Snark

[INVAR]

When you are able to post to this topic without resorting to profanity, harsh condemnations and general shot-gun-style hostility I will take them more seriously.

I don't care if you do, or never do.  Interesting that the above condemnation is perfectly acceptable to Always Trump to push their devotion to the man they made king: "Don't give a damn how many p#####s he grabbed in his day."

I guess taking them seriously is more fitting for someone of your political bent.

As it is, posts on this forum seem to fall into two categories - those meant to engage in expression and promotion of thoughts, information and opinions which and invite exchange and....those which are meant to shut down exchange of those same things. Your seems in the latter category.

Just more Always Trump Projection on your part.  The 'Replacing the GOP' thread had overt efforts made to shut the thread down by the very A/T people you defend as 'rational'.

I never called those people traitors, harmful, selfish, evil, self-righteous, and the litany of crap you and yours fling upon those of us DAILY who will not compromise our principles and/or advocate separating from apostasy, lawlessness and Collectivism.

Instead we get psychoanalysis from self-ascribed shrinks like you subtly attributing our motives as dangerous and harmful if not evil in themselves.

Well... pound sand pal.  I'm not interested in getting along with those preaching apostasy.

[Smokin Joe]

It's a conflict between the rationalist and the emotional viewpoint. DC Patriot and many in his camp feel that they have compelling rational arguments to support Trump and get very frustrated that others who disagree remain intransigent. That frustration often generates a tendency toward vituperation i.e., "WHY CAN'T YOU SEE REASON!?!"

The strident Never Trump camp has a list of his major shortcomings/offenses which constitute ample reason (in their view) for rejection. For them, these reasons are often highly subjective but no less compelling because they intuitively link them to their past experiences of similar behavior and all sorts of alarm bells go off.

Nothing subjective about character assassination and lying. Nothing.

But maybe DJT is not like the others. Maybe he is a singular figure - someone who seeks moral ends by seemingly immoral (or at least highly distasteful)means and is one of those rare intellects* which can - against all odds and reason, achieve them!! Maybe he doesn't fit into ANY previous categories or pigeon holes because he is in some very significant ways, entirely unique.

That would make him unique in history, imho. Do you seriously think immoral means can accomplish moral ends? That's the same justification the Left uses for their perfidy.

To Trump Supporters I would say, let the Never Trumpers reach their own conclusions in their own time- don't imagine that rational argument - no matter how compelling they may seem to you, will persuade them.

Yes, please don't imagine that your rationalizations will overcome our morality. Thanks. You can stop any time. It's tedious to see the contortions of logical fallacy which have been displayed to justify egregious nonsense.

It has to do with the psychology of persuasion. Even if people disagree with you on the open forum, where people tend to defend their opinions the way Raptors defend their eggs, when they are alone with their thoughts, they may reconsider their positions. When ego is not on the line, people are more likely to really consider things in a calm, rational way.

Oh, back to the Freud. How quaint, but no so quaint, nor so well established as the scriptural basis of people who are never truly alone nor without guidance. Perhaps that is the difference. What you don't seem to understand is that being calm and rational only works if your rationale is consistent and correct.

Nobody changes an opinion about politics by confrontation with rational argument. That's because most strong opinions are arrived at primarily through emotions/intuition, which are a synthesis of unconscious and conscious content. We don't really consciously choose our attitudes, they emerge out of our feelings/intuitions which we develop from cogitation. This is almost purely an emotional process.

Okay Lucy, here's your nickel. Actually, the process is very rational. He said things which were not true, he knew were not true, he did so for personal gain (talk about ego) and he continued to do so for personal gain, proving that there was neither a moment of error nor accident, but a pervasive pattern of behaviour. That pattern of behaviour matched other behaviour and previous conduct which indicated an individual who, despite what he said or the lofty reasons ascribed to his actions did them for personal benefit, first, foremost, and always.
He didn't do those things TO me, he didn't do them FOR me, he doesn't even know my name. But there is a Yuuge contingent of people who believe in their hearts he did them for them, and those are cause for concern, for they fit exactly the syndrome you describe.

So don't be too upset if a Never Trumper seems to be blowing off your arguments. They may consider them later. I've seen it happen on other fora!! Patience is a virtue and one of the enduring frustrations of reality is that we can't crawl inside another person's skin and live their life for them.

