What’s she going to do to stop him coming, build a wall?

There’s never been anyone like him with the above letter published on Instagram.

The key sentences:

Therefore, I will be honoring your invitation, and fulfilling my Constitutional duty, to deliver important information to the people and Congress of the United States of America regarding the state of our union.

I look forward to seeing you on the evening of January 29th in the Chamber of the House of Representatives. It would be so very sad for our Country if the State of the Union were not delivered on time, on schedule, and very important, on location!

And do notice the exclamation mark. What’s she going to do to stop him coming, build a wall?

UPDATE: From the comments: “Trump canceled the SOTU speech about half an hour before you posted this.”

We’ll just have to see what the next stage is going to be. The latest from the now anti-Trump Drudge:

Week 5: Shutdown votes set up political test for Senate...
Centrist Dems urge Pelosi to break stalemate...
New Offer? Green Cards...
IRS Warns of Tax Refund Delay...
POLL: Trump Disapproval Hits High...
'Build a Wall & Crime Will Fall!'
White House: Economy May Not Grow In First Quarter...
NANCY: NO STATE OF UNION!
President Looking At 'Alternative'... 

An amazing test of wills. This is Pelosi’s letter in reply.

Dear Mr. President:

When I extended an invitation on January 3rd for you to deliver the State of the Union address, it was on the mutually agreed upon date, January 29th. At that time, there was no thought that the government would still be shut down.

In my further correspondence of January 16th, I said we should work together to find a mutually agreeable date when government has re-opened and I hope that we can still do that.

I am writing to inform you that the House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the President’s State of the Union address in the House Chamber until government has opened.

Again, I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when government has been opened.

Sincerely,

Nancy Pelosi

 

 

This entry was posted in American politics. Bookmark the permalink.

136 Responses to What’s she going to do to stop him coming, build a wall?

  1. Chris Harper

    Trump canceled the SOTU speech about half an hour before you posted this.

  2. stackja

    What’s she going to do to stop him coming, build a wall?

    Ms Pelosi “Tear down this wall!”

  3. Old School Conservative

    Steve, that headline of yours should become a widespread meme to illustrate Pelosi’s hypocricy.
    I’d love to see cartoonists jump onto it.

  4. There is nothing to prevent Trump from giving a presentation directly from the Oval Office as has been done many a time in an Address to the Nation. This is an address directly to the people, not via Congress to the people.

  5. Bunyip Bill

    Will you children behave, or I will take the stick to you.

  6. Mark M

    Pelosi: “At that time, there was no thought that the government would still be shut down.”

    Well, you should have thought of that.

    For someone who claims to see future climate catastrophe, that is here now, Pelosi didn’t see that one coming.

  7. Another utter failure of a Kates thread.

  8. Up The Workers!

    It would absolutely serve Pelosi right if all of President Trumps’ S.O.T.U. Addresses for the remainder of his term, were made by him, direct to the people who elected him and bypass the Ku Klux Dimocrats in Congress who have done nothing but obstruct him ever since they resoundingly lost the November 2016 election to him.

    Pelosi is like a fossilised, sex-changed version of the perpetually negative Human Mung Bean, Jeremy Corbyn, who similarly refuses to acknowledge that the people of Britain voted some 4.5 months before Trump’s election victory, to withdraw from the E.E.C., and demands that they repeat and repeat and repeat the process until they come up with a result he finds more to his totalitarian, Leftard, liking.

  9. candy

    It’s not about shutdown or walls or policy for the Dems. It’s about getting rid of Trump.

    The good thing is that the Dems. are out in the open about their motives. Ms Pelosi has nothing to lose except her health and she can’t expect to become Presidentress. She feels free to say or do anything that will damage Trump to get him out. Uninhibited. I am sure Trump sees the danger in that for him.

  10. the sting

    I note that Pelosi’s second letter is not signed.

  11. Zatara

    Centrist Dems urge Pelosi to break stalemate

    A group of centrist House Democrats, sick of political posturing, is pressing Speaker Nancy Pelosi to counter Trump’s immigration proposal with her own potential compromise. The group, led by freshman Rep. Elaine Luria of Virginia, is asking the California Democrat to offer Trump a vote on his border wall or some sort of negotiated security package in February if he first signs a bill reopening the federal government.

    They STILL don’t get it. Trump isn’t going to piss away his leverage for no gain.

  12. struth

    Is that like the polling before he was elected , Harken, you absolute mullet brain?

    How do you allow your wishful thinking to become your reality?
    It’s pure leftism at it’s finest.
    Your reality is what you want it to be.
    That’s why you were all on the floor screaming, tears gushing, as soon as he was elected, and as we see with you, are still screaming your teary lefty tantrums now, years later, because the actual reality of the world is always, always, the exact opposite of left wing propaganda.
    Maybe you should hold your breath until things work out for you.

  13. Gibbo

    I love this: “post election night analysis showed the pre-election polling was not so inaccurate after all. Yes, nearly all indicated a Clinton win, but in fact she only lost narrowly”.

    So it was wrong, but only a little bit which doesn’t really count because of blah, blah, blah.

    I’m seriously tempted to make a large donation to GetUp! to see if they can employ a much better class of trolls. The dolts they are sending around at the moment must be the work experience kids or something.

  14. struth

    306 to 227.
    A complete wipe out.

    Popular vote isn’t anything.
    Get that through you thick mullet brain.
    It’s not their system.
    Seems you guys like to import millions of illegals and get the dead to vote, so you can win the popular vote.

    Not real bright, and hence the reason to not have it.
    People like you, (lefties) are insulated, wilfully or not, from the real world)
    And the closer you get to a city GPO the worse it gets.
    As you prove with every post.
    The founding fathers understood the problem of the insulated masses.

    Why quote the popular vote>
    What possible reason could there be?
    Trying to console yourself that the dumb lazy corrupt globalist pisspot traitor he was up against was in with a chance?

    She was decimated..

    Absolutely smashed so hard she wouldn’t even come out and face her young girl fans sobbing like fuckwits at a gold fish funeral.

  15. struth

    This angel also is amused when the hyperventilating denizens of this blog (struth being a typical example – as he lives in a constant state of despair about the state of the nation and the world and frets about socialist conspiracies about to doom the planet, such that I worry whether he needs medication) accuse those who do not agree with them as being the ones “on the floor screaming”, etc.

    Projection, it’s called.
    I certainly do despair about the state of the nation.
    Only an insulated mullet brain would not.

    I am absolutely in despair when I see what the education system has done to the many like you.
    It’s a tragedy.

    But I’m not wearing a pussy hat, trashing the streets being violent fascist thugs, wailing in tears on the side walk, ………………………that’s all your side, always.

  16. Fat Tony

    Harken Now
    #2915850, posted on January 24, 2019 at 10:31 am
    This topic was all dealt with by this angel in a previous thread

    Farken How – you definitely need medical help. How do you expect anyone to take seriously a person who has delusions of being an angel??

  17. Tom

    Bwahaha. Look at the trolls! Not just the fat lesbian, but the other teenage girl jumping up and down like a toddler in the back seat. Trump is everything they’re not. His presidency was heaven-sent. No-one now doubts how much the left hates America and capitalism’s great gift to the world, democracy.

  18. Gibbo

    Yep, and if my Uncle had tits he’d be my Auntie, Harky baby. But he doesn’t, so he isn’t.
    If you had just stuck to “no one denies that nearly all predictions based on polls were in favour of Clinton” you’d have been on safe ground. But then you need to add your own “unique” brand of analysis and all semblance of sanity disappears. All these other magical scenarios you dream up are irrelevant. The majority of polls said Clinton was a shoo-in pretty much right up until she ran away crying. Any other interpretation of those facts is strictly in your head and that’s where they should stay.

  19. amortiser

    Harken,

    How is an Australian open decided? The number of points won? The number of games won? Or the number of sets won.

    The game is played under the rules. The fact a player may win more points and more games is irrelevant to the outcome if the opponent wins more sets.

    If the rules were otherwise the players would play the game differently.

