From Democracy to Tyranny

[strayrider]

An intriguing little article from a right-wing nut job site I habit on occasion.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/how_democracies_become_tyranni.html

:D

-stray-

[Marie]

Chilling when you think on it.

M_

[EvilNed]

That was then. This is now. Flash forward fifty years to the election of Barack Obama and a hard left leaning Democrat Congress. What Americans want today, apparently, is a government that has no intention of leaving any of us alone.

How could Hoffer have been so wrong about America? Why did America change so quickly? Can a free people willingly choose servitude? Is it possible for democracies to become tyrannies? How?

Sorry, I don't need to read more than that to realize that this article was written by someone with as much open-mindness as Joseph McCarthy.

It's Ok to be critical. Just try to see both sides, otherwise your argument falls flat instantly.

[blind2d]

xcellent point, and well-made, evil. You can't really know the coin if you aren't willing to look at both sides. it's all in your head, anyway.

[FoodFight]

Sorry, I don't need to read more than that to realize that this article was written by someone with as much open-mindness as Joseph McCarthy

Wow, two whole paragraphs and you reach that conclusion and pass judgement. So much for 'open-mindedness'.:rolleyes:

[EvilNed]

Wow, two whole paragraphs and you reach that conclusion and pass judgement. So much for 'open-mindedness'.:rolleyes:

Let's just say the opening paragraphs didn't "draw me in"... :)

EDIT:

I scrolled down the article, and it seems that the reason it didn't draw me in was because I was right. So there you go:


First, those of us who are incapable of self-mastery will always shamefully prostrate ourselves before messianic political leaders. The progressive left in America has spent countless generations destroying the guardians of our inner citadel: religion, family, parents, and tradition - in short, conservatism and limits.

Sorry, but this is written by another conservative without a clue. All he knows is he really hates Obama and loves his good ol' fashioned ways, and decided to write an article about it...

[FoodFight]

Sorry, but this is written by another conservative without a clue. All he knows is he really hates Obama and loves his good ol' fashioned ways, and decided to write an article about it...

That is your opinion, and you are certainly welcome to it, but my issue is with you both espousing open-mindedness and proving your lack thereof in the same post. Hypocritical much?:lol:

[Skippy911sc]

Sorry Long...

I read this opinion piece and find a subtle flaw in the thinking...back in the early 1990's the Congress decider to put an end to the Glass-Steagall Act (repeal) with a Veto proof vote. This ultimately removed many of the most depression era regulations on banks and investment companies. Now fast forward, this was one of many deregulation's that the conservatives decided were a good idea to allow the market to self regulate and through us into a mini depression/recession and ultimately get us to were we are now. I find it hard to listen to ideas that had been tried and failed so miserably. Now is the time to try something new, if this fails I will be the first to stand up and argue against it next time.

On another note, I always thought that Conservative referred to the monetary policy of the GOP...tell me why they (the right) are now so adamant about saving money, because when they had the power they spent like there was no tomorrow.

The argument for preserving Glass-Steagall (as written in 1987):

1. Conflicts of interest characterize the granting of credit – lending – and the use of credit – investing – by the same entity, which led to abuses that originally produced the Act

2. Depository institutions possess enormous financial power, by virtue of their control of other people’s money; its extent must be limited to ensure soundness and competition in the market for funds, whether loans or investments.

3. Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.

4. Depository institutions are supposed to be managed to limit risk. Their managers thus may not be conditioned to operate prudently in more speculative securities businesses. An example is the crash of real estate investment trusts sponsored by bank holding companies (in the 1970s and 1980s).

The argument against preserving the Act (as written in 1987):

1. Depository institutions will now operate in “deregulated” financial markets in which distinctions between loans, securities, and deposits are not well drawn. They are losing market shares to securities firms that are not so strictly regulated, and to foreign financial institutions operating without much restriction from the Act.

2. Conflicts of interest can be prevented by enforcing legislation against them, and by separating the lending and credit functions through forming distinctly separate subsidiaries of financial firms.

3. The securities activities that depository institutions are seeking are both low-risk by their very nature, and would reduce the total risk of organizations offering them – by diversification.

4. In much of the rest of the world, depository institutions operate simultaneously and successfully in both banking and securities markets. Lessons learned from their experience can be applied to our national financial structure and regulation.[6]

[EvilNed]

That is your opinion, and you are certainly welcome to it, but my issue is with you both espousing open-mindedness and proving your lack thereof in the same post. Hypocritical much?:lol:

Hey. I gave it a shot. My fears turned out to be 100% correct. It's not being close-minded when I at least give it a shot and it's bullshit. And it's especially not close-minded giving it a SECOND shot, and it turns out just as much bullshit this time around. So uhm, no. Sorry. No hypocrite here, sorry.