Thank you for not trying to establish a parasitic relationship with me, or anyone else here. You make your own choices in this life, and I will continue to make mine.

* Regarding unique intellects/personality types, CG Jung (the great psychologist and colleague of Sigmund Freud) identified some personality types as "extroverted/irrational". That does not mean they are insane, but rather in the Jungian psychological lexicon, "irrational" means that they use "impressions" to make many decisions. An impression (in the same lexicon), is a perception achieved in a person's mind which is a complex mélange of rational (logic, reason, factual), empirical (experience), and affective (raw emotion/intuition). Most people are either emotion/intuition-centered or thinking-centered. Extroverted/irrational personality types are somewhere in the middle - therefore they do not easily fit into our past experiences with people and often seem very strange or even scary. They are often very good at dealing with chaos because they commonly aren't disturbed by it - in some cases they THRIVE on chaotic situations where others are daunted and dismayed by them. Michael Eisner is one such personality. They are often very successful or sometimes, very troublesome characters. Eisner for instance, was also known to be a grand champion a-hole who fired people by the barrel and was known to be disagreeable - however, he turned Disney from a failing company into a powerhouse of the media age.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

My, but some come cheap.

[Smokin Joe]

Smokin' Joe has a good heart and often posts with excellence, but I have never derided anyone.

Likewise, I qualified the use of that term "forsaking the good in search of the perfect" to those who apply doctrinaire rigid standards to affairs of state and who declare that DJT is unfit for office because he is a "liberal". The last time I checked liberals do not appoint people like Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Awaiting your substantive response and hitting my stop watch NOW...

You would assert that the Devil might never do that which appears good to achieve evil ends (no I am not comparing DJT to the Devil, here).
Viz: Someone wins the lottery. They use the money to drink themselves to death, or start a binge of partying that ends in a lethal overdose of drugs. Was winning the lottery a good thing?
Sometimes, that which appears to be 'good' is, in fact, good. Sometimes, the effects are far worse than if that 'good' had not happened. Only time will tell. We have had SCOTUS appointments which went bad, most notably, Roberts in recent time, so the jury is still out.
In addition, there have been quite a few EOs that appear to be good, flawed only in that they are subject to being overturned at the whim of a successor. They aren't carved in stone.
Even the overturning of Obama regulations stuffed through at the end of that Administration can be overturned in Congress should that change, for those were the result of Bills which were passed to overturn those regulations.

So, nothing is permanent, but there is, on this website, a list of the promises made during the election campaign by none other than the POTUS himself. I'll be so generous as to let that be the standard (his own words) by which his progress should be judged.
If a liberal thought that appointing one conservative justice to SCOTUS when there are likely two more to be appointed this term of office (enough to overturn one conservative) would further their aims by taking heat and scrutiny off of the administration and allowing other things to be enacted devoid of the scrutiny which should ever be upon the machinations of government, sure they would. The temporary 'losses' will depend on those filling the lower courts, and the wheels of just-us grind slowly enough that there will be little, if any setback, from appointing one Conservative justice to replace the one who left us all too soon.

IOW, that gesture costs nothing in the long run, but has been used for political gain as the thing to point to for Conservative cred. We'll see how he does with the next one.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

You would assert that the Devil might never do that which appears good to achieve evil ends (no I am not comparing DJT to the Devil, here).
Viz: Someone wins the lottery. They use the money to drink themselves to death, or start a binge of partying that ends in a lethal overdose of drugs. Was winning the lottery a good thing?
Sometimes, that which appears to be 'good' is, in fact, good. Sometimes, the effects are far worse than if that 'good' had not happened. Only time will tell. We have had SCOTUS appointments which went bad, most notably, Roberts in recent time, so the jury is still out.
In addition, there have been quite a few EOs that appear to be good, flawed only in that they are subject to being overturned at the whim of a successor. They aren't carved in stone.
Even the overturning of Obama regulations stuffed through at the end of that Administration can be overturned in Congress should that change, for those were the result of Bills which were passed to overturn those regulations.

