On Human Nature and Politics

[PoliticalChic]

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

Exactly the response to learning that one has come to expect from you.

But....being the eternal optimist......
...here's another dose of that medicine:



13. Liberalism/Progressivism is socialism in slow motion. Immediate change isn't the objective; gradual assumption of power by the central government, over time, is the goal. The ultimate purpose is to develop sufficient centralized power to control the private sector, and to redistribute wealth.
Fully grown, progressivism becomes socialism on the road to Godless communism.





14. Progressives dispute the fundamental ideas that motivated the Founders:

a. Human nature evolves, they say -- it is perfectible in this world; progressives welcome centralized power;

b. Checks and balances within the system are impediments to the delivery of efficient services;

c. Federal powers should be broad and undefined;
“The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” (TR speech at Osawatomie, Kansas, Aug. 31, 1910, NorthStarNational.com

d. The Constitution as written thwarts progressive objectives, but it must be temporarily respected out of political necessity because of its sentimental value. To handle this problem politically, progressives claim loyalty to a "living" Constitution, one that can be interpreted according to the needs of the time;

e. The constitutional amendment process is obsolete -- legislators and judges can rationalize as constitutional almost any act they choose to legalize.





15. The following are simply variations on a theme: communism, Nazism, fascism, Liberalism, socialism, Progressivism, etc, and include such side ventures as the 'Green Movement,' and the feminist movement.

a. “[The 60s radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood.”
Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 53


b. "Dem Congressman: ‘We’ve Proved That Communism Works’"
Dem Congressman: 'We've Proved That Communism Works' | The Daily Caller

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"I don't think..."


You should have that monogrammed on your shirts....

...you have begun wearing shirts and stopped walking on all fours, haven't you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

"...unrestrained exercise of power...."


Bingo!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The bolded is a good point for arguing against a laissez faire policy towards corporations.

You think the government and corporations should have the same checks and balances ? Private vs public ?

I think that conservatives want the balance of power to be shifted in favor of corporations, by far.

I think leftists have absolutely no idea how the real world works and are scared shitless of liberty. How about we just abolish the Sixteenth Amendment altogether and scrap the IRS, given that the income tax system is the root of all the evils leftists go on about anyway . . . if, like the Tin Man, they only had a brain to grasp that.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Surely the impression you leave is one of an ignorant, dim-witted, pompous lefty who seems overly impressed by his own silliness. Carry on.

 

[Toro]

Confirmation bias is a human trait that manifests greatly in politics. People don't want to hear information which contradicts their beliefs even if it's reasonable, and they'll believe ridiculous information if it confirms their beliefs. Hence, liberals watch MSNBC and are more likely to believe that Bush had something to do with 9/11 whereas conservatives watch Fox and are more likely to believe Obama was born in Kenya. Of course, both twoofers and birfers are ridiculous.

This is a human trait, not a political one. Any person who thinks this is just a liberal or a conservative thing is biased and displaying what I'm talking about.

I believe the argument is that one ideology is more prone to the bias than the other. Can you present a case that states the bias is equal ?

My case is that all ideologues are human and thus subject to human nature. Because of this, ideologues are more likely to believe they are more objective about themselves than those with whom they disagree, and believe that those who disagree with them are more biased.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You think the government and corporations should have the same checks and balances ? Private vs public ?

I think that conservatives want the balance of power to be shifted in favor of corporations, by far.

I think leftists have absolutely no idea how the real world works and are scared shitless of liberty. How about we just abolish the Sixteenth Amendment altogether and scrap the IRS, given that the income tax system is the root of all the evils leftists go on about anyway . . . if, like the Tin Man, they only had a brain to grasp that.

If you weren't in a tiny pathetic minority of rightwing extremists, you could probably get lots of your wishes done democratically,

but, ironically, if your wishes were democratically achievable, you obviously wouldn't be in the tiny pathetic rightwing minority.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Thanks for nothing I want my 3 minutes of life back

I'll say this much for ya'.....you always try to find new ways to say 'I don't like you, and I hate what you post.'

