New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Governing With Moral Certainty

Flanders

Council Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton says everything she has to say in one sentence and it’s ugly:

. . . “My interest is not in what happened, my interest is in what should happen!”​


Hannity Rips Into Eleanor Holmes Norton: You Didn’t Read Ferguson Evidence?!
by Josh Feldman | 10:29 pm, December 4th, 2014

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hannity-rips-into-eleanor-holmes-norton-you-didnt-read-ferguson-evidence/

Hannity should have asked Norton if she understood the First Amendment. Star Parker’s article smashes the problem with a sledge hammer. One sentence might get lost among the other good stuff in the piece. This is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to prevent:

Moral relativism does not neutralize the moral marketplace. It replaces one set of values with another.​

EEOC: A distortion of just government
Posted By Star Parker On 12/05/2014 @ 6:51 pm

http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/eeoc-a-distortion-of-just-government/

Norton and her kind never address evidence, facts, governance, legislation, the Constitution, or anything except their own moral certainty. Whenever their lies fall on deaf ears they always fall back on their moral view. Incidentally, Norton and the rest of those who cannot get what they want through the legislative process and their judges they all use the same moral technique used by frustrated priests from the past with variations of liberalism’s moral superiority.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? Robert Kennedy

Hillary Clinton put her own twist on moral horseshit to justify praising the late Walter Cronkite for betraying the country’s independence:


On top of all of the garbage dirty little moralist preachers have been spouting for as long as they have been trying to replace the Constitution with themselves, Eleanor Holmes Norton was given the biggest boost imaginable by that moral piece of garbage in the White House. He has been trying to set up himself as the nation’s moral compass since he first campaigned. On the day media mouths turned Saul Alinsky’s community organizing into a noble profession Taqiyya the Liar’s plan to get elected as the country’s “spiritual leader” was formulated while he was still a street-hustling community organizer. In fact, the media made it possible for everything the Chicago sewer rat did to this country.

Today, the media is doing contortions trying to save their Frankenstein monster’s moral guidance strategy from being laughed out of town along with the presidency. I just cannot see how any future president can ever again get away with playing the moral leader game. That is the one good thing Constitution-lovers can thank the Chicago street punk for.

And never forget that riots and violence were as much a part of the Civil Rights Movement as it is today, yet I’ve not heard one talking head remind everybody that violence and race riots were the threat behind MLK’s bullshit Dream Speech. The entire scam was designed and executed to show that the black race is morally superior. Who the hell needs laws or a constitution when they bow down to moral leaders!

Incidentally, I, too, have a dream. Every time a future president attempts to govern with moral authority instead of the Constitution and laws the White House lawn should be bombarded with bags of excrement. What the hell, if burning the flag is protected free speech it must be constitutionally protected free speech to throw bags of shit on the White House lawn.

Parenthetically, every moral scum bag is free to practice their religion of choice with their own kind. They are NOT free to force their moral worldview on anybody else. As far as I am concerned Norton and her kind can shove their moral compass where the sun never shines.

Finally, the record shows that the vast majority of black Americans got nothing from the Civil Rights Movement. For decades black men have been killing black men —— as well as individual blacks randomly killing whites whenever the mood moved them, yet today’s black violence is once again being justified because a white cop defended himself in almost every incident. The fact is that Norton and “da reverends” like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. are agitating more violence in order to revive the Civil Rights Movement so they can acquire more special privileges and TAX DOLLARS for themselves and to hell with the rest of the blacks who are not going to end up with high paying employment in government, in the education industry, or in any heavily subsidized industry. Those jobs are reserved for ambitious blacks who suck up to white liberals.
 
Last edited:

fairsheet

Senator
I remember back when the Supreme's "radical 5" decided in favor of Indiana's new voter ID scheme. NO evidence was presented at trial to suggest any practical need to grow guvmint like this. Alas, The radical 5 decided that didn't matter. The only thing that matters is what "the people" feel to be the case.

The same is true now. Whether or not these latest cop/victim incidents ARE righteous or not, is separate from the issue of whether or not people perceive them to be righteous.
 
So now the POTUS should not attempt to guide us in a moral direction? You might want to review your history because every single one of our greatest Presidents lectured us constantly on moral principles. The ones that just followed the constitution as you stated it became caretakers of the status quo and either failed miserably or became nameless in history. I hate to break it to you but our founding principles were based upon a new set of morals that transformed the world by it's sheer audacity, courage and promise. You could look it up under "Declaration of Independence" or in the Federalist Papers, the debates in the convention and the various legal decisions that came before the courts over time. Like it or not, we are a nation that hopes to become what we all want it to be, we are not a nation that blindly accepts what cannot be or should not be, we are a nation of what we all hope to be.
 

