Hi, Scott!

Posted before I listened; more later. Going to work.

Cordially, tjd

Hi, Scott!

Posting this here as you advise: https//www.youtube.com.watch?v=R-GAw1lLWJA

Hi again, Scott! 

            You wrote that I ignored a question that you put to me, you wrote: “Yes, that is correct. My argument is now against you and your outta touch 20th century Boomer bullshit narratives. Early on I asked you two specific questions about Neoconservatism and the 4th Amendment which you blissfully ignored. That was before my account was zapped here. 

What you were doing was trying to get a read on me, what my angle was before you started speaking. Then when you finally decided you had me pegged you started responding and haven't missed a chance since lol. The problem however, Mr Axiomatic, is that you pegged me wrong and every fucking response you've offered to me has been built upon those early misconceptions. 

Once I saw what you were willing to ignore, as opposed to what you're willing to engage, I knew you were gonna Blogster me to death with a million questions to get as far away from my initial point of contention as possible.” Although, I don’t recall skipping – or avoiding any question that you put to me, it is possible that I did miss a question, and still do, but I went through each post – since my first here @ blogster, and scanned (did not read word, for word) those that you appeared, or wrote. I did not find a question that I did not answer – that doesn’t mean that there are not questions that you put to me that I did not answer…

Below is a list of the dates of blog-posts in which you made some comment, or asked some question: September 28. 2018, October 14 & 21 2018, November 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 22, 27, 2018; April 9, 22, 24, 25, 2019, July 15, 2019, August 3, 22, 24, 2019, September 20, 22, 2019, November 11, 2019, December 9, 12, February 13, 2020, March 1, 2020, April 10, 30, 2020, May 26, 2020, June 6, 7, 8, 20, 2020, July 8, 11, 13, 16, 20, 23, 27, 28, 2020 August 15, 2020, September 3, 10, 12, 15, 18, 19, 30 2020, October 21, 28, 2020, November 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 13, 21, 28, 2020, December 3, 5, 8, 12, 14, 16, 2020, February 12, 13, 19, 2021, March 14, 21, 2021, May 20, 2021, June 17, 2021, July 31, 2021, August 1, 12, 13, 14, 23, 2021, September 10, 14, 16, 19, 2021, October 1, 11, 13, 23, 30, 2021, November 3, 4, 6, 9, 15, 23, 30, 2021, December 4, 5, 13, 22, 29, 2021, January 1, 6, 9, 15, 2022, March 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24, 26, 2022, April 2, 3, 16, 17, 24, 29, 2022, May 1, 17, 31, 2022, June 3, 6, 7, 9, 25, 30, 2022, July 8, 10, 17, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 2022… And like I said, Scott, I didn’t find any unanswered question which doesn’t mean that you didn’t ask any…? If you remember the question/s – and remember them – present them here and I’ll see what answers, I’ll provide,,,

Cordially, tjd

TJ, I talk to a LOT of people. All I can remember is NOT getting an answer at this point. I don't recall what the question was, but I do recall you were speaking about the bill of rights, perhaps insisting that it was still healthy, and I asked what about the 4th? 

If I ask questions at all, it's usually pertaining to something quite relevant in the moment. All I remember is asking about the 4th and the Neoconservatives and getting no attention, which then planted the seed in my head that you're likely Neocon or adjacent...   Most times that's what they do, either ignore or tell you that's a pejorative term.

I do not at this point think you're a Neocon. I do however believe you've either ignored what they've done, or don't think of them as a force in the GOP. 

Things change so fast at this point, and have gotten so much worse since our first interactions, that I can't see any reason to revisit. You're not obligated to answer any questions but I've noted many times to people that you're one of the few who do. In reality, it's not so much about answering questions as I felt you were ignoring very important aspects of what makes the social political right fail. I could have better stuck to that point and elaborated on it.

All we can do is reset TJ. Once I lose sight of what my original gripe was, it becomes all about the personality of the person as you were suggesting before. I agree, and that's what I always hated about this site - so I don't wanna do that nonsense.

I read here because I do have some interest in your points of view, so I'll just do my best if I have a point of contention to express myself concisely and without my disdain for this forum or other users. :)

Scott

Hi again, Scott! 

            Been a bit busy, this last week…

I do not remember the question regarding the 4th Amendment, but my view is that the Government violating the 4th Amendment, and in violating other Constitutional Rights, has been made possible as a result of the co-opting of the University, the Press, Corporations and the mainstream Churches – particularly the Catholic Church (I’m a Catholic) and a large majority of We the People (indoctrinated via schools and Media), rendered slothful - i.e., rendered 'unconcerned with those things - of which, and to which -  they are morally obliged attend' - by the silence of the Church!

The only way I see to make the Government obey the Constitutional limitations imposed upon Government action is by - making a large majority of voters care about their Rights, more than they care about their appetites! This requires overcoming the culture, and this requires overcoming - or negating (turning off) the University which can - practically/realistically - only be accomplished by removing Federal funding; this will happen as a natural consequence of the repeal of the 17th Amendment; most Federal bureaucracies, agencies and Executive cabinet positions - along with Universities - would cease being funded once the Senate - again - becomes responsible to State Legislators. It was by allowing Senators to be elected (1913 Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Platform) that altered the Senate's role from the protector's of State's Rights, to tacit Federal arrogator's/gobbler's of State's Rights. Although SCOTUS (particularly Thomas, the natural law Jurist) - in Dobbs vs. Jackson (the vacating of Roe) showed deference to the original intent, argued Federalism, as they rightfully acted to set-aside the arrogating utilization of "substantive due-process", those actions are only due to the complexion of this Court! Should there be, when there is, a shift back to sentimental jurists dominating SCOTUS expect Congress to accelerate negating individual Rights, which -when given legal challenge - will be found to be in keeping with the U.S. Constitution as understood by a Court dominated by autocrats. 

