Obama says the darndest things...

[ihopehefails]

Obama takes direct aim at anti-government rhetoric

What piece of work Obama is when he says he is concerned that people think government is inherently evil. (Apparently he didn't read Common sense by Thomas Paine where he compared government to something that was evil but needed in society) He also must think that their is some divine force in between the government walls that makes people different because they hold the title 'elected official'.

Perhaps I am wrong and government is inherently good and the people are inherently evil which means he and the rest of the left feels it has to correct humanity. Well if that is the case who the hell decided that government could do this? The last time I checked government was composed of the same people as anyone else so that makes government no different than the rest of humanity but with the exception that government acts as an enabler for us. When one person can say no to the other it puts a check on their behavior. This is a kind of check and balance that exist within a free society but government doesn't have that so that makes government an enabler to whatever evil already exist within people.

Its not that government is more or less evil than anyone else but more that it's nature removes all the natural checks on their behavior that normally exist in a free society. This turns that organization into something that is evil because each person within it is free to act on whatever evil they have inside them. What else explains the reason that all powerful governments tend to lead to the worst abuses in human behavior?

In case you are reading this Obama...I love you baby but you suck as president.

 

[FA_Q2]

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and the one thing that holding a public office gives people is POWER.

 

[bucs90]

It's simple:

The government can write laws and arm men with guns to enforce them. You will obey or pay. Or both.

The government has no competitor. As it ironically enforces anti-monoploy laws on companies, it in itself has a monopoly on government, as there can be no 2 governments granted the same authority over 1 group of people and then compete for that group of people's funding.

1 city has 1 city government
1 state has 1 state government.
1 nation has 1 federal government.

With no competition, there is no need for efficiency, no need for an improved product or service. As the customer base cannot dwindle. The customer will come back, because it must come back, through threat of violence, to pay into the single government monopoly.

It is what we have, and it's why we need to keep government in check through smaller, not larger, government growth and power.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The government is just a bunch of people.

 

[Flopper]

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and the one thing that holding a public office gives people is POWER.

When Thomas Paine wrote “Common Sense”, governments ruled by tyranny. Government took what it wanted when it wanted and the people had little to say about it. When Paine described government as being evil, he was describing governments in the year 1776. There were no democratic republics such as the United States. Using Paine’s statements to imply that the government of the United States, which did not even exist at the time, is evil is ridiculous. “Common Sense” lays down the case for independence from Briton, which in the minds of the colonist was an evil government.

When our government works at it’s best, it is an enabler for the people. Our government is not good or evil regardless of the statement by Obama or Reagan.

 

[hortysir]

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and the one thing that holding a public office gives people is POWER.

When Thomas Paine wrote “Common Sense”, governments ruled by tyranny. Government took what it wanted when it wanted and the people had little to say about it. When Paine described government as being evil, he was describing governments in the year 1776. There were no democratic republics such as the United States. Using Paine’s statements to imply that the government of the United States, which did not even exist at the time, is evil is ridiculous. “Common Sense” lays down the case for independence from Briton, which in the minds of the colonist was an evil government.

When our government works at it’s best, it is an enabler for the people. Our government is not good or evil regardless of the statement by Obama or Reagan.

It is only what we make of it

 

[Oddball]

The government is just a bunch of people.

Not hardly...

Why the Worst Get on Top

NO DOUBT an American or English "fascist" system would greatly differ from the Italian or German models; no doubt, if the transition were effected without violence, we might expect to get a better type of leader. Yet this does not mean that our fascist system would in the end prove very different or much less intolerable than its prototypes. There are strong reasons for believing that the worst features of the totalitarian systems are phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce.

Just as the democratic statesman who sets out to plan economic life will soon be confronted with the alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans, so the totalitarian leader would soon have to choose between disregard of ordinary morals and failure. It is for this reason that the unscrupulous are likely to be more successful in a society tending toward totalitarianism. Who does not see this has not yet grasped the full width of the gulf which separates totalitarianism from the essentially individualist Western civilization.

The totalitarian leader must collect around him a group which is prepared voluntarily to submit to that discipline which they are to impose by force upon the rest of the people. That socialism can be put info practice only by methods which most socialists disapprove is, of course, a lesson learned by many social reformers in the past. The old socialist parties were inhibited by their democratic ideals; they did not possess the ruthlessness required for the performance of their chosen task. It is characteristic that both in Germany and in Italy the success of fascism was preceded by the refusal of the socialist parties to take over the responsibilities of government. They were unwilling wholeheartedly to employ the methods to which they had pointed the way. They still hoped for the miracle of a majority's agreeing on a particular plan for the organization of the whole of society. Others had already learned the lesson that in a planned society the question can no longer be on what do a majority of the people agree but what the largest single group is whose members agree sufficiently to make unified direction of all affairs possible.

