Conservative vs Liberal

[JonC]

Uh no they are not trying to revise the constitution. They believe they are acting within the constitution. Even if they are wrong there is a distinct difference. You insisting they are is twisting of the situation.



Yes people say dumb things when they are stressed. Too much is made of it.




I dint argue that , again twisiting of my words.




No, no its not.



No, no it doesn't. Again your twisting it.



Nope. Not insulting you although you may be offended by it. I am calling you out for your poor behavior. By the way, there is not rule that justifies deleting posts for being off topic. (Although I wasn't) But accusing me of that (are you insulting me with that?) makes it convenient for you to justify your poor behavior.

I know they believe that are acting within the Constitution. This does not change the fact that they are trying to revise the Constitution.

Progressive liberals believe they are acting within the Constitution (they believe the founders designed the Constitution with the idea it would adapt). That does not change the fact that they are acting to revise it

You are, per your definition, a progressive activist. Just because you may believe you are not does not change that fact.

 

[Revmitchell]

I know they believe that are acting within the Constitution. This does not change the fact that they are trying to revise the Constitution.

Firstly, you are not the authority of what is and what is not constitutional.

Second, the progressive activist knows they are trying to change the constitution without having to go through constitutional means to get it done. Simply wanting to make a change in and of itself is not progressive activism. Not sure why that needs explaining except that you want to twist everything to fit your presupposition. Seriously its getting bad.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I understand. Fortunately, it does not matter how other men consider my convictions or how I consider the convictions of others.

And I understand why those advocating either voting or abstaining to others may pose a problem.

I certainly would not tell somebody else not to vote, or who to vote for. I think most Christians are like minded in allowing others to prayerfully follow their conscious.

Understood. But unfortunately, personal convictions are really not the point here.

The point is that being a nominal political conservative will not put one in the political conservative camp in the view of some or even a great many political conservatives. In other words, why should they trust you as one of them when you are not?

And asserting church fathers were correct that Christians should neither vote nor hold office compounds the nominality, as it is not merely expressing a personal conviction but a doctrine that would be applicable to the entire church. It will only lessen the trust.

 

[JonC]

Firstly, you are not the authority of what is and what is not constitutional.

Second, the progressive activist knows they are trying to change the constitution without having to go through constitutional means to get it done. Simply wanting to make a change in and of itself is not progressive activism. Not sure why that needs explaining except that you want to twist everything to fit your presupposition. Seriously its getting bad.

Good grief! YOU are the one who said they were wrong to think they were acting within the US Constitution!!!!

Sigh, they believe it is within the constitution. they do not believe it is outside the constitution. Just because they are wrong doesn't make them activists.

Talk about "double speak".

You post

Good grief any time one wants to change the constitution from its original intent through redefining the words in it that is activism. Progressivism is activism.

Then you walk that back to say it only applies if they KNOW what they want is unconstitutional.

Then you say they believe it constitutional but they are wrong.

Sigh, they believe it is within the constitution. they do not believe it is outside the constitution. Just because they are wrong doesn't make them activists.

Then you walk that back to say and criticize me for saying they are wrong.

You are like a reed blowing in the wind. You act like a minister only to abandon all semblance of Christian interaction. You act like a Constitutionalist only to walk back actions that are unconstitutional. You declare somebody wrong only to attack me for agreeing with you that they are wrong.

You are shifter than Schiff.

 

[JonC]

Understood. But unfortunately, personal convictions are really not the point here.

The point is that being a nominal political conservative will not put one in the political conservative camp in the view of some or even a great many political conservatives. In other words, why should they trust you as one of them when you are not?

And asserting church fathers were correct that Christians should neither vote nor hold office compounds the nominality, as it is not merely expressing a personal conviction but a doctrine that would be applicable to the entire church. It will only lessen the trust.

As far as political camps go, I agree. And I am content not belonging to a political camp. Republicans can believe that is supporting Democrats and Democrats can believe that is supporting Republicans.

When I was younger that may have bothered me, but I am old enough to obey my conscience without worrying about what men think.

I was dealing with liberal and conservative as beliefs and values as they do impact the political landscape even through those of us who do not vote.

But I get your point about political camps.

I believe it is good to examine the reasons Christians did not vote or hold office prior to Rome adopting Christianity as their official religion.

I also believe it is good to examine the reasons Christians do vote and how God has used godly men in secular government.

But in the end we should prayerfully follow our convictions.

 

[Aaron]

But that was not the foundation of our republic (that was the reason for our declaration of independence from England).

The foundation of the birth of our nation is not the foundation of our nation. Got it.

I have always wondered which passages our founding fathers were referencing that we have a God given right to life, to liberty, and to pursuing our happiness.

The fact that the Bible was cited more often than any other work during the Constitutional Convention, and that references to Deuteronomy and the Apostle Paul make up the majority of those references would be clue to most people, but you were told more than once here:

God given unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness​

Your effort in that thread, btw, to delegitimize the central tenet of the DOI as mere rhetoric is the most obvious indication of your portside listing. The great divide between left and right, or liberal and conservative, is who is the identification of the author of one's rights, and the conditions under which one may be deprived thereof.

