Does Tyranny Not Spring From Democracy?

[Belly Bob]

A mature and insightful exchange of ideas? 

I must be in the wrong place. 

[NotBigdaddybloom]

“Crises is the rallying cry of the tyrant!”

James Madison

[NotBigdaddybloom]

1 hour ago, Belly Bob said:

A mature and insightful exchange of ideas? 

I must be in the wrong place. 

Shut up lib!

[Testadura]

2 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

 

Again, there is much to digest in this, and, again, I largely agree with it. I suppose this could eventually go back to the thread Badrouter posted... Does the end justify the means?

I get the entire "stick it to the man" mentality, but, at what cost to our institutions and government? At what cost to each of our own closest forms of representation. At what level of damage to our republic do we finally realize the potential error in direction? 

These were all the questions I intended to get asked. 

It is most amazing to see people applaud the eroding of these institutions, most, at least I hope that most, have no honest idea of the future they're creating by doing so. I think so many of the masses are taken to emotional response over reasoned thought, but, it could be they just want to see the world burn, or in this instance, the country or the duly established government burn. 

 

Great post.  "Does the end justify the means?" 

"I have only one passion: the love of liberty and human dignity.  All the forms of government are to me nothing but means, more or less perfect, to fulfill this holy and legitimate of passion of man."  A. de Tocqueville.  He might say, what are the institutions worth if they allowed (or facilitated) us getting here, and won't stop (or will assist in) our effective demise?

Great question.  I don't know.  So many moving parts, and what we're told and what we actually know ...  ???  Remember, we in America do NOT live in a theoretical state of nature, but nations vis a vis nations DO live in a state of nature.  And so, I expect my government to dissemble and omit for my benefit as an American.  The problem that we face today, as many see it, is that the Elites have too much, never-before-seen control over government for their own benefit to the detriment of 90% or 99% of this Country.

Is it possible that our institutions have been bad and failing for a long while, and we're just paying more attention to politics since Nixon, we know a bit more now given the Internet, and we've been getting more partisan since Nixon?  Our consciousness has changed in my lifetime, too.  Watch "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," or some other movie from around that time, and politics NEVER or hardly ever comes up in an adolescent comedy.

 

[HawgGoneIt]

27 minutes ago, Testadura said:

Great post.  "Does the end justify the means?" 

"I have only one passion: the love of liberty and human dignity.  All the forms of government are to me nothing but means, more or less perfect, to fulfill this holy and legitimate of passion of man."  A. de Tocqueville.  He might say, what are the institutions worth if they allowed (or facilitated) us getting here, and won't stop (or will assist in) our effective demise?

Great question.  I don't know.  So many moving parts, and what we're told and what we actually know ...  ???  Remember, we in America do NOT live in a theoretical state of nature, but nations vis a vis nations DO live in a state of nature.  And so, I expect my government to dissemble and omit for my benefit as an American.  The problem that we face today, as many see it, is that the Elites have too much, never-before-seen control over government for their own benefit to the detriment of 90% or 99% of this Country.

Is it possible that our institutions have been bad and failing for a long while, and we're just paying more attention to politics since Nixon, we know a bit more now given the Internet, and we've been getting more partisan since Nixon?  Our consciousness has changed in my lifetime, too.  Watch "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," or some other movie from around that time, and politics NEVER or hardly ever comes up in an adolescent comedy.

 

Politics was once a taboo subject, much as was the open discussion of one's religious beliefs. Today, mainly under anonymous characters, these subjects are broached and we are the worse for it in my personal opinion. People today try to pack one another neatly into a box with a D or R stamped on the lid, and, depending on the letter stamped on the box they place you in, they either discount your opinion or decide to avoid dealing with you etc. I have often said that not everyone can be packed so neatly into a box, so, to discount what someone says because you "think" their intent is different than your own is not only ignorant, but detrimental to society as a whole.

I suppose, I am a liberal as defined much earlier, as I certainly believe in liberty and the freedoms granted in thr bill of rights. I'm likely a social liberal to many, due to those same beliefs. I certainly love my country, but,  am not a populist. 

Does that make me a democrat or a republican? What difference does it make if I generally have the intent to protect all of our rights as humans, and to protect the institutions of government that we have lived with since the inception of our nation? 

