[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by Rev :

I didn't mean to be condescending to Jim Sweeters, Mr 50. I thought I was merely pointing out some strengths and weaknesses since he is a major contributor to this thread. I realize that he does endure personal attacks which are certainly uncalled for, perhaps accounting somewhat for his "stridency".

He does refer to those who disagree with him (or their opinions) as mindless, ungrateful, self centered, simplistic, juvenile, flippant, whining, uninformed, gibberish, unobservant, tabloid style, immature, rediculous, drivel, specious, and hypocritical.

I call ridiculous mindless, immature, simplistic, juvenile, flippant, whining, unobservant, tabloid-style uninformed, specioius, hypocritical, gibberish and drivel from self-centered, ungrateful posters exactly what it is. It's axiomatic that some of the people my comments are directed to don't like to receive contrary comments. They wish to post their often strange opinions with no rebuttal or challenge and when they can't get away with doing so they leap into the basest mode of communication: making smarmy comments about my sex life, for instance. If that isn't 'immature drivel' I don't know what is. Thankfully, it always reflects far worse on the originator than on the intended receipent. It can even get you banned here.

My friends and family would certainly get a kick out of the thought that I was much in the way of being a "liberal". I might be in some social areas such as constitutionaly guaranteed civil liberties, abortion rights, etc. but am mostly conservative in nature.

I call them the way I see them, Rev. I commend you for having the good sense to have rejected at least some of the tenets of liberalism, a failed ideology that has done far more harm than good in the past 70 years. However, your 'social' views appear to be right in line with the liberal ideology so the term 'liberal', at least when applied to you, is not as mistaken as you might wish to believe. Meanwhile, I remain a conservative and need not resort to nuances and exceptions in order to define my political ideology.

I mentioned the Declaration of Independence because it actually says that the American public can seize control of the government if necessary to keep a free society. Of course that was before the constitution was in effect. I did wonder if Jim had read it and what he thought about it?

Of course I've read it. Many times. Your asking the question is odd, at best, and I took it to be superciliousness on your part. Perhaps I was mistaken. Let's assume that for now and move on.

In any case, we all know (or should know) that the Declaration of Independence outlined what the framers believed the obligation of government consisted of, which, in their minds, was to protect individual liberties and defend the rights of the people. If and when it failed to do so, the people, who are the government - in a democracy - have a moral, God-given right to dissolve that government. Thomas Jefferson believed this and so did the rest of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Of course, that was 228 years ago when less than 3 million mostly homogeneous people - most of them working on farms - and 13 colonies made up what was called ' America'. We are the strongest nation on earth, militarily and economically, and we have two centuies of history behind us now, including a civil war and two 'world' wars. America has a population almost 100 times what it was in 1776 and a very diverse population it is, made up of almost entirely of immigrants or people who are descended from immigrants, not the British subjects that the Declaration was written to represent. However, the basic principle of democracy still holds true: that the government is empowered by the people and can be dissolved by the people. How 'the people' would go about that - dissolving the federal government - without a civil war, is not clear. That the citizens of today's America have any real interest in doing so is also not very obvious to me.

We all want government to conform to our personal values and political ideology but it never totally has been able to do so - and it never will. Political parties, the electoral system and our represenative democracy appear to be doing an adequate job on most levels that affect the majority of us. I think the federal judiciary is out of control but even that sad stste of affairs could be fixed by the political, legislative process if we ever get fed up enhough to demand it, which I think is possible.

I really didn't have an expectation as to how this thread would turn out and I did enjoy the spirited discussion and really didn't mean any harm toward anyone. I do realize that it's the internet and that one will see a variety of opinions and styles of posting. I'm glad that Jim and the rest of us enjoy it.

I do enjoy posting (as my time permits) but I don't really post to just one person. I could use a PM or e-mail for that. I post reply messages for whomever reads the message and that is far more than the individual I'm responding to. I write a bit of political commentary for internet political websites and I also spend the majority of my internet time on political forums elsewhere and I have a fairly large potential 'audience' there.

I take the insults and name-calling with a grain of salt and always consider the source. Most of the insulting responses I receive on the internet are from uninformed folks who wouldn't dare say the same things to my face, I'm sure. I always try respond in kind, just to keep the other person cognizant of their error. When a poster responds to one of my messages thoughtfully and politely, I try to always reply in the same tone. However, when I'm mocked, insulted and called names, I use sarcasm and derision fairly effectively, I believe. I find it ironic that when a liberal insults me he's basically ignored and yet when I reply to those kinds of insults with some form of disdain, I'm chided for being 'strident', etc. It appears that decorum and civility are expected to be a one-way street for conservatives. Well, we're used to that double-standard but I still disagree with the concept on principle.

Thanks for your interest and comments, Rev. I do my best to keep things 'spirited' wherver I go. The BOL on MW is no exception.