It's just that you're such a bloody pontificator. Your posts reek of narcissism and self-gratification and of course sway off into the rightwing ditch after you so expertly steer them there.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

I am glad that someone believes that Abe Lincoln was a liberal socialist....

 

[NYcarbineer]

"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?

"...unrestrained exercise of power...."


Bingo!

So you do want to take the position that the Congress and the Supreme Court have no power to restrain the executive branch?

Can you cite any sources from your vast library of books you've pretended to have read to support that assertion?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thanks for nothing I want my 3 minutes of life back

I'll say this much for ya'.....you always try to find new ways to say 'I don't like you, and I hate what you post.'

It's just that you're such a bloody pontificator. Your posts reek of narcissism and self-gratification and of course sway off into the rightwing ditch after you so expertly steer them there.

She's what happens when public libraries slack off on preventing the homeless from hanging out there all day.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think that conservatives want the balance of power to be shifted in favor of corporations, by far.

I think leftists have absolutely no idea how the real world works and are scared shitless of liberty. How about we just abolish the Sixteenth Amendment altogether and scrap the IRS, given that the income tax system is the root of all the evils leftists go on about anyway . . . if, like the Tin Man, they only had a brain to grasp that.

If you weren't in a tiny pathetic minority of rightwing extremists, you could probably get lots of your wishes done democratically,

but, ironically, if your wishes were democratically achievable, you obviously wouldn't be in the tiny pathetic rightwing minority.

Well, given the fact that I'm light years smarter than you, what does that say about the mobocracy . . . er . . . the democracy of scared shitless conformists like you? As Nietzsche pointed out all those many years ago, democracy is the pitchfork of the maddening crowd. It's constituents are the patron saints of demagoguery and the banality of the corralled and thoroughly indoctrinated masses.


Let us go then, you and me,
And stroll beneath a cloudy sea
As evening spreads across its face like a toothless grin.
Let us go a-meandering down narrow-minded suburban lanes,
Silky slick with sullen rains
And hemmed in by redundant four-bedroom stalls and grated sewage drains;
Past the immaculate parks and the quaint, steepled churches,
the lofty perches,
Where the vagabond Riffraff lurches in the pristine shadows:
A restless Crowd that chases dreams of easy grace and meadows
And sings a melancholy hymn, a petulant brew, that lingers at your nervebone.

A chorus of crickets roll their eyes
And dance beneath the cloudy skies.

The Air is still tonight—drenched with slumber.
A withered leaf dodders on spindly legs across Its gnarled spine.

And above the tiny rustlings, above the glistening lanes,
Above the languid shadows that creep and close on the mournful strains—
The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.
And below, crookbacked lampposts unfurl their hazy-white plumes and glare
At the four-footed heaps, at the white picket fences,
At the cracks in the sidewalks, at the manicured grasses,
As the musty night seeps through our senses.
And through the parlor windows we may see, you and I,
The flickering glow of that babbling flow on the walls:
The Soma of the enervated masses. —M.D. Rawlings

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think leftists have absolutely no idea how the real world works and are scared shitless of liberty. How about we just abolish the Sixteenth Amendment altogether and scrap the IRS, given that the income tax system is the root of all the evils leftists go on about anyway . . . if, like the Tin Man, they only had a brain to grasp that.

If you weren't in a tiny pathetic minority of rightwing extremists, you could probably get lots of your wishes done democratically,

but, ironically, if your wishes were democratically achievable, you obviously wouldn't be in the tiny pathetic rightwing minority.

Well, given the fact that I'm light years smarter than you, what does that say about the mobocracy . . . er . . . the democracy of scared shitless conformists like you? As Nietzsche pointed out all those many years ago, democracy is the pitchfork of the maddening crowd. It's constituents are the patron saints of demagoguery and the banality of the corralled and thoroughly indoctrinated masses.

We get that conservatives despise democratic government. No need to drone on about 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.

Surely the impression you leave is one of an ignorant, dim-witted, pompous lefty who seems impressed by his own silliness. Carry on.

