On Human Nature and Politics

[NYcarbineer]

[


a. Not for Obama: "Obama: 'If Congress Won't Act, I Will' Obama: 'If Congress Won't Act, I Will' | Video - ABC News

".... the very definition of tyranny."

Are you claiming that the actions of the president cannot be challenged under our system? That there is no legal recourse?

Only then would it be tyranny.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[


a. Not for Obama: "Obama: 'If Congress Won't Act, I Will' Obama: 'If Congress Won't Act, I Will' | Video - ABC News

".... the very definition of tyranny."

Are you claiming that the actions of the president cannot be challenged under our system? That there is no legal recourse?

Only then would it be tyranny.

"Are you claiming....."


Almost as often as you lie, you pretend not to understand a post....


I'm willing to accept both your stupidity, and your inability to speak truthfully.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I just wish I'd get a straight up answer but instead I get copy and paste off topic mish mash of words.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I just wish I'd get a straight up answer but instead I get copy and paste off topic mish mash of words.

See if you can understand this:




9. The Western world settled into two distinct political camps at the end of the 18th century. There was the view that produced the American Revolution, and the other one, stemming from the Enlightenment, and producing the French Revolution.
The difference was the belief about human nature..... For the French Revolution, people are considered to be basically good....Rousseau, the Nobel Savage, individuals are corrupted by society.

a. " Robespierre used Rousseau’s call for a “reign of virtue,’ proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In ‘The Social Contract’ Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: “the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.”
Himmefarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68




10. For the American Revolution, people are not considered to be basically good, and, therefore, the necessity of checks and balances.

a. Humans are not perfectible, but are capable of self government. The republican form of government presupposes this idea of humans. Our government is not a controlling government, but must itself be controlled: by the Constitution.
Federalist #10- checks and balances, to keep passions in check.

b. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. .... A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." Federalist #51

c. In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, to do away with all inequalities in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will.
Talmon, “Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,” p. 3-7

Doesn't that sound like "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008



Clear enough?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I just wanted to know what the "it" is?



But I know PC will just break out some quick one liners from 1950 and never explain her posts unless she can copy and paste it

Did you miss this, earlier?


But, advice: the give away is that you are never able to point to anything that I post that isn't correct.....
And that is at the core of your dislike.

the truth scares the crap out of liberals, they run from it like a scalded ass ape.

Or, they pretend not to understand it......

 

[NYcarbineer]

I just wish I'd get a straight up answer but instead I get copy and paste off topic mish mash of words.

I like to bait her into jabbering like a monkey because lots of people read this forum and those with brains in their heads get an entertaining portrait of the addled conservative mind when they read, or try to read through, PC's posts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I just wish I'd get a straight up answer but instead I get copy and paste off topic mish mash of words.

See if you can understand this:




9. The Western world settled into two distinct political camps at the end of the 18th century. There was the view that produced the American Revolution, and the other one, stemming from the Enlightenment, and producing the French Revolution.
The difference was the belief about human nature..... For the French Revolution, people are considered to be basically good....Rousseau, the Nobel Savage, individuals are corrupted by society.

a. " Robespierre used Rousseau’s call for a “reign of virtue,’ proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In ‘The Social Contract’ Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: “the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.”
Himmefarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68




10. For the American Revolution, people are not considered to be basically good, and, therefore, the necessity of checks and balances.

a. Humans are not perfectible, but are capable of self government. The republican form of government presupposes this idea of humans. Our government is not a controlling government, but must itself be controlled: by the Constitution.
Federalist #10- checks and balances, to keep passions in check.

b. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. .... A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." Federalist #51

c. In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, to do away with all inequalities in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will.
Talmon, “Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,” p. 3-7

Doesn't that sound like "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008



Clear enough?

And you actually claimed the other day that your thoughts were your own. That was the funniest joke ever told on this forum.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I just wish I'd get a straight up answer but instead I get copy and paste off topic mish mash of words.

I like to bait her into jabbering like a monkey because lots of people read this forum and those with brains in their heads get an entertaining portrait of the addled conservative mind when they read, or try to read through, PC's posts.

she seems to be talking about the American Revolution and Robbeispire and actually trying to say that applies to todays liberals...or something.

Its as if, if one person says something in any period of time then it all applies to people today...or something

 

[PoliticalChic]

I just wish I'd get a straight up answer but instead I get copy and paste off topic mish mash of words.

See if you can understand this:




9. The Western world settled into two distinct political camps at the end of the 18th century. There was the view that produced the American Revolution, and the other one, stemming from the Enlightenment, and producing the French Revolution.
The difference was the belief about human nature..... For the French Revolution, people are considered to be basically good....Rousseau, the Nobel Savage, individuals are corrupted by society.

a. " Robespierre used Rousseau’s call for a “reign of virtue,’ proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In ‘The Social Contract’ Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: “the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.”
Himmefarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68




10. For the American Revolution, people are not considered to be basically good, and, therefore, the necessity of checks and balances.

a. Humans are not perfectible, but are capable of self government. The republican form of government presupposes this idea of humans. Our government is not a controlling government, but must itself be controlled: by the Constitution.
Federalist #10- checks and balances, to keep passions in check.

b. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. .... A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." Federalist #51

c. In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, to do away with all inequalities in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will.
Talmon, “Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,” p. 3-7

Doesn't that sound like "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008



Clear enough?

