Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin

[Dukes]

So I bought this book about a month ago, and just got around to reading it. I'm only two chapters in but damn he makes sense. I'll transcribe a few passages below. If I find anything else interesting enough to post I'll bump this thread.

The Modern Liberal believes in the supremecy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. For the Modern Liberal, the individual's imperfection and person pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocqueville described as a softy tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny (some form of totalitarianism). As the word "liberal" is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more acurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist.

The Conservative must accept that the Statist does not share his passion for liberty and all the good that flows from it. The Statist does not acknowledge the tremendous benefits to society from the individual pursuits of tens of millions of others. The Statist rejects the Founders' idea of the dignity of the individual, who can flourish through ordered liberty, for one rooted in unpredictability, irrationality and, ultimately, tyranny.

It is observed that the Statist is dissatified with the condition of his own existence. He condemns his fellow man, surroundings, and society itself for denying him the fulfillment, success, and adulation he believes he deseves. He is angry, resentful, petulant, and jealous. He is incapable of honest self-assessment and rejects the honest by others of himself, thereby evading responsibility for his own miserable condition. The Statist searches for significance and even glory in a utopian fiction of his mind's making, the earthly attainment of which, he believes, is frustrated by those who do not share it. Therefore, he must destroy the civil society, piece by piece.

For the Statist, liberty is not a blessing but the enemy. It is not possible to achieve Utopia if individuals are free to go their own way. The individual must be dehumanized and his nature delegitimized. Through persuasion, deception, and coercion, the individual must be subordinated to the state. He must abandon his own ambitions for the ambitions of the state. He must become reliant on and fearful of the state. His first duty must be to the state-not family, community, and faith, all of which have the potential of threatening the state. Once dispirited, the individual can be molded by the state.

Mods: If for whatever reason posting peices of a book is against the rules just delete this thread.

[El Minion]

So I bought this book about a month ago, and just got around to reading it. I'm only two chapters in but damn he makes sense. I'll transcribe a few passages below. If I find anything else interesting enough to post I'll bump this thread.

The Modern Liberal believes in the supremecy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. For the Modern Liberal, the individual's imperfection and person pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocqueville described as a softy tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny (some form of totalitarianism). As the word "liberal" is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more acurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist.

The Conservative must accept that the Statist does not share his passion for liberty and all the good that flows from it. The Statist does not acknowledge the tremendous benefits to society from the individual pursuits of tens of millions of others. The Statist rejects the Founders' idea of the dignity of the individual, who can flourish through ordered liberty, for one rooted in unpredictability, irrationality and, ultimately, tyranny.

It is observed that the Statist is dissatified with the condition of his own existence. He condemns his fellow man, surroundings, and society itself for denying him the fulfillment, success, and adulation he believes he deseves. He is angry, resentful, petulant, and jealous. He is incapable of honest self-assessment and rejects the honest by others of himself, thereby evading responsibility for his own miserable condition. The Statist searches for significance and even glory in a utopian fiction of his mind's making, the earthly attainment of which, he believes, is frustrated by those who do not share it. Therefore, he must destroy the civil society, piece by piece.

For the Statist, liberty is not a blessing but the enemy. It is not possible to achieve Utopia if individuals are free to go their own way. The individual must be dehumanized and his nature delegitimized. Through persuasion, deception, and coercion, the individual must be subordinated to the state. He must abandon his own ambitions for the ambitions of the state. He must become reliant on and fearful of the state. His first duty must be to the state-not family, community, and faith, all of which have the potential of threatening the state. Once dispirited, the individual can be molded by the state.

Mods: If for whatever reason posting peices of a book is against the rules just delete this thread.

Straw man argument.

[sisterhellfyre]

Straw man argument.

You beat me to it, El Minion. My question was going to be "Hmm, Mark Levin, build strawman arguments much?"

It appears he subscribes to the Humpty Dumpty school of semantics: "My words mean whatever I want them to mean." Levin's definitions have no point of contact with the simple dictionary definition of liberalism:

"A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties."

How on earth does he manage to twist that upside down and sideways to into "Statism"?

I suppose it's nice, however, that he manages to string together enough big words and historical references that he can sound sort of intellectual. It's a nice break from the usual red-faced blowhards on TV and radio.

[Sacked by Croel]

The 20 second clock for liberals always cracks me up on his show.

[BroncoBuff]

Hahahaha ... the definition/derivation of the word "liberal" means absolutely nothing, and relying on such a thing to make your point is about the weakest argument ever. That essay is so loaded to the gills with simplistic platitudes, it is self-aggrandizing and self-cogratulatory, and most especially, it is simplistically conclusory.

Here's an example by me:

Conservatives believe the constitution does not matter, that the decision of the executive branch be followed without objection. Conservatives are against liberty and they stifle freedoms. Rigid conservatism defies our Constitution because it relegates the indivisual to second-class citizenship. Modern-day Conservatives are selfish and they condemn their fellow man, their surroundings, and this society itself for denying them the fulfillment, success, and adulation they believes they deseves. They are angry, resentful, petulant, and jealous. Conservatives are just plain bad people.


See? Anybody can throw out a bunch of conclusory, self-congratualtory platitudes.

[sisterhellfyre]

Hahahaha ... the definition/derivation of the word "liberal" means absolutely nothing, and relying on such a thing to make your point is about the weakest argument ever. That essay is so loaded to the gills with simplistic platitudes, it is self-aggrandizing and self-cogratulatory, and most especially, it is simplistically conclusory.

:lol: OK, I got your point, Buff. I don't normally fall back on dictionary definitions of terms like that, but I was so stunned by the load of tripe Levin's peddling that I hardly knew where else to begin. I'll try harder next time. Fair nuff?

[watermock]

Better to look at the mounting evidence that our Gov't is against it's own people.

[Garcia Bronco]

So I bought this book about a month ago, and just got around to reading it. I'm only two chapters in but damn he makes sense. I'll transcribe a few passages below. If I find anything else interesting enough to post I'll bump this thread.

The Modern Liberal believes in the supremecy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. For the Modern Liberal, the individual's imperfection and person pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocqueville described as a softy tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny (some form of totalitarianism). As the word "liberal" is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more acurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist.

The Conservative must accept that the Statist does not share his passion for liberty and all the good that flows from it. The Statist does not acknowledge the tremendous benefits to society from the individual pursuits of tens of millions of others. The Statist rejects the Founders' idea of the dignity of the individual, who can flourish through ordered liberty, for one rooted in unpredictability, irrationality and, ultimately, tyranny.