[MaximusIncredulous]

Sorry, I don't need to read more than that to realize that this article was written by someone with as much open-mindness as Joseph McCarthy.

It's Ok to be critical. Just try to see both sides, otherwise your argument falls flat instantly.

Exactly. Even though the basic message is relevant, I had to ask myself, what planet was the writer on when bush was playing "the decider"?

[FoodFight]

Yes, you are a hypocrite.
Hey. I gave it a shot. . Two paragraphs and you made a judgement. That is NOT open-mindedness. Making an effort to see both sides, however, would be.



It's Ok to be critical. Just try to see both sides, otherwise your argument falls flat instantly Couldn't agree more. However, you didn't, even by your own admission, read more than two paragraphs. For this reason alone you are a hypocrite. Kudos for EVENTUALLY reading the text (possibly), but you needed to be prompted to do so. That's not trying very hard.



I scrolled down the article, and it seems that the reason it didn't draw me in was because I was right. So there you go This is apparently your 'second shot'. Scrolling is hardly the same as actually say, READING, so you still hadn't made an attempt to see a different point of view.


My fears turned out to be 100% correct. It's not being close-minded when I at least give it a shot and it's bullshit. And it's especially not close-minded giving it a SECOND shot, and it turns out just as much bullshit this time around. So uhm, no. Sorry. No hypocrite here, sorry By that, I assume that you finally read the entire article. If it met with your preconceived notions, then good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue is that you flew off the handle without having a basis and at the same time insisting that one needs to see both sides. You hadn't made that attempt and that is the reason that you are a hypocrite. Sorry.

[AcesandEights]

Interesting article, but it really only serves to denigrate the left, as opposed to opening a dialog or analysis about the inevitable long-term weakness of any state from those continually in power.

In short: it's myopic, at best.

This is not to say that I'm not worried about government encroaching on my life, but it's a foolish thing, to my line of thinking, that the left is the only political force to blame for such a thing.

[EvilNed]

You hadn't made that attempt and that is the reason that you are a hypocrite. Sorry.

Seems like you already made up your mind about that, so what do you want me to say? I gave it two shots, and since the second one only confirmed what I suspected the first time around, I'm not going to give it a third shot.

It's not hypocrisy if I'm right. :p

EDIT: Let me put it this way, if you were going to read a text about an extremely-right, hot headed person, who in the opening paragraph blatantly expressed his racism towards blacks or jews, would you continue reading and insist on being "open-minded" or would you put the text down and do something better with your time?

[FoodFight]

EDIT: Let me put it this way, if you were going to read a text about an extremely-right, hot headed person, who in the opening paragraph blatantly expressed his racism towards blacks or jews, would you continue reading and insist on being "open-minded" or would you put the text down and do something better with your time?


Yes, I would read it because that is open-mindedness. I also read about meglomanical world leaders, serial killers and polital statements of all stripes in an attempt to understand more. I'm not going to close myself off from information and then claim to be well-informed. BTW, you may want to learn about the 'poisoned well' fallacy to see how your use of it in this arguement shows that your attempt at legitimacy is lacking in substance.

[EvilNed]

Yes, I would read it because that is open-mindedness. I also read about meglomanical world leaders, serial killers and polital statements of all stripes in an attempt to understand more. I'm not going to close myself off from information and then claim to be well-informed. BTW, you may want to learn about the 'poisoned well' fallacy to see how your use of it in this arguement shows that your attempt at legitimacy is lacking in substance.

Reading to understand their idiocy is not the same thing as choosing not to waste time on sub-par writing. There is a difference. I don't read bad books, I don't watch bad films and I don't read bad articles. Get the picture? You're confusing two different things with each other.

[strayrider]

The article is intriguing only because it directs to reader to things more profound ...

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html

I read this back in high school (civics, government, sociology?), don't really recall. Wasn't into it back then. More into "dope" and chicks. Now, my aged, wizened brain devours it with relish.

:D

-stray-

[FoodFight]

Reading to understand their idiocy is not the same thing as choosing not to waste time on sub-par writing. There is a difference. I don't read bad books, I don't watch bad films and I don't read bad articles. Get the picture? You're confusing two different things with each other.