And you actually claimed the other day that your thoughts were your own. That was the funniest joke ever told on this forum.

Yes....and I'll say it again.


And, actually, you are the 'funniest joke ever told on this forum'.....in a pathetic kind of way.


thought1 (θɔt)

n.
1. the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought.
2. a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion: to collect one's thoughts.
3. the act or process of thinking; mental activity; reflection or cogitation.
4. the capacity or faculty of thinking, reasoning, imagining, etc.



Try to learn the proper use of the English language before you post again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


a. Not for Obama: "Obama: 'If Congress Won't Act, I Will' Obama: 'If Congress Won't Act, I Will' | Video - ABC News

".... the very definition of tyranny."

Are you claiming that the actions of the president cannot be challenged under our system? That there is no legal recourse?

Only then would it be tyranny.

"Are you claiming....."


Almost as often as you lie, you pretend not to understand a post....


I'm willing to accept both your stupidity, and your inability to speak truthfully.

Did you not call Obama's executive actions the very definition of tyranny?

tyranny - arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power

...and yet, Congress is suing the President, and talking about impeaching him...both of which they have the legal right to do.

How can it be tyranny, the 'unrestrained exercise of power', if that power can in fact be restrained by others in the government?

Can you answer that in 25 or less of YOUR OWN WORDS?

 

[NYcarbineer]

See if you can understand this:




9. The Western world settled into two distinct political camps at the end of the 18th century. There was the view that produced the American Revolution, and the other one, stemming from the Enlightenment, and producing the French Revolution.
The difference was the belief about human nature..... For the French Revolution, people are considered to be basically good....Rousseau, the Nobel Savage, individuals are corrupted by society.

a. " Robespierre used Rousseau’s call for a “reign of virtue,’ proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In ‘The Social Contract’ Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: “the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.”
Himmefarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68




10. For the American Revolution, people are not considered to be basically good, and, therefore, the necessity of checks and balances.

a. Humans are not perfectible, but are capable of self government. The republican form of government presupposes this idea of humans. Our government is not a controlling government, but must itself be controlled: by the Constitution.
Federalist #10- checks and balances, to keep passions in check.

b. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. .... A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." Federalist #51

c. In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, to do away with all inequalities in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will.
Talmon, “Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,” p. 3-7

Doesn't that sound like "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008



Clear enough?

And you actually claimed the other day that your thoughts were your own. That was the funniest joke ever told on this forum.

Yes....and I'll say it again.


And, actually, you are the 'funniest joke ever told on this forum'.....in a pathetic kind of way.


thought1 (θɔt)

n.
1. the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought.
2. a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion: to collect one's thoughts.
3. the act or process of thinking; mental activity; reflection or cogitation.
4. the capacity or faculty of thinking, reasoning, imagining, etc.



Try to learn the proper use of the English language before you post again.

I don't think that transferring the thoughts of others from one web page to another qualifies as your thoughts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I just wanted to know what the "it" is?



But I know PC will just break out some quick one liners from 1950 and never explain her posts unless she can copy and paste it

Did you miss this, earlier?

But, advice: the give away is that you are never able to point to anything that I post that isn't correct.....
And that is at the core of your dislike.

Nothing is incorrect because you never stated what "it" is? Unless you are seriously saying Liberals ignore human nature. Are you? Do liberals act unhuman? Is that what you're going with?

"....seriously saying Liberals ignore human nature. Are you? Do liberals act unhuman (sic)?"

By George, you've got it....!!!






Leftists....and that means Liberals, do not merely misunderstand human nature, but predicate their political philosophy on said misunderstanding.




11. Leftists of all stripes view human nature as plastic, able to be molded by the "right" kind of government.....no matter the human cost.

a. “The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: новый советский челове&#1082, as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country's long-standing cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single Soviet people, Soviet nation.[1] New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



b. Leon Trotsky wrote in his Literature and Revolution [2] :

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will"
New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



c. In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
-http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html



Stalin, Lenin, Hillary.....all agree: change human nature.





12. How many times is that philosophy going to be tried.....it has cost over 100 million slaughtered during the last century alone.....


Does it work?

“Culture is a stubborn opponent. The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198

 

[NYcarbineer]

I just wish I'd get a straight up answer but instead I get copy and paste off topic mish mash of words.

I like to bait her into jabbering like a monkey because lots of people read this forum and those with brains in their heads get an entertaining portrait of the addled conservative mind when they read, or try to read through, PC's posts.

she seems to be talking about the American Revolution and Robbeispire and actually trying to say that applies to todays liberals...or something.

Its as if, if one person says something in any period of time then it all applies to people today...or something

Ironically she has more than once chided me for using the pronoun 'we' as being some sort of dependence on the collective,

and yet she never ventures onto the forum unless accompanied by an entourage of mostly dead people.