So, nothing is permanent, but there is, on this website, a list of the promises made during the election campaign by none other than the POTUS himself. I'll be so generous as to let that be the standard (his own words) by which his progress should be judged.
If a liberal thought that appointing one conservative justice to SCOTUS when there are likely two more to be appointed this term of office (enough to overturn one conservative) would further their aims by taking heat and scrutiny off of the administration and allowing other things to be enacted devoid of the scrutiny which should ever be upon the machinations of government, sure they would. The temporary 'losses' will depend on those filling the lower courts, and the wheels of just-us grind slowly enough that there will be little, if any setback, from appointing one Conservative justice to replace the one who left us all too soon.

IOW, that gesture costs nothing in the long run, but has been used for political gain as the thing to point to for Conservative cred. We'll see how he does with the next one.

I have noticed that he seems to throw the right a bone just often enough.

I'm still hoping it seems that way because he's doing the right things and will continue to, but given his history I think suspicion is called for.

[LateForLunch]

I don't care if you do, or never do.  Interesting that the above condemnation is perfectly acceptable to Always Trump to push their devotion to the man they made king: "Don't give a damn how many p#####s he grabbed in his day."

I guess taking them seriously is more fitting for someone of your political bent.

Just more Always Trump Projection on your part.  The 'Replacing the GOP' thread had overt efforts made to shut the thread down by the very A/T people you defend as 'rational'.

I never called those people traitors, harmful, selfish, evil, self-righteous, and the litany of crap you and yours fling upon those of us DAILY who will not compromise our principles and/or advocate separating from apostasy, lawlessness and Collectivism.

Instead we get psychoanalysis from self-ascribed shrinks like you subtly attributing our motives as dangerous and harmful if not evil in themselves.

Well... pound sand pal.  I'm not interested in getting along with those preaching apostasy.

Your oddly hostile, defensive tone is unnecessary and frankly, tells me that you are not nearly as convinced of the things that you say as you wish to project.

My attempts to engage in substantive dialogue with you have elicited harsh vituperation which does not suit you. It is my firm policy not to attempt to engage in topical discussion with fanatics since they are not generally interested in considering any opposing point of view, but only in reinforcing/celebrating their own. So in your case, sieur.

I am glad to say that I do not hold against you your position nor disagreement in the same way that you apparently hold mine against me. I have not attacked your character, conservative bona fides, sanity, intelligence nor honor and yet you have harshly indicted me for major failings in all those areas.

Selah! 

[INVAR]

It is my firm policy not to attempt to engage in topical discussion with fanatics since they are not generally interested in considering any opposing point of view, but only in reinforcing/celebrating their own.

Same exact crap I hear from SJW who insist I'm a 'fanatic' because I an not interested in considering their POV, which is anathema to mine and is not deserving of any consideration except to eschew it with all vigor.   

So, your 'policy'  not to engage in discussion with 'fanatics' being in place - we're done talking.

[Bigun]

I'm neither an EverTrumper or a NeverTrumper, which I think is the only non-emotion-based, rational position.  You make a mistake of logic when you attribute rationality to EverTrumpers.

Unfortunately that has been more than adequately demonstrated. 

[LateForLunch]

Same exact crap I hear from SJW who insist I'm a 'fanatic' because I an not interested in considering their POV, which is anathema to mine and is not deserving of any consideration except to eschew it with all vigor.   

So, your 'policy'  not to engage in discussion with 'fanatics' being in place - we're done talking.

I expected you to try to get the last word. I frankly don't get the hostility. You're a strange dude, but since you are a conservative, I'll give you a pass and decline your invitation to engage in a flame war.

[roamer_1]

I believe that in time, many self-described Never Trumpers will drop all of the defiant posturing and vituperative defensiveness, allow themselves the freedom to venture beyond the bounds of some stricture of honor- to cross that terrible line of admission of error (perhaps Trump was not the anti-Christ after all) and to rejoin the greater war effort with shoulder-to-wheel, sturm to drang, nose to grindstone.

Not a single chance in hell.

To admit some error on my part would be to admit that:

The end justifies the means.
 
That lying through one's teeth (not once or twice, but continually without end) is just fine,

That painting a man of low brow and lower character, after the fact, can make him a rosy hero, a saint, and even a god.

That principles I have held dear my whole life mean *nothing*, because if one is ceded, so are they all.