Flanders

Council Member
So now the POTUS should not attempt to guide us in a moral direction? You might want to review your history because every single one of our greatest Presidents lectured us constantly on moral principles. The ones that just followed the constitution as you stated it became caretakers of the status quo and either failed miserably or became nameless in history. I hate to break it to you but our founding principles were based upon a new set of morals that transformed the world by it's sheer audacity, courage and promise. You could look it up under "Declaration of Independence" or in the Federalist Papers, the debates in the convention and the various legal decisions that came before the courts over time. Like it or not, we are a nation that hopes to become what we all want it to be, we are not a nation that blindly accepts what cannot be or should not be, we are a nation of what we all hope to be.
To Woolleybugger: You might want to review the difference between a president’s personal morals and presidents keeping them separate from organized religion. Note that a recent president lacked personal morals while he preached morals to the rest of the country; much like pedophile priests who abuse children while they pontificate from the pulpit.

The current filthy priest in the White House is imposing his religion on everyone who wants no part of it —— the ACA, millions of illegal aliens, and embracing enemies who are killing us just to name a few “moral dictates.” The first ten words in the First Amendment should put your understanding on the right track:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, . . .​

Incidentally, if you want moral freaks like the Chicago sewer rat running a theocracy for you you'll find them in Muslim and Communist countries.
 
To Woolleybugger: You might want to review the difference between a president’s personal morals and presidents keeping them separate from organized religion. Note that a recent president lacked personal morals while he preached morals to the rest of the country; much like pedophile priests who abuse children while they pontificate from the pulpit.

The current filthy priest in the White House is imposing his religion on everyone who wants no part of it —— the ACA, millions of illegal aliens, and embracing enemies who are killing us just to name a few “moral dictates.” The first ten words in the First Amendment should put your understanding on the right track:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, . . .​

Incidentally, if you want moral freaks like the Chicago sewer rat running a theocracy for you you'll find them in Muslim and Communist countries.
The current POTUS is not filthy and his moral "dictates' represent the intent of voters and Americans in each of his two elections. He won in two landslides. I find your comments about the POTUS to be disgusting and beneath the dignity of any American. Shame on you.
 

Flanders

Council Member
The current POTUS is not filthy and his moral "dictates' represent the intent of voters and Americans in each of his two elections. He won in two landslides. I find your comments about the POTUS to be disgusting and beneath the dignity of any American. Shame on you.
To Woolleybugger: First off, in 2008 he never told the American people what he was going to do to the country, and there is ample evidence that he stole the election in 2012. No matter. Suck up to that piece of garbage if it makes you feel good, but do not expect me to treat a UN-loving, America-hating, traitor with dignity. Better still, do not read my messages if you object to the names I call Taqiyya the Liar.
 
Eleanor Holmes Norton says everything she has to say in one sentence and it’s ugly:

. . . “My interest is not in what happened, my interest is in what should happen!”​


Hannity Rips Into Eleanor Holmes Norton: You Didn’t Read Ferguson Evidence?!
by Josh Feldman | 10:29 pm, December 4th, 2014

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hannity-rips-into-eleanor-holmes-norton-you-didnt-read-ferguson-evidence/

Hannity should have asked Norton if she understood the First Amendment. Star Parker’s article smashes the problem with a sledge hammer. One sentence might get lost among the other good stuff in the piece. This is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to prevent:

Moral relativism does not neutralize the moral marketplace. It replaces one set of values with another.​

EEOC: A distortion of just government
Posted By Star Parker On 12/05/2014 @ 6:51 pm

http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/eeoc-a-distortion-of-just-government/

Norton and her kind never address evidence, facts, governance, legislation, the Constitution, or anything except their own moral certainty. Whenever their lies fall on deaf ears they always fall back on their moral view. Incidentally, Norton and the rest of those who cannot get what they want through the legislative process and their judges they all use the same moral technique used by frustrated priests from the past with variations of liberalism’s moral superiority.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? Robert Kennedy

Hillary Clinton put her own twist on moral horseshit to justify praising the late Walter Cronkite for betraying the country’s independence:


On top of all of the garbage dirty little moralist preachers have been spouting for as long as they have been trying to replace the Constitution with themselves, Eleanor Holmes Norton was given the biggest boost imaginable by that moral piece of garbage in the White House. He has been trying to set up himself as the nation’s moral compass since he first campaigned. On the day media mouths turned Saul Alinsky’s community organizing into a noble profession Taqiyya the Liar’s plan to get elected as the country’s “spiritual leader” was formulated while he was still a street-hustling community organizer. In fact, the media made it possible for everything the Chicago sewer rat did to this country.