 

[Moonglow]

Madison passed the Alien Sedition Act, tells us a lot about his understanding of human nature and the belief that the Constitution was the law of the land,,,NOT!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Thanks for nothing I want my 3 minutes of life back

Wow, you invested a lot. Talk about a cost-deficit.

 

[Moonglow]

Are you claiming that the actions of the president cannot be challenged under our system? That there is no legal recourse?

Only then would it be tyranny.

"Are you claiming....."


Almost as often as you lie, you pretend not to understand a post....


I'm willing to accept both your stupidity, and your inability to speak truthfully.

Did you not call Obama's executive actions the very definition of tyranny?

tyranny - arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power

...and yet, Congress is suing the President, and talking about impeaching him...both of which they have the legal right to do.

How can it be tyranny, the 'unrestrained exercise of power', if that power can in fact be restrained by others in the government?

Can you answer that in 25 or less of YOUR OWN WORDS?

That's like asking a beaver to skin itself....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who would be more aware of human nature than ......human beings?
Yet, a large portion of the population is willing to remain oblivious to their own nature, or, at the least, to pretend to be unaware of same.

History reveals it....
Experience reveals it....

Liberals ignore it.



1. Classical liberals, i.e., Conservatives truly understand humannature, as shown here:
Each kind of government is a reflection on the way human nature is understood. The Founders did not feel that man is either perfect, or perfectible. James Madison, Federalist No. 55, February 15, 1788 “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust.”
Therefore, a government must account for this nature, thus checks and balances.


2. Federalist 10- checks and balances, to keep 'passions' in check.
Tocqueville tells how centralization of power can lead to despotism. Beware of government by experts and bureaucrats.

a.Other views of human nature might be that people are basically good, or that human nature is plastic, and it only takes the right politics to perfect it. This is the view of communist governments, as Lenin expounded in the ‘New Soviet Man.’ Such governments have never worked, and, in fact, caused some hundred million deaths during the last century.

b. Burke and Tocqueville both observed a new intellectual type: thinkers inebriated by revolution and the dream of a radically new social order, and dismissive of the inherited wisdom of the past.





3. “The second principle is a belief in the sinful nature of man. They didn't buy the notions of the French revolutionaries that Man is basically good, or the Marxist revolutionaries a century later that human nature is perfectible. They knew that Man was as the Bible describes him—a sinner, self-centered, corruptible, and not to be trusted.
(Sowell, "Intellectuals and Society")

a. For that reason, they knew Man needs government—government strong enough to preserve law and order. But also that Man needs to limit the power of government, because those who run the government have the same sinful nature as everybody else.

Here's the way that seminary student James Madison put it in Federalist Number 51, possibly the most often quoted phrase out of the Federalist Papers. He says, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the places. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.’ “ Citizens for a Fashionable Republic |



The Constitution is the attempt to produce equanimity through the judicious use of checks and balances.

Did you really just say in the above that Soviet Communism failed by being too permissive and libertarian?

REALLY?????

 

[ClosedCaption]

Did you miss this, earlier?

But, advice: the give away is that you are never able to point to anything that I post that isn't correct.....
And that is at the core of your dislike.

Nothing is incorrect because you never stated what "it" is? Unless you are seriously saying Liberals ignore human nature. Are you? Do liberals act unhuman? Is that what you're going with?

"....seriously saying Liberals ignore human nature. Are you? Do liberals act unhuman (sic)?"

By George, you've got it....!!!

Bwahahaha jesus christ

 

[haissem123]

before we became God's of our own destiny, as we think now, our so called nature was quite different. Once we had the luxury of scheming each other out of power and goodies of all kind, we ran with it in a constant never end game of thrones. But now, we've become the destroyer of world's and God's of a hell soon to come for not changing our so called nature back to a much more humble one that realizes it's fragile existance as a species isn't gonna make much longer, at least in any good way, through our next and hopefully final lesson or is that final solution? final nature? evolve or die has always been in our nature. let's speed it up cause evolution waits for no one or ones.

 

[Erand7899]

I just wish I'd get a straight up answer but instead I get copy and paste off topic mish mash of words.

I like to bait her into jabbering like a monkey because lots of people read this forum and those with brains in their heads get an entertaining portrait of the addled conservative mind when they read, or try to read through, PC's posts.

she seems to be talking about the American Revolution and Robbeispire and actually trying to say that applies to todays liberals...or something.

Its as if, if one person says something in any period of time then it all applies to people today...or something

I see two partisan toadies celebrating their ignorance and inability to comprehend simple English, while attempting to blame their personal shortcomings on someone else.

Human nature has not changed for thousands of years. What was true about human nature in 1776, is still true today, and yes, it does apply to all people, including liberal/socialists. It has been expressed by many different philosophers, from many different cultures, at many different times, and in many different ways, but it all means the same. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Failure to understand that simple truth, puts a person, and/or a nation in jeopardy. Any person put in a position of trust must be carefully watched and controlled, because the human tendency is to take advantage of that trust and use it to benefit themselves and their friends.

Our founders, recognizing the danger of concentrated political power, devised a means of spreading political power to the states and among three branches of the federal government. Liberal/socialists have spend decades attempting to concentrate political power at the federal level. It is as if they never read a history book.