It is observed that the Statist is dissatified with the condition of his own existence. He condemns his fellow man, surroundings, and society itself for denying him the fulfillment, success, and adulation he believes he deseves. He is angry, resentful, petulant, and jealous. He is incapable of honest self-assessment and rejects the honest by others of himself, thereby evading responsibility for his own miserable condition. The Statist searches for significance and even glory in a utopian fiction of his mind's making, the earthly attainment of which, he believes, is frustrated by those who do not share it. Therefore, he must destroy the civil society, piece by piece.

For the Statist, liberty is not a blessing but the enemy. It is not possible to achieve Utopia if individuals are free to go their own way. The individual must be dehumanized and his nature delegitimized. Through persuasion, deception, and coercion, the individual must be subordinated to the state. He must abandon his own ambitions for the ambitions of the state. He must become reliant on and fearful of the state. His first duty must be to the state-not family, community, and faith, all of which have the potential of threatening the state. Once dispirited, the individual can be molded by the state.

Mods: If for whatever reason posting peices of a book is against the rules just delete this thread.


Wow. That nails them down pretty good.

[Garcia Bronco]

Hahahaha ... the definition/derivation of the word "liberal" means absolutely nothing, and relying on such a thing to make your point is about the weakest argument ever. That essay is so loaded to the gills with simplistic platitudes, it is self-aggrandizing and self-cogratulatory, and most especially, it is simplistically conclusory.

Here's an example by me:

Conservatives believe the constitution does not matter, that the decision of the executive branch be followed without objection. Conservatives are against liberty and they stifle freedoms. Rigid conservatism defies our Constitution because it relegates the indivisual to second-class citizenship. Modern-day Conservatives are selfish and they condemn their fellow man, their surroundings, and this society itself for denying them the fulfillment, success, and adulation they believes they deseves. They are angry, resentful, petulant, and jealous. Conservatives are just plain bad people.


See? Anybody can throw out a bunch of conclusory, self-congratualtory platitudes.


Except what Mark wrote is very much the truth and logical, what you posted is complete, utter, embrassing bull****. :P

Liberals do pursue utopia. Heck, my first day of civics class in the 8th grade we learned utopia is non-existent. Your idea of it and mine and everybody elses are two different things. So to enforce my utopia on you is tyranny. You'd be oppressed in some form.

[Rohirrim]

Wow. That nails them down pretty good.

I wish somebody would nail you down pretty good. Levin is a tool. If ever there was a group, or philosophy, more dedicated to human freedom than the liberal philosophers, I have yet to see it. Our Founders were as liberal as they come. The statists come from the Right. They want us ruled by executive edict, by corporate power, and by religious dogma. It is the Right that stamps out the flame of liberty in pursuit of its mediocracy and aristocracy. It is the Right which attacks art, music and the evolution of thought in defense of its own reactionary devotion to the status quo and dying traditions. It is the Right that is anti-change and anti-evolution. It is the Right that is anti-science. It is the Right that would bog mankind down in superstition and serfdom. It is the Right that burns books and records and attacks every new wave of human expression. It is the Right that works diligently to starve art out of existence. It is the Right that tries to force-feed the world its religious dogma while attacking those whose ideas would free us from the yokes of religion and superstition.

It is the Right that fulfills the warnings of Orwell. They are the "opposites," in that their goals are in direct opposition to their language. The Right cries "Freedom" while working toward tyranny. They cry "Liberty" while enhancing the power of government to spy on us. They cry "Equality" while selling the rights of the people out to the power of corporate conglomerates. They cry "Security" while installing their police state. They cry "Statist!" while exercising every power they possess to impose their corporatocracy on the rest of us. They point their fingers at the Left and yell "Robbers!" while stealing the wealth of our country.

Like their symbolic chieftain Cheney, they are the Iagos of our world, always fomenting suspicion, fear, division, hatred, and all the other petty failings of mankind just to manipulate the populace into ceding power and wealth to themselves. They are the tools of the aristocracy, hiding in their little think tanks, constantly dreaming up new ways to seize power. They would turn us all into pack animals while spouting the language of democracy.

[Spider]

willing to say anything for a buck .........

[Garcia Bronco]

I wish somebody would nail you down pretty good. Levin is a tool. If ever there was a group, or philosophy, more dedicated to human freedom than the liberal philosophers, I have yet to see it. Our Founders were as liberal as they come. The statists come from the Right. They want us ruled by executive edict, by corporate power, and by religious dogma. It is the Right that stamps out the flame of liberty in pursuit of its mediocracy and aristocracy.

And that is all in your mind. It's not actually true. Liberals are for personal freedoms and Mark points that out in the excerpt above, but when we have people promoting and passing laws for the so called good of the people whether they like it or not, then liberals are every bit as much what you claim conservatives to be.

What Mark doesn't address in the excerpt above is that these conservative and liberal idealogies exist within the same person. You also confuse religious dogma with conservatives. And while some religious dogmatic people may be conservatives, it doesn't mean all conservatives are religiously dogmatic. Further more liberals are not always socially liberal either. Either way a traditional conservative is generally for less government in pursuit of perfect state and liberals are for more government in pursuit of a perfect state. A carrot that doesn't actually exist for either. However, given the option I am for less government because there is nothing more free than less Government.

You also use words like right and left as if that actaully means anything. It doesn't. It's all in your mind. You talk about Cheney and spying as if this means anything. It doesn't. Governemnt spys on it's people and it doesn't matter right or left. That's why it is wise to take the power from the Government. This is a conservative ideal. Less Governemnt.


Less Government
Less Government
Less Government
Not more government.

[Rohirrim]

And that is all in your mind. It's not actually true. Liberals are for personal freedoms and Mark points that out in the excerpt above, but when we have people promoting and passing laws for the so called good of the people whether they like it or not, then liberals are every bit as much what you claim conservatives to be.

What Mark doesn't address in the excerpt above is that these conservative and liberal idealogies exist within the same person. You also confuse religious dogma with conservatives. And while some religious dogmatic people may be conservatives, it doesn't mean all conservatives are religiously dogmatic. Further more liberals are not always socially liberal either. Either way a traditional conservative is generally for less government in pursuit of perfect state and liberals are for more government in pursuit of a perfect state. A carrot that doesn't actually exist for either. However, given the option I am for less government because there is nothing more free than less Government.

You also use words like right and left as if that actaully means anything. It doesn't. It's all in your mind. You talk about Cheney and spying as if this means anything. It doesn't. Governemnt spys on it's people and it doesn't matter right or left. That's why it is wise to take the power from the Government. This is a conservative ideal. Less Governemnt.


Less Government
Less Government
Less Government
Not more government.