    In the US presidential election campaign, Trump virtually ignored New York and California as he had no chance of winning them. He put his efforts into Michigan, Wisconson and Pennsylvania where he saw a chance of winning.

    He played to the rules of the contest. If the rules were otherwise he would have campaigned quite differently. That’s why he is in the White House and Clinton and the democrats are still wailing about the popular vote.

  20. Tel

    Here, use a Gillette in the groin area and become the non hyperventilating, non violence fantasising man you could be.

    How’s you mum doing?

  21. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    The constant reference to violent vanquishing and ridiculing women reminds me of the phrase “toxic masculinity”. Here, use a Gillette in the groin area and become the non hyperventilating, non violence fantasising man you could be.

    Fark, I have this theory that soy has feminised asian men, you seem to confirm the evils of soy.

  22. The BigBlueCat

    No one denies he won, under the dubiously relevant system they use

    The only ones who doubt the system, Harken, are those who didn’t understand how it worked or could benefit from it. But dubious or not (the US says not), it is a system that has been in place for a very long time, and there are reasons why it is in place (“The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens”).

    It never ceases to amaze me how leftists and Democrats (but I repeat myself) have not gotten over the fact that petulant Hillarity Clinton lost the election despite winning the popular vote (a result perhaps only possible by counting the votes of the dead and the illegal immigrants). That she didn’t have the grace to accept defeat on the night, and that all the leftists were left bawling where they stood is but icing on the cake, and another reason why we should all be thankful she didn’t win.

    Pointing to a single, transient poll about Trump also has dubious relevance … there’s 2 more years to go! Let’s see if Trump gets a second term before we start worrying about polls 2 years out from the next presidential election. But I’ve got to tell you, the Demonrats will have little chance with the likes of (“I’m half native American”) Warren and Kamala Harris … thank God Sandy Ocasio-Cortez is too young/immature to run!

  23. Cynic of Ayr

    What Harken Now is too dumb to realise is that the Government of Australia is elected under the same principle!
    Greatest number of elected seats elected = Government (Same as U.S. College)
    Overall votes don’t amount to a hill of beans. Many Australian Governments are elected without the “Popular Vote”
    To add insult to injury, our Prime Minister (U.S. President – almost but not) isn’t even elected by the citizen’s vote.
    Of course, many of them are Labor, so HarkenKnowFuckall doesn’t like that to be brought up.
    Give it up, Mate. You’re starting to bleat. It’s the left way. You can’t ever, ever, argue with logic, as you don’t have any. You’ve been flogged many times over.
    You shouldn’t come here to a Battle of Wits. You’re un-armed.
    Larfed at, “Make a donation to GetUp to get a better class of Troll! Priceless!

  24. Atoms for Peace

    Miss by an inch; miss by a mile.

  25. md

    To the Left, hate ‘trumps’ all else.

  26. mem

    Harken said:

    People here think it is a massive winner for him. All polling indicates otherwise.

    While the survey results are interpreted as a negative result for Trump and the Republicans I would suggest that it is not as bad as the headlines suggest. Take for example this result which is tucked down the bottom,
    “Trump has carried the bulk of the blame for the shutdown in every Morning Consult poll, with 49 percent of voters saying he is responsible in the latest survey – up 6 points since the shutdown began. In the same time, the share of voters who blame Democrats in Congress has risen 4 points, to 35 percent, while 4 percent of voters blame congressional Republicans, down 3 points.”
    My interpretation of this is that the Republicans are winning over democrats in the Senate by a far shot! I stand to be correccted? https://morningconsult.com/2019/01/23/trumps-disapproval-hits-record-high-amid-government-shutdown/

  27. Dr Fred Lenin

    Oh no not the bloody harken hour again,piss off to get up. You can preach to the converted there,they will even “like”you .

  28. candy

    A win is a win.

    Ms Clinton’s time is over. The Dems now have Ms Cortez to promote. She’s very pretty and appeals greatly to young gals especially – very important voters in the future, and I suspect that is the reason they love her.
    She said something about the earth being destroyed in 12 years by climate change, directed at the young folk.

  29. struth

    I tell you what history proves, Harken, (an apparent male who believes I should soften my language about the softer sex)…and that is, we here were right, are still right, have always been more politically astute than all you “surprised” echo chamber propaganda victims have ever been regarding Trump.

    Hillary got absolutely and utterly smashed and destroyed.
    She knew it, that’s why she couldn’t even come out and face anyone.
    She accepted it, why can’t you?

    She was pulverised.
    Trump mopped the floor with her tears.
    Pounded her into oblivion.
    Wacked her for six.
    Played her like a Violin.
    Kicked her fat communist arse.
    Strangled the political life from her very being.

    etc.

  30. mrwashout

    Trump won the popular vote if you count citizens of the USA. If you include the 5.7m non-citizens who voted then sure, he didnt win the “popular” vote.

  31. Mark M

    Hillary Clinton so far ahead in polls that she ‘doesn’t even think about’ Donald Trump anymore 

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/23/hillary-clinton-so-far-ahead-in-polls-that-doesnt-even-think-abo/

    Hark! Is that another elitist head exploding whilst now thinking about President Trump?

  32. The BigBlueCat

    People here think it is a massive winner for him. All polling indicates otherwise. At the election, there were still a couple of polls predicting a Trump win. I have not heard of any poll indicating that Trump is not doing worse since the shut down. Normal people would take this as pretty strong evidence that the issue is not the “winner” you think it is. Instead, people here like to attack polling, and I have explained, in detail, why this is not a strong argument.

    Is it a “winner”? Who knows … I doubt it will be a single issue that would cost him the next election, especially how the Democrats are refusing to negotiate or offer any other viable alternative. I think you expect the voters to be Socialist-compliant – that may be so for the Democrats, but the rest of the US don’t see it that way (as evidenced by the Senate mid-terms late last year).

    Polls are only as good as the question that’s asked, and who has been asked. Plenty of scope for bias to enter into poll results. The only poll that will matter will be the 2020 presidential election – this issue will be long gone by then, and Trump’s overall performance will play a more significant part in his re-election campaign. I don’t expect Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris to offer much resistance – I expect there are other Democrats more motivated and politically connected (albeit more useless) that will beat them to the DNC nomination.

    Talk to us again in 2020, Hark. Please.

  33. Rae

    Meh. The PGiC can deliver his speech from the presidential palace at Mar-a-Lago.

  34. Megan

    Yet none of it means that it is unreasonable to view the win as narrow.

    Only to people who argue with reality in the forlorn hope they can make it mean something else. Is it because an angel has to feel it’s worldviews matter, regardless of what the truth is?

  35. Mother Lode

    Yet none of it means that it is unreasonable to view the win as narrow.

    If the Hilderbeest did not understand the rules that had been in place and followed for centuries then I think it is a pretty good thing she lost. How much else would she screw up if she attained the Presidency.

    If Farkin’ thinks that kind of boneheadedness is an insignificant detail then he is as stupid as her.

    Two pees in a pot.

    Hillary is like Wile E Coyote, bubbling with schemes and machinations, but ultimately her ineptitude means she only ends up hurting herself.

  36. Who’s this Farken character who thinks the Cat is a Trump echo chamber?

    When Trump announced his run for presidency, there were precisely two Trump fans here, and one of those is a complete nutter.

    Everyone else was either anti-Trump, or had misgivings about him, myself included. It is only his performance during the election and since that has garnered him support here.

    The echo chamber is where you live.

  37. struth

    When Trump announced his run for presidency, there were precisely two Trump fans here, and one of those is a complete nutter.

    Er, hum………………..I was obviously the other one?

  38. Iampeter

    Battle of wills? LOL.
    You mean battle of the witless leftists, over nonsense like the SOTU which isn’t really needed anyway, so who cares? Oh right. When you don’t know anything about politics, this kind of trivia helps pretend you’re having deep political discussions.

    Also, it looks like it’s a battle Trump lost in yet another characteristic back flip.

  39. Iampeter

    When Trump announced his run for presidency, there were precisely two Trump fans here, and one of those is a complete nutter.