I do read bad books and articles as well as view bad films. How do I know that they are bad? Because I view them in their entirety. I don't stop short and leap to a conclusion which may very well be unfounded. To do anything less is intellectually dishonest. I occasionally find some nuggets amongst the gravel (and I do stress occasionally).

Why do I do this? Because I challenge myself and my beliefs. I'm not going to dismiss an entire political party because I don't agree with their views as some do. I deal with the issues and try not to poison the well (there's that pesky logic again).

As the man said "The unexamined life is not worth living". Get the picture?

[EvilNed]

I do read bad books and articles as well as view bad films. How do I know that they are bad? Because I view them in their entirety. I don't stop short and leap to a conclusion which may very well be unfounded.

I don't know about you, but if I start reading something that starts with a stupid or ignorant starting point I dismiss it as to not waste time. If you, sir, have finished watching every bad movie you came across, and finished reading every article you ever came across (or book) then you are a better man than I... I guess I enjoy life to much not wanting to waste my time with things that are openly, blatantly crap and simply... wrong from the get-go.

Not saying you can't agree with this article, that's my subjective view. But the ingress, the very thing that's supposed to introduce and suck me in, did the exact opposite by proving the authors ignorance. That's not being close-minded. That's just being sensible!

[strayrider]

Ned, excepting the "countless generations" exaggeration, please explain the progressive left's innocence in this statement ... Remember, I described the link as leading to a "right-wing nut job" site, so why would you even expect it to be something other than that and waste your time posting a response in the first place?

"First, those of us who are incapable of self-mastery will always shamefully prostrate ourselves before messianic political leaders. The progressive left in America has spent countless generations destroying the guardians of our inner citadel: religion, family, parents, and tradition - in short, conservatism and limits."

Try to explain, from a conservative point of view, how what is written here is fallacy. If you cannot, you are as guilty of closed-mindedness as you accuse this writer as being.

Foodfight, explain the fallacy of the article from the point of view of someone from the progressive left.

:D

-stray-

[FoodFight]

Good one, Strayrider. I purposely didn't comment on the content of the article, whether I agree or disagree with the proposition. I'm sure that many will make up their own minds without the benefit of actually knowing what my beliefs happen to be (that sort of shortsightedness is rampant in this thread). I was commenting on Ned's lack of logic in using the poisoned well analogy, i.e. 'you can't believe anything that political party 'Y' says....' which is just a convenient way of avoiding the issues presented.

If I had to respond to the article from a liberal progressive standpoint I don't think that I could top Ned's eloquent 'bullshit'. It shows such depth and understanding that no one could possibly question it's credibility.:lol:

[EvilNed]

Ned, excepting the "countless generations" exaggeration, please explain the progressive left's innocence in this statement ... Remember, I described the link as leading to a "right-wing nut job" site, so why would you even expect it to be something other than that and waste your time posting a response in the first place?

Last time I checked, it's within my right to do so? It didn't take long to voice that opinion, and it sparked an interesting debate.


Try to explain, from a conservative point of view, how what is written here is fallacy. If you cannot, you are as guilty of closed-mindedness as you accuse this writer as being.


Because the writer has already made up his mind of what's tyranny and that Obama is the man to lead us there. Most people would realize this is just plain silly and some would say even stupid.

[strayrider]

Last time I checked, it's within my right to do so? It didn't take long to voice that opinion, and it sparked an interesting debate.

Your honor, I request this statement be stricken from the record as non-responsive. ;)

As for "interesting debate": thus far, the only "debate" seems to be whether or not you are a hypocrite. I, for one, do not believe this to be so.

My interest here is to see if you can, from a conservative perspective, prove this man's argument (opinion) to be false.


Because the writer has already made up his mind of what's tyranny and that Obama is the man to lead us there.

"Us?" Don't you live in Sweden? Obama is the President of America.


Most people would realize this is just plain silly and some would say even stupid.

"Most people" with left-leaning mind sets, I'll agree. But, does that really mean that "most people", in general, would believe that the argument is "silly", or "stupid"?

:D

-stray-


If I had to respond to the article from a liberal progressive standpoint I don't think that I could top Ned's eloquent 'bullshit'. It shows such depth and understanding that no one could possibly question it's credibility.:lol:

Not responsive. Open your mind before expecting Ned to open his ...

:D

[EvilNed]

Your honor, I request this statement be stricken from the record as non-responsive. ;)

As for "interesting debate": thus far, the only "debate" seems to be whether or not you are a hypocrite. I, for one, do not believe this to be so.

My interest here is to see if you can, from a conservative perspective, prove this man's argument (opinion) to be false.

