The News and Record recently recorded the two short (2 min.) videos below that are in essence the candidates introducing themselves to the electorate.
One candidate is prepared and speaking directly from his heart, something not difficult when guided by constitutional and biblical principles.The other is unprepared and speaking from crib-notes which is often the case for moral relativists who do not rely on basic principles from which to guide their lives and who's ethics consequently shift from issue to issue, and day to day. Thus the constant paper shuffle to keep it all straight.
Brad Miller
Bill Randall
Edit - Videos were wrongfully attributed to News and Observer. They are now correctly attributed to News and Record.
out
Those videos are from the News & Record, which is based in Greensboro, not the News & Observer, which is based in Raleigh.
ReplyDeleteMy mistake. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteCorrected.
I take extreme issue with your portrayal of the two candidates above.
ReplyDeleteSignficantly, your comments about Congressman Miller, " moral relativists who do not rely on basic principles from which to guide their lives and who's ethics consequently shift from issue to issue, and day to day"
MIller has shown more than 'basic principles' from which to guide his actions while in Congress. What, in your view, is not principled about his writing and supporting legislation intended to do away with predatory lending along with helping push through a bill recently aimed at giving our veterans a second GI bill and a chance at a better life when they return home.
I also listened, with great interest, to Mr. Randall's video but did not hear anything in his presentation that persuaded me he has a vision for our state. Pretty platitudes won't change Washington, only common sense and legislative hard work. I find Congressman Miller guided by Constitutional Principles while others merely use the term out of desparation. It's become an easy term to use while sadly, most do not understand what IS and what IS NOT constitutional.
First off, sending trillions of sweat earned American Citizen dollars to Big Bank Buddies is immoral governance.
ReplyDeleteMore over, assuming you are referring to HR-4953, Brad Miller's "writing and supporting legislation intended to do away with predatory lending" is little more than a fig leaf used as coverage for the sort of immoral governance that lead to Miller's support of the Bank Bailout. This legislation has been talked up quite a bit since a glowing NYT article appeared a couple of weeks ago, but the fact is that this legislation has only been introduced. Talking it up as though it has been passed is not moral governance and using it to cover for his corporate giveaways is beyond unethical governance.
As for the Constitution,
Brad Miller's voting history indicates that he interprets rights into and out of existence. While he is unable to divine the obvious intent of the Second Amendment, he seems able to create the right of abortion from the shadows of words elsewhere. Brad Miller's record indicates that he entirely unaware of the Tenth Amendment other wise he would not have supported ObamaCare. Concerning the interstate commerce clause, it seems Miller has found nothing it does not cover ... irregardless of the Tenth Amendment. And it goes on.
Remember, our Constitution was never tolerant of slavery. What allowed for slavery was an interpretation of the Constitution. It took an amendment to kill that interpretation. Today Brad Miller interprets a constitutional right to abortion, a constitutional right to kill another citizen where no such right exists in our Constitution.
This makes Brad Miller less ethical than the individuals who found a constitutional right for slavery ... at least slaves got life.
Miller is not guided by constitutional principal. Franky,the immorality of Miller's governance is staggering.
How you find constitutional principle in Brad Miller's governance, I do not know.
I could spend several hours responding to the drivel above.
ReplyDeleteObviously, you've decided the interpret the Constitution in whatever way happens to please you at the moment. But let me set you straight on several obvious errors above.
1/ Congressman Miller did not "interpret a constitutional right to abortion, a constitutional right to kill another citizen where no such right exists in our Constitution". This right was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1973. Neither Congressman Miller, nor any other Congressperson is "interpreting" this; it was set forth by a Supreme Court decision.
2/ You have George W. Bush to thank for the $700B bank bailout of 2008. the "big bank buddies" you refer to as much Republican "buddies" as democratic buddies.
3/ I find it laughable that you (whoever you are) seem to set yourself up as the moral compass for all that Congress has done. If you want to say you don't agree with decisions and laws passed, that's one thing, but cut out the moral lecturing. It's getting old and you don't, and never will, own a moral high ground.
As for Congressman Miller's introduced bill, that pretty much covers the "let's get rid of immoral governance". At least he's trying to end the "immoral" - see there's that word you love to throw around so much-- practice of predatory lending. that nasty practice is one of the main reasons our economy crashed.
4/ finally, I'd much rather have Congressman Miller's brand of governing than most other Congress members I've seen, met or read about. At least he tries to help our veterans, the middle class and the handicapped.
I am not sure what you mean by my interpretations -- you give no examples of the point you are attempting to make.
ReplyDeleteIt might be constructive to think of my approach to the Constitution as something similar to a fundamentalist's approach to the Bible. The words have meaning and intent of themselves that is not mine, but I accept their meaning at face value nonetheless. In those cases when intent is unclear I turn to The Federalist Papers to help define their intent through the thoughts of those who wrote the Constitution. Thus there is little room for interpretation in my approach to the Constitution.