That a heavy gloss of turd-polish and spray-on tan fixes everything.

and that words mean nothing at all.

It is for them, a matter of honor.

Absolutely, and not unjustly.

See, once a person makes extreme declarations, (such and such is this way and no other) there is in their mind a terrible (intolerable) price to pay of humiliation to admit error. So their destiny is to defend those statements - that defiant emphatic declaration to their dying day. The alternative you see is to die - or at least to suffer some measure of humiliation or "loss of face" which though insignificant to virtually all living things save themselves, drives their resistance to any wavering or recantation the way a headwind drives a sailing vessel on the high seas.  Forward! Always forward!!

Dead wrong. I find it shameful that people would vote for such a boorish ass. His past aside (where I could dwell for hours), just the manner of his election was so unconscionable as to make him forever unpalatable to me. Just the type of character who would baldfaced concoct lies, and slander his opponents, is all I need to know about the man.

That guy is a sack of crap, and it doesn't matter how much you wish it otherwise, I will never, ever trust a man like that. Period.

So you can damn well stop gazing at my navel for me. I know exactly why I don't trust the man, and why I never will. And I am most assuredly not in error, any error whatsoever.

Foremost: Character. If that is not there, nothing else matters, because there can be no trust.

[LateForLunch]

Not a single chance in hell.

To admit some error on my part would be to admit that:

The end justifies the means.
 
That lying through one's teeth (not once or twice, but continually without end) is just fine,

That painting a man of low brow and lower character, after the fact, can make him a rosy hero, a saint, and even a god.

That principles I have held dear my whole life mean *nothing*, because if one is ceded, so are they all.

That a heavy gloss of turd-polish and spray-on tan fixes everything.

and that words mean nothing at all.

Absolutely, and not unjustly.

Dead wrong. I find it shameful that people would vote for such a boorish ass. His past aside (where I could dwell for hours), just the manner of his election was so unconscionable as to make him forever unpalatable to me. Just the type of character who would baldfaced concoct lies, and slander his opponents, is all I need to know about the man.

That guy is a sack of crap, and it doesn't matter how much you wish it otherwise, I will never, ever trust a man like that. Period.

So you can damn well stop gazing at my navel for me. I know exactly why I don't trust the man, and why I never will. And I am most assuredly not in error, any error whatsoever.

Foremost: Character. If that is not there, nothing else matters, because there can be no trust.

If you say it.

In my own experience I have found that declarations of uniquivocal certainty about things which cannot possibly be known fror certain (the hearts of men- even one's self) or really any absolute statement about anything as chaos-ridden as politics, or the future (more than a few seconds from now), are doomed to eventually being revealed as vain.

As someone recently stated, "you may be the first" to prove that belief incorrect. 

With all due respect ( and that is great, sieur), all that your statement proves to me is that you know your own feelings and conditions for trust of a politician. Nothing more and nothing less. I believe your statements about your feelings and the scope of your requirements for allegience. Your prognostications and declarations of "facts" are another matter.

Lastly I address something stated by another poster previously regarding the supposed impossibility of achieving moral outcomes using immoral means. The entirety of that question hinges on the definition of "immoral". Lying is not immoral if in the process of applying a falsehood, good is achieved( a "white lie"), can we not agree on that?

Once that is established, (and I don't know any reasonable person who disagrees with that at least to a minimal degree), the question then becomes " in what circumstances other than white lies, can actions normally deemed "immoral' achieve good outcomes?

It is immoral to take human life - generally. But in defense of a loved one against unprovoked attack, homicide is not only moral and permissable, but some might say imperative. I am one of them. I believe that to fail to defend an innocent life against wanton,egregious violence, even if it requires homicide, is sinful.

Nicolo Machiavelli wrote a satirical book titled, The Prince. That book was about the Borgia dynasty/family mostly, and about the mechanisms they employed to exercise dominion in their time. What Machiavelli pointed out was that in the context of savagery, the requirements of achieving and maintaining power require the abandonment of all but the most immutable moral considerations. One must be willing to kill ( even murder), cheat, steal and yes, even LIE to achieve power when one is competing with others who will do the same.

