tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post7517579086865907377..comments2023-12-13T16:57:33.142-06:00Comments on Blogodidact: Moderating either between which cheek a victim is punched upon, or the speed of your retreat, is no virtue - Judge Garland and the U.S. SenateVan Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-44183733771366637332016-04-17T00:27:27.874-05:002016-04-17T00:27:27.874-05:00Reg T said ""How do you decide that Garl...Reg T said ""How do you decide that Garland is "not a bad man" " <br /><br />I didn't say that Garland was <i>not</i> a bad man, I said his legal decisions don't <i>make</i> him a bad man. They also do not make him a good man. Note, I also said,<br /><br />"<i>Such 'moderates' aim only to appeal to the powerful of both the left and right, which is no virtue, it is only a progressive grinding down, of our rights, favoring giving those in power, even more power over us - that is no virtue</i>"<br /><br />, which in my estimation means that he is not, and cannot, be a virtuous man. <br /><br />What I'd say that <i>does</i> makes him, is a '<i>modern man</i>', an a-good, a-virtuous person, someone who doesn't consciously seek to do either good, or bad, but simply calculates this and that with a utilitarian state of mind that is oblivious to the presence or importance of Good or Evil - what C.S. Lewis called 'Men without chests'. People who are neither Hot nor Cold, they are simply lukewarm, and that is their goal. While I certainly don't believe that that is Good, it also doesn't make them <i>actively</i> Bad.<br /><br />"I refuse to play the, "he's erudite and a gentleman, so he couldn't possibly be a bad man" game." Good choice, because being erudite and well mannered is no barrier whatsoever from being a consciously, willfully, deliberately, evil man. <br /><br />"Perhaps it makes you sound more reasonable, more likely to be taken seriously..." Heh, by who? Trying to be thought of as being 'more reasonable', by those who aren't unreasonable, isn't very reasonable, is it? What I hope to do, is to kickstart their own reasoning faculties, and to do that, I do seek to be:<br /><br />"... at least listened to..." Yes, I do hope for that, I hope that disagreeing without being disagreeable, while also not flinching from identifying what modern man cares little for - the Good, the Beautiful and the True (their pragmatism causes them to flinch at even identifying anything as such) - might raise some question in them as to the desirability being lukewarm towards such matters. <br /><br />If you haven't read much here, look around, I do not flinch from identifying people such as Garland as being, by virtue of their own beliefs and actions, both Anti-American and Pro-Regressive, not as insults, but as identifications of how they actually are. What I hope to do with that, with as little ranting as possible, is to cause people to question what I mean by that, and in identifying that, I hope it will spark an interest for what IS true. <br /><br />Do that, and you never know what might follow.<br /><br />"he is a traitor to his oath and the principles he is supposed to uphold" The problem with that, and with accusing him of that, is that it presumes that he (not to mention a depressingly large part of the population) understands, or cares about, what that even means. I contend he, and they, do not. Pragmatism has become the norm in America, and principles, oaths, Truth itself, mean less than nothing to a pragmatic person - of what use is it to accuse them of what they do not recognize or care about? The meaning of what you say will not register on them, the only thing that will is that what you said was meant as an insult, and there will be zero chance that they will hear or listen to another word more of what you have to say.<br /><br />And what good will that do?<br />Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-25339493640603287962016-04-16T22:28:34.394-05:002016-04-16T22:28:34.394-05:00How do you decide that Garland is "not a bad ...How do you decide that Garland is "not a bad man" when he makes decisions contrary to the Constitution, contrary to legislation legally created, passed, and signed into law, and contrary to the natural/G-d given rights that every person holds without requiring the permission of the government, and which were supposed to be protected from government infringement by the Bill of Rights. Did he not take an oath to uphold the Constitution?<br /><br />A man can behave as a "gentleman", observing the polite mores of his culture, but then go on to rape and kill, or abuse children, or lie and thieve and generally transgress the moral codes which are the bedrock of our society. Does he remain "not a bad man", simply because he is educated, polite, genteel, well-mannered?<br /><br />I'm sorry, but I refuse to play the, "he's erudite and a gentleman, so he couldn't possibly be a bad man" game. Yes, it may be the polite way to speak of a man of "class and culture", a "responsible member of society", a Federal judge. Perhaps it makes you sound more reasonable, more likely to be taken seriously - or at least listened to - than if you were open about the fact that he is a traitor to his oath and the principles he is supposed to uphold, that the individual has rights which exist in spite of what the collective wishes to do to him, or to his life and his property. He is no better than Ruth Ginsberg, who has openly stated that she doesn't like our Constitution. Neither of them have to like our Constitution - but if they cannot uphold it, they should recuse themselves for the rest of their lives: they should resign.<br /><br />A Federal judge who refuses to honor his oath and yet continues to hold- and use - his position is indeed a bad man. He has no honor, until he either begins to support the Constitution or admits his refusal and resigns. That would be the only honorable thing to do.Reg Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14099612693763932005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-285537734961410772016-03-31T10:38:14.435-05:002016-03-31T10:38:14.435-05:00I concur, Van.
The lack of courage these senators...I concur, Van. <br />The lack of courage these senators have displayed is shameful and disgusting. Allena-Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08929671005197550931noreply@blogger.com