 

 

[Belly Bob]

8 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Politics was once a taboo subject, much as was the open discussion of one's religious beliefs. Today, mainly under anonymous characters, these subjects are broached and we are the worse for it in my personal opinion. People today try to pack one another neatly into a box with a D or R stamped on the lid, and, depending on the letter stamped on the box they place you in, they either discount your opinion or decide to avoid dealing with you etc. I have often said that not everyone can be packed so neatly into a box, so, to discount what someone says because you "think" their intent is different than your own is not only ignorant, but detrimental to society as a whole. [...]

That's an interesting point. My mom used to tell me that it's impolite to talk politics or religion. I wonder whether that reflects a certain cracker-barrel wisdom that we've forgotten about.

Though I'm embarrassed to admit it, when I was young -- even into my early 20s -- if I heard someone say that he believed this or that, I'd think to myself, "Well, fuck you. You're obviously an idiot." I finally realized (1) that I was doing that and (2) how foolish it was. But I get the sense -- maybe I've spent too much time around here -- that many people do that well into their 30s, 40s, 50s, and beyond. 

[Testadura]

5 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Politics was once a taboo subject, much as was the open discussion of one's religious beliefs. Today, mainly under anonymous characters, these subjects are broached and we are the worse for it in my personal opinion. People today try to pack one another neatly into a box with a D or R stamped on the lid, and, depending on the letter stamped on the box they place you in, they either discount your opinion or decide to avoid dealing with you etc. I have often said that not everyone can be packed so neatly into a box, so, to discount what someone says because you "think" their intent is different than your own is not only ignorant, but detrimental to society as a whole.

I suppose, I am a liberal as defined much earlier, as I certainly believe in liberty and the freedoms granted in thr bill of rights. I'm likely a social liberal to many, due to those same beliefs. I certainly love my country, but,  am not a populist. 

Does that make me a democrat or a republican? What difference does it make if I generally have the intent to protect all of our rights as humans, and to protect the institutions of government that we have lived with since the inception of our nation? 

 

 

I'm not an ends-justify-the-means guy.  I believe in process and institutions.  I believe in fair play and respect.

This Country has been great due to its institutions and framework.  And I believe that institutions can go wrong but be repaired so that we don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water.

George Carlin thought that the public sucks , and it gets the gov't that it deserves.  The longer I live, the more I see ...

Like Denzel said in "Glory":

Colonel Robert G. Shaw:
Well, you won't get anything if we lose.  What do you want to do?

Trip:
I don't know, sir.

Colonel Robert G. Shaw:
It stinks, I suppose.

Trip:
Yeah, it stinks bad.  And we all covered up in it.  Ain't nobody clean.  Be nice to get clean though.

Colonel Robert G. Shaw:
How do we do that?

Trip:
We ante up and kick in, sir.

****

I don't see much anteing up; but I see finger pointing everywhere.  Some have said that the only way to defeat us is from within.

[HawgGoneIt]

9 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

That's an interesting point. My mom used to tell me that it's impolite to talk politics or religion. I wonder whether that reflects a certain cracker-barrel wisdom that we've forgotten about.

Though I'm embarrassed to admit it, when I was young -- even into my early 20s -- if I heard someone say that he believed this or that, I'd think to myself, "Well, fuck you. You're obviously an idiot." I finally realized (1) that I was doing that and (2) how foolish it was. But I get the sense -- maybe I've spent too much time around here -- that many people do that well into their 30s, 40s, 50s, and beyond. 

I suppose I was raised in the same type of household as you. I was taught to never bring up either, but, of course I am just as guilty as any of us about broaching these topics as an anonymous entity. 

[Testadura]

15 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

That's an interesting point. My mom used to tell me that it's impolite to talk politics or religion. I wonder whether that reflects a certain cracker-barrel wisdom that we've forgotten about.

Though I'm embarrassed to admit it, when I was young -- even into my early 20s -- if I heard someone say that he believed this or that, I'd think to myself, "Well, fuck you. You're obviously an idiot." I finally realized (1) that I was doing that and (2) how foolish it was. But I get the sense -- maybe I've spent too much time around here -- that many people do that well into their 30s, 40s, 50s, and beyond. 

It was a good convention, and some conventions (not necessarily this one) have moral components.  Some obeyed it not knowing why.   Few knew why, I suspect.

These conventions are generally (but not only) good for maintaining the status quo, even if that's not their primary purpose.  This one was a very WASPy convention.  But Jews in Philip Roth novels are always bellowing about politics, making those around them cringe.  Updike's characters, from the little I've read by him, aren't that wound up with marginalization.  Walker Percy's characters are always couth, WASP Southerners--but what the hell did they have to complain about other than their slow but elegant decline.