The watchword in politics is not "what is moral" the watchword is "what will achieve results". I understand that people debate the truth of the statement "the ends justify the means" but sadly, in our savage world, that is almost always true in political contests where the goal is THE POWER TO USE GOVERNMENT FORCE TO OVERPOWER MASSIVE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE.
My preference is to be moral and to avoid lying or any other moral transgression, largely because it runs counter to my code and also because I know that immoral behavior damages or destroys intimacy and social/professional relationships.

But politics is another matter entirely. Machiavelli stated somethng similar, though he likely never actually stated that he believed that the ends justify the means. The book The Prince was a statement about THE REQUIREMENTS OF DEALING WITH SAVAGERY, not a statement of his preferences.

Machiavelli's greater work and likely the one which revealed his true character was the Discourses on Livy (or simply the Discourses), which was an exploration of the magnificent, humane Roman Republic and the glorious efficiency/morality that it once exercised as a form of governance. The Republic existed only for a brief period, and was supplanted by the savage Roman Empire, in which the Borgias, and likely most of those at the highest levels of the democrat and Republican parties, would have felt right at home.

[INVAR]

Lastly I address something stated by another poster previously regarding the supposed impossibility of achieving moral outcomes using immoral means. The entirety of that question hunges on the definition of immoral. Lying is not immoral if in the process of applying a falsehood, good is achieved( a "white lie"), can we not agree on that?...The watchword in politics is not "what is moral" the watchword is "what will achieve results"

That is the wisdom of Satan The Devil himself, the gospel he preaches to a willing mind of flesh and self that considers the things of God to be foolishness.  The wisdom of men that decrees the refusal to compromise and capitulate to sin and Socialism is a bane to "progress" and "fanatical",  while the promoting of compromise with sin and evil is the "good".

This is why those who insist that the pursuit of perfection is the enemy of good, can never possibly understand the mind or motives of an actual biblical Conservative.

And they never will, except to label us fanatics and 'dangerous'.

Of which I happily agree we are, because we represent knees that will not bend to "conventional wisdom" and represent the morality that is hated and detested with every fiber of their being.

[roamer_1]

If you say it. In my own experience I have found that declarations of uniquivocal certainty about things which cannot possibly be known fror certain (the hearts of men) or really any absolute statement about anything as chaos-ridden as politics, or the future ( more than a few seconds from now), are doomed to eventually being revealed as vain.

As someone recently stated, "you may be the first" to prove that belief incorrect. 

With all due respect, all that your statement proves to me is that you know your own feelings. Nothing more and nothing less. I believe your statements about your feelings. Your prognostications and declarations of "facts" are another matter.

The only fact I espoused is that Trump is factually a perpetual liar, and that he lied about his opponents in order to gain his position. That is eminently provable - to the point that requiring any proofs would be laughable. It is evident right out of his own mouth.

Any excuse to defend him is based in 'ends justifying the means', by necessity, and shameful.

Likewise any defense wherein others are making up lies about him (good for the goose, after all). You've already proven that character doesn't matter at all, so why should it matter if the Democrats and media also have no character? Why should I be mad when they do it, but give Trump pass after pass? There is no high ground to stand upon.

Likewise when people are pissed at him and write inanities... Hard to get very angry about it considering his infantile rants on twitter.

Likewise his agenda - How am I supposed to be pissed at congress when Trump has made his own bed by pissing off literally every single person he would need to govern effectively... Are we like Democrats who must bow to 'the Won'? If he wanted to get things done, he should have thought ahead and tried not to make people white-hot mad. I can readily understand why folks in congress tell him to piss off, just on general principles.

There is no argument to defend him at all, as in nearly every single thing, he has done exactly the same thing to others at one point of another.

And worst of all, having thrown every sort of ethic and principle out the window, how in the hell do we require it next time? Or any time ever again?

In fact, y'all have lowered yourselves to the same level as the democrats. How long before you are jiggering voting machines? Now, anything goes.

And that is why I am staying far away from all y'all. And why I will never lift a finger to defend it. Such awful behavior deserves no defense.

Not my circus, not my clown.

[roamer_1]

Oh, hold on now - Either I missed this in your post, or you have since edited:

Lastly I address something stated by another poster previously regarding the supposed impossibility of achieving moral outcomes using immoral means. The entirety of that question hinges on the definition of "immoral". Lying is not immoral if in the process of applying a falsehood, good is achieved( a "white lie"), can we not agree on that?

