1. Save considerable keystrokes in the future by eliminating the redundant second "l" in the word control.
2. In your search for "truth," study the contrasts in various philosophies as philosophy is defined as the "search for truth."
I really like objectivism without the objection to all mysticism, especially religion. That may seem like a contradiction to some, but I'm seeing the greatest society in history that grew great while engaging in a mystical mix of scientific objectivism and religious mysticism, backslide mysteriously into a malevolent mysticism of pagan beliefs reminiscent of the dark ages.
This worship of the creation, rather than the creator, along with a government of laws regressing toward a government of paganistic men and women who write laws putting protections of all other species ahead of mankind and womankind, leads to the election of lawmakers that write laws that reward environmental lowyers with legal fees at taxpayer expense, simply for filing legal allegations with no basis in science, whatsoever!!!
Even if you are a pragmatist, which is my least favorite "ism" as it is only based on the principle of expediency, you might be pursuaded to become as emotional as I get about the above, since it doesn't work for the good of anyone, except lowyers. If it doesn't work, pragmatists don't like it, right?
Well, I for one, am neither oblivious or ignorant of the legal process and the process for removing anyone from positions of responsibility. Like you, I've spent time in the law library and even got involved to the point of total immersion in the local political process. I've been invited to sit on the bench with an elected judge while he adjudicated and visited long in his chambers afterward about his solomonesque decisions. I admired his patience and knowledge and especially his frustration with the laws written by other lowyers elected to high/low office, depending one your level of contempt for lowyer/politicians.
I agree that the forces of evil can invade either camp in an on-going feud and that's what you accurately described. My feud is with mystical liberals in positions of power who pragmatically believe the constitution is a "living breathing document," subject to each cause of the activists that spring up from our leftist dominated institutions of higher/lower learning.(now indoctrination)
Have you ever read "The Making of America," by Skousen?
That is a part of one of the definitions. Epistemology or Ontology? What is reality or what is the meaning of reality? Try here for an improved understanding of, IMO, real philosophy.
I agree that the forces of evil can invade either camp in an on-going feud and that's what you accurately described. My feud is with mystical liberals in positions of power who pragmatically believe the constitution is a "living breathing document," subject to each cause of the activists that spring up from our leftist dominated institutions of higher/lower learning.(now indoctrination)
We're not in any major disagreement. Actually, we're on the same side in this war, just different fronts. I, of course, consider my front to be the most important one, and you consider yours such. That is the way it should be. The problem is that all fronts on our side sem to be working independently without co-orination with the others; frequently ending up at odds with one another and wasting valuable time and energies. That is why I take a pragmatic approach to the situation. If it doesn't work, it doesn't get my support. Complaining about the legal system seems to accomplish nothing. While we waste time and strength on attacking lawyers and judges, the liberals, those whom we both oppose, are coordinating and using the system to their advantage. We could be doing the same, but we don't. That is why they are winning and we are losing.
BTW, congrats on learning to us a law library and how the courts work. Very few people do. Have you considered a bit of legal activism on your own? An educated pro se can be a frightening thing to a liberal lawyer or judge. And a respected thing to a conservative one. Another reason why I oppose loser pays. The law is a weapon. It always will be. Lets use it as such for a just cause, not remove it from our reach. the liberals will have access to it's full use under any circumstance.