    Support for Trump was pretty overwhelming at the Cat from the get go because he was the only one talking about immigration, which is the only issue, the leftists that dominate Cat comments threads care about.

    When it became more apparent that he was a pretty terrible candidate, who was basically running like a 1920’s anti-trade and anti-immigrant, democrat candidate, his supporters at the Cat doubled down and became even more feral.

    Also curious who you think the “complete nutter” Trump fan is at the Cat?
    I mean, how can you tell him apart from the other nutters?

  40. John A

    candy #2916002, posted on January 24, 2019 at 1:00 pm

    A win is a win.

    Ms Clinton’s time is over. The Dems now have Ms Cortez to promote. She’s very pretty and appeals greatly to young gals especially – very important voters in the future, and I suspect that is the reason they love her.
    She said something about the earth being destroyed in 12 years by climate change, directed at the young folk.

    12 years, eh?

    Then she won’t reach the minimum age qualification (35 IIRC) to be able to run.

  41. JC

    Iamapeter

    List your ideological beliefs in bullet form. It’s about time we see what you really believe.

  42. None

    I’m seriously tempted to make a large donation to GetUp! to see if they can employ a much better class of trolls. The dolts they are sending around at the moment must be the work experience kids or something.

    Haha, bless you Gibbo. The current crop really are boring bat shits.

  43. None

    I don’ t think POTUS needs Congress to make a SOTU speech. He probably cancelled his request for permission only.

  44. JC

    Harksie

    Want to lay a bet the wall will get built? More specifically Trump will spend or obtain the $5.7 billion.

    Yes? We escrow of course.

  45. Iampeter

    Iamapeter

    List your ideological beliefs in bullet form. It’s about time we see what you really believe.

    LOL. I list them in EVERY SINGLE THREAD. I’m basically always repeating myself here. One of you idiots even criticized me for that.

    How about this, why don’t you list YOUR beliefs?
    That’ll be a change.

  46. a happy little debunker

    Donald should present his SOTU address to the Senate chamber

    Lots of space in the all-round balcony for any House Reps that want to show up, along with the entire Supreme Court and plenty of room for the Cameras.

    The only thing he really needs is an invitation from Mike Pence.

  47. JC

    Iamapeter.

    No you don’t. Stop lying. You spend all your time criticizing others, but we still have no idea of your belief system. We’re still waiting.

    Harksie

    You piker.

    In fact both of you meatheads are big time pikers.

  48. Iampeter

    No you don’t. Stop lying. You spend all your time criticizing others, but we still have no idea of your belief system. We’re still waiting.

    Hahahaha, you are beyond parody. That’s what YOU clowns keep doing.
    You have no arguments, only insults.

    Go ahead, put forward one of your ideas. I bet it’ll be teenage SJW-level ignorant, like the crap I’ve gotten from Infidel Tiger or Fisky on the two occasions I’ve cornered those idiots into actually trying to say something.

    That’s why you’re avoiding it. Like all the loud dummies here, you don’t know anything about politics.

  49. JC

    As I said, you’re a piker, Iamapeter.

  50. struth

    He’s an anarchist.
    Human beings are units and all will be just dandy if we all walk the planet with no borders singing kumbaya.
    To Iampoopoo, the term “Freedom is not free”, is complete bullshit, it’s the natural state of humans.
    NBR….No Borders Required.
    Pure Ahistorical ignorance on a stick.
    But those that fought and died for his freedom he arrogantly dismisses.
    And that’s where men need to teach this arrogantly little upstart a lesson he’ll never forget.

    Harken has absolutely nothing either, and the more they comment here, the more it shows and the better it is for our cause.

  51. Iampeter

    LOL who’s piking?
    We just had a whole thread where I explained the fundamentals of Western Civilization and why it’s not based on Christianity. Pretty clearly laid out my positions there.
    Don’t tell me you didn’t read any of it and just popped in to hurl insults?

    Oh wait. That’s exactly what you did.

    So, who’s the piker?

    Come on. Tell us what you believe. You’ve spent YEARS on this blog. Surely you can say a single thing about politics that amounts to more than a pretentious “hurumpf”.

  52. Er, hum………………..I was obviously the other one?

    Sorry, Struth. You must’ve been drowned out by the others. I think Zippy was one too. I was thinking Tailgunner and srr.

  53. JC

    Iamapeter

    You’re a piker. Nothing else needs to be said. I’ve asked you to list your ideological beliefs in bullet points and all I see is calamari ink plastered over the screen.

    Just a sad piker.

  54. Iampeter

    JC, I literally just linked you to a thread listing my position. You are a dishonest piece of shit aren’t you.

    You are a politically illiterate leftist, as are the overwhelming majority of posters at the Cat.

    You’re the only one piking because you know I’m right.

  55. JC

    Iamapeter

    I asked you to list your ideology here in bullet points. It was a simple request and most certainly not onerous. Your link sent me to an earlier comment I posted asking you to list your current medications as I believe you’re delusional and agitated, which concerns me about your well being.

    Now all I’m getting from you are blasts of squid ink.

    List your positions or just SFTU, you piker.

  56. Fisky

    Iampeter is a Randroid, in case anyone wants to know.

  57. Iampeter

    List your positions or just SFTU, you piker.

    You first.

    I agree it’s not onerous and since I list my positions in EVERY thread, you can go first this time.

    But we’re not going to be playing this game where political illiterates like you can pretend we’re having a discussion, when you know nothing about the topic and have no business on political blogs.

    Disproving that you are a politically illiterate leftist will take one sentence from you.
    If you know what you’re talking about, that is.

    I’m not holding my breath.

  58. Iampeter

    So, you’re going to pike while accusing me of piking?
    Makes sense.
    This is the same as your usual formula of criticizing my ad hominem, only to then engage in ad hominem.

    You are a bogan-level, ignorant leftist.

  59. Iampeter

    Anytime you wanna have a chat about politics JC, we begin by you conceding you know nothing about the subject, then I’ll think about teaching you some of the basics.

  60. JC

    More piking, more squid ink. Sad.

  61. Iampeter

    You should look up what “projection” means LOL.

    You don’t need to keep saying the same thing. Proving me wrong and showing you are not a politically illiterate leftist will only take one sentence. It’s that easy.

    But you can’t do it can you? You don’t know anything about politics and have no business being here.

  62. Megan

    I agree it’s not onerous and since I list my positions in EVERY thread, you can go first this time.

    Incorrect use of the word EVERY. Untestable moral positions, even with added preening, don’t count.

  63. Iampeter

    Megan, any honest person would agree I’m always listing my positions to the point of repeating them verbatim at times. Whether you agree with them or not.
    The fact that you think the issue here is that might not be the case in literally every thread, as opposed to the obvious fact that JC doesn’t know what he’s talking about, so can’t engage with me in any way other than insults and evasion, means you are pretty dishonest too.

    Also, give me an example of “untestable moral position”?

    Or better yet, wise up and don’t be another JC.
    When you don’t know the first thing about a topic, don’t try to take a pretentious tone with those that do.

  64. JC

    The entire site is covered in ink. Great work, Iamapter. In fact sadder than sad.

  65. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #2916336, posted on January 24, 2019 at 6:45 pm

    Iampeter,

    I’m so glad to learn that you’re willing to discuss your ideology.

    Suppose someone arrives at the border of a sovereign state suffering from an incurable, fatal and highly contagious disease with the purpose of crossing into that state’s territory.

    Does the state have the right to stop that person entering its territory?

  66. Iampeter

    Then stop piking.
    Tell us your political positions.
    I’m begging you to prove me wrong and demonstrate you are not a politically illiterate leftist.

    This is very easy to someone who knows what he is talking about.

    In any case, I won’t be responding to you again, if you can’t lay out what you believe.

  67. LOL who’s piking?
    We just had a whole thread where I explained the fundamentals of Western Civilization and why it’s not based on Christianity. Pretty clearly laid out my positions there.