The conservatives in this country have been beating us over the head with their religiousity since the 80s and you say I "...confuse religious dogma with conservatives?" I swear, sometimes the **** you put on here is just laughable. Conservatives have made religiousity their ****ing marching banner! And now you say they shouldn't be associated with it? ****ing mind boggling. We have much more to fear from the Right. Why? Because they control the majority of the wealth. The Left wants government to serve the needs of the people. The Right wants government to serve the needs of the aristocracy.

[Garcia Bronco]

The conservatives in this country have been beating us over the head with their religiousity since the 80s and you say I "...confuse religious dogma with conservatives?" I swear, sometimes the **** you put on here is just laughable. Conservatives have made religiousity their ****ing marching banner! And now you say they shouldn't be associated with it? ****ing mind boggling. We have much more to fear from the Right. Why? Because they control the majority of the wealth. The Left wants government to serve the needs of the people. The Right wants government to serve the needs of the aristocracy.

Again. You are making false claims. Conservatives are politically for less Government. The conservatives do not control the majority of the wealth. This is all in your mind and not based on any fact because such a thing cannot be quantified. First off people are rarley one or the other. The rich control the majority of wealth and they can be either liberal or conservative What you have a problem with is Government control. It doesn't matter if it's a conservative or a liberal, the government is only for protecting and expanding it's power. That's why I am politically conservative. I am for less Government. Pure and simple. It what you are as well. Think about it.

[Spider]

Again. You are making false claims. False ? is this a joke ?

Conservatives are politically for less Government. This is false , Conservatives are for smaller government in SOME areas , But much larger in other areas ..... The conservatives do not control the majority of the wealth. that isnt from the lack of trying This is all in your mind and not based on any fact because such a thing cannot be quantified. i think it could be First off people are rarley one or the other. to a point , but once you kick in abortion , the chips fall hard line The rich control the majority of wealth and they can be either liberal or conservative What you have a problem with is Government control. Not true , the rich tend to lean conservative because the Cons tend to give more tax shelters ... It doesn't matter if it's a conservative or a liberal, the government is only for protecting and expanding it's power. That's why I am politically conservative. I am for less Government. Pure and simple. It what you are as well. Think about it.and it is all hogwash

[sisterhellfyre]

If ever there was a group, or philosophy, more dedicated to human freedom than the liberal philosophers, I have yet to see it. Our Founders were as liberal as they come.

:notworthy:

Wow, Roh. Awesome rant and counter. For both substance and style, it's one of the best I've seen around here in a while. It's even better for its aim at Garcia, probably the biggest contrarian crackpot in our merry blue-&-orange gang.

[Garcia Bronco]

:notworthy:

Wow, Roh. Awesome rant and counter. For both substance and style, it's one of the best I've seen around here in a while. It's even better for its aim at Garcia, probably the biggest contrarian crackpot in our merry blue-&-orange gang.

It's really not. It lacks any fact about what liberalism and conservatism actually is with regard to the human condition. It neglects the fundamental truth that everyone is serving their own self interests. So to act as if one is more noble than the other under the guise of objectivity is amusing. Tyrants be it liberal or conservative in governemnt are still tyrants. They only true way to combat this is by having less government.

[gyldenlove]

I find it quite funny to be honest, in America you can either be conservative and thereby be associated by proxy with people like 2xBush, Cheney, Reagan, Limbaugh, Hannity; or you can be liberal and be associated with Obama, Clinton, Biden, Olbermann; or you can be independent and be associated with any number of nutjobs.

No matter which doctrin you subscribe to, you are automatically labeled with a number of policies. Fact is that people who describe themselves as conservative are as different from one another in terms of political beliefs as a conservative and a liberal.

I will bet any amount of money that Garcia does not believe in everything Cheney does, or everything Limbaugh does and that neither Cheney nor Limbaugh agrees with Garcia. I will also bet that I agree with Garcia on some things even though I am anything but conservative.

As long as these empty political labels pervade the discussion it will be impossible to reach any kind of concensus. Do away with labels and accept individualism, only then will you get a government working for the people.

[Garcia Bronco]

I find it quite funny to be honest, in America you can either be conservative and thereby be associated by proxy with people like 2xBush, Cheney, Reagan, Limbaugh, Hannity; or you can be liberal and be associated with Obama, Clinton, Biden, Olbermann; or you can be independent and be associated with any number of nutjobs.

No matter which doctrin you subscribe to, you are automatically labeled with a number of policies. Fact is that people who describe themselves as conservative are as different from one another in terms of political beliefs as a conservative and a liberal.

I will bet any amount of money that Garcia does not believe in everything Cheney does, or everything Limbaugh does and that neither Cheney nor Limbaugh agrees with Garcia. I will also bet that I agree with Garcia on some things even though I am anything but conservative.

As long as these empty political labels pervade the discussion it will be impossible to reach any kind of concensus. Do away with labels and accept individualism, only then will you get a government working for the people.

"Billy Idols gets it, I don't understand why everyone doesn't"

[Rohirrim]

Again. You are making false claims. Conservatives are politically for less Government. The conservatives do not control the majority of the wealth. This is all in your mind and not based on any fact because such a thing cannot be quantified. First off people are rarley one or the other. The rich control the majority of wealth and they can be either liberal or conservative What you have a problem with is Government control. It doesn't matter if it's a conservative or a liberal, the government is only for protecting and expanding it's power. That's why I am politically conservative. I am for less Government. Pure and simple. It what you are as well. Think about it.

And yet, every time the conservatives get power they grow the government and attack civil rights and scientific progress. Think about it.

[sisterhellfyre]

It's really not.

Contrarian? Check.

Crackpot? It's only a matter of time.

To paraphrase Lenin: given time, you'll provide your own rope.

[Rohirrim]

:notworthy:

Wow, Roh. Awesome rant and counter. For both substance and style, it's one of the best I've seen around here in a while. It's even better for its aim at Garcia, probably the biggest contrarian crackpot in our merry blue-&-orange gang.

:thanku: Of course, going after Garcia is like throwing rocks over the ocean with the goal of hitting water.

[Rohirrim]

I find it quite funny to be honest, in America you can either be conservative and thereby be associated by proxy with people like 2xBush, Cheney, Reagan, Limbaugh, Hannity; or you can be liberal and be associated with Obama, Clinton, Biden, Olbermann; or you can be independent and be associated with any number of nutjobs.

No matter which doctrin you subscribe to, you are automatically labeled with a number of policies. Fact is that people who describe themselves as conservative are as different from one another in terms of political beliefs as a conservative and a liberal.

