I entered a debate with an abusive, caustic miscreant from Milwaukee posting as “Chris”, but because of circumstances beyond my control, I couldn’t end it. And I need to end it.
So, here are the beginnings of the debate, along with the response I intended to post but couldn’t in a timely manner. I think it is important enough to post here.
Chris:
Hey OSD from schamburg…I thought of some more kooky liberal ideas.
1. Separation of Church and State
2. Habeus Corpus
3. Privacy
4. Balanced Budgets
5. Diplomacy
6. And kookiest of them all sadly…The Bill of RightsI must be some kind of wacko commie to bring these up.
Trenton:
Here are a few questions for you, Chris.
1) At what point during the Constitutional Convention was the Separation of Church and State debated?
2) For whom are the protections of Habeas Corpus intended?
3) How do you define Privacy, and where can one find the Founding Father’s comments on Privacy?
4) The Republicans have historically been the major proponents of a balanced budget. What will Democrats do to balance the budget?
5) At what point should Diplomacy be discontinued in the face of armed conflict?
6) What was the purpose of the Bill of Rights?
Chris:
Regarding your responses to the KOOKY liberal ideas:
1) At what point during the Constitutional Convention was the Separation of Church and State debated? Who cares and how is this germaine to 2007?
2) For whom are the protections of Habeas Corpus intended?
Citzens of the United States as well as all those who come before the court. At least thats the way it used to be before this administrations majority was in power.
3) How do you define Privacy, and where can one find the Founding Father’s comments on Privacy? Protection against search and seizure.
4) The Republicans have historically been the major proponents of a balanced budget. What will Democrats do to balance the budget? I would agree that fiscal conservancy used to be identified as part of the Republican agenda. That’s why this Republican (me, who attended 2 of the last 3 Republican national conventions, 2 recent state conventions) is so mad at this administration. Bush has grown the deficit and grown the government at an unprecidented pace and to unprecidented size. Trent…why aren’t you mad? Why isn’t everyone on this site mad? Clinton balanced the budget..give him and Dems their due. The times they are a changing folks.
5) At what point should Diplomacy be discontinued in the face of armed conflict?
It should be the first effort. Sending our sons and daughters to die is the last course of action.
6) What was the purpose of the Bill of Rights?
Oh Trent…please educate me on this. You’re so smart.
This is where the thread was broken, and so what follows are my thoughts on Chris’ answers. Yes, I know Chris is an ignoranus1, but his answers reveal much. They expose the hubris that is so common among these punk liberals who put on bold faces in comment areas, engage in every sort of “non-logical”2 tactics, and have nothing of substance to back up their attitudes.
My responses:
1. “Who cares and how is this germaine [sic] to 2007?” Well, you brought up the subject as though it were proof of your enduring Republican virtues, so I am attempting to dispossess you if it. Your non-answer tells me that you don’t know the answer, so I will supply it here for you and carefully and with small words explain why it is germane.
The Founding Fathers never did debate a separation of Church and State because they did not believe you could fully separate them. The phrase was originally penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in which he intended to inculcate support for the new Constitution among these people by explaining to them how the Constitution prevents the government from prescribing forms of worship.
The fact that you did not know that the debate never occurred at the Convention means that you have been misinformed about the character of our form of government. And I doubt that you are alone in that. It seems to be a common malady among Liberals.
2. “Citzens [sic] of the United States as well as all those who come before the court. At least thats the way it used to be before this administrations majority was in power.” No, you’re only half right here. Only citizens have the right of Habeas Corpus, as guaranteed by the Constitution. If that were not true, why did the Court have to rule against the Bush administration on that issue? If it were always the case that non-citizens had that right, the issue would have never gone to trial; there would not have been any need.
Furthermore, the right of Habeas Corpus IS the right to be seen before a judge who will decide if there is sufficient evidence to hold you for trial. This is another example of you attempting to look like you know things you really don’t understand.
3. “Protection against search and seizure” No. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution says nothing about privacy. It says,
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
Being secure in your things is NOT the same as privacy as we think of the term today. It means the government cannot come and arbitrarily take your things, as was common prior to the War of Independence. It is more about Private Property Rights than about Privacy, which is the Liberal interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.
And the Amendment does not guarantee a right against all searches and seizures, just those that are unreasonable.
4. “I would agree that fiscal conservancy used to be identified as part of the Republican agenda. That’s why this Republican (me, who attended 2 of the last 3 Republican national conventions, 2 recent state conventions) is so mad at this administration. Bush has grown the deficit and grown the government at an unprecidented [sic] pace and to unprecidented [sic] size. Trent…why aren’t you mad? Why isn’t everyone on this site mad? Clinton balanced the budget..give him and Dems their due. The times they are a changing folks.” Flat wrong. Clinton fought the balanced budget all the way through Congress. The balanced budget that Clinton finally signed was part of the Republican “Contract with America” created, in part, by Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay.
And you’ll understand if I say that even if you did attend those Republican Conventions, you weren’t there as a Republican.
5. “It should be the first effort. Sending our sons and daughters to die is the last course of action.” You haven’t answered my question. I agree that diplomacy should be the first resort and war should be last. The question was where is that point where diplomacy must give way to fighting. We gave Saddam Hussein 17 UN resolutions and 12 years of “diplomacy.” All to no effect.
6. “Oh Trent…please educate me on this. You’re so smart.” First, thank you. I accept your compliment regardless of the intent. Second, This is another question you’re not answering so that you won’t look ignorant. The fact is that you are ignorant; ignorant of your country’s history and government, which mean that you should probably refrain from pretending to be an expert.
But, in the interest of my readers here, I will answer this one.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to set limits on the power of government, and to define the Rights retained by the people. I wanted to hear Chris’ answer to this, because many people believe that the Bill of Rights created the Rights we enjoy. Chris’ answers so far have revealed that he may be included in that group. I just wanted to be certain.
What is certain is that people like Chris put up a false front. They pretend to be very knowledgeable about certain subjects (in many cases, all subjects), but when pressed their pretensions become evident. Chris and others like him are good at sounding informed at first. This tends to create a level of credibility in the minds of more casual observers. My intention is to destroy that false credibility and disabuse the observers of their error.
The other thing that Chris and his ilk are adept at is ridicule. They use it as a weapon. And it can be a powerful weapon. But it has no effect upon the truly humble. I’m cannot hold myself up as one of the truly humble, because I’m not. I’m just stating a fact, here. Those who intend to take on these pretenders must be prepared, and humility is one of the best defenses you can make.
The other defense is the Truth. There is no weapon that can stand against the Truth. And Truth will ultimately prevail. Many people believe that the Truth is whatever they want it to be. They are mistaken. Chris’ error above is trying to pass off his limited knowledge as the truth. We have seen how easily his “truth” was dismantled.
Chris sarcastically called these points “kooky, liberal ideas.” I think we can safely say that most of these ideas are neither kooky, nor liberal. But Chris’ interpretations of them certainly are.
1 From Neal Boortz’s book, “Somebody’s Gotta Say It,” pg. 243
2 Beyond “illogical”; Having no connection whatsoever to logic.