    No, no, you didn’t even know that Christian writers like Isidore of Seville in the West and Stephenus in the East where translating and commentating on Aristotle in the sixth century. That through Isidore’s Etymologiae Christian scholars throughout the first millennium had Aristotle’s Categories and On Interpretation available to them. That Syriac Christians were translating Aristotle into Arabic in the sixth and seventh century. That Augustine and Boethius among many others infused Plato’s works, and other Greek writers, into the Christian canon. The idea that Greek writings were spurned by Christianity is historical rot. These are basic historical facts.

  68. Tim Neilson

    Untestable moral positions, even with added preening, don’t count.

    I agree Megan, but in fact some of Iampeter’s moral positions are testable.

    It’s just that he never responds whenever anyone posits a perfectly realistic scenario that would test his positions.

    Like the question I posed above which he’s failed to answer about half a dozen times, even where he’s responded to later comments on the same thread.

    If it were anyone else, we’d conclude that the commenter in question was a risible pusillanimous turd who, whenever faced with having to justify his proclamations of the superiority of his insights, scurries off, hides, and engages in comfort masturbation to sooth his terrors.

    But of course we know that Iampeter is the only person on this site who isn’t intellectually confused (because he’s told us so), so obviously he’ll have no problem defending his positions. Some day.

  69. Tom

    Iampeter is a Green-voting, far left lunatic who thinks Cats are so stupid we will accept he’s an anarchist libertarian. We used to have a “libertarian” like him here years ago (his name has slipped my mind — he was a farmer’s son from WA who went to live in a Thai tourist resort because of the free availability of cute chickybabes); he fled because the site was no longer leftwing enough for him.

  70. Tel

    Tom, yeah I agree. Someone who looked up a few Randian keywords and now repeats a phrase here and there but doesn’t quite know what the words mean. That’s why he never answers any specific questions. A real Randian would feel honour bound to at least have a go at specifics.

  71. Tel

    Back to the original question of the speech, how about good old CGI?

    The Democrats are all about modern interpretations of the Constitution to keep it relevant (well except when it suits them like the 2nd Amendment) so do the speech on greenscreen and CGI into some standard Congress digital backdrop that surely must exist somewhere.

    Hand out copied on DVD … satisfies the Constitutional requirements, and everyone can see he’s right there giving the speech to Congress. It’s as real as Holywood and Democrats have already accepted anything Holywood says is true. They can’t argue.

  72. Iampeter

    If it were anyone else, we’d conclude that the commenter in question was a risible pusillanimous turd who, whenever faced with having to justify his proclamations of the superiority of his insights, scurries off, hides, and engages in comfort masturbation to sooth his terrors.

    Except we’ve been over this point numerous times, in numerous threads. Here is one example.
    Now until you concede that it’s you who is a moron who has no arguments, evades the arguments presented, then just asks the same question again, pretending you’re having a political discussion, there’s nothing further for us to discuss.

    I’m not going to be helping politically illiterate, leftists like you, pretend you’re having a political discussion.
    Especially given that when you are clearly proven wrong, as I have once again done here, you will just double down and keep going, like the vile, dishonest moron, that you are.

  73. Iampeter

    Tel, do you support the constitution?
    What’s the purpose of the constitution? What does it do that was never done before in political history?

  74. Tracey

    I’d like to thank the two trolls who took over this thread for reminding me that I haven’t relived the glory of election night 2016 for quite a while. That’s tonight sorted. It never gets old.

  75. Tel

    So a quick point list:
    * No answer on whether Adam Smith was a “leftist”.
    * No answer on whether the US founding fathers were Christian.
    * No answer on whether nation states are “collectivist” (but you have already said they are).
    * No answer on the question of a nation state booting out people who they decide don’t belong there.

    Good to see your unbroken track record is in such great shape.

    As for the USA, they wanted to create a government with limited powers. The same thing had been attempted before with Magna Carta, but the Americans had a pretty good go at it by itemizing every specific government power, and then declaring everything else off limits. I would support it if it really did limit government … at least I support the gist of what they were trying to achieve. I support anything that works in practice to limit the power of government.

  76. Iampeter

    Good to see your unbroken track record is in such great shape.

    What are you talking about?

    As for the USA, they wanted to create a government with limited powers. The same thing had been attempted before with Magna Carta, but the Americans had a pretty good go at it by itemizing every specific government power, and then declaring everything else off limits. I would support it if it really did limit government … at least I support the gist of what they were trying to achieve. I support anything that works in practice to limit the power of government.

    Limit powers of the government to what?
    Why?

  77. Iampeter

    Oh and btw Tel, I’m already indulging you by letting you have another go at answering the most basic of questions, that someone who knows what he is talking about would’ve easily answered.

    Instead I get the usual boilerplate about “limited government”.

    You may as well have just said, the constitution creates a constitutional government to be governmenty and political and stuff and things.

    That’s the level you’re at.

    But yes please continue to condescend to me in more threads. It makes perfect sense.

  78. Iampeter, do you admit that through Isidore’s Etymologiae, Christian scholars throughout the first millennium had Aristotle’s Categories and On Interpretation readily available to them? Do you concede that this fact alone renders your claim regarding Christianity and Greek thought in tatters? And, by implication, that your claim that Christianity did not bring forth Western civilization is now badly listing, taking on water and very likely beyond recovery.

  79. Tel

    What part of “limited” do you find confusing?

  80. Tim Neilson

    Except, Iamashiteater, that this is what you said in response to the question, in the thread you linked to.

    No I’m not answering anymore weird, totally confused and inane questions that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and are just derailing. You need to stop posting and start reading. I strongly recommend the link I posted earlier in this thread as a good starting point.

    Which isn’t an answer at all.

    You’re the liar.

  81. candy

    My thoughts are that Iampeter and Hark are very smart educated men/ladies.

    It’s just they hate Trump. That weird overwhelming hate of him that colours everything they say. Because they don’t recognise that employment is great under Trump and there is some peace from nuclear threats. Troops withdrawn from useless wars. This is excellent stuff. If this was a Dem. Prez. they would be overjoyed, blooming, so so happy and rightly so.

    But its Trump and they hate him so much every argument is coloured and influenced. It’s just them. Let them be because nothing you can say can influence them. Really, let it be. You can’t change people.

  82. Iampeter

    Which isn’t an answer at all.

    You’re the liar.

    You mean aside from what I said in posts #2743301, for example?

    You know very well, I was very patient that entire thread answering your moronic questions, but you’re still trying to suggest otherwise, even though anyone can check for themselves.

    You’re the liar.
    And a moron to boot.

    There’s nothing else for us to discuss you trash.

  83. JC

    Tel
    #2916378, posted on January 24, 2019 at 7:34 pm
    Tom, yeah I agree. Someone who looked up a few Randian keywords and now repeats a phrase here and there but doesn’t quite know what the words mean. That’s why he never answers any specific questions. A real Randian would feel honour bound to at least have a go at specifics.

    He’s a huge squid ink spraying pikes.

  84. Iampeter

    What part of “limited” do you find confusing?

    What part do you find clarifying? Limited to what and why?

    This is an EASY question. Unlike today’s politically illiterate conservatives, the founders had a specific function for the government in mind. They explicitly stated what that was.
    You don’t know what that is.

    Stop arguing with me. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

  85. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter,
    Actually you’re right – you did give an answer.
    So apologies for accusing you of being dishonest.
    But you’ve still been evading the issue because you know that your answer blows your loony open borders ideology clean out of the water.
    Once it is accepted that a state does have the right in some circumstances to deny entry to foreigners, it’s clear that someone’s “right” to cross into a foreign country is not unqualified.
    Therefore if you’re claiming to have a coherent theory about “rights” you have to be able to explain the principle by which one determines when a sovereign state is entitled to refuse entry or not.
    Saying that there may be “special circumstances” justifying “temporary” refusal of entry is just dodging the question.
    People who say that a sovereign state has an unqualified right to determine who does or doesn’t enter its territory do have a coherent theory about the relations between a sovereign state and non-citizens, whether you agree with it or not.
    You don’t.
    You’ve just got a “yes but no” absolutist dogma which you admit is bogus in some instances, but no idea how to try to articulate a principle which justifies that.
    You’re the confused participant in the immigration debate.