I will bet any amount of money that Garcia does not believe in everything Cheney does, or everything Limbaugh does and that neither Cheney nor Limbaugh agrees with Garcia. I will also bet that I agree with Garcia on some things even though I am anything but conservative.

As long as these empty political labels pervade the discussion it will be impossible to reach any kind of concensus. Do away with labels and accept individualism, only then will you get a government working for the people.

Man is a social animal. It's what has gotten us this far. We work together. What moves the world are social groups that support ideas, although I suppose many ideas can be borne from individuals (and often are). Political individuality is romantic, but impotent. While I believe that rights are a province of the individual, political action requires numbers. Garcia has associated with the Right for a very long time. He, like many of his ilk, are now trying to distance themselves from the smoking ruin of the conservative movement. Don't be an enabler. ;D

[Garcia Bronco]

Man is a social animal. It's what has gotten us this far. We work together. What moves the world are social groups that support ideas, although I suppose many ideas can be borne from individuals (and often are). Political individuality is romantic, but impotent. While I believe that rights are a province of the individual, political action requires numbers. Garcia has associated with the Right for a very long time. He, like many of his ilk, are now trying to distance themselves from the smoking ruin of the conservative movement. Don't be an enabler. ;D

Politically I am centrist. You've missed the mark again, but you are doing exactly what we are talking about. Giving labels asif that sums up a person's ideals.

[Smiling Assassin27]

I wonder how many here have read the damn book....

[Garcia Bronco]

Contrarian? Check.

Crackpot? It's only a matter of time.

To paraphrase Lenin: given time, you'll provide your own rope.

It's amusing that a gender switcher would me a crackpot.

[gyldenlove]

I wonder how many here have read the damn book....

What book?

[Garcia Bronco]

I wonder how many here have read the damn book....

We're just going off the OP.

[Rohirrim]

I wonder how many here have read the damn book....

I've read Mein Kampf. Given the selections you quoted, it sounds similar.

[Smiling Assassin27]

I've read Mein Kampf. Given the selections you quoted, it sounds similar.


Every post of yours confirms your affinity for 'Rules For Radicals'.

..or 'The 1001 Dumbest Things Ever Said'

[Rigs11]

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." JFK-[September 14, 1960]

[Bob]

Straw man argument.

Stupid man's response to what you cannot intellectually address, or understand. Truth may be hard for you to swallow, but it doesnt make it false.

[Bob]

I wish somebody would nail you down pretty good. Levin is a tool. If ever there was a group, or philosophy, more dedicated to human freedom than the liberal philosophers, I have yet to see it. Our Founders were as liberal as they come. The statists come from the Right. They want us ruled by executive edict, by corporate power, and by religious dogma. It is the Right that stamps out the flame of liberty in pursuit of its mediocracy and aristocracy. It is the Right which attacks art, music and the evolution of thought in defense of its own reactionary devotion to the status quo and dying traditions. It is the Right that is anti-change and anti-evolution. It is the Right that is anti-science. It is the Right that would bog mankind down in superstition and serfdom. It is the Right that burns books and records and attacks every new wave of human expression. It is the Right that works diligently to starve art out of existence. It is the Right that tries to force-feed the world its religious dogma while attacking those whose ideas would free us from the yokes of religion and superstition.

It is the Right that fulfills the warnings of Orwell. They are the "opposites," in that their goals are in direct opposition to their language. The Right cries "Freedom" while working toward tyranny. They cry "Liberty" while enhancing the power of government to spy on us. They cry "Equality" while selling the rights of the people out to the power of corporate conglomerates. They cry "Security" while installing their police state. They cry "Statist!" while exercising every power they possess to impose their corporatocracy on the rest of us. They point their fingers at the Left and yell "Robbers!" while stealing the wealth of our country.

Like their symbolic chieftain Cheney, they are the Iagos of our world, always fomenting suspicion, fear, division, hatred, and all the other petty failings of mankind just to manipulate the populace into ceding power and wealth to themselves. They are the tools of the aristocracy, hiding in their little think tanks, constantly dreaming up new ways to seize power. They would turn us all into pack animals while spouting the language of democracy.

Both parties seek to take away freedoms from the individual and give it to the state. I suspect that like many conservatives, those left of center will see too much evidence to support "their" party and drift to the new "I" party -- thats all about freedoms accross the board.

[Rigs11]

Conservatives are always saying less government until it comes to interfering with gays getting married,banning abortion, and wiretapping your ass.

[Bob]

Conservatives are always saying less government until it comes to interfering with gays getting married,banning abortion, and wiretapping your ass.

I think you are pretty much right.

I am still figuring out that there will be somethings I dislike personally if I am going to enjoy true freedom, its a hard shift to make. But along with greater freedom, must come a willingness of Big Brother to let consquences teach. You want drugs fine -- but dont expect the state to "bail you out" but let consquences teach, and if INDIVIDUALS, want to bail folks out, fine -- but not the state. Same thing should apply to business.

[Bob]

Every post of yours confirms your affinity for 'Rules For Radicals'.

..or 'The 1001 Dumbest Things Ever Said'

One sure sees the "rules" being used alot by posters here...

[Garcia Bronco]

And yet, every time the conservatives get power they grow the government and attack civil rights and scientific progress. Think about it.

Government does that. It's not a conservative/liberal issue. It's a Government issue.

[Garcia Bronco]

Conservatives are always saying less government until it comes to interfering with gays getting married,banning abortion, and wiretapping your ass.

There exist liberals that don't like abortion and think it's wrong.
There exist liberals that support less freedom of privacy with regard to communication
There exist liberals who believe that gays should not have their marriage recognized by the Federal Government.

[orinjkrush]

IMHO both "conservatives" and "liberals" are ultimately about power:
the power of the "old" elite versus the power of the "new" elite.

it's sad our species seems to need hierarchies.

[sisterhellfyre]

It's amusing that a gender switcher would me a crackpot.

LMAO, Garcia. You (and one or two others) trot that out every now & again, usually when something I've said strikes too close to home. Nice try, but it's still a swing and a miss.

Thanks for playing, and we have a wonderful consolation prize waiting for you backstage.

[Rigs11]

There exist liberals that don't like abortion and think it's wrong.
There exist liberals that support less freedom of privacy with regard to communication
There exist liberals who believe that gays should not have their marriage recognized by the Federal Government.Ahh as usual splitting hairs. I will add "the majority" in all my future posts .

[Garcia Bronco]

LMAO, Garcia. You (and one or two others) trot that out every now & again, usually when something I've said strikes too close to home. Nice try, but it's still a swing and a miss.

