Soros's Learning Curve.
Thanks, grey_whiskers.
Posted on 11/03/2010 4:40:37 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
Today is Jim Robinsons’ birthday..If you haven’t donated to FR, today would be a good day to give
There are plenty of attentive little ears listening carefully to the progressives too.
If this is a “vanity” post - wow, FR has some major contributors. Thanks for the info and the warning.
Read the last line of the article again, then think about big vs. little ears ;-)
Cheers!
Stock up on birdcage liner *NOW* in time for winter!
I'm not a historian but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn last night. While there I learned thast WW I had nothing to do with the Nazi's, who did not exist at the time.
Sheesh.
“We need to do two things in reponse:
1) when we *do* fend them off, we need to double back and see how the technique could be reversed, or exaggerated, and used against us for unjust gain.
2) we need (like they do) to analyze their successes to see what tecniques will defend against them or what new attacks may be forthcoming against us.”
Great post.
They aren’t shy about their approach either.
On the SoS Project website they brag about getting Franken in via the SoS they elected in Minn.
Once that is done, and if you credit the Typing Tabby (meow), please go ahead :-)
Thanks very much.
Cheers!
Reparations at the Treaty of Versailles were one of the bug-bears driving the young Adolph's rants...
Thanks for pointing it out -- I've been fighting a bad head cold all day and more typos than usual have crept in.
Cheers!
>we should only use pedantry as an active defence against specific skulduggery.
Very interesting. It is also the basis for dealing with the Fae, Genie, and other such powerful yet “rule-bindable” creatures in fiction.
That so many people now think og the government as a genie to fix all their problems, perhaps there is wisdom in dealing with them in that manner.
But here is the deal: pedantry only applies when the government wants it to apply.
Consider that in 1798 the US Supreme Court ruled that the prohibitions against Ex Post Facto law (they appear twice: once in article 1, section 9, paragraph 3 and the other in the first paragraph of section 10 in that same article.) only applied to *criminal* law.
Now, besides the obvious questions raised about where the Constitution allows it’s alteration by the Judiciary OR how the judicial oath to the Constitution can have *any* meaning if the Constitution is whatever he says it is, this allowed the Congress to retroactively alter tax-laws, via this “precedence,” and the claim that the tax laws “are regulatory, not criminal, in nature.”
Yet violations of these altered [or new] laws are punished in *CRIMINAL* courts.
How is some statement, such as “this law is not a criminal law,” to be both true and false at the same time?
The answer is: “Shut up, kid! and quit bothering me.”
The uselessness of pedantry [or, as some would say “logic”/”reasoning”] shows itself in the multitude of firearm laws.
I won’t cite some of the rather absurd definitions in Federal law, but I will illustrate with my State’s Constitution.
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear
arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and
recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing
herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed
weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way,
an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
Yet, despite that “no law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense” portion the State has a law prohibiting firearms on university campuses {and also one for public schools}. Now, if there are Citizens who live on the University Campus then doesn’t this law abridge both the right to keep and the right to bear arms? You may argue that they sign those rights away upon application [and admission] however the State Constitution has something to say about that:
All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural,
inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights
of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring,
possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and
obtaining safety and happiness.
Does this not declare the right to defend life and liberty as unalienable?
Isn’t the definition thereof: “not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated”
And isn’t the definition of “repudiate” this:
1. to reject as having no authority or binding force: to repudiate a claim.
2. to cast off or disown: to repudiate a son.
3. to reject with disapproval or condemnation: to repudiate a new doctrine.
4. to reject with denial: to repudiate a charge as untrue.
5. to refuse to acknowledge and pay (a debt), as a state, municipality, etc.
So then, isn’t claiming that the University has the right to make its own rules, especially in this regard, the same thing as repudiating the right of the individual person?
And therein lies the fundamental difference. We aren’t dealing with a computer which literally runs on logic, nor even humans capable of reason*, but with an entire people who reject the idea of absolute and in so doing they reject the very concept of definitions in favor of unbridled-emotionality and a relativistic scale where things are judged only on the feelings they evoke. The “goodity” of following the law is invalidated by the “badity” that someone [who isn’t a police officer] carrying a gun evokes, and therefore there is no ‘contradiction’.
*other than rationalization
When the left looses, they redouble their efforts.
i.e. - they find more effective ways to cheat.
bump for later..
Thanks for the ping!
Soros is no devil outside the bounds of men, nor Obama, nor any man who lived. All human.
Just as the Cloward-Piven strategy is bound to produce and is already producing quite striking effects, but opposite to what they intended, one great for Liberty, so do does Soros work out his childhood traumas malevolently to an effect that strengthens a Palin and hobbles a Sharpton.
It is not to their motives and desires, or any which are misanthropic, that G-d empowers by their hand, but to make the good, the honest and humbly G-d fearing stronger. Which is what is happening.
Still, it raises the bar for us, for to gain such mighty benefit we also are left a mighty duty to uphold the duties Our G-d has set out for us, and he will hold us to a greater account than them.
Soros's Learning Curve.
Thanks, grey_whiskers.
It’s not just you! That has to be the Marxist in the first poster. (Yikes)
“Grate” post!
Thanks for the ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.