Would you like to defend her position? She can't. Her position is that there are no constitutional checks on executive power.

Go ahead. Show us how smart you and she are.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You think the government and corporations should have the same checks and balances ? Private vs public ?

I think that conservatives want the balance of power to be shifted in favor of corporations, by far.

I think leftists have absolutely no idea how the real world works and are scared shitless of liberty. How about we just abolish the Sixteenth Amendment altogether and scrap the IRS, given that the income tax system is the root of all the evils leftists go on about anyway . . . if, like the Tin Man, they only had a brain to grasp that.

On the contrary, liberals know exactly how the real world works, which is why they're the greatest advocates and defenders of liberty.

Needless to say liberals are most often defending citizens' civil rights from conservatives hostile to expressions of individual liberty.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Surely the impression you leave is one of an ignorant, dim-witted, pompous lefty who seems impressed by his own silliness. Carry on.

Would you like to defend her position? She can't. Her position is that there are no constitutional checks on executive power.

Go ahead. Show us how smart you and she are.

Her position is that the constitutional checks and balances are being negated by Executive Privilege. My position is no matter how smart you think you are, you don't understand the diff.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Surely the impression you leave is one of an ignorant, dim-witted, pompous lefty who seems impressed by his own silliness. Carry on.

Would you like to defend her position? She can't. Her position is that there are no constitutional checks on executive power.

Go ahead. Show us how smart you and she are.

In which case the OP is as ignorant as she is wrong.

For example:

Rasul v. Bush (2004)

Boumediene v. Bush (2008)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Surely the impression you leave is one of an ignorant, dim-witted, pompous lefty who seems impressed by his own silliness. Carry on.

Would you like to defend her position? She can't. Her position is that there are no constitutional checks on executive power.

Go ahead. Show us how smart you and she are.

Her position is that the constitutional checks and balances are being negated by Executive Privilege. My position is no matter how smart you think you are, you don't understand the diff.

So neither you nor the OP can defend her position.

Which is understandable given the fact her position is ignorant idiocy.

 

[MaxGrit]

I think that conservatives want the balance of power to be shifted in favor of corporations, by far.

I think leftists have absolutely no idea how the real world works and are scared shitless of liberty. How about we just abolish the Sixteenth Amendment altogether and scrap the IRS, given that the income tax system is the root of all the evils leftists go on about anyway . . . if, like the Tin Man, they only had a brain to grasp that.

On the contrary, liberals know exactly how the real world works, which is why they're the greatest advocates and defenders of liberty.

Needless to say liberals are most often defending citizens' civil rights from conservatives hostile to expressions of individual liberty.

Liberals are insane relativists. Progressives could never take the ideas of the Declaration and Constitution seriously for many of the same reasons that Obama cannot ultimately take them seriously. Not right but historical might was the Progressives’ true focus.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Confirmation bias is a human trait that manifests greatly in politics. People don't want to hear information which contradicts their beliefs even if it's reasonable, and they'll believe ridiculous information if it confirms their beliefs. Hence, liberals watch MSNBC and are more likely to believe that Bush had something to do with 9/11 whereas conservatives watch Fox and are more likely to believe Obama was born in Kenya. Of course, both twoofers and birfers are ridiculous.

This is a human trait, not a political one. Any person who thinks this is just a liberal or a conservative thing is biased and displaying what I'm talking about.

I believe the argument is that one ideology is more prone to the bias than the other. Can you present a case that states the bias is equal ?

My case is that all ideologues are human and thus subject to human nature. Because of this, ideologues are more likely to believe they are more objective about themselves than those with whom they disagree, and believe that those who disagree with them are more biased.

"My case is that all ideologues are human and thus subject to human nature."

In that case, you'd be incorrect, and missed the import of the thread.

The political ideologies of the Left are based on the belief that government can change human nature.

Those of the Founders, conservatives, see the need for ways to channel and maintain limits on the indelible, the eternal, human nature.


Thus, the checks and balances that they tried to instill.....defeated by the Left with the aid of a corrupt judiciary.