Thanks for playing, and we have a wonderful consolation prize waiting for you backstage.

Instead of calling people names, why don't you try and enter the discussion based on the discussion? Calling me names like crackpot and such isn't contributing. You threw the first stone, and then to a degree can't handle it when it's thrown right back at you.

[Garcia Bronco]

Ahh as usual splitting hairs. I will add "the majority" in all my future posts .

I don't even think you can make that claim. People don't fit in these labels you guys come up with or use.

[Rohirrim]

Every post of yours confirms your affinity for 'Rules For Radicals'.

..or 'The 1001 Dumbest Things Ever Said'

Better than being a puppet of the aristocrats.

[sisterhellfyre]

Instead of calling people names, why don't you try and enter the discussion based on the discussion?

That deserves a more serious answer.

I made my contribution to the discussion early on when I stated my reaction that Levin is a pseudo-intellectual hack. From that point, I've sniped, wisecracked, agreed here & there, but it's been basically an amusing sideshow for me. Entertaining, but not an important part of my day like having a complete and healthy breakfast.

I realized a while back that I was spending far too much time and energy on the pointless, neverending arguments here. I'm not going to change your mind, and I truly doubt that you (or other conservatives here, of whatever stripe or flavor) are going to change my opinions either. I keep visiting here because there are some interesting articles and some posters whose writings I truly enjoy. But I've cut way back on the amount I post because I simply don't enjoy it as much as I used to. I've just got better things to do with my time these days.

[Rohirrim]

All I see on here are the former champions of the Right on this board (Garcia, Bob, SA, etc.) now running for cover because their political wing has become a laughing stock, represented by bloated clowns like Rush and unindicted criminals like Cheney. Those who formerly only engaged in partisan rhetoric and parroted the attacks of their talking heads now stumble out of the smoke of their burned down house of crap crying, "Let's be reasonable!" Ha!

The Rightard philosophy birthed by Raygun has now crashed on the rocks and sank. It was a dismal failure. Why should anyone be surprised that partisan hacks like Mark Levin would lash out at the opposition like a frustrated toddler? Remove the timber from thine own eyes first, assholes. ;D

Where's LABF? I need a good cartoon.

[Garcia Bronco]

That deserves a more serious answer.



He might be a hack, but that doesn't mean the content doesn't deserve an honest discussion. I apologize for my previous comment. It's not how I wish to represent myself. I was merely making a point.

[Garcia Bronco]

I realized a while back that I was spending far too much time and energy on the pointless, neverending arguments here. I'm not going to change your mind, and I truly doubt that you (or other conservatives here, of whatever stripe or flavor) are going to change my opinions either. I keep visiting here because there are some interesting articles and some posters whose writings I truly enjoy. But I've cut way back on the amount I post because I simply don't enjoy it as much as I used to. I've just got better things to do with my time these days.

My mind is always open and it can be changed.

[Garcia Bronco]

All I see on here are the former champions of the Right on this board (Garcia, Bob, SA, etc.) now running for cover because their political wing has become a laughing stock, represented by bloated clowns like Rush and unindicted criminals like Cheney. Those who formerly only engaged in partisan rhetoric and parroted the attacks of their talking heads now stumble out of the smoke of their burned down house of crap crying, "Let's be reasonable!" Ha!

The Rightard philosophy birthed by Raygun has now crashed on the rocks and sank. It was a dismal failure. Why should anyone be surprised that partisan hacks like Mark Levin would lash out at the opposition like a frustrated toddler? Remove the timber from thine own eyes first, a-holes. ;D

Where's LABF? I need a good cartoon.


Your premise is all wrong, thus you conclusions follow the same path. Mark in the OP did not lash out like a child. You are projecting. I don't listen to talking heads. You do. You are projecting. Like I said in the first post of this thread. It's all in your own mind.

[sisterhellfyre]

He might be a hack, but that doesn't mean the content doesn't deserve an honest discussion. I apologize for my previous comment. It's not how I wish to represent myself. I was merely making a point.

First, I do appreciate the apology, and I respect where that's coming from for you (not wishing to present yourself that way). I've seen you make similar retractions in the past when confronted. That tells me that (despite your fondness for ascerbic, dismissive one-liners) there's probably more substance and integrity to you than some of our beloved garden-variety trolls.

(That said, shall we go sit 'round the campfire for a rousing feelgood round of Kum-Ba-Ya? After all, that's what we liberals like to do, right? [wink])

Second, about Levin's book: I find it really hard to engage in an "honest discussion" with someone who has been dishonest to history in writing his book. For a simple point just to begin with, the Founding Fathers were not at all "conservative" in the political parlance of their times: they were liberals of the Enlightenment, and real-life revolutionaries. To look back in time thru the lens of current political movements and call them "conservative" is nothing short of ridiculous.

That's only one example. From everything I've seen and read in sampling parts and pages of his book, Levin engages in arbitrary definition, revisionist history, strawman arguments, black-white polarization and hyperbole. That's not even a complete list of the fallacies he presents as straight fact.

He may well have some good points about personal responsibility and accountability for the consequences of behavior. Maybe even some other points too. It wouldn't be worth my time, however, to dig for the nuggets of principle buried in there somewhere.

Remember the old saying? "Don't get down in the mud and wrestle with pigs. You'll just get dirty, and the pig will enjoy it."

[Rigs11]

I don't even think you can make that claim. People don't fit in these labels you guys come up with or use.

really?the majority of conservatives don't call for smaller government?And then turn around and want to ban abortion, gay marriage?

[sisterhellfyre]

really?the majority of conservatives don't call for smaller government?And then turn around and want to ban abortion, gay marriage?

Hmm. Rigs, you've got wondering now. I wonder if some of the cat-herding that goes on here arises from a confusion of labels? Would we do better to split "conservatives" into separate subgroups based on what they're conservative about?

In one corner, we might have the "political/fiscal" conservatives. That might include people like Ron Paul and others advocating for smaller, less intrusive government. For that matter, it could include someone like Thomas Jefferson, who argued that the best government is the one that governs least. (Forgive me if it seems like I'm contradicting my earlier post about the Founding Fathers not being conservative. You're watching the process of ideas in development, and that's always messy.) Garcia Bronco and W*GS might fit into this category. I'm still sounding out the idea whether libertarians fit into this group or not.

(Excuse me now while I go wash my hands after typing W*GS' screen name. I feel so dirty.)

The next corner might be the "religious/social" conservatives. I think we've got a pretty good idea who numbers in this group, both on the airwaves and on the Mane. I don't have much patience or tolerance for this group of people as a whole. And to think I was one of them, once upon a time... but the doctors say I'm cured, and I feel much better now.