Regarding the co-option of is a results from the gradual, but systematic exchange of the worldview – of the Founding Fathers – with its antithesis. This exchange began before the Constitution was penned. Because of this, in many things that I write, I’m less interested in showing this fact, or that, fact, to be true, or false, and more interested in explaining why people (Leftists) argue falsehoods, as truths, and why people (Leftists) feign caring concern for the disadvantaged, when they – generally (in accordance with their principles) – have only a utilitarian interest in the plight of the disenfranchised i.e., the disadvantage are useful pawns to advance the power of their advocates. Moreover, I try to alert – those on the social-political Right – that they often times act so as to advance the agendas of the Leftists, because the worldview (University), and everything downstream is a synthesized product of that worldview; including many, many of us humans who believe themselves to be of the social-political Right.

Because of this I - generally- focus upon Kant’s Critiques of Pure Reason (1781, first edition; therein Kant reduces/grounds metaphysics to his epistemology rendering metaphysics bound to the measurable/quantifiable) not because it is the first step - in a line of works - which lead to the inversion – or exchange of, the one and only objective worldview, for the possibility of infinite number of subjective worldviews, but because Kant’s work - for most of his intellectual contemporaries, and his and their, intellectual progeny – seemed to “end-the-game” with checkmate in favor of subjectivity regarding all things which are not quantifiable*.

* The common intellectual is seduced because of the meretriciously compelling argument which Kant posits in the 1st of his 3 Critiques; the intellectual class is - still - in a state-of-seduction although Kant's epistemology is demonstrably flaccid i.e., it cannot encompassed/map the reality which modern science has unveiled i.e., Kant's Critiques of Pure Reason is reduced to an a aprioristic work of (human) artistry - even genius, but wholly incapable of providing an account of that which is i.e., existence; only an actual philosophy can do that (Kant 's - strictly speaking and vis-à-vis the classical understanding of philosophy - is not a philosophy; rather it is a system a.k.a. Procrustean bed), and that philosophy is the Perennial philosophy exemplified by Thomistic metaphysics... 

Kant - without intention - lays the ground for a number of intellectual movements (all necessarily ideological, since objective reality is systematically reduce to the subjective consciousness) - movements of which I’m sure that you already know - (e.g., secular-humanism, socialism, communism, Aryanism, progressivism, et al, sundry Leftists all!); in rejecting an objective reality [actually conceiving objective reality as a chimera], and its attendant morality [Note if there is no objective worldview, and no objective-morality, then law is rendered relative, and the Constitution becomes a "living-document"; it follows then that "Rights" necessarily become privileges only...] – implicitly (if not explicitly) rejected every aspect of the social-contract, the U.S. Constitution, unalienable Rights, and the rule-of-law, but they couldn’t say such things publicly – if they were vying for political power. In the United States – post Civil War – the Democrat Party seemed to be the natural home for many of these movements e.g., progressivism {We select progressivism, because Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive}, but such ideologies found a home in the Republican/Bull-Moose Party as well e.g., Teddy Roosevelt and the Bill-Moose Platform. Once the Senate was delivered into the hands of - We The People - not only was it a tacit nullification of States Rights, but it - for all practical considerations - released Federal Jurists from the worry of impeachment. So as Schools-of-Law came to reflect the University (i.e., opposed to the U. S. Constitution), the Federal Courts began - too - to reflect an imperialism implicitly hostile their Article III limits, and the Senate - no longer responsible to State Representatives - rendered nearly incapable of impeaching rogue Jurists and Justices {theoretically one may still impeach a sitting Justice, but such a Justice would be disposed as a Justice Thomas/Scalia rather than a Ginsburg/Breyer} . I could go on, but point is the that until - We The People - understand that many of us are unconsciously enemies of the Constitution of the United States we will continue to flail from issue, to issue (Are those "issues" e.g., term limits, being proposed to distract from the salient issue/s repeal of Bull Moose)... Each of us imbibe - to varying degrees, for various reasons - the dominant worldview which to varying degrees, for varying reasons corrupts the objective worldview which the human mind is made to naturally - inveterately - apprehend.     

As a result of all of what I write above, it is my view that - all people - but most especially, and relevantly, many law-makers as actors are limited/enslaved by their premises most of which are uncritically assimilated/absorbed from the culture which is and has become - increasingly bereft of dispassionate reason i.e., rational judgment i.e., objective moral judgment (Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' seems to be well grounded in moral i.e., objective, reality...); this is why there are very few "conservatives" in dead and word; as the culture act to become a perfect reflected derivation of the University dominant weltanschauung rationality (objective moral judgment) itself is viewed as unadulterated EVIL, and those on the "Right" have continuously abandoned their former positions/advocacies for positions formerly held  by unabashed Leftists; they - Leftists - having moved further towards unabashed irrationality a.k.a. might-make-right!

So do I want violations of the 4th Amendment always prevented and severely punished always? YES!!! If I could, I'd bring the Founders back-from-the-grave - reinvigorated - and allow them to settle scores, in the charming manner in which they would mete justice! One could be assured that Washington D.C. would be in need of filling the vacancies made by the demise of POTUS, and Vice POTUS (the Cabinet of POTUS would be no more), demise of likely 400+ House of Representatives, the demise of 90+ Senators, and demise of most all of the people employed in Government bureaucracies, bureaucracies - too - terminated by the Founders; morticians would be overwhelmed with a minimum of several hundred thousands of "clients". I end with that happy thought!

Take Care, Scott!

Cordially, tjd