As for Brad Miller's interpretation of the Constitution in regard to abortion: every time he voted to block partial birth abortion he based each vote on his interpretation of the constitution. The Supreme Court did not decide the constitutionality of partial birth abortion.
Similarly, when Brad Miller voted for ObamaCare he interpreted the 10th Amendment out of existence and the interstate commerce clause beyond recognition. As a result his vote for ObamaCare may be overturned by the Supreme Court. So, Brad Miller does interpret the constitution selectively, which conflicts with his a oath to defend the constitution, which leads to my charge of immoral governance by Brad Miller.
That being said, not even the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality. The citizenry is. The Supreme Court was wrong in their Plessy Vs. Ferguson decision, but over time the citizenry forced the decision to be overturned.
That brings us to your contention that I am not "the moral compass for all that Congress has done." I am but one moral compass for all that Congress, the Supreme Court and all of Governance has done. All citizens by virtue of their citizenship are such moral compasses. The fact that you abdicate your moral certitude and by extension your ability to label immoral governance as such, does not require me to follow suit.
In point two you claim I "have George W. Bush to thank for the $700B bank bailout of 2008". In fact, it was Pelosi's congress and Reid's senate that crafted the bill before presenting it to Bush. This is the constitutionally mandated process. Bush signed it with the credit crises acting as an economic gun to his head. He had no choice but to sign the bill; Reid/Pelosi knew it and freely ran with the freedom the situation offered.
So,no, I do not have Bush to thank for the Bank Bailout but rather those who crafted the bill.
As to point 4, the fact that you seem to be a moral relativist allows you a great deal of freedom in what you find to be moral governance. This is your choice and I will defend it until it leads a loss of liberty among the citizenry as it has with ObamaCare.
Belittlement is not an argument and less so when inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteDo you just sit around making this stuff up when it suits you? where do you get off saying to any reader, "The fact that you abdicate your moral certitude and by extension your ability to label immoral governance as such, does not require me to follow suit"
ReplyDeleteYou are NO judge of anyone's morals. I told you before to drop that crap. You sound like a fifth grader who is mad at someone who called her names ! You can disagree with a decision and even lie at its outcomes, as you have done constantly, but cut out the moral bull.
When a person claims that there is no standard for morality then that person becomes a moral relativist. That is not to say, though, that the person is amoral.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "You are NO judge of anyone's morals," you are defining yourself as a moral relativist albeit with an assumption on my part.
My assumption is that you believe that there is a valid moral reason for any action a person takes even if it is not readily apparent. That, although an act may look immoral to those watching, if one were look at it from a different perspective it may be perfectly moral.
If I didn't make this assumption I would be left with only one two choices -- that you are either amoral or immoral. If you were amoral you would not care enough to chastise my use of the word morality. Alternatively, I doubt you are immoral as I have never run across an immoral person before. (I know. It is a weak argument, but sometimes life experience is all we have to work with.) That leaves us with you being a moral relativist.
So now that we have established you as a moral relativist, something I have no personal problem with, we can say you have abdicated your moral certitude. Without moral certitude you have difficulty labeling immoral governance as such and by extension do not recognize my ability to do so.
I believe, though, I have not only the right to label immoral governance as immoral, but the duty to do so. All-the-while your moral relativism does not allow this of you. Your reaction to this is to tell me to stop?
In short your rejection of moral certitude has left you in the awful position of telling others (me in this case) how to live life.
If you had not abdicated your moral certitude in favor of moral relativity you would not be having these existential issues over my use of the word "moral".
I have met once with Brad Miller and exchanged e-mails on many issues in Congress. My concerns were always FOR individual Freedom, the ORIGINAL Constitution, common sense, and sustainable solutions. Without fail, we we ALWAYS on opposite sides of the issue with his reply condoning 'his' and Pelosi's opionions rather than the North Carolians he supposedly represents. His voting record indicates a Pelosi puppet rather than a North Carolina representative. He is part of the debt problem, the anti-freedom agenda, and the redistribution of wealth that is occuring in Washington. Our country needs a return to God, the real Constitution, fiscal responsibility, and individual FREEDOM. His voting record indicates he is unacquainted with all the above and therefore, is no longer needed in Washington. Bill Randall represents the strengths of America and the values that will lead us back to prosperity. He is the candidate of choice for the majority of the 13th District. May God Bless America!
ReplyDeleteAgreed
ReplyDeleteDid you agree with Mr Randall when he claimed that the oil spill in the gulf was caused by the international space station? He said that the space station was flying over the oil rig when it blew up and they used lasers to blow it up so that the enviromentalist could get their way. Do you really think this man is sane let alone capable of being our congressman?
ReplyDelete