How can an opinion be false? The writer simply chose to




"Us?" Don't you live in Sweden? Obama is the President of America.

I am a U.S. Citizen, and I spend time over there still.




"Most people" with left-leaning mind sets, I'll agree. But, does that really mean that "most people", in general, would believe that the argument is "silly", or "stupid"?

The thing is he writes the article assuming everyone agrees with him that Obama is a dictator, and makes absolutlely no room for maneuvering that opinion. That's a harsh opinion. That's if I were to walk into an argument, and drop the line "We all know Hitler was a saint... And based on that!". Not even bothering to eplain why!

Obama is not a tyrant anymore than Bush was a tyrant. Both were democratically elected, and therefore it's silly and stupid. Even conservatives would realize that Obama was, infact, democratically elected.

[FoodFight]

Not responsive. Open your mind before expecting Ned to open his ...

Fair one, but logic transcends political affilliation. My response to the article itself is that 'The Republic' is a parable, and comparing it to real-life events is just arguement by analogy, which is always suspect. (Note that I said 'suspect', not an automatic falsehood). This should be a universal understanding.

I can't pretend to be a liberal progressive so I'll not even try. Nor am I a far-right idealogue so I can't try that tack either. All that I can do is ask others to provide insight into their own beliefs in an attempt to understand them better.

I believe that anyone would rather hear it from the source instead of paraphrased and distilled by someone else.

[strayrider]

The thing is he writes the article assuming everyone agrees with him that Obama is a dictator,

I didn't get that from reading this article. More than anything it is a commentary on how a democracy may slid into tyranny, Obama being mentioned
only because of his left-leaning politics (and because he is the current King of America, boogieman Bush is gone).


Obama is not a tyrant anymore than Bush was a tyrant.

And both are puds.


Both were democratically elected, and therefore it's silly and stupid. Even conservatives would realize that Obama was, in fact, democratically elected.

Not true. Don't you realize that we conservatives (not Republicans, mind you -- conservatives) are incapable of having a thought in our shriveled-up brains that was not put there by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity? I guess now you're going to demand us to think for ourselves?

I'm just "funnin'" with you, Ned, if you don't want to discuss the other aspects of the article, that is fine by me.

:D

-stray-

[J0hnnyReb]

You make a good point stray, you cannot discount a source of a claim simply because it is biased, because even a biased source is capable of telling the truth. So logically speaking saying something is wrong because of who said it is a fallacy. Saying the author or the article is wrong is fine as long as it can be quantified with logical reasoning, fallacy is not that and is not logical and is therefore wrong. Whether someone willingly subscribes to something they know is a fallacy though is another story.

[Mike70]

i'll echo what someone said earllier in the thread - i'd be very careful about trying to apply plato's Republic (a latin translation of the word politeia) because it is highly idealized and envisions people being able to make what amount to perfect choices.

Res publica in latin (the actual title of plato's work is "Politeia")means the public thing. the society in plato's work is anything but public. it seems that plato is equating the needs and wants of society as a whole with those of the ruling class, led by a philosopher-king. the political system in the republic seems to me, at least, to be all for the notion that the powerful/ruling class knows what is best for the average person and takes the whole idea of personal choice out of the equation.

[Usumgal]

Sorry, I don't need to read more than that to realize that this article was written by someone with as much open-mindness as Joseph McCarthy.

It's Ok to be critical. Just try to see both sides, otherwise your argument falls flat instantly.

Aw... Another of the OBama-washed denizens of this new hell we call home.

I am SO shocked that you support Obama, given the red cap with soviet emblems in you signature picture.

[Mike70]

Aw... Another of the OBama-washed denizens of this new hell we call home.

uh, ned lives in sweden.

what the fuck is it with you?? every democrat or liberal suddenly gets a cute little label affixed to them, we are all obama-washed. grow the fuck up and pull your head out of your ass.

[Usumgal]

uh, ned lives in sweden.

what the fuck is it with you?? every democrat or liberal suddenly gets a cute little label affixed to them, we are all obama-washed. grow the fuck up and pull your head out of your ass.

Mike, I'm guessing 70 is your age plus IQ added together?

You clowns will listen to any garbage that Stalin wannabe throws out there for you carrion birds to devour.

The bottom line is that NObama is not only a card carrying commie ( he fits the communist mold even more so than socialist) and he ha his sights set on each and every individual freedom that Americans are supposed to enjoy.

His stimulus plan would be a joke is not so goddamned damaging to america as a whole. Have you even read any of the attachments to that bill?