Today, the media is doing contortions trying to save their Frankenstein monster’s moral guidance strategy from being laughed out of town along with the presidency. I just cannot see how any future president can ever again get away with playing the moral leader game. That is the one good thing Constitution-lovers can thank the Chicago street punk for.

And never forget that riots and violence were as much a part of the Civil Rights Movement as it is today, yet I’ve not heard one talking head remind everybody that violence and race riots were the threat behind MLK’s bullshit Dream Speech. The entire scam was designed and executed to show that the black race is morally superior. Who the hell needs laws or a constitution when they bow down to moral leaders!

Incidentally, I, too, have a dream. Every time a future president attempts to govern with moral authority instead of the Constitution and laws the White House lawn should be bombarded with bags of excrement. What the hell, if burning the flag is protected free speech it must be constitutionally protected free speech to throw bags of shit on the White House lawn.

Parenthetically, every moral scum bag is free to practice their religion of choice with their own kind. They are NOT free to force their moral worldview on anybody else. As far as I am concerned Norton and her kind can shove their moral compass where the sun never shines.

Finally, the record shows that the vast majority of black Americans got nothing from the Civil Rights Movement. For decades black men have been killing black men —— as well as individual blacks randomly killing whites whenever the mood moved them, yet today’s black violence is once again being justified because a white cop defended himself in almost every incident. The fact is that Norton and “da reverends” like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. are agitating more violence in order to revive the Civil Rights Movement so they can acquire more special privileges and TAX DOLLARS for themselves and to hell with the rest of the blacks who are not going to end up with high paying employment in government, in the education industry, or in any heavily subsidized industry. Those jobs are reserved for ambitious blacks who suck up to white liberals.
The history of humanity has been a struggle between what ought to be and what is. We all believe that we can actually attain the perfect state of being that conforms to our ideas about what "ought" to be, the sad truth is that we never really attain that state, we only keep trying. That is the story of America, we aspire to be the people and the nation we all believe can exist if only we tried just a little bit harder. Is that not the story of life itself?
 

Flanders

Council Member
The history of humanity has been a struggle between what ought to be and what is.
To Woolleybugger: What is —— is fact. What ought to be is the problem. If mankind ever achieves paradise, dirty little moralists will insist on telling everybody what ought to be.
We all believe that we can actually attain the perfect state of being that conforms to our ideas about what "ought" to be,
To Woolleybugger: Liberals found a way to get to a perfect state. Go backwards to get there.

Double-speaking liberals try to convince the rest of us that collectivism is ‘progressive’ when it is always a step backward. The income tax is the best example of going backwards. Liberals would have everybody believe that forced labor is a step forward as though taxing every individual’s labor is a step forward. And how is this one for liberals interpreting going forward: Coerced charity funded by a tax on income.

Moving forward or maintaining the status quo defines the elements in the usual struggle. In simple terms, those with the power fight to keep it; those without the power fight to take the power, or at least share it.

the sad truth is that we never really attain that state, we only keep trying.
To Woolleybugger: Basically, America’s original form of government was original in that America’s Founding Fathers resolved an age-old conflict. Government and organized religion will always plague mankind. The trick was to limit government and keep organized religion voluntary. Give either one too much power and everything worth having disappears. Our Founders solved the problem beautifully. Sadly, they never saw this coming: Every generation produces fools who believe that a benign totalitarian government is possible.
That is the story of America, we aspire to be the people and the nation we all believe can exist if only we tried just a little bit harder.
To Woolleybugger: There’s that “We” again. Who decides what “. . . we all believe. . .”? You!

I, for one, believe that more freedom from government is trying harder, while liberals believe that the “common good” tries harder.

Incidentally, I would never impose liberty on anyone; so long as liberals do not take away mine.

Is that not the story of life itself?
To Woolleybugger: I’ve always thought that Cain and Abel is the story of life in that Cain killed his brother because Abel not would not accept Cain’s opinion of what ought to be. In one sense it is fair to say that the first murder is the foundation for all guilt. That would certainly explain why throughout history every dirty little moralist insisted that every man is his brother’s keeper. Once again, I’ll post Ayn Rand saying it best:


Finally, I cited Cain and Abel to make a point; so please no discussion about religious beliefs.
 
The collective "we" in my post is everyone not just liberals or conservatives or Randians or any other sub-group. We are indeed improving year by year upon our founding, the recent decisions by the courts prove that we are increasing our rights, fighting back against oppression and creating a better society bit by bit. Your point of view is dated, it is your point of view as expressed in that horrid Randian book you mentioned that is being defeated. It will be hard for folks like you to accept it, change always makes some feel left out but you will get over it or die without accepting reality. You claim the left is about collectivism as if using that word makes your position intellectually honest. There are very few true collectivist aspects to American society but the ones that withstood the onslaught of Reaganomics are not going anywhere, they are being strengthened. I feel for you, it will be frustrating to watch the tide turn away from you for the rest of your life. Like those that cried when the flag came down because part of their "southern heritage or pride" was being cast aside, you and your fellow travelers are going to feel the same way one issue at a time from here on out.
 