Next corner: the "military/economic" conservatives. This corner is the home of the military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, and recently represented in the White House by Bush the Second and Darth Cheney. The "Project for a New American Century" people presented this idea in a nutshell: the goal is to protect and preserve American "superpower" status and domination, and access to the resources we need to preserve our lifestyle, at all costs. "How dare those stupid Ay-rabs live on top of OUR oil???"

This part of the conservative spectrum includes the industrial corporate giants like Haliburton and Bechtel, and also the Wall Street kleptocracy.

I think maybe this deconstruction of modern "conservatism" might be a good fit, considering the growing identity crisis going on in the Republican party. The various factions don't sit nearly as well with each other as they used to, and some (like the religious/social crowd) feel they were taken for granted or even cynically used. And that's not beginning to factor in some of the generational differences showing up between the older and younger demographics of the religious/social conservatives!

I'll have to go ponder this one some more. :-)

[sisterhellfyre]

I don't even think you can make that claim. People don't fit in these labels you guys come up with or use.

Heh. Pot = kettle = black. Liberals don't fit in the labels that Levin came up with, either.

[Rohirrim]

Hmm. Rigs, you've got wondering now. I wonder if some of the cat-herding that goes on here arises from a confusion of labels? Would we do better to split "conservatives" into separate subgroups based on what they're conservative about?

In one corner, we might have the "political/fiscal" conservatives. That might include people like Ron Paul and others advocating for smaller, less intrusive government. For that matter, it could include someone like Thomas Jefferson, who argued that the best government is the one that governs least. (Forgive me if it seems like I'm contradicting my earlier post about the Founding Fathers not being conservative. You're watching the process of ideas in development, and that's always messy.) Garcia Bronco and W*GS might fit into this category. I'm still sounding out the idea whether libertarians fit into this group or not.

(Excuse me now while I go wash my hands after typing W*GS' screen name. I feel so dirty.)

The next corner might be the "religious/social" conservatives. I think we've got a pretty good idea who numbers in this group, both on the airwaves and on the Mane. I don't have much patience or tolerance for this group of people as a whole. And to think I was one of them, once upon a time... but the doctors say I'm cured, and I feel much better now.

Next corner: the "military/economic" conservatives. This corner is the home of the military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, and recently represented in the White House by Bush the Second and Darth Cheney. The "Project for a New American Century" people presented this idea in a nutshell: the goal is to protect and preserve American "superpower" status and domination, and access to the resources we need to preserve our lifestyle, at all costs. "How dare those stupid Ay-rabs live on top of OUR oil???"

This part of the conservative spectrum includes the industrial corporate giants like Haliburton and Bechtel, and also the Wall Street kleptocracy.

I think maybe this deconstruction of modern "conservatism" might be a good fit, considering the growing identity crisis going on in the Republican party. The various factions don't sit nearly as well with each other as they used to, and some (like the religious/social crowd) feel they were taken for granted or even cynically used. And that's not beginning to factor in some of the generational differences showing up between the older and younger demographics of the religious/social conservatives!

I'll have to go ponder this one some more. :-)

Just a few years ago, all of the Rightards were traveling in one big herd. They were happy to be in Iraq. They were pleased as punch to be making fun of the French. They were giddy to no end over ridiculing the medals of John Kerry and calling out the "traitors" who disagreed with their policies of torture and unilateral invasion. They were spewing every sort of label around, carte blanche. And now the party is over. The sun has come up. All we can see is the damage left by their orgy of stupidity.

So, they have splintered into their various subsets, the better to avoid responsibility. Even their dark lord, Cheney, is beginning to claim that he never said all the things that he did say. Of course, he can see indictments forming up in the distance. There's more denial going on around here than Peter and his roosters.

[Dukes]

Where's LABF? I need a good cartoon.

How's this one?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoons/toon060809.gif

[El Minion]

Stupid man's response to what you cannot intellectually address, or understand. Truth may be hard for you to swallow, but it doesnt make it false.


ROFL! Well edumicate me Big Brain Bob, how is that not a strawman argument.

In fact his definition is more apropos to conservatives: believes in the supremecy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. Wasn't Cheney claiming that the presidency was outside the purview of congressional and judicial checks and balances, i.e. an imperial presidency.

Or this which really describes the religious right and there attempt to impose their beliefs: The [Evangelical] searches for significance and even glory in a utopian fiction of his mind's making, the earthly attainment of which, he believes, is frustrated by those who do not share it. Therefore, he must destroy the civil society, piece by piece. E.g., teaching intelligent design and George Tiller

Or how about this: It is not possible to achieve Utopia if individuals are free to go their own way. The individual must be dehumanized and his nature delegitimized Isn't that what conservative want and do to gays and drug users.

From OP quote, Levin appeals to the lowest common denominator and preaches to his readers own prejudices without advancing anything new to the discussion, which goes to there current characterization, rightfully so, as a group bereft of any ideas. Ro and SHF have posted more insightful posts in the 24 hours this thread was started then Levin did in the months taken to write that drivel.........but what do I know, you're the Big Brain here Bob ROFL!

[Rohirrim]

How's this one?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoons/toon060809.gif

I don't know why, but it always shocks me how low you worthless ****ing rightards will go. I shouldn't be surprised anymore.

[Dukes]

I don't know why, but it always shocks me how low you worthless ****ing rightards will go. I shouldn't be surprised anymore.

Oh but those Hitler refrences the past 8 years were splended. Cry me a river.

[barryr]

Liberals have a habit of relying on feelings than facts. Those silly facts get in the way of a good argument filled with self-promotion and self-worth.

[Needa Pass Rush]

Here's an example by me:

Conservatives believe the constitution does not matter, that the decision of the executive branch be followed without objection. Conservatives are against liberty and they stifle freedoms. Rigid conservatism defies our Constitution because it relegates the indivisual to second-class citizenship. Modern-day Conservatives are selfish and they condemn their fellow man, their surroundings, and this society itself for denying them the fulfillment, success, and adulation they believes they deseves. They are angry, resentful, petulant, and jealous. Conservatives are just plain bad people.


See? Anybody can throw out a bunch of conclusory, self-congratualtory platitudes.


If this was true I would be proud of Obama.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Liberals have a habit of relying on feelings than facts. Those silly facts get in the way of a good argument filled with self-promotion and self-worth.

What gets me about modern "liberals" is that they appeal to science for support, but when they appeal to science, they appeal to unresolved problems in science and attempt to use them to support their ideology. Ha!