 

[JonC]

The foundation of the birth of our nation is not the foundation of our nation. Got it.

The fact that the Bible was cited more often than any other work during the Constitutional Convention, and that references to Deuteronomy and the Apostle Paul make up the majority of those references would be clue to most people, but you were told more than once here:

God given unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness​

Your effort in that thread, btw, to delegitimize the central tenet of the DOI as mere rhetoric is the most obvious indication of your portside listing. The great divide between left and right, or liberal and conservative, is who is the identification of the author of one's rights, and the conditions under which one may be deprived thereof.

I disagree.

God does not give man the right to life. Men live by the grace of God, not a human right.

God does not give man the right to liberty. Men are freed only by the grace of God.

God does not give men the right to pursue their happiness. Men exist to glorify God.

You make everything about man, nothing about God.

 

[Aaron]

I did not link the plaintiffs with a liberal agenda.

Let me get this straight: Your assertions (quoted above for all to see) that the plaintiffs would need alt-right judges to bend the Constitution just as their progressive counterparts do to prevail is NOT likening them to those with a liberal agenda?

@Revmitchell pointed out that those are judicial activists (because they seek to change the Constitution from its original intent).

He was saying that anyone engaging in judicial activism is progressive. He wasn't saying the plaintiffs were seeking judicial activism. You're saying that, and it's false.

To make the issue worse, they want to do so in order to have Trump (by @Revmitchell 's definition, a progressive activist) declared President.

You're again asserting another falsehood. That's not what they seek. They are seeking justice for the fraud that was allowed to be perpetrated.

You just don't like one possible implication.

 

[JonC]

Let me get this straight: Your assertions (quoted above for all to see) that the plaintiffs would need alt-right judges to bend the Constitution just as their progressive counterparts do to prevail is NOT likening them to those with a liberal agenda?

He was saying that anyone engaging in judicial activism is progressive. He wasn't saying the plaintiffs were seeking judicial activism. You're saying that, and it's false.

You're again asserting another falsehood. That's not what they seek. They are seeking justice for the fraud that was allowed to be perpetrated.

You just don't like one possible implication.

My assertion is that the plaintiffs are seeking to support a politician who has called for the termination of parts of the US Constitution. They are alt-right, anti-patriots.

Do you support Trumps call to terminate portions of the US Constitution in order to install him as POTUS?

 

[Aaron]

My assertion is that the plaintiffs are seeking to support a politician who has called for the termination of parts of the US Constitution. They are alt-right, anti-patriots.

Do you support Trumps call to terminate portions of the US Constitution in order to install him as POTUS?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[Aaron]

I disagree.

God does not give man the right to life. Men live by the grace of God, not a human right.

God does not give man the right to liberty. Men are freed only by the grace of God.

God does not give men the right to pursue their happiness. Men exist to glorify God.

You make everything about man, nothing about God.

Government is all about men.

 

[JonC]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Have you stopped molesting little boys?

 

[JonC]

Government is all about men.

I agree.

 

[JonC]

@Aaron

I'll reword it.

Do you support Trumps claim that election fraud allows for the termination of portions of the US Constitution in order to install him as POTUS or hold another election?

 

[Aaron]

@Aaron

I'll reword it.

Do you support Trumps claim that election fraud allows for the termination of portions of the US Constitution in order to install him as POTUS or hold another election?

Not sure. Link me to the statements.

 

[JonC]

Not sure. Link me to the statements.

View attachment 7183

What reasons do you believe justifies terminating the US Constitution?

 

[Aaron]

What reasons do you believe justifies terminating the US Constitution?

Poor choice of words, but his appeal to the original intent makes it obvious he's not for "terminating" the US Constitution.

His point, obvious to any critical thinker, is that fraud invalidates any act poisoned by it, even those ostensibly in observance of the Constitution. I've argued that from the beginning. Fraud is an attack on the Constitution itself.

As I thought, this is like the assertion that Trump said neo nazis were fine fine people, and that he recommended drinking disinfectant.

 

[Revmitchell]

Poor choice of words, but his appeal to the original intent makes it obvious he's not for "terminating" the US Constitution.

His point, obvious to any critical thinker, is that fraud invalidates any act poisoned by it, even those ostensibly in observance of the Constitution. I've argued that from the beginning. Fraud is an attack on the Constitution itself.

As I thought, this is like the assertion that Trump said neo nazis were fine fine people, and that he recommended drinking disinfectant.

Exactly right, not sure why this needs explaining other than they just want a reason to criticize.

 

[just-want-peace]

Exactly right, not sure why this needs explaining other than they just want a reason to criticize.

B I N G O ! ! !

 

[Aaron]

But, back to the topic.

My assertion is that the plaintiffs are seeking to support a politician who has called for the termination of parts of the US Constitution. They are alt-right, anti-patriots.

You're reframing and misrepresenting your opponents' arguments and adopting lib-speak to slander them.

Here's the docket. https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...2243533_20221027-152110-95757954-00007015.pdf