Truman chased the radicals out of the Dem party, but they resurfaced around the time of McGovern.  The anti-status quo radicals didn't exist in the Repub party.

To change things, they knew instinctively, you have to create a new narrative and be allowed to speak on it.  Hence, politics was no longer taboo in as many places. 

Relatedly, not only should you discuss politics endlessly, Columbia's C. Wright Mills believed that a professor need not present the mainstream spectrum of views even handedly to young minds, because some views in his opinion were wrong and some were right. I will teach what's right, he said, because there's no nobility or virtue in being even handed, especially if you lose in the end; it's all about winning and defeating the other side.  Mills believed ends justify means, you might say, and Mills surely didn't believe that talking about HIS politics any place he wanted was off limits, especially in classrooms.  He was committed to his cause.  Politeness and other social graces have yielded to earnest commitment since the 60s.

Now, at top colleges, radicalism is the status quo, and free speech gets chased off campus, as the need for dialogue in the radicals' eyes has ceased.  You might say, it turns out that free speech was merely a means to an end (i.e., getting certain view points into ascendency and marginalizing others).  Now, the radicals will employ the convention of not discussing at least certain political views, but that's not due to Southern manners.  So, will the radicals continue to discuss at least views they approve of?  Probably not too much, as they'll be preaching to the converted--it's tiring to repeatedly make earth-shattering observations to those who see things your way.

[Testadura]

On a more light-hearted note, re: the NFL's top 100, it's great watching Belechick, Sanders, and Collinsworth praise Ed Reed; Kurt Warner and M. Irvin praise Deion; everyone bow to Jim Brown; and Emmitt give my man Dickerson his due.

Good stuff.  Dickerson was in my favorite era, starting in college.  Like watching a Cadillac. 

[DBP66]

1 hour ago, Testadura said:

On a more light-hearted note, re: the NFL's top 100, it's great watching Belechick, Sanders, and Collinsworth praise Ed Reed; Kurt Warner and M. Irvin praise Deion; everyone bow to Jim Brown; and Emmitt give my man Dickerson his due.

Good stuff.  Dickerson was in my favorite era, starting in college.  Like watching a Cadillac. 

shared the backfield with Craig James at SMU....I miss those days!

[Belly Bob]

2 hours ago, Testadura said:

It was a good convention, and some conventions (not necessarily this one) have moral components.  Some obeyed it not knowing why.   Few knew why, I suspect.

[...]

It might also have something to do with the fact (if it is a fact) that people tend to like each other less the more they get to know each other. There's a paper going around, which came out of Harvard in the '70s, which defends that view. It has become popular because people are thinking about the value of the internet. 

It may be that people intuited that principle, even if they couldn't quite articulate it, and realized that if you constrain conversation, it's easier to be neighborly. 

[Belly Bob]

2 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I suppose I was raised in the same type of household as you. I was taught to never bring up either, but, of course I am just as guilty as any of us about broaching these topics as an anonymous entity. 

It can't be intrinsically bad to talk politics and religion. People probably need to be better educated on how to do it well. 

[HawgGoneIt]

44 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

It can't be intrinsically bad to talk politics and religion. People probably need to be better educated on how to do it well. 

These subjects are too emotional for most people, hence the "it isn't polite to bring them up" wisdom from our parents.

Education wouldn't matter. The ability to remove one's emotions from the equation is where the fish are biting imo. Emotions and reasoning don't generally go well together. 

I do agree with the premise that both yourself and Testadura have presented though. It can't be bad, and probably is actually good to discuss these things. Time and place come to mind, as does, keep an eye on the company you are in and intending to discuss with... or else, risk being impolite. 

[Gospeeder]

This is perhaps one of the best threads ever posted on this board... with terrific intellect.

I suppose much of what has been discussed could fall under the vale of Immanual Kant vs Joseph Fletcher. Much of what ( in more lay terms and less intellectual ) we need to understand; is where the theoretical idealism ( Kant ) runs counter to and bumps heads with practicalism ( Fletcher )... leading to the preservation of society. There are lots of wildcards as part of the mix that have to be factored in to construct a sensible answer to Hawg's question... most of which, our American society has gone out of the way to avoid... hence our current dilemma.