The Road to Serfdom

 

[mascale]

Adam Smith's concept of "laissez-faire" bascially applies to a civilization in caves with no currency. Air is free, and there is not much demand for it(?). Civilization knows that it comes in cans, and hundreds of millions buy it.

That aside, once there is currency, denominated with the number system--and that number system is subject to the manipulations of arithmetic: The Laissez-Faire is over. More gets more, and that tends to gravitate to a clique of rulers.

Robert Michels called it, "The Iron Law of Oligarchy." Even in democracy, most people are disinterested, and at any rate without any means to be among the rulers. When they do, then they co-mingle and even intermarry. In America, for example, blacks still tend to not be preferred among the populations, for its rulers. They are excluded. When it comes to the teenagers among them, even the West Wing is not on their side.

When the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, a problem recently noted, arises. The poor can't pay. The rich can't play.

That is also about government, coercion, rulers, or an oligarchy.

Democracy itself doesn't work.

In the arithmetic systems where in the poor and the rich alike get richer, generally with basis in some equal amount: Then the tendency to Widespread Wealth Worldwide itself tends to work against the existence of a government, or civilization of governments and nations. In that sense, the actual outcome of liberal democracy, or socialist democracy, is an anarchy.

In an anarchy, there are corporate members, and various productive enterprises. There simply are no borders.

Everything is just a great big happy Arizona. . . .Or however that is said. In effect, the illegals are everywhere!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many tribes assembled in confederations, themselves not an anarchy, but including the concept of wealth! Hmmmmmmm!)

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Wicked bro......did you hear today that he is now blaming the airline for letting the terror bad guy on the plane.............
Ya know.....people tire of the diva type...............whining and always looking to point the finger at somebody else. Its called leadership fAiL. If I did that in my line of work, Id be out on my fanny in no time. He doesnt understand leadership because he never led so much as a game of pick-up baseketball in his life. The stupids of the world think that there are born leaders...........but those who have led know that it is something learned.
With this president..........its always somebody else's fault............

So many of the k00ks on this board also couldnt lead themselves out of a fcukking paper bag. To them, leadership is the first person to put their pen down after a test.

 

[FA_Q2]

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and the one thing that holding a public office gives people is POWER.

When Thomas Paine wrote “Common Sense”, governments ruled by tyranny. Government took what it wanted when it wanted and the people had little to say about it. When Paine described government as being evil, he was describing governments in the year 1776. There were no democratic republics such as the United States. Using Paine’s statements to imply that the government of the United States, which did not even exist at the time, is evil is ridiculous. “Common Sense” lays down the case for independence from Briton, which in the minds of the colonist was an evil government.

When our government works at it’s best, it is an enabler for the people. Our government is not good or evil regardless of the statement by Obama or Reagan.

your point? Never said the government is evil, I said it was corrupt and that is a general fact.

 

[teapartysamurai]

The government is just a bunch of people.

So was the government of Nazi Germany. What does that have to do with it?

A "bunch of people" can be terribly, terribly wrong.

Geesh!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and the one thing that holding a public office gives people is POWER.

When Thomas Paine wrote “Common Sense”, governments ruled by tyranny. Government took what it wanted when it wanted and the people had little to say about it. When Paine described government as being evil, he was describing governments in the year 1776. There were no democratic republics such as the United States. Using Paine’s statements to imply that the government of the United States, which did not even exist at the time, is evil is ridiculous. “Common Sense” lays down the case for independence from Briton, which in the minds of the colonist was an evil government.

When our government works at it’s best, it is an enabler for the people. Our government is not good or evil regardless of the statement by Obama or Reagan.

WRONG!

When the Founding Fathers put together our Constitution they knew that power corrupts, even government with the best of "intentions."

That's why they put LIMITS on their power.

YES this government CAN be evil. It is up to the people of this country to push back when our government does so. That is what the Constitution empowers us to do and that is what we should do!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The government is just a bunch of people.

So was the government of Nazi Germany. What does that have to do with it?

A "bunch of people" can be terribly, terribly wrong.

Geesh!

They sure can.

People can be evil, but are not inherently evil. Governments are just a bunch of people. Governments are not inherently evil.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I always wondered why anyone would vote for a guy who wanted to "fundamentally change" America.

If you loved someone and said, "Gee Honey, I love you with all my heart and now i want to fundamentally change who you are." would that make any sense.

 

[hortysir]

Wow, Skull, you sure know how to kill a thread don't ya?!!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wow, Skull, you sure know how to kill a thread don't ya?!!

I'm only here to help.