  86. Iampeter

    Actually you’re right

    That’s all you really ever need to say to me and you might stop looking like an idiot all the time.

    Once it is accepted that a state does have the right in some circumstances to deny entry to foreigners, it’s clear that someone’s “right” to cross into a foreign country is not unqualified.

    Nothing is unqualified. I’ve repeatedly explained what the right wing position on the function of government is and how to apply it to all issues, including immigration. This was addressed in the original thread, why are you asking this again?

    Saying that there may be “special circumstances” justifying “temporary” refusal of entry is just dodging the question.

    No one is saying anything about “special circumstances”.
    A rights protecting government means only things that violate rights are illegal and the government should take action. That means if someone murders, steals, has an infectious disease and needs to be quarantined, etc. Whether someone is an immigrant/citizen/whatever has nothing to do with anything.
    All of this was pretty clear in the original post. Why are you asking this again?

    You literally have no understanding of what has already been explained to you and are asking unbelievable questions, with a tone of smugness. You are retarded and I will not be responding to an imbecile like you again.

  87. Tintarella di Luna

    Retarded eh? Well goodness me haven’t seen that word ascribed to anyone in the last thirty years except of course by Gillian Triggs to describe her own very disabled young daughter – it seems some people are just stuck in the benighted past

  88. dover_beach

    Iampeter, I note that you are still not admitting that through Isidore’s Etymologiae, Christian scholars throughout the first millennium had Aristotle’s Categories and On Interpretation readily available to them, and that this fact alone renders your claim regarding Christianity and Greek thought in tatters?

    A rights protecting government means only things that violate rights are illegal and the government should take action. That means if someone murders, steals, has an infectious disease and needs to be quarantined, etc. Whether someone is an immigrant/citizen/whatever has nothing to do with anything.

    Why can’t a self-governing people deny entry to a foreigner who is a convicted felon? Surely a people determined to secure their freedom through self-government should be able to exclude entry to their territorial jurisdiction to those with a history of violating rights in their own country or elsewhere? Furthermore, you have still not demonstrated that a foreigner, whether or not they are a convicted felon, has a right to enter any territorial jurisdiction of which he is not a member whatever their circumstances.

  89. Iampeter

    Retarded eh? Well goodness me haven’t seen that word ascribed to anyone in the last thirty years except of course by Gillian Triggs to describe her own very disabled young daughter – it seems some people are just stuck in the benighted past

    Oh, is there an issue with that word?
    That would be quite surprising.
    For example, the word “autistic” is used as a mantra here at the Cat. It’s a matter of routine.
    Is that really all that different?
    It’s just a token part of the overall toxic nature of many posters here that are triggered due to their own ignorance and try to drive off anyone who might know what they’re talking about.
    I don’t recall anyone having any issues with this in any previous thread.

    At least when I use the word, I’m using it accurately.

  90. Iampeter

    Retarded eh? Well goodness me haven’t seen that word ascribed to anyone in the last thirty years except of course by Gillian Triggs to describe her own very disabled young daughter – it seems some people are just stuck in the benighted past

    Oh I dunno. The word “autistic” is used routinely thrown around here in place of arguments and no one seems to have an issue with it.
    At least when I use ad hominem, it’s at the end of a thread where I’m exhausted from repeating myself to idiots, who shouldn’t have been engaged with to begin with.

    At least I use the word accurately.

  91. Tim Neilson

    A rights protecting government means only things that violate rights are illegal and the government should take action. That means if someone murders, steals, has an infectious disease and needs to be quarantined

    If you choose to categorise protection from disease as a “right”, why isn’t there exactly the same “right” to be protected against various other types of potential harm?

    That is, if there is thought to be a serious risk that a prospective entrant will cause material harm to the lawful inhabitants, the state has the right to refuse admission.

    As soon as that’s understood, the next question is who gets to decide what constitutes such a serious and material risk, both as laws of general application and as administrative decisions in specific cases.

    It can’t be the prospective entrant, or otherwise you’re empowering them to violate the lawful inhabitants’ “right” to be protected from serious and material risk.

    The answer must be the state. Or, I suppose, you could establish a global authority with powers to override a sovereign state’s wishes in the matter. Is that the libertarian position?

    That means if someone murders, steals, has an infectious disease and needs to be quarantined, etc.

    That “etc.” is a key point. i.e. how do we determine what constitutes a sufficient threat? Who gets to decide what constitutes a sufficient threat. See above.

    Once again you’ve failed to identify any principle by which a prospective entrant should in any circumstances have any “right” to override a sovereign state’s decision about what is necessary to protect the “rights” of its lawful inhabitants.

  92. Iampeter

    Piker.

    You’re even more dishonest than Tim.
    You’re still calling me that even after my post #2916841.

    You’re the only piker here.
    You know nothing about politics.
    You have no arguments.
    All you do is insult me and then run away.

    You are a politically illiterate leftist, that has no business on a politics blog, derailing threads with your nonsense.

  93. The BigBlueCat

    candy
    #2916513, posted on January 24, 2019 at 9:52 pm
    My thoughts are that Iampeter and Hark are very smart educated men/ladies.

    Actually, candy, they are rusted on to their ideologies – Iampeter is an Ayn Rand Objectivist / laissez-faire Capitalist while Hark is a run-of-the-mill Socialist (probably GetUp!). They are good at repeating ideologies but few have really challenged their perspectives (why would they – Iampeter and Hark would never admit any errors in their political beliefs). Both Randian and Socialist ideologies are full or holes (reality always gets in their way). Ayn Rand never struck me as a particularly happy person ….

    But unless you’ve “joined the dots” and agree with them, you are their enemy. They’re not here to educate anyone, but they are here to mock and troll you. Never feed the troll.

  94. Iampeter

    Actually, candy, they are rusted on to their ideologies

    Well, if you reject ideology, you’ve dealt yourself out of the game.

    They are good at repeating ideologies but few have really challenged their perspectives (why would they – Iampeter and Hark would never admit any errors in their political beliefs)

    Not “why” would they, but “how” would they, since they’ve rejected ideology?
    Without ideology, you don’t have a chance against someone like Hark, who is wrong about everything, so what chance to you think you have against an Objectivist?

    It seems like you think the key to knowledge isn’t clarity, integration and resolving contradictions, but knowingly embracing ignorance, disintegration and vagueness.

    OK. Then you’re not going to be proving anybody wrong about anything.

    But unless you’ve “joined the dots” and agree with them, you are their enemy. They’re not here to educate anyone, but they are here to mock and troll you. Never feed the troll.

    Why did you say this? You’re posting this in a thread where the exact opposite is the case and you posted it anyway?

    I was going to say your post was very intelligent, even if wrong about everything. You definitely “get it”. But you seem terrified of the effort of having to think for yourself, want to float along mindlessly with the group and are triggered by those of us who make that impossible.

  95. The BigBlueCat

    Not terrified, Iampeter, but within this blog your views aren’t conservative (which you seem to think makes them Socialist), and your views are extreme right but not authoritarian. Others may not have picked up on your missives … but a few have. Yes, for the most part you have played a bit of a game, but in the dim past you did let the cat out of the bag with regards to the ideology you adhere to. On the whole it doesn’t sit well with most Cats when you insult their intelligence, but I know where you’re coming from.

    That means in one sense everyone can agree with you (personal liberty, individual rights, property rights, and government limited to protect them), yet you yourself haven’t “joined the dots” when it comes to unfettered immigration that challenges those very freedoms and rights. Your view is that everyone should have the freedom to go wherever they want, borders be damned, in the name of personal liberty, property rights and the pursuit of happiness. You’d be better with the Liberal Democrats than you would here (birds of a feather). As I said, you’re not here to educate …. if your laissez-faire political worldview ever became popular, reality will bite it in the bum very hard.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, Cats understand the threat to culture and society, our personal freedoms and our property, if we have fully open borders and let any number of people in and let them determine our politity and our social structure.