 

[Belly Bob]

On 12/11/2019 at 7:48 PM, HawgGoneIt said:

These subjects are too emotional for most people, hence the "it isn't polite to bring them up" wisdom from our parents.

Education wouldn't matter. The ability to remove one's emotions from the equation is where the fish are biting imo. Emotions and reasoning don't generally go well together. 

[...]

I don't know that metaphor, "where the fish are biting." It's new for me. What's it mean? 

[Hardcore Troubador]

On 12/11/2019 at 7:42 PM, Belly Bob said:

It can't be intrinsically bad to talk politics and religion. People probably need to be better educated on how to do it well. 

Or at least not take themselves so seriously.  If someone disagrees with you it doesn’t really mean anything.  And be able to see that someone’s political beliefs are not the alpha and omega of who they are.  Key is to remember its people as a whole that matter,  not one particular slice of who they are.
 

One of my best friends is a legit socialist.  He may think we need to nationalize our healthcare industry.  He’s an idiot on that point.  And we talk about and disagree on politics a lot.  But he also likes history, spy novels, wine and craft beer, Seinfeld re-runs, Indiana Jones and James Bond movies, getting into childish shenanigans after a few too many, etc.

I never understood people who have nothing else to do in their lives besides get caught up in politics (on any side).  Life’s too short and there’s too much to see and do.  If you find yourself around someone like that, get away as fast as you can.

[HawgGoneIt]

34 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

I don't know that metaphor, "where the fish are biting." It's new for me. What's it mean? 

Lol. My dad used to say that when we'd be on some project around the farm when I was just a youngun and would start wandering away from where the work was. 

Like, "The fish are biting over here, son, why are you over in the shallows?" Haha

You shouldn't fish where they aren't biting very long. Go to where they are biting. 

In this instance, that's where work needs to be put in for most folks. 

Funny how those old sayings from a parent or grandparent stick with us...

[World Citizen]

1 hour ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Lol. My dad used to say that when we'd be on some project around the farm when I was just a youngun and would start wandering away from where the work was. 

Like, "The fish are biting over here, son, why are you over in the shallows?" Haha

You shouldn't fish where they aren't biting very long. Go to where they are biting. 

In this instance, that's where work needs to be put in for most folks. 

Funny how those old sayings from a parent or grandparent stick with us...

I think this needs it's own thread.  I would be interested in hearing about all these tidbits of wisdom and truisms from around the country (and world for that matter) that we don't hear much about anymore.  

While I'm in this thread I have to salute @Testadura @Hardcore Troubador @Gospeeder@Belly Bob  and you Hawg for a great discussion and I very much appreciate the thought that went into all of your posts.  I learned a few things and that is always a good thing.  Sorry if I left anybody out.

 

[StJoesFanboy]

On 12/11/2019 at 2:40 PM, NotBigdaddybloom said:

“Crises is the rallying cry of the tyrant!”

James Madison

everyone is claiming a crisis at once, though; so, maybe it cancels out?

[StJoesFanboy]

6 hours ago, Hardcore Troubador said:

Or at least not take themselves so seriously.  If someone disagrees with you it doesn’t really mean anything.  And be able to see that someone’s political beliefs are not the alpha and omega of who they are.  Key is to remember its people as a whole that matter,  not one particular slice of who they are.
 

One of my best friends is a legit socialist.  He may think we need to nationalize our healthcare industry.  He’s an idiot on that point.  And we talk about and disagree on politics a lot.  But he also likes history, spy novels, wine and craft beer, Seinfeld re-runs, Indiana Jones and James Bond movies, getting into childish shenanigans after a few too many, etc.

I never understood people who have nothing else to do in their lives besides get caught up in politics (on any side).  Life’s too short and there’s too much to see and do.  If you find yourself around someone like that, get away as fast as you can.

it's not worth losing friends, unless maybe something huge is on the line affecting you or your family directly

while Christmas shopping today, my wife and I ran into this woman who's completely at odds with my wife and me politically.  she makes no sense, but we make no sense to her.  maybe she's right.

BUT she's an amazing person and a great friend.  She knows what being a Christian and being a friend are all about.  very generous, positive, etc.

either we keep it light and playful, or we avoid politics, or if one side really gets emotional, the other just chills

[stanscript]

On 12/10/2019 at 7:52 AM, concha said:

 

You can't even read.  He didn't ask for a personal favor. Do you understand the difference between "me" and "us"?  Did you see in the transcript how the "us" is clearly in reference to our country?

