end that can't win out on the weight of its own merit, without the use of duplicity. And thank you, Mountaineer, for making the point that I'm talking about means, rather than ends, because I often see the means as the more important issue in the long run.
I think you've totally misunderstood me if you think I don't care about the unconstitutional expansions of executive power, or about the violations of constitutionally-guaranteed liberties, that have carried over pretty much unchanged from one administration to the next. I personally regard the Obama administration as having been the sin qua non in this regard, but that's just my take on things.
If the Patriot Act, the way the war on terror has been executed, and how we execute war generally truly ARE crimes, than a "rule of law" advocate should strongly advocate for prosecution of those crimes... and if they care about rule of law more than other priorities (like "the media" "attacking" the president unfairly (I'm with Tenn... WHO CARES? There are bigger fish to fry)), then you wouldn't be constantly harping about those other things.
Again I think you misunderstand me if you think I don't care about unconstitutional invasions of individual liberties and war crimes. They are, in fact, the only political issues that matter. (See my link to a podcast by Craig Hulet several posts prior.) However, I don't think that we, the ordinary people, stand a chance of rectifying these things so long as we sanction the use of duplicity as a means of persuasion, or so long as we buy into the same "the ends justify the means" mindset as the criminal establishment. It is in this regard that the Left has really taken the prize. How can it claim to be occupying the high ground when it is being funded by one of the linchpins of the global corporate establishment, George Soros?
If rule of law truly is important, it's not just important when some college leftists rip down a monument, or "the left" uses inconsistent legal arguments to advocate for impeaching Trump. It's also sort of important when the President decides to spy on folks, and remove thousands if not tens/hundreds of thousands of people of life & liberty without due process. You seem to care FAR more about how Trump & the presidency are being "abused" than how secretive, violent, unchecked war-time power is being wielded. Until yesterday, I really didn't know where you stood on war execution issues & civil liberties. Perhaps I'm just not very observant.
You're totally misconstrued me on this. I'm responding selectively to certain issues only because they are the ones in today's news. In a thread about Charlottesville, I talk about what's happening in Charlottesville. Start a thread about civil asset forfeiture or the use of unconstitutionally seized evidence, and I'll give you an earfull.
The fact is, if we started enforcing all laws consistently, they entire system would collapse, as the law-makers and law-enforcers would have to walk right into the cell with us. If you disagree with that statement, please let me know if I'm wrong. If you agree with it, please tell me why war-criminals should be left-alone while brown imaginary line crossers should be drug a thousand miles from what they feel to be their homes. Because that last statement is essentially what 95% of "rule of law conservatives" are proposing, even if they don't say it.
I'd like nothing better to see a whole slew of politicians and corporate executives in handcuffs. If you're not hearing that message from constitutional conservatives generally, you're not listening.
I decided to wait a day before saying anything on this subject as it got rather hot and I chose not to possibly add fuel to the fire. Anyway, I do not think Maddy was addressing Tenn, I think she was addressing Moda (see above). Anyway, that is the way I read it.
For what it is worth, I'm going to give a very brief model of the way I usually try to think about things. Here goes:
I think in terms of a "Task Cycle". For a visual of the Task Cycle, the Input, Process, Output surround and are focused and centered on the Purpose. The terms are:
Purpose: Why are we doing some task, what do we hope to achieve in the big scheme of things? Comment: It is important to involve all of those impacted by a decision or task so as to obtain buy-in or agreement as much as possible to the why of some effort.
Output: What is it (the objective and timing) that is desired? The output(s) should further advancement toward achieving the purpose. The Outputs frequently become Inputs for another Task Cycle.
Process: How exactly should the Input(s) be processed to best (effective and efficient) generate the desired Output(s)? Likely, there are a variety of processes that could be employed to run the Input(s) through. It is important to select the optimal one(s).
Inputs: What are the various things that are necessary to engage in the task? Which are available now, which need to be found somewhere? Which need to be discarded? Which need to be strengthened?
As a very corny example: If my purpose is to have a good looking lawn, the desired Output might be green grass, evenly cut grass, flowers in a bed, healthy shrubs, happy wife and happy neighbors.
The Process(s) could be: hire a lawn and landscaping service, do it myself, have a sheep to munch away, buy a bunch of artificial turf and plants.
The Inputs might consist of lawn tools and power equipment, a farm auction to procure sheep, yellow pages or Angie's List to select a lawn service, fertilizer, water, gasoline, etc.
In the case of this discussion, the Purpose of moderation might be to assure all members remain and are free to express their views.
The purpose of the contributions might be to provide and read intellectually stimulating material and to ignore that which does not tickle our fancy.
The Output(s) might be various view points and opinions, links to material that use credible sources, personal testimony.
The Process(s) might be to think before writing, preview a post before submitting, do homework if necessary to explore potential material, shout downs by participants of those you disagree with, respect of others, vitrolic rebuttals, or forgiveness of those who anger you, cherry picking material to fit a personal agenda.
The Inputs might consist of personal experience, textbooks by various authors, what we have learned from academia, etc.
I expect some of those processes may be more condusive to achieving the forum Purpose and desired Outputs than others. A big caveat is I doubt if we have a commonly agreed upon Purpose re. discussing Trump and Afghanistan - thus, it is easy to have a gigantic Cluster-F**k if we are not careful. Bottom line: All elements of the model (task cycle) are important to think through, at least for me, ... ahead of hitting a send key. My two cents, and the two cents are intended to be Purposeful, and helpful. If you don't agree, please be respectful in your replies. If all else fails, forgiveness usually works better than vengeance, or as my grandmother used to tell me, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If my comments have offended anyone, I apologize in advance and beg your forgiveness for my blunders. If I use crude or inappropriate language, call me out and forgive me as I forgive you if you use it. Peace dudes and dude-ettes. Life is short, enjoy it.