They take what is essentially the peripheral junk of science and count on it as truth. This is true of issues in apologetics regarding genetic gayness, abortion promotion, the conviction of crimes, and a number of other issues. Some more serious than others.

They appeal to the worst of science to make their best arguments, and many in the scientific community turn their backs on this so as not to rock the boat. Their interests are intertwined. However, those scientists will be looked back on retrospectively as no different than the peers of Galileo who sat idly by for the sake of keeping the political boat afloat. They choose to serve their political masters rather than to support truth. The scientists of Galileo's day were threatened by death. Today's bad scientists cling to their political affiliations for the sake of some ridiculous ideology...as if their desire to "change the world" supercedes the public devotion to proper scientific endeavor.

What was down is up, what was up is down.

[sisterhellfyre]

What gets me about modern "liberals" is that they appeal to science for support, but when they appeal to science, they appeal to unresolved problems in science and attempt to use them to support their ideology. Ha! .... What was down is up, what was up is down.

Oh, sure, why not. Pick your poison: so liberals appeal to science for support, but only to the whatever it was you said above.

How is that any worse than what conservatives do? You know, ignore the science that disagrees with their positions whenever possible, and change what they can't ignore? I'm betting you must have seen some of the controversy about Bush's science appointees editing text and fudging numbers in reports that didn't support the policies they wanted to implement.

(Just when did I fall through the looking glass, anyhow?)

[Bob]

Government does that. It's not a conservative/liberal issue. It's a Government issue.

But what at the core is wrong with the R leaders is that most of them dont believe in the constitution -- that we the people should have the power -- so they have some right leaning social views -- but so what if they also steal freedoms if given the chance.

[Bob]

Hmm. Rigs, you've got wondering now. I wonder if some of the cat-herding that goes on here arises from a confusion of labels? Would we do better to split "conservatives" into separate subgroups based on what they're conservative about?

In one corner, we might have the "political/fiscal" conservatives. That might include people like Ron Paul and others advocating for smaller, less intrusive government. For that matter, it could include someone like Thomas Jefferson, who argued that the best government is the one that governs least. (Forgive me if it seems like I'm contradicting my earlier post about the Founding Fathers not being conservative. You're watching the process of ideas in development, and that's always messy.) Garcia Bronco and W*GS might fit into this category. I'm still sounding out the idea whether libertarians fit into this group or not.

(Excuse me now while I go wash my hands after typing W*GS' screen name. I feel so dirty.)

The next corner might be the "religious/social" conservatives. I think we've got a pretty good idea who numbers in this group, both on the airwaves and on the Mane. I don't have much patience or tolerance for this group of people as a whole. And to think I was one of them, once upon a time... but the doctors say I'm cured, and I feel much better now.

Next corner: the "military/economic" conservatives. This corner is the home of the military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, and recently represented in the White House by Bush the Second and Darth Cheney. The "Project for a New American Century" people presented this idea in a nutshell: the goal is to protect and preserve American "superpower" status and domination, and access to the resources we need to preserve our lifestyle, at all costs. "How dare those stupid Ay-rabs live on top of OUR oil???"

This part of the conservative spectrum includes the industrial corporate giants like Haliburton and Bechtel, and also the Wall Street kleptocracy.

I think maybe this deconstruction of modern "conservatism" might be a good fit, considering the growing identity crisis going on in the Republican party. The various factions don't sit nearly as well with each other as they used to, and some (like the religious/social crowd) feel they were taken for granted or even cynically used. And that's not beginning to factor in some of the generational differences showing up between the older and younger demographics of the religious/social conservatives!

I'll have to go ponder this one some more. :-)

VERY thoughtful post!

I would add, that the crisis is made more complex by what I see as the R's "selling out" of what they claimed to be, and causing people to drop retrictive lables. The good thing about a crisis -- is not that it can be exploited, but that it can cause us to stop and re-consider what our values should be...basic questions about what does it means to be an American?

One good thing about Bush, (if it can be called "good") was his various power and liberty grabs got me (and millions of Americns) to throw out any party lable, and start looking more closely at how well each candidate would fight to protect personal liberties ... its not left right, its liberty vs slavery. It is my personal hope that if the Dem party continues to disrespect the Constitution (like the R's have done) that there can be a third party rise, that will only be concerned with a ballanced budget, and serving respectfully within the scope outlined by the founding fathers.

Well, I can hope cant I?

[Bob]

ROFL! Well edumicate me Big Brain Bob, how is that not a strawman argument.

In fact his definition is more apropos to conservatives: believes in the supremecy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. Wasn't Cheney claiming that the presidency was outside the purview of congressional and judicial checks and balances, i.e. an imperial presidency.

Or this which really describes the religious right and there attempt to impose their beliefs: The [Evangelical] searches for significance and even glory in a utopian fiction of his mind's making, the earthly attainment of which, he believes, is frustrated by those who do not share it. Therefore, he must destroy the civil society, piece by piece. E.g., teaching intelligent design and George Tiller

Or how about this: It is not possible to achieve Utopia if individuals are free to go their own way. The individual must be dehumanized and his nature delegitimized Isn't that what conservative want and do to gays and drug users.

From OP quote, Levin appeals to the lowest common denominator and preaches to his readers own prejudices without advancing anything new to the discussion, which goes to there current characterization, rightfully so, as a group bereft of any ideas. Ro and SHF have posted more insightful posts in the 24 hours this thread was started then Levin did in the months taken to write that drivel.........but what do I know, you're the Big Brain here Bob ROFL!

Thanks for a thoughtful response… and sorry for being a jerk – I want people to back up what they say sometimes, when I don’t always do it myself.

I wont argue the point that Cheney (and many of the R’s) expanded the role and scope of government – I am still conflicted on the Patriot Act, as I was all for it at the time -- and now if given the chance would have wanted something different – it should have had more built in/automatic limits and sunsets should have been built into any such law. I am still trying to make a more complete conversion toward personal liberties, and personal responsibilities before right and left.

Many of the arguments on the Mane (and in the media) are framed in terms of left and right – so neither side will have to choose to take responsibility of their role in the gradual (I would say rapid) shredding of the Constitution. Admittedly, its harder for a guy like me to see when “conservatives” take rights from those – that I may (in part) wish those I ideologically opposed didn’t have … a sad part of human nature toward tyranny.