It's fascinating how you people change what was said and then put people on trial for things that you WISH they had said.

 

2017   Trump does nothing about investigating Burisma (Biden) and military aid not withheld from Ukraine.

2018   Trump does nothing about investigating Burisma (Biden) and military aid not withheld from Ukraine.

2019   Biden announces run for Presidency and starts with a big lead over Trump.  Aid withheld until "Can you do us a favor?"

The favor wasn't actually to conduct an investigation; the favor was to just make the announcement.  Of course, Trump wouldn't want it concluded, just open-ended so he could say things like  "you wouldn't believe what they are finding about Biden in Ukraine."  It's the same tactic he used when discussing Obama's birth certificate.  He promised a lot but never actually delivered a damn thing.  

Conch, if two dots were 3 inches apart, you couldn't connect them with a pencil and a ruler.

[concha]

1 hour ago, stanscript said:

2017   Trump does nothing about investigating Burisma (Biden) and military aid not withheld from Ukraine.

2018   Trump does nothing about investigating Burisma (Biden) and military aid not withheld from Ukraine.

2019   Biden announces run for Presidency and starts with a big lead over Trump.  Aid withheld until "Can you do us a favor?"

The favor wasn't actually to conduct an investigation; the favor was to just make the announcement.  Of course, Trump wouldn't want it concluded, just open-ended so he could say things like  "you wouldn't believe what they are finding about Biden in Ukraine."  It's the same tactic he used when discussing Obama's birth certificate.  He promised a lot but never actually delivered a damn thing.  

Conch, if two dots were 3 inches apart, you couldn't connect them with a pencil and a ruler.

 

Perhaps the RUSSIA! bullshit had something to do with that?

You did a fantastic job of making shit up btw.  A mind reader like you is a rare thing. Of course, your thoughts are, like the hearings, basically a laundry list of what you wish had happened and not what the evidence actually states. You do realize Schiff's Godfather story was made up, right? Pretty typical of you clowns. "This is what he really meant". LMAO

The "favor" was an investigation of 2016 and Crowdstrike, not the Bidens.  And investigation of the Bidens is thoroughly justified. The hiring of Hunter Biden just screams corruption. He even fucking admitted he wouldn't have had the job if his father wasn't who he was.  😂🤡 Even the Obama administration was uncomfortable with it. And it is actually the president's job to root out corruption. The notion that you get immunity from scrutiny or investigation by announcing a presidential run is absurd. You'll note Trump nowhere suggests Democrat-like behavior where foreigners are recruited and paid to make up lies and bullshit. "Do as we say and not as we do". 🤣

The "case" against the president is laughably thin. The fact you don't appear to feel the even the slightest bit of embarrassment over it is, nonetheless, not shocking.  Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi could shit in a bowl and you'd proclaim it the best desert you've ever tasted.

The double-standards and hypocrisy are galactic in scale and you aren't bright enough or honest enough to see it.

.

 

[concha]

 

People see the bullshit.

 

[Blueliner]

1 hour ago, concha said:

 

Perhaps the RUSSIA! bullshit had something to do with that?

You did a fantastic job of making shit up btw.  A mind reader like you is a rare thing. Of course, your thoughts are, like the hearings, basically a laundry list of what you wish had happened and not what the evidence actually states. You do realize Schiff's Godfather story was made up, right? Pretty typical of you clowns. "This is what he really meant". LMAO

The "favor" was an investigation of 2016 and Crowdstrike, not the Bidens.  And investigation of the Bidens is thoroughly justified. The hiring of Hunter Biden just screams corruption. He even fucking admitted he wouldn't have had the job if his father wasn't who he was.  😂🤡 Even the Obama administration was uncomfortable with it. And it is actually the president's job to root out corruption. The notion that you get immunity from scrutiny or investigation by announcing a presidential run is absurd. You'll note Trump nowhere suggests Democrat-like behavior where foreigners are recruited and paid to make up lies and bullshit. "Do as we say and not as we do". 🤣

The "case" against the president is laughably thin. The fact you don't appear to feel the even the slightest bit of embarrassment over it is, nonetheless, not shocking.  Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi could shit in a bowl and you'd proclaim it the best desert you've ever tasted.

Spot on post. And the corrupt, elitist, crapbag dems count on people like stan, 66, and the other libtards to dutifully tow the company line without question a thing. 🤣