No, we will not agree, and as predicted the entirety of your defense is one of 'the ends justifying the means'. This is, and has always been wholly against Conservative principle, and is a corruption of truth.

It is a slippery slope you've stepped upon @LateForLunch ... I have always respected your mind and thought process, but I will never go with you where you are going now.

The behavior of Trump and his minions is simply egregious, and without root or bough.
@INVAR  is exactly right. Sin does not fight sin. Only truth will do.

[EasyAce]

I'm going on record right now as saying I love snark and use it regularly . . .



. . . it's the best guitar tuner I've ever used.

@mystery-ak
@montanajoe

[LateForLunch]

Oh, hold on now - Either I missed this in your post, or you have since edited:

No, we will not agree, and as predicted the entirety of your defense is one of 'the ends justifying the means'. This is, and has always been wholly against Conservative principle, and is a corruption of truth.

It is a slippery slope you've stepped upon @LateForLunch ... I have always respected your mind and thought process, but I will never go with you where you are going now.

The behavior of Trump and his minions is simply egregious, and without root or bough.
@INVAR  is exactly right. Sin does not fight sin. Only truth will do.

We have arrived at an impasse. I am grateful for the civilized responses. Even the disagreements were light years removed from most of the ones I have witnessed on other forums where these issues were discussed. Kudos to all!!

Just a note on history- Christians were utterly and totally devoured in the Borgia reign. The Borgias were the Law. So it is in all savage empires, that those who rule are immune to being subject to their own laws. Of course, even though the Borgias slew or destroyed anyone or anything that stood in their way during the height of their reign, most of them were also eventually murdered, their families decimated and eventually utterly destroyed - often by their own infighting.

The Godfather could have been about the Borgias in many ways.

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct
or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in a new order of things.
-Machiavelli

[montanajoe]

I don't hate Trump, frankly I don't have enough of an emotional investment in the man and care enough to bother with anything more than indifference. Despite the fact that he has exceeded my expectations of incompetency by several orders of magnitude and I suppose I could give him profs for that, I'll refrain in the interests not offending those who do have an emotional investment in the man....bless your hearts...

My opinion of the man will never change, his presidency is the culmination of election cycle after election of voting for the least worst of two lousy candidates, the race to the bottom of the political barrel is alive and well....

The nation will survive Trump just as it would have survived Hillary. Actually, I am very encouraged by the numbers of Conservatives who have an unflinching belief in Judaeo-Christian values and a uncompromising  desire to return the Country to to its traditional roots, and who are increasingly recognizing that supporting any candidate that does not reflect our "purist" beliefs is foolhardy.
 
For me, at its root, being NT has less to do with the man, than it is a clear statement that a  growing number of traditional Conservatives refuse to play the lesser of two evils game any longer and they simply won't support that individual if elected...

[Smokin Joe]

We have arrived at an impasse. I am grateful for the civilized responses. Even the disagreements were light years removed from most of the ones I have witnessed on other forums where these issues were discussed. Kudos to all!!

Just a note on history- Christians were utterly and totally devoured in the Borgia reign. The Borgias were the Law. So it is in all savage empires, that those who rule are immune to being subject to their own laws. Of course, even though the Borgias slew or destroyed anyone or anything that stood in their way during the height of their reign, most of them were also eventually murdered, their families decimated and eventually utterly destroyed - often by their own infighting.

The Godfather could have been about the Borgias in many ways.

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct
or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in a new order of things.
-Machiavelli

All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, “This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?” 24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebub the ruler of the demons.”

      25And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26“If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27“If I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. 28“But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Matt 12:23-28
Pretty much sums up the perils of doing evil in the name of achieving good.
Aside from deception on the battlefield, you mentioned lying and how it wasn't bad as a means to achieve an end, but the only people who believe that on a wholesale scale are Muslims practicing Taqiyya.

Or to put it another way, if your competitor in business lied about you and your company to get a job contract, or a co-worker lied to your boss to get a promotion you were in line for, would you argue for the practice?