The principle that I think conservatives should be headed toward is to respect and acknowledge that all freedoms (if outlined in the Constitution) should be protected – even if they go against some personal values. That means the right for Howard Stern to say any crass thing he wants and for the left to stomach a Prejean. The “right” has been guilty of violating personal freedoms – I think that the TARP money allocated by Bush, was in a way a power grab by government (that was one I was against, by the way.) The left who shouted about Bush’s violations of personal freedoms and used the Constitution to frame their argument seem as silent as the R’s were under Bush – so its more than the hypocrisy of both parties. Much, much more is now at stake, the closer we get to economic collapse. The further this derailed train goes off the track, the larger the problem, the more willing the government will be to grow powers it should not use under the pretext of saving us. Our silence now will make it harder for either side of the social political spectrum to get their own party leaders to listen to those who elected them, and the more serf-like WE ALL become. Cramming unlawful governmental powers back into the proverbial Pandora’s toothpaste tube, is more than difficult, it could become dangerous for those who try.

[sisterhellfyre]

Our silence now will make it harder for either side of the social political spectrum to get their own party leaders to listen to those who elected them, and the more serf-like WE ALL become. Cramming unlawful governmental powers back into the proverbial Pandora’s toothpaste tube, is more than difficult, it could become dangerous for those who try.

Good point, Bob. I don't remember the name of the book (and can't readily locate it on Amazon), but I've heard arguments over the years that governments rarely -- if ever -- give back to the people powers they have appropriated "for our own good" in times of crisis or emergency. Thom Hartmann has addressed that in at least one of his books, I'm sure.

And for the third party rising, with a focus on a balanced budget and individual rights? I'm right there with you hoping for that. I was really pulling for Ron Paul in the last primary cycle, but he was totally unacceptable to the political establishment. The problem is this: as the government gets bigger and bigger, providing more and more services from cradle to grave, more people get used to it. More people come to think they couldn't live without their favorite service, regardless of the cost. Pulling it all back down means that a lot of people are going to have to get used to doing for themselves with a lot less handed to them. California is facing that kind of crunch right now. It could be just a preview for what's ahead for the rest of us.

Interesting times....

[TailgateNut]

I wish somebody would nail you down pretty good. Levin is a tool. If ever there was a group, or philosophy, more dedicated to human freedom than the liberal philosophers, I have yet to see it. Our Founders were as liberal as they come. The statists come from the Right. They want us ruled by executive edict, by corporate power, and by religious dogma. It is the Right that stamps out the flame of liberty in pursuit of its mediocracy and aristocracy. It is the Right which attacks art, music and the evolution of thought in defense of its own reactionary devotion to the status quo and dying traditions. It is the Right that is anti-change and anti-evolution. It is the Right that is anti-science. It is the Right that would bog mankind down in superstition and serfdom. It is the Right that burns books and records and attacks every new wave of human expression. It is the Right that works diligently to starve art out of existence. It is the Right that tries to force-feed the world its religious dogma while attacking those whose ideas would free us from the yokes of religion and superstition.

It is the Right that fulfills the warnings of Orwell. They are the "opposites," in that their goals are in direct opposition to their language. The Right cries "Freedom" while working toward tyranny. They cry "Liberty" while enhancing the power of government to spy on us. They cry "Equality" while selling the rights of the people out to the power of corporate conglomerates. They cry "Security" while installing their police state. They cry "Statist!" while exercising every power they possess to impose their corporatocracy on the rest of us. They point their fingers at the Left and yell "Robbers!" while stealing the wealth of our country.

Like their symbolic chieftain Cheney, they are the Iagos of our world, always fomenting suspicion, fear, division, hatred, and all the other petty failings of mankind just to manipulate the populace into ceding power and wealth to themselves. They are the tools of the aristocracy, hiding in their little think tanks, constantly dreaming up new ways to seize power. They would turn us all into pack animals while spouting the language of democracy.


GB will have to get back to you later. Too much for his mind to digest.

BTW: I challenge some of the "toy soldiers/ little Cheneys" to dispute the points of your post.

[Bob]

Good point, Bob. I don't remember the name of the book (and can't readily locate it on Amazon), but I've heard arguments over the years that governments rarely -- if ever -- give back to the people powers they have appropriated "for our own good" in times of crisis or emergency. Thom Hartmann has addressed that in at least one of his books, I'm sure.

And for the third party rising, with a focus on a balanced budget and individual rights? I'm right there with you hoping for that. I was really pulling for Ron Paul in the last primary cycle, but he was totally unacceptable to the political establishment. The problem is this: as the government gets bigger and bigger, providing more and more services from cradle to grave, more people get used to it. More people come to think they couldn't live without their favorite service, regardless of the cost. Pulling it all back down means that a lot of people are going to have to get used to doing for themselves with a lot less handed to them. California is facing that kind of crunch right now. It could be just a preview for what's ahead for the rest of us.

Interesting times....

IF we bailout California,and reward idiocy, state by idiotic state will put out their hand, instead of curtailing their spending -- they are already getting in line. One of the few things we can do to save our nation from bankruptcy is radically spending less, and we are willing to suffer, IF we think the government isnt going to piss our pain away elsewhere, our payoff some union group soomewhere -- if we think it is unkind now, to say no to the minority number in crisis, then in two years we will have to say no to EVERY American, except the fraction of 1% who live above the law and reality.

Thants what R's and D's dont see clearly yet. If we "save" everyone, we all will go down into hyper-inflation, and collective proverty and pain we have never felt. By the time the masses "see it" it will be too late, except to finger point. I think some high up the food chain, would love to see and exploit that crisis to reshape America forever, into a more managable serf/master dynamic.

[Bob]

Good point, Bob. I don't remember the name of the book (and can't readily locate it on Amazon), but I've heard arguments over the years that governments rarely -- if ever -- give back to the people powers they have appropriated "for our own good" in times of crisis or emergency. Thom Hartmann has addressed that in at least one of his books, I'm sure.

And for the third party rising, with a focus on a balanced budget and individual rights? I'm right there with you hoping for that. I was really pulling for Ron Paul in the last primary cycle, but he was totally unacceptable to the political establishment. The problem is this: as the government gets bigger and bigger, providing more and more services from cradle to grave, more people get used to it. More people come to think they couldn't live without their favorite service, regardless of the cost. Pulling it all back down means that a lot of people are going to have to get used to doing for themselves with a lot less handed to them. California is facing that kind of crunch right now. It could be just a preview for what's ahead for the rest of us.

Interesting times....

I came to like Ron Paul's ideas, after I chewed on them for awhile -- ideologicly he is more like our founding fathers than any of these folks -- one of his problems is that he needs to much spit and polish from an image and presentation standpoint, to holdup well against an Obama or a Romney. His ideas are usually spot on, but unfortunately the package has to look and sound pretty too -- hate to say it, but I think I'm right, too many boobs watching tubes to ingnore the superficial voting block -- which may be the biggest voting block of all.