Liberal still trying to change human nature to make their plans work

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2006
10,025
2,410
290
San Diego, CA
A telling trend keeps emerging from leftist fanatics who run into opposition to their rosy plans for making us all better. The only way their plans can work, is for human nature to change. And the leftists simply decide that they will change it. As though they had the slightest ability to undo thousands of years of evolution, life experience, and human nature.

This weird god-like ability keeps being cited again and again by leftists as a viable solution to their problems. Meaning, they're willing to actually try it on us. And not just recently - it's been going on for decades, if not centuries.

Some of the latest examples:

Barack Obama said:
Obama call to change how the media reports raises concerns Fox News

"We're going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we're going to have to change how the media reports..." - Barack Obama, May 12, 2015

Hillary Clinton said:
Hillary Religious Beliefs Must Change For Sake Of Abortion - Fox Nation

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed." - Hillary Clinton, April 26, 2015

Especially disturbing is Hillary's bald statement that she favors laws as her means of changing people's culture and religious beliefs. And the President of the United States flatly asserts that "we" (which always means government to these liberals) must change how the population thinks... and that the same "we" (govt) must change the media.

When the Bill of Rights was drawn up and passed, the very first thing it did, was to ban government from doing these exact things. The BOR was designed for the specific purpose of protecting the country from people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And for reasons that were obvious to the learned scholars who wrote it, and the people across the country who ratified it. Yet now we find that one of them is President of the United States, and the other is considered a leading candidate for the job when it opens in 2017.

Hillary and Barack were right about one thing... though not in the way they intended. "We" (and this time I mean the people themselves) have to change how the population thinks. People have to become more aware of how governments have turned out when they decided to change fundamental human nature (a task no more possible than making people grow two heads or five arms), and especially when the politicians tried to use the power of a coercive government to achieve such a purpose.

More and more of us are falling for the shallow bribery of voting for the one who promises you the most free stuff, without worrying about the significance and effects of taking that "free" stuff away from the people who worked to produce it. A study of history shows that throughout human existence, this is what brought nation after nation into decline and ruin, often accompanied by bloody wars, famines, and massacres in the quests for more free stuff and the attempts to force people to change their nature. As true for Mao, Ho, Stalin, and Hitler, as it was for Alexander, Caesar, and Agamemnon.

And it will be no different for Hillary and Barack, and the people who come after them and try to follow what they are demanding.
 
Last edited:
BXg279ZIIAAc0nn.jpg:large
 
To the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, people like Hillary and Obama were nothing new. Many of the Founders were scholars, students of history and governments, as well as human nature. And they saw what such people had done to countries, over and over, always for the same reasons. And so they wrote a Fundamental Law of the Land, forbidding government from doing exactly what Hillary and Obama want it to do.

The Founders saw Hillary and Obama coming a long way off. Nothing is different about these two today, from the despots and dictators the Founders saw hundreds of years ago.

As always, such rookie despots rely on people not knowing what their kind has done in the past, so they can foist it on them yet again. And they hope that people also don't realize that what they want to do, has been banned in this country from the very start... for good reason.
 
250 years ago, almost everybody "knew" that democracy couldn't work. The people, after all were dirty, ignorant, bigoted, and lacking of impulse control. This mob couldn't be trusted to govern themselves! The democratic faction just didn't understand human nature!

Nonetheless, 250 years later, the most developed nations have democracy, and hereditary government is thought a savage superstition. There is no reason that we can't reclaim democracy from the despotic interests that subvert it here as well.
 
250 years ago, almost everybody "knew" that democracy couldn't work.
Which is why we decided not to have one in the United Sates. Especially after seeing the unworkable governments that developed in the few countries in history that tried it. So we went with a Republic instead.

Nonetheless, 250 years later, the most developed nations have democracy,
Correction: NO developed nations have democracy.

Aside from the slight change I made here, your statement was correct.
 
250 years ago, almost everybody "knew" that democracy couldn't work. The people, after all were dirty, ignorant, bigoted, and lacking of impulse control. This mob couldn't be trusted to govern themselves! The democratic faction just didn't understand human nature!

Nonetheless, 250 years later, the most developed nations have democracy, and hereditary government is thought a savage superstition. There is no reason that we can't reclaim democracy from the despotic interests that subvert it here as well.

Yes, of course, you believe "despotic interests" control government, and so you call endlessly for more government.

Liar, you don't believe that. It's a bizarre strategy how leftists criticize government as part of your strategy to get more of it
 
250 years ago, almost everybody "knew" that democracy couldn't work.
Which is why we decided not to have one in the United Sates. Especially after seeing the unworkable governments that developed in the few countries in history that tried it. So we went with a Republic instead.

Nonetheless, 250 years later, the most developed nations have democracy,
Correction: NO developed nations have democracy.

Aside from the slight change I made here, your statement was correct.

A republic is a constitutional democracy. The founders used the terms interchangeably:

"We of the United States, you know, are constitutionally and conscientiously democrats."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to P. S. Dupont de Nemours (Apr. 24, 1816)
 

Forum List

Back
Top