    Your view of rights is that they come from nature, whereas many Cats understand rights can only come from a rights giver. You will claim there is no God due to lack of evidence, yet you do not seek out the evidence that is (philosophically) abundant (eg. the cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, the irreducible complexity and the teleological argument, Liebnitz’ contingency argument, the argument from objective morality, the argument from personal experience, the argument from eye-witness accounts, etc, etc). I’d reckon you haven’t read the likes of Plantinga or Lane-Craig or Lennox, or wouldn’t understand Borde-Guth-Valenkin’s basic premise regarding time’s arrow and the big bang and what this means in terms of an infinite past. You’d be more comfortable with Dawkins, Krauss, Dennett, Harris and C. Hitchens.

    No, we know your type Iampeter – a champion in some areas, but an unrealistic idealist in so many others. But usually you are the very collectivist you criticise Cats as being.

  96. Iampeter

    Yes, for the most part you have played a bit of a game, but in the dim past you did let the cat out of the bag with regards to the ideology you adhere to.

    Not sure what games you mean but it’s not a secret. I just don’t proselytize. Also I prefer to say it my way instead of just throwing walls of quotes at people.

    On the whole it doesn’t sit well with most Cats when you insult their intelligence, but I know where you’re coming from.

    Then the intelligent posters at the Cat need to take it up with the unhinged dummies, or suffer by association. If you remain silent, you have nothing but yourself to blame for the Cat looking stupid.

    You’d be better with the Liberal Democrats than you would here (birds of a feather).

    Unless I’m misreading, this blog is advertised as “Australia’s leading libertarian and centre-right blog.”
    That means I’m already “with” the Liberal Democrats-ish.
    The way this blog is advertised is as one for people who categorically SUPPORT the laissez-faire political worldview.

    That means in one sense everyone can agree with you (personal liberty, individual rights, property rights, and government limited to protect them), yet you yourself haven’t “joined the dots” when it comes to unfettered immigration

    Immigration is also an individual liberty, so if you want to sacrifice individuals who are immigrating for the collective of the nation state/culture, then you’re already not agreeing in support for these values you listed. Not fully anyway.
    Now, why is this a big deal? Because then you go on to say:

    As I said, you’re not here to educate …. if your laissez-faire political worldview ever became popular, reality will bite it in the bum very hard.

    Well, whatever our disagreement on immigration, once you reject laissez-faire political worldview, you are rejecting capitalism and you’ve basically said something more left wing here than even Hark would say.
    This is what happens when you don’t have a really clear ideology that you adhere to as a matter of principle. Compromise a little bit and even in the same post you go full socialist.

    Your view of rights is that they come from nature, whereas many Cats understand rights can only come from a rights giver.

    That’s the same understanding all leftists believe too. They think rights are dictated by the state and many Cats think they are dictated by god, which is the same thing but with extra steps.
    Rights also don’t come from nature. Rights are a concept. It’s like arithmetic is a concept in math, thermodynamics is a concept in physics, rights are a concept in politics.
    The concept of rights deals with the question of how people should deal with each other. Why shouldn’t men treat each other like they treat animals? Because men are volitional. Men need to think and act in order to live and the only thing that can prevent them from doing so is other men using force. So, if men are going to live among each other they institute government to protect their rights to do so.
    Those of us who are consistently individualistic/right wing, will never advocate for this or that, “because nation state.” We advocate for a nation state BECAUSE it protects individual rights, not because it’s some mystical end in itself.

    You will claim there is no God due to lack of evidence, yet you do not seek out the evidence that is (philosophically) abundant

    We claim there is no Bigfoot because there is no evidence.
    We KNOW there is no god because the idea of the supernatural violates the law of identity.
    Also, if there were evidence for god, then it wouldn’t be god and wouldn’t require faith. Such are the circular arguments you get stuck in when trying to prove the self evidently false.

    This is also a big deal, because not understanding where rights come from and why, lead you to advocating for an authoritarian source of rights, just like Hark would, which in turn leads you to reject the laissez-faire political worldview, at which point you are officially on the same side as Hark.

    I’m really grateful for your post because it’s intelligent, it perfectly encapsulates everything wrong with the conservative movement and demonstrates how quickly you go full left wing, when you don’t have solid ideology and principles.

  97. JC

    Piker

    The LDP’s immigration policy is not open slather. Stop babbling.

  98. dover_beach

    We KNOW there is no god because the idea of the supernatural violates the law of identity.

    The attempt by Objectivists to disprove God by means of reference to the law of identity are all failures:

    For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.

    Not at all. There is no sense in which the idea of God violates the law of identity. The law of identity is simply, A=A, and since we can say God=God, that satisfies the law of identity.

    Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing.

    Sure, which is why God is thought immaterial and timeless in classical theism, which distinguishes him from the created order which is both material and subject to change.

    Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . .

    Indeed, this is what classical theists have always believed which is why they argued that being all-powerful did not entail the power or freedom of acting against one’s nature, i.e. irrationally or immorally.

  99. The BigBlueCat

    Thanks dover_beach … well put.

    The problem with Iampeter is that he is the ultimate collectivist – there is him (and those who subscribe to his worldview) and then there is everyone else, who he calls socialists. He’s not calling them Socialists (capital S) since that is reserved for Marxists, but socialists in that they ascribe to being social and where society is essential for human flourishing (which he doesn’t believe). Iampeter subscribes to Individualism (which is more than being just an individual, which of course we all are) – he looks to a government (rightly so) to protect his rights and identity, and not much more. The problem is, society expects more from a government (rightly or wrongly), so the Objectivist is left to rail against a reality they have no chance of changing. So they come here, like angry bears, looking for like-minded souls and finding none.

    That Catalaxyfiles is a “libertarian and centre-right blog” says much – Iampeter is really upset by the centre-right bit (which is perhaps the dominant mindset here), whereas the libertarian mindset shown here isn’t his brand of libertarian (though he desperately wants it to be).

    Individualism conveniently dismisses the concept of synergism (because it’s no longer individualism) – this is totally foreign to them, and it is one reason why more on the right won’t subscribe to Objectivism – it lacks civilisation to meet individual goals, because to rely on civilisation is to rely on society (the small s socialism he refers to). If we all went to Objectivism, as a species we’d die out! But I guess we’d be happy about it.

    Iampeter’s Objectivism shares atheism with Marxism – in order to promote the Objectivism ideology, there is only the individual, and they care not a whit where things come from – they only “know” it’s not from God (who to them can’t exist on ideological grounds). There’s is the circular reasoning – creation can’t be from God as there is no God, and since there is no God there are no laws other than nature. And nature can’t be from God, etc. But they can’t explain nature and its origins – it just “is” to them. Not even the 4 (5?) horsemen of atheism go that far – they ascribe all sorts of reasons for creation as long as God has nothing to do with it, despite the philosophical evidence to the contrary. Cripes, we even had Stephen Hawking state there is no philosophy, and then went on the philosophise all sorts of reasoning for the existence of the universe just so he didn’t have to claim “God”!

    Iampeter has an even bigger problem – he is fully cognizant of abstract objects, like numbers and thoughts and emotions, but he is unwilling to go the next step since someone told him (Ayn Rand and her acolytes I suppose) God musn’t exist “because”. God is an abstract mind – unencumbered by physicality, but intentional in nature. That Iampeter can’t begin to contemplate God shows how intellectually shy he is to concepts outside his worldview. Either that or he is fearful the whole ediface of Objectivism will come tumbling down. He is showing scant regard for the philosophical arguments for God’s existence – to him God doesn’t exist so the philosophical arguments have no merit. It should be the other way around – look at the arguments, then make a decision based on the reasoning and logic.

    But enough of this “dot joining” for now – stay tuned for future instalments from Iampeter in future threads. Just know where he is coming from.

  100. Iampeter

    Thanks dover_beach … well put.

