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/...e_tyranni.html -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'.

[EvilNed]

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

[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? 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. 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.