Flanders

Council Member
The collective "we" in my post is everyone not just liberals or conservatives or Randians or any other sub-group.
To Woolleybugger: You are the umpteenth liberal I’ve come across afflicted with the same ailment. There are so many of you I am justified calling the lot of you the Tapeworm Class:

Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we." Mark Twain
We are indeed improving year by year upon our founding, the recent decisions by the courts prove that we are increasing our rights, fighting back against oppression and creating a better society bit by bit.
To Woolleybugger: You will have to do better than that. It only takes 5 lawyers to create a better society for parasites —— at the expense of everybody else’s freedoms.
Your point of view is dated, it is your point of view as expressed in that horrid Randian book you mentioned that is being defeated.
To Woolleybugger: I would not call my point view being defeated by anything Ayn Rand said in The Fountainhead (published in 1943). The Bible is the only book that sold more copies than Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (published in 1958), and she got to number two in 57 years. If you start the clock in the 1450s when the first Bibles were printed. That is a head start over Ayn Rand of approximately 565 years.

NOTE: For those who have not seen the following video, it elaborates everything Gary Cooper said in The Fountainhead courtroom scene:


You claim the left is about collectivism as if using that word makes your position intellectually honest.
To Woolleybugger: I do not have to claim intellectual honesty. Opposing everything the collectivist mentality stands for speaks for itself when liberalism is put in practice. Beyond that, being forced to lie about everything, misdirect, and doublespeak everything liberals do in the government hardly qualifies as honesty of any kind. Research the things said about the ACA before it was passed, and the EPA’s abuse of the Clean Air Act after it was passed, if you doubt me.
There are very few true collectivist aspects to American society
To Woolleybugger: The welfare state, open-borders and parasites living on tax dollars come to mind.
but the ones that withstood the onslaught of Reaganomics are not going anywhere, they are being strengthened.
To Woolleybugger: Oh yeah: Strengthened like Greece and Puerto Rico. The only thing that can save liberalism is replacing Democrats with Karl Rove’s Republicans.
I feel for you, it will be frustrating to watch the tide turn away from you for the rest of your life. Like those that cried when the flag came down because part of their "southern heritage or pride" was being cast aside,
To Woolleybugger: See this thread:

you and your fellow travelers are going to feel the same way one issue at a time from here on out.
To Woolleybugger: Nice try. I assume Ayn Rand went over your head. Fellow traveler describes liberals; i.e., Communists —— not advocates for limited government and individualism.

fellow traveler (noun)

One who sympathizes with or supports the tenets and program of an organized group, such as the Communist Party, without being a member.​
 
To Woolleybugger: You are the umpteenth liberal I’ve come across afflicted with the same ailment. There are so many of you I am justified calling the lot of you the Tapeworm Class:

Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we." Mark Twain

To Woolleybugger: You will have to do better than that. It only takes 5 lawyers to create a better society for parasites —— at the expense of everybody else’s freedoms.

To Woolleybugger: I would not call my point view being defeated by anything Ayn Rand said in The Fountainhead (published in 1943). The Bible is the only book that sold more copies than Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (published in 1958), and she got to number two in 57 years. If you start the clock in the 1450s when the first Bibles were printed. That is a head start over Ayn Rand of approximately 565 years.

NOTE: For those who have not seen the following video, it elaborates everything Gary Cooper said in The Fountainhead courtroom scene:



To Woolleybugger: I do not have to claim intellectual honesty. Opposing everything the collectivist mentality stands for speaks for itself when liberalism is put in practice. Beyond that, being forced to lie about everything, misdirect, and doublespeak everything liberals do in the government hardly qualifies as honesty of any kind. Research the things said about the ACA before it was passed, and the EPA’s abuse of the Clean Air Act after it was passed, if you doubt me.

To Woolleybugger: The welfare state, open-borders and parasites living on tax dollars come to mind.

To Woolleybugger: Oh yeah: Strengthened like Greece and Puerto Rico. The only thing that can save liberalism is replacing Democrats with Karl Rove’s Republicans.

To Woolleybugger: See this thread:


To Woolleybugger: Nice try. I assume Ayn Rand went over your head. Fellow traveler describes liberals; i.e., Communists —— not advocates for limited government and individualism.

fellow traveler (noun)

One who sympathizes with or supports the tenets and program of an organized group, such as the Communist Party, without being a member.​
Are you seriously trying to give me the John Galt speech? Wow. Ayn Rand was a monster of a human being and her books are trash.
 
Top