    It’s not well put, it’s circular arguments as are any attempts to get around the law of identity.
    For example, saying god=god is the same as saying, something-that-does-not-exist = something-that-does-not-exist. If “god” could be quantified so as to meet the requirements of the law of identity then it’s not god, because its no longer supernatural. You’re stuck.

    The problem with Iampeter is that he is the ultimate collectivist – there is him (and those who subscribe to his worldview) and then there is everyone else, who he calls socialists.

    Having a coherent world view is not collectivism. Collectivism is putting something above the individual as the standard. For example, nation state, culture, etc. Collectivism is also rejecting laissez-faire.
    From our exchange here and the things you’ve said, you are absolutely a collectivist, you must see that, right?

    That Catalaxyfiles is a “libertarian and centre-right blog” says much – Iampeter is really upset by the centre-right bit (which is perhaps the dominant mindset here), whereas the libertarian mindset shown here isn’t his brand of libertarian (though he desperately wants it to be).

    This is where a lot of the confusion is.
    Objectivists are not libertarians, we are right wingers, because we are individualists.
    People who are collectivists are left wingers.
    So if I’m “upset” about anything, it’s that this blog is overrun by collectivists and therefore leftists, like yourself, and most other posters here, who for some reason think they are right wing.
    Given your posts, what makes you think you are anything near, “center-right?”
    You guys will say stuff that even Monty or Hark have never said, like explicitly rejecting laissez-faire.
    This kind of confusion is pretty fundamental.
    The occasional right winger that shows up, is generally chased off by the screaming dummies (which you are not, Blue).

    Iampeter’s Objectivism shares atheism with Marxism

    Atheism doesn’t share anything with Marxism, which is a Christian ideology, taking the idea of sacrificing the individual for a greater good, to it’s logical, horrifying conclusion. If not for two thousand years of Christianity, Marxism could never have worked.
    That’s why Marxism took off in very collectivist and death-cult-y, cultures like Europe and Asia, but never made much headway in America or the commonwealth, which are much more secular and enlightenment-based cultures and value the individual more. I.e. they are “Western”.

    God is an abstract mind – unencumbered by physicality, but intentional in nature.

    God isn’t an abstract concept, god is the violation of the law of identity. A self contradiction. Like the suggestion of a “mind unencumbered by physicality.” Self contradictions don’t exist, as they are self refuting.

  101. Iampeter

    Piker

    The LDP’s immigration policy is not open slather. Stop babbling.

    JC, adults are talking.
    You’re on a blog that covers topics you know nothing about and have no business here.

  102. dover_beach

    It’s not well put, it’s circular arguments as are any attempts to get around the law of identity.
    For example, saying god=god is the same as saying, something-that-does-not-exist = something-that-does-not-exist. If “god” could be quantified so as to meet the requirements of the law of identity then it’s not god, because its no longer supernatural. You’re stuck.

    Not at all. The law of identity is simply a law of thought that states A=A, which is to say that I cannot at once say that A=A as well as A=not A. So, in reference to God, if I say that God is timeless, I cannot also say that God is susceptible to change since that would contradict the law of identity.

    What Iampeter actually means by ‘quantified’ in this respect is not clear, but I suspect that the argument that he is relying upon trades on this ambiguity and therefore commits the fallacy of equivocation.

  103. Iampeter

    The concept of God is the attempt to conceive that A=not A.
    Since such a thing cannot exist, god cannot exist. It violates the law of identity.
    That’s all there is to it.

  104. dover_beach

    The concept of God is the attempt to conceive that A=not A.
    Since such a thing cannot exist, god cannot exist. It violates the law of identity.

    That is the stupidest argument on the internet. Show me a single classical theist that engages in precisely that error.

  105. Tel

    JC, adults are talking.

    Please don’t include yourself in that … you believe that Karl Marx was a Christian (you don’t really believe it but when it suits your argument you will put that forward).

  106. Tel

    Indeed, this is what classical theists have always believed which is why they argued that being all-powerful did not entail the power or freedom of acting against one’s nature, i.e. irrationally or immorally.

    That’s an interesting constraint … question is whether God is powerful enough to bypass logic itself or whether logic constrains God like it constrains everyone else.

    If God can bypass logic itself, then all bets are off … but it’s also impossible to discuss such a concept. If God must be constrained by logic then God at least becomes constrained by something, and we can start to probe further details (for example: does God run into Godel’s Theorem or not?)

  107. dover_beach

    That’s all there is to it.

    BTW, note his failure to clarify the use of ‘quantified’ in his argument. He can’t. It would be like an illusionist unmasking his trickery.

  108. dover_beach

    That’s an interesting constraint … question is whether God is powerful enough to bypass logic itself or whether logic constrains God like it constrains everyone else.

    If God can bypass logic itself, then all bets are off … but it’s also impossible to discuss such a concept. If God must be constrained by logic then God at least becomes constrained by something, and we can start to probe further details (for example: does God run into Godel’s Theorem or not?)

    Why is logic a constraint? The problem only appears if you believe that logic is a constraint. If you don’t, God, or you and I, are not constrained by logic. Look at it another way, how would power free you from the constraints of logic? How much power do I need to make A=B? No amount of power can do so because logic is not susceptible to power. If you want to drill into this debate, this post at Feser’s is a good place to start.

  109. Tel

    Look at it another way, how would power free you from the constraints of logic?

    Going insane seems a popular option right now, but I’m reluctant to make that step because I don’t see it as helpful.

    Here’s an example: in order to choose moral goodness you must have the free will to make a choice, because a mindlessly obedient automaton cannot be considered to have either moral vice or virtue. God wanted to create goodness so God was constrained to also create free will because there’s no other way to do it. As a consequence we live with evil, because that’s the nature of having a choice.

  110. Tel

    No amount of power can do so because logic is not susceptible to power.

    That’s essentially admitting that God is not all powerful.

  111. bespoke

    For a so called anti-collectivist this ‘some one was mean to me so you all are to blame’ added to when Dot proposed an I.Q test for immigrants, Imp jumped in and called it racist. Who is the Collectivist?

  112. dover_beach

    That’s essentially admitting that God is not all powerful.

    Not it isn’t. It is recognizing that logic and power are different things.

    Here’s an example: in order to choose moral goodness you must have the free will to make a choice, because a mindlessly obedient automaton cannot be considered to have either moral vice or virtue. God wanted to create goodness so God was constrained to also create free will because there’s no other way to do it. As a consequence we live with evil, because that’s the nature of having a choice.

    Yes, free will is a prerequisite of moral goodness, and given God has free will there was goodness and moral goodness before the creation of any human beings. But there is no ‘constraint’ here. Free will just is the freedom to deliberately choose a good or a bad course of action. If God wanted to create a rational animal, he is not ‘constrained’ in doing so by the laws of logic or the nature of the thing, rational animal; if he wants to make X he just makes X. Just as we are not constrained by the laws of logic or the nature of the thing when we make a calculating machine. We just make it. The only reason you think ‘constraint’ intervenes here is because of evil; that is, because free will opens the door to people making evil choices. But that isn’t a byproduct of free will any more than good choices are. Free will is simply a condition of those choices occurring at all.

  113. The BigBlueCat

    I agree with dover_beach … man – there is so much I want to add, but won’t, for now, other than:

    The fool says in his heart “there is no God”. Psalm 14:1

    Equally, it is a wise man who allows for the probability of God, and acts accordingly.

    IMHO

  114. The BigBlueCat

    So if I’m “upset” about anything, it’s that this blog is overrun by collectivists and therefore leftists, like yourself, and most other posters here, who for some reason think they are right wing.

    Hey Iampeter .. I don’t think I’m right wing – I think I’m centre-right (I can’t speak for others). Which means, yes, I am a long way left of your position (since you are so far off to the right by your own admission). But you need to admit that you are also a collectivist since you clearly separate yourself (a rightie) from everyone else whom you call left (really just left of your position, but not absolutely left although there are some who are). That you are blind (or in denial?) to this is a disappointment.

    But your whole concept of left-left-right is not your original idea, but doctrinally you will repeat it over and over again. I thought you could think for yourself as an individualist ….

