There is no doubt Rousseau contributed much as the man bordered on genius. But like all genius of that magnitude, he kept tripping over the border into fruitcakeville. He could have been the inspiration for the character played by Dustin Hoffman in the "Rain Man".

But the last sentence is a very valid fact, there is no government in a free society, just an administration that protects the rights of the sovereign, the people, those that make the law. That is in contradiction to the rest of your statement.

Agreed!!

Tribalist wouldn't fit, he bounced all over the place, pissing off the local tribe wherever he went.

And the rest.....

And sadly, you would be serious about this statement. When you find any politician that even represents those that voted for them, let us know.

Are you trying to instill a sense of logic to the peanut gallery, ain't going to happen. Since there are no peanut smileys, I guess the next best thing will suffice:

I wouldn't want a theocracy, as religion should be choice and not mandate

however, true meritocracy would be a nice goal to shoot for,,,,a nice bar to set,,,,

now, getting EVERYONE to come to one conclusion on what attributes should be considered 'merits',,,thats another debate altogether,,,

and TB,,,Ive had the jingle in my head most the day,,,,

what I am is what I am are you what you are or what?


(or, sometimes in these threads more like

huh? wth are you even talking about? the question was asked is that your handwriting and you are giving us details on how you have sex?)



,,,,lol,, anyway,, the jingle is much nicer,,,,,

So, let me get this straight. It's not ok to force a government based on theocracy because you supposedly have some misconstrued idea of choice. But then you construe some sort of ability to impose some system of meritocracy. But the worse part is to imply that someone that needs a system of slavery would somehow be qualified to set terms of merits.

And all this from one that thinks a republic is somehow construed as a democracy.

Oh, please explain there theories, I just can't wait.

Excellent selection in literature, so enlightening. Sort of reminds me of Ellsworth Toohey in the Fountainhead where his tactics frequently evoke those of Joseph Stalin, the former Russian revolutionary who emerged as Russia’s dictator. Why have greatness when you can provoke the unwashed masses to believe mediocrity is better than the great.

Sort of leads to the unwashed masses electing some tyrannical dictator that promises hope and change. The hope that the masses will receive more of someone else's change. America needs to be diligent that doesn't happen.

construe: interpret (a word or action) in a particular way.


misconstrued(misinterpreted) idea of choice? Really?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion


odd choice of point to argue from such a staunch constitutionalist,,,



there was also nothing in my point where I 'construed'(interpreted) an 'ability ' to impose meritocracy, quite on the contrary, I only said it would be nice,, like others believe smaller government would be nice,,,,the issue of whether it is achievable is not presumed or 'construed'

oh, and since there were THREE points argued here, I believe you may wanted to finish with which was the WORST part of it, not the WORSE part of it,,,,even though, once again, it was not stated anywhere in my post that anyone should be or was qualified to set merits

but was, in fact, suggested as another issue to debate,,,,,


sigh

.. blah blah blah..
jk

.. you are absolutely correct my dear...hi.u

.. have we told you how smart you are..
.. if not..
. well let me say you are smart..
. you are one of the smartest ladies on this site.. you're well read your well informed.. you keep this place interesting.. . big hug big kiss for you.. if that's okay.

actually Uncle Ellsworth would have been the "Intellectual" Enabler of someone like Stalin!
In other words,he is the "Witchdoctor",turning loose the "eternal Savage" (Attila)!
The "Intellectual" opening all the Doors for the Thugs by giving them a "Moral Sanction"!
He would have never been crude enough to get his own hands dirty!

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004FMp

http://tuohysoftheworld.blogspot.ch/2010/08/ellsworth-toohey.html

BTW,what's with those strange Characters in your Post?

lol

very funny,, you too

Yep, always take the shortcut resulting in less than a clear understanding:

Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, 1968
"CONSTRUE. To put together; to arrange or marshal the words of an instrument. To ascertain the meaning of language by a process of arrangement and inference."


And just what does trying to imply that the 1st Amendment has anything to do with theocracy which was the reference. And where is a choice in theocracy, burning at the stake? Do you have any clue of what you are commenting on? Obviously not. Could have something to do with the first statement, no clear understanding.



And so an opinion base on fallacies does but a fool make. "There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what is not true, the other is to refuse to accept what is true" - Soren Kierkegaard



So construe is a new word to you, then look at the complete definition so that you may understand just what you are communicating.

Anyhow, your total construction (sorry don't want to confuse so definition follows) of government is an ambiguous statement. You somehow imply that your total misconstruction of the current government as a democracy somehow implies an ability to impose one or another -ocracy would be a valid assumption, something totally misconstrued, all as a means of a smaller government would be nice. But then the implication that "now, getting EVERYONE to come to one conclusion on what attributes should be considered 'merits',,,thats another debate altogether,,,".

"CONSTRUCTION. The process, or the art, of determining the sense, real meaning, or proper explanation of obscure or ambiguous terms or
provisions in a statute, written instrument, or oral agreement, or the application of such subject to the case in question, by reasoning in the light derived from extraneous connected circumstances or laws or writings bearing upon the same or a connected matter, or by seeking and applying the probable aim and purpose of the provision. Koy v. Schneider, 110 Tex. 369, 221 S.W. 880, 884."



At last a true, a spelling error on my part, thanks for the correction. But just how does my error go off into a third point. Or is it the part where something implied in another reply is now to be taken as something entirely different, another misconstruction?



A debate is where two of more parties present their position on a topic. When one has no position and makes no stance, it is but a passing comment, most times irrelevant to the subject at hand.