A good rule of thumb is to not engage in behaviour against others which you would find unfair if it was to be practiced on you. That is the root of behaving honorably. Using evil means to accomplish what might weem to be good ends only corrupts what you build, sowing the seeds of rot in the foundations.

[INVAR]

Matt 12:23-28
Pretty much sums up the perils of doing evil in the name of achieving good.
Aside from deception on the battlefield, you mentioned lying and how it wasn't bad as a means to achieve an end, but the only people who believe that on a wholesale scale are Muslims practicing Taqiyya.

Or to put it another way, if your competitor in business lied about you and your company to get a job contract, or a co-worker lied to your boss to get a promotion you were in line for, would you argue for the practice?

A good rule of thumb is to not engage in behaviour against others which you would find unfair if it was to be practiced on you. That is the root of behaving honorably. Using evil means to accomplish what might weem to be good ends only corrupts what you build, sowing the seeds of rot in the foundations.

As I know you understand, you are arguing with people who have no use for morality when it comes to achieving political power.  As you rightly noted, the ends justifies whatever means is necessary to achieve it - even if it's lying, slandering, misdirecting and grandstanding on a false promise.  L4L admitted as such, as if there was a better morality in lying for the sake of 'the good'.  It will be humorous in the day of Judgement to hear them attempt to justify that before the Father of Truth.  We already know that behavior is condemned, and yet people are more comfortable in the lie that it is not behavior that is wrong.  They truly epitomize Isaiah 5:20, for this is exactly what they are doing.

They just continue to bring home the fact that like the Democrats, we have absolutely no commonality to stand upon with such people.  They are deceived, and engaging in deceit themselves to push power for themselves in the vain and false belief they somehow will achieve what they pretend we all want together.

No.  What we want is not what they want.  They eschew us and our refusal to compromise for the good of getting along with Democrats and Statists, and we rightfully eschew them for attempting to beguile the principled to abandon their foundations for the expedient and the temporary.

[DB]

Once the threshold of the ends justify the means is crossed there are no real limits left standing. It is the proverbial slippery slope that in time ends up with people in ovens for the "greater good". People can rationalize pretty much anything once their moral anchors have been severed. I won't knowingly be a party to any of that. And that is my biggest objection with Trump. It isn't that I expect Trump to put people in ovens but the well has been poisoned and there will be dire consequences if this approach isn't abandoned. I guess what I find most disturbing is so many on "our side" were so willing to go down this road and not see it for what it is and why I'm no longer a Republican.

[Smokin Joe]

Once the threshold of the ends justify the means is crossed there are no real limits left standing. It is the proverbial slippery slope that in time ends up with people in ovens for the "greater good". People can rationalize pretty much anything once their moral anchors have been severed. I won't knowingly be a party to any of that. And that is my biggest objection with Trump. It isn't that I expect Trump to put people in ovens but the well has been poisoned and there will be dire consequences if this approach isn't abandoned. I guess what I find most disturbing is so many on "our side" were so willing to go down this road and not see it for what it is and why I'm no longer a Republican.

[roamer_1]

Once the threshold of the ends justify the means is crossed there are no real limits left standing. It is the proverbial slippery slope that in time ends up with people in ovens for the "greater good". People can rationalize pretty much anything once their moral anchors have been severed. I won't knowingly be a party to any of that. And that is my biggest objection with Trump. It isn't that I expect Trump to put people in ovens but the well has been poisoned and there will be dire consequences if this approach isn't abandoned. I guess what I find most disturbing is so many on "our side" were so willing to go down this road and not see it for what it is and why I'm no longer a Republican.

That is exactly right.

[Bigun]

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.

Edmund Burke

[Bigun]

"And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.

Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man.

And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Sam Kercheval about reform of the Virginia Constitution, July 12, 1816; "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Definitive Edition, Albert Ellery Bergh, Editor, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association (1905) Vol. XV, p. 40

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Sam Kercheval about reform of the Virginia Constitution, July 12, 1816; The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Definitive Edition, Albert Ellery Bergh, Editor, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association (1905) Vol. XV, p. 40

[LateForLunch]

As I know you understand, you are arguing with people who have no use for morality when it comes to achieving political power.  As you rightly noted, the ends justifies whatever means is necessary to achieve it - even if it's lying, slandering, misdirecting and grandstanding on a false promise.  L4L admitted as such, as if there was a better morality in lying for the sake of 'the good'.  It will be humorous in the day of Judgement to hear them attempt to justify that before the Father of Truth.  We already know that behavior is condemned, and yet people are more comfortable in the lie that it is not behavior that is wrong.  They truly epitomize Isaiah 5:20, for this is exactly what they are doing.