  115. Tel

    Just as we are not constrained by the laws of logic or the nature of the thing when we make a calculating machine. We just make it.

    But we are constrained.

    If you make a calculating machine that produces crap answers then it’s not a calculating machine.

    At least, it’s not a calculating machine anyone wants. Why do you think that Intel was so embarrassed when they got hit with Spectre and Meltdown hardware bugs?

  116. Iampeter

    Blue, as someone who both rejects laissez-faire capitalism and still thinks you are center-right, I wouldn’t be calling anyone else a “fool.”

    Stuff like this is why for the longest time I thought people were just trolling me at the Cat.
    Who could possibly be this confused about politics?

    Like most posters here, I have no idea why you are on a political blog, much less taking any kind of smug tone. You’re not as bad as people like JC, who I imagine is on the spectrum, but you certainly know NOTHING about politics.

    Sloppy and lazy thinking around religion, along with a general rejection of ideas, is likely why you are this confused about everything.

  117. But we are constrained.

    If you make a calculating machine that produces crap answers then it’s not a calculating machine.

    Precisely, but isn’t what you’re suggesting re your example of free will. You admitted that free will cannot exclude the making of evil choices which is not the same as saying that God could have made a creature with free will that excludes the making of evil choices. The latter would show that God was not all-powerful but the former wouldn’t because because it is in principle impossible. God is all-powerful because he can create and sustain in existence whatever can in principle be created or sustained in existence.

  118. The BigBlueCat

    Iampeter – yeah, whatever …

  119. Iampeter

    No, not “whatever.” You’re not going to weasel out of this. Coming in here with this superior tone and then demonstrating you have no idea what you’re talking about and trying to pretend you’ve got the upper hand or something. This won’t fly.
    The fact that if you reject capitalism, you’re a leftist, should not be a point of any contention. We can disagree on a lot about politics, but that’s the basics. Even the stupidest progressive doesn’t need this explained.
    I can’t imagine what you even think politics is about? Arguing nonsense about god existing?

    You said earlier in the thread, Cat posters don’t appreciate me impugning their intelligence, well, I don’t appreciate being lectured, with a tone of pretentious smugness, by someone who literally doesn’t know anything about politics and trying to pretend they’ve “won” the “debate” or something.

    Just another day at the Cat…

  120. No, not “whatever.” You’re not going to weasel out of this. Coming in here with this superior tone and then demonstrating you have no idea what you’re talking about and trying to pretend you’ve got the upper hand or something. This won’t fly.

    You do this on every thread.

  121. Tel

    You admitted that free will cannot exclude the making of evil choices which is not the same as saying that God could have made a creature with free will that excludes the making of evil choices.

    Sure seems like the same thing.

    The latter would show that God was not all-powerful but the former wouldn’t because because it is in principle impossible. God is all-powerful because he can create and sustain in existence whatever can in principle be created or sustained in existence.

    Where do these principles come from? Some things are “in principle impossible” while other things are “in principle possible” but who decided that? Not God obviously … because those principles of what is possible or impossible constrain both us and God, therefore the principles of possibility and impossibility are more primal that God.

  122. dover_beach

    Sure seems like the same thing.

    How are they the same thing? The first claims that X is in principle impossible, while the latter is saying that X is not in principle impossible but rather that God lacked the power of making X. In other words, they are not the same thing.

    Where do these principles come from? Some things are “in principle impossible” while other things are “in principle possible” but who decided that? Not God obviously … because those principles of what is possible or impossible constrain both us and God, therefore the principles of possibility and impossibility are more primal that God.

    Not at all. Consider the ‘paradox of the stone’. The question is, can God can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift? The paradox plays on the illusion that if he cannot create such a stone his power is limited but the illusion rests on a self-contradiction. If we want to say that God can create self-contradictory things then not only can he make such a stone, he can go on to lift it. You can’t at once trade on the possibility of self-contradiction and then deny the possibility of self-contradiction. That is why the proper definition of all-powerful is the power to can create and sustain in existence whatever can in principle be created or sustained in existence. Anything short of that is not all-powerful, but anything beyond what is in principle possible is logically impossible/ self-contradictory/ incoherent.

  123. Tel

    The first claims that X is in principle impossible, while the latter is saying that X is not in principle impossible but rather that God lacked the power of making X

    No that’s not what was claimed. God is constrained BY the limits of what is possible.

    The question is, can God can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift? The paradox plays on the illusion that if he cannot create such a stone his power is limited but the illusion rests on a self-contradiction. If we want to say that God can create self-contradictory things then not only can he make such a stone, he can go on to lift it.

    Therefore the principle of non-contradiction is deeper and more primal than God, it must have existed before God, and it constrains God (as well as everyone else). Which means there is at least one thing more fundamental than God, and quite possibly a bunch of things. Better than that, we can systematically discover at least some of these by using logic.

  124. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Not at all. Consider the ‘paradox of the stone’. The question is, can God can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift? The paradox plays on the illusion that if he cannot create such a stone his power is limited but the illusion rests on a self-contradiction. If we want to say that God can create self-contradictory things then not only can he make such a stone, he can go on to lift it.

    not worded correctly. try this:

    can god create a stone he can never lift?

    can god kill himself, never to exist again? how do we know the devil hasn’t tricked him into it already?

  125. dover_beach

    No that’s not what was claimed. God is constrained BY the limits of what is possible.

    No, you are claiming that ‘all-powerful’ requires that God be able to perform the logically impossible, which is to say that he can create a stone heavier than he can lift and then he can pick it up. But, of course, it doesn’t mean that, it simply means that he can create whatever is logically possible.

    Therefore the principle of non-contradiction is deeper and more primal than God, it must have existed before God, and it constrains God (as well as everyone else).

    Not at all. Why must the PNC be more primal than God? The PNC is immaterial, just like God, it was never in the order of creation, again, just like God, so its silly to imagine that either at some time was created. The PNC is simply the recognition that contradictory positions cannot both be true. That is simply a proposition that is true in all places and at all times. And just as this is a timeless truth, it is also the case that God, being all-powerful, has the power to create whatever is logically possible.

  126. dover_beach

    not worded correctly.

    Actually, it is.

  127. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    nice way of avoiding the question

  128. dover_beach

    Which one? I answered the first earlier. As for the second, I think you can already gather the answer. He can’t because it is logically impossible and would be contrary to his nature, and no, the devil cannot ‘trick’ God.

  129. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Which one? I answered the first earlier.

    well no you didn’t, because I inserted the word never, which god now has to deal with by limiting his own power, which he can’t do because it supposedly unlimited.

    as for the second, you hid the notion of can’t do it behind “impossible and contrary to his nature”, in other words he can’t do it, so his power is limited.

    surely god can do not only the impossible but miracles.

  130. dover_beach

    well no you didn’t, because I inserted the word never, which god now has to deal with by limiting his own power, which he can’t do because it supposedly unlimited.

    Oh, so you think God creating a stone which he then wills never to lift is a limit of his power? Not at all. If I decide to build a car I will never drive how is that a limitation of my power? It isn’t since I could drive it but I have willed never to do so. Or, it would be like saying that my decision to paint the car white, and not some other shade or colour, is a limitation of my power when making cars. The claim that it is makes no sense.

    as for the second, you hid the notion of can’t do it behind “impossible and contrary to his nature”, in other words he can’t do it, so his power is limited.

    I haven’t hid anything. If something is in principle impossible, like creating a round square, it is no limitation of one’s power never to build it precisely because it is not in the realm of possibility. It is simply absurd. Just as God ‘killing himself’ is logically impossible because he is eternal and immaterial, and contrary to his nature because he is perfectly good.

    surely god can do not only the impossible but miracles.

    Miracles are not the impossible.

  131. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    And, most importantly, determination to overcome obstacles and the deniers that are actively preventing affirmative action and holding Australia back.

    stale pale old balding white men are holding Australia back from the progressive chinese style utopia.

    we affirm, we affirm that you’re an idiot.

Comments are closed.