I'm not even going to start on how his "stimulus bill" is going to finish off our already damaged economy. Or how his statements that by winding down in Iraq is going to help our economy ( when he is really building up in not only afghanistan by 17,500 troops, but starting further operations inside Pakistan )

Do you care about your health care? How about that of the elderly. Especially the elderly are going to suffer under his plan. How about the government control of the actions of each and every practicing doctor in the country that doesn't want to be fined?

Seriously, I can go on. How about his disregard for american principles and worst of all our constitution.

[Mike70]

Mike, I'm guessing 70 is your age plus IQ added together?

You clowns will listen to any garbage that Stalin wannabe throws out there for you carrion birds to devour.

wow. insults and labels appear to be all you are capable of. since you list your age as 1 that doesn't surprise me. clowns? carrion birds? my age and IQ? my, my how very grown up of you.

i suggest that you go through and look at some of my posts about obama. i've been dubious of the hoopla around him for a long time, in fact i started a thread about how i was considering voting for mccain (before sarah palin came into the picture) and how i thought obama was an opportunist.

but i guess since all liberals worship at the altar (according to you) and are incapable of free thinking, you don't have to bother with actually checking things out, labels work just fine.

again, grow the fuck up - you are the one who is sucking up the party line and regurgitating it.

[Usumgal]

again, grow the fuck up - you are the one who is sucking up the party line and regurgitating it.

Party line? I'm a Jefferson Democrat, dude. My party hasn't existed, really, in a LONG time.

I think both major parties oughta be fired and flogged, really. Only Ron Paul has the right idea, but nobody listens to the only one providing proven answers.

[strayrider]

i suggest that you go through and look at some of my posts about obama. i've been dubious of the hoopla around him for a long time, in fact i started a thread about how i was considering voting for mccain (before sarah palin came into the picture) and how i thought obama was an opportunist.

Oh, bullsmack! Mike, I'm willing to bet that on the night before the Chia Obama novelty goes up for sale at WalGreens, you'll be the first in line ... camping out ... waiting for those doors to open.

Don't trample anyone to death. Pre-order yours here: http://www.walgreens.com/store/product.jsp?id=prod5488276&CATID=100720&skuid=sku5487143&V=G&ec=frgl_502323&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=sku5487143

:D

-stray-

[clanglee]

Oh, bullsmack! Mike, I'm willing to bet that on the night before the Chia Obama novelty goes up for sale at WalGreens, you'll be the first in line ... camping out ... waiting for those doors to open.

Don't trample anyone to death. Pre-order yours here: http://www.walgreens.com/store/product.jsp?id=prod5488276&CATID=100720&skuid=sku5487143&V=G&ec=frgl_502323&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=sku5487143

:D

-stray-

I unfortunately can't afford one. . spent all my money on the commemorative plates. . . .

[strayrider]

I unfortunately can't afford one. . spent all my money on the commemorative plates. . . .

I can't take credit for the joke. I read it on someone's blog.

A new video: 2 Girls and 1 Obama plate.

:hyper:

-stray-

[Mike70]

Oh, bullsmack! Mike, I'm willing to bet that on the night before the Chia Obama novelty goes up for sale at WalGreens, you'll be the first in line ... camping out ... waiting for those doors to open.

Don't trample anyone to death. Pre-order yours here: http://www.walgreens.com/store/product.jsp?id=prod5488276&CATID=100720&skuid=sku5487143&V=G&ec=frgl_502323&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=sku5487143

:D

-stray-

:lol:
actually, every time i read one of your posts i get a laugh out of that obama chia pet. i wonder if it grows faster if you play the obama novelty songs for it? i've always heard that plants respond well to music.

[Edison Carter]

From Democracy to gutter trash spewing vulgarian
pretending to be POTUS the "best of Barack Hussein Odrama"
NSFW
Keep smoking the Hopium
http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/blogs/phlog/OBAMA_IGNORANT.mp3

Worlds biggest wealth transferrer yet he can't spare a freeking french fry!
http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/blogs/phlog/OBAMA_FRIES.mp3

Straight from "Dreams of my Trigamist father"
all of these are not a voice actor
http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/blogs/phlog/OBAMA_THAT_GUY.mp3

Clear case of buyers remorse :D

[strayrider]

From Democracy to gutter trash spewing vulgarian
pretending to be POTUS the "best of Barack Hussein Odrama"
NSFW

tU7SvwEhuA4http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-06-23-ObamaGirl

:lol:

-stray-