They just continue to bring home the fact that like the Democrats, we have absolutely no commonality to stand upon with such people.  They are deceived, and engaging in deceit themselves to push power for themselves in the vain and false belief they somehow will achieve what they pretend we all want together.

No.  What we want is not what they want.  They eschew us and our refusal to compromise for the good of getting along with Democrats and Statists, and we rightfully eschew them for attempting to beguile the principled to abandon their foundations for the expedient and the temporary.

No use for morality ? Please. Certainly not any supposed "morality" which leaves Hill-O-Lies Clinton in charge of the federal governement. To that sort of childish, slackadasical "morality" I will gladly confess complete aversion. Nor do I accept the insult against "them" (us) of being amoral. That is just sadly, desperately unfair. I am a Christian who follows scripture as I understand it. I do not murder or do any of the other things I am not supposed to if I can possibly avoid it.

I don't want to start up a kerfuffle, but if people are going to quote scripture to justify their political opinions, the specific quotation in the Commandments uses a word which translates from the original Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew as "to bear false witness against thy neighbor". It is more specific than merely "lie". I would NEVER bear flase witness against anyone, my neighbor included. That is where I draw the line. If others do that, it's on them to bear the consequences both temporal and absolute.

There is another false premise lurking in that post - the notion that there is some standard of extant morality which stands bravely athwart "decline". Freud implored CG Jung to help him construct a, "bastion against the great tide of slime". Jung snorted at that with the reply, "Bastion against WHAT???" and Freud ended their friendship forever. From my POV, the idea that assenting to Machiavellian realism about the dynamics of dominion enables some "slippage down a slope," is a fiction. It seems to me that the wolves are already fully and wholly in domination of the global arenas of power (even in our own nation). Be a sheep who is fed upon but I will not invite such a one to share my combat emplacement.

This self-righteous talk of a "slippery slopes" seems at best, naive to me.

We have as a culture long ago slid into the sewer of cacogenic depraved savagery. The Mass Media opened up the era of Soft Warfare in the Viet Nam War era, when words became, when broadcast from the Mouth of the Beast and projected through the Lidless Eye of  T.V., powerful munitions.

Perhaps the sub floor of our current reality will yield a lower chamber but IMO we are already about as low as we can go. Where is there left to to slip to, my brothers and sisters?

 

[roamer_1]

I don't want to start up a kerfuffle, but if people are going to quote scripture to justify their political opinions, the specific quotation in the Commandments uses a word which translates from the original Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew as "to bear false witness against thy neighbor". It is more specific than merely "lie". I would NEVER bear flase witness against my neighbor. That is where I draw the line. If others do that, it's on them to bear the consequences both temporal and absolute.

@LateForLunch
There is little succor for Trump in your defense, as even within the narrow confines which you define, he is very publicly and provably guilty. He most certainly has borne false witness against his opponents over and over, time and again.

And your particular distinction is made moot by the Scriptures, because there is not but one singular commandment against lying in the Bible...

Proverbs 6:16-19
16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
(KJV) 

There is another false premise lurking in that post - the notion that there is some standard of extant morality which stands athwart the energies that would trigger "decline". From my POV, that is a fiction. The wolves are already fully and wholly in domination of the global arena of power.

In that I will rely upon de Tocqueville:

"I sought for the key to the greatness of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." -Alexis de Tocqueville

Inherent in the true American mind is the idea of a fair fight. America loves the underdog who succeeds, and does it by fighting well and fairly. Americans cheer the good man who has had enough, who rises up and dots the eye of the bully.

That is not what you (y'all) are supporting, and it is a grave error.
Cheering the bully, who wins by hook and by crook contributes to the fall, and does nothing to stop it.

In your words, you (y'all) are cheering the wolves, marking some strange distinction in the idea that he is 'our' wolf.

I can readily predict you will rue the day.