The Second American Revolution - We The People

[American Horse]

If you believe in revolution in this country, you do not believe in democracy.

Full stop.

This country is the most democratic in the world, by far! Americans vote on everything. FFS, Americans elect their national college football champion. That's a little over the top for me - democracy on steroids. But it is a compelling argument that democracy permeates through most everything this country does.

No one wants to overthrow the government; however there is a grave concern among a huge proportion of citizens over the way the country is going, and it's as if there is already a revolution going on; an overthrow already in progress. People in the middle realize that the ever increasing velocity of the change that has already been going on, is about to fly out of control, in a revolutionary fashion. They fear that they will not recognize their country in only a few years. There is also a fear that this change will have become irreversible, and it will not be a happy place we are going to. Much of this problem is made more chronic because clear mandates from a majority of the public are ignored for political purposes, mainly to the benefit to the political elite.

The people want a real leader. A constant complaint of responsibility for taking charge by complaining about the mess he has been left does really get it. Neither does it sound very leaderlike to say "this is really tough work; if it wasn't so hard it would've already been done" (that was only a paraphrase but it's what it souunds like to the average person.) Just imagine a leadership figure in your own life; in your place of employment for instance. Say you get a new manager or foreman in your workplace, and every time he speaks to the group he makes a statement about what a mess he has been left, what needs to be done; how it was left over for him to fix. This sort of complaint is not one the American people are used to hearing, and it does not instill confidence in that leadership, and it doesn't sit well.

 

[Toro]

A revolution of ideas or politics, fine.

A revolution of violence? Not so fine.

 

[eots]

A revolution of ideas or politics, fine.

A revolution of violence? Not so fine.

sometimes to make a omelette you got to break a few eggs.....

 

[elvis]

A revolution of ideas or politics, fine.

A revolution of violence? Not so fine.

sometimes to make a omelette you got to break a few eggs.....

who will you start with?

 

[Toro]

A revolution of ideas or politics, fine.

A revolution of violence? Not so fine.

sometimes to make a omelette you got to break a few eggs.....

A culinary revolution is good as well.

 

[midcan5]

I generally don't get into long debates with conservatives, when you are dealing with small children you cannot convince them with reason they are wrong as any parent knows. And conservatives are mostly(?) children as their beliefs are founded in myth and imaginary people. But I will address Ronnie and debt, I was there and saw firsthand the negative effect he had on America.

For those who point to Carter, Google stagflation and Nixon/Ford. Carter inherited a mess. Clinton inherited a mess. Obama inherited a mess, history for republicans does indeed repeat itself.

I'm sure the blind will question the sources and not the content, but hey, you know what they say about ducks.

"In the Reagan years, more federal debt was added than in the entire prior history of the United States." Richard Darman (Reagan advisor)

"Early in his presidency, Reagan chose as his economic advisors a group that espoused a radical economic theory called "supply-side." The supply-siders told Reagan that if he gave tax cuts to the top brackets (the wealthiest individuals) the positive effects would "trickle down" to everyone else. Tax cuts, they argued, would produce so much growth in the economy that America could simply outgrow its deficits. Reagan bought into supply-side theory, which is why in 1981 he predicted that there would be a "drastic reduction in the deficit."

However, Reagan soon discovered that his supply-side advisors were wrong. Tax cuts, instead of reducing the deficit, caused the deficit to balloon. After 1981, Reagan made no more rosy predictions regarding the deficit."
Economic Policy - The Reagan Years

"[In]1985 US Becomes Debtor Nation For the first time since 1914, the United States owed more money to foreigners than it was owed."

"Reagan's spending grew the size of government and set the stage for runaway government spending which has now taken our national debt to $9.2 trillion and has seen the U.S. shift from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation. It could be said that Reagan's legacy was leading this nation down the path to bankruptcy (to which we have now arrived)."
American Chronicle | Even Reagan Was No Ronald Reagan
(The above is from a conservative? weird stuff these conservatives.lol)

"Mr. Reagan also helped redistribute American income and wealth with a bold assault on American labor. In 1981 he summarily fired 12,000 air traffic controllers who went on strike for better working conditions. This ushered in a new and dark era of labor relations, with employers now free to "permanently replace" striking workers. The median real wage failed to grow during the decade of the 1980s.

The Reagan revolution caused even more economic damage internationally, for example by changing policy at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Thus began the era of "structural adjustment" -- a set of economic policies that has become so discredited worldwide that the IMF and World Bank no longer use the term. The 1980s became "the lost decade" for Latin America, the region most affected by Washington's foreign economic policy. Income per person actually shrank for the decade, a rare historical event, and the region has yet to come close to its pre-1980s growth rates."

Ronald Reagan's Legacy

"Reagan's first tax proposal, for example, had previously been endorsed by the Democratic Congress beginning in 1978, and the general structure of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was first proposed by two junior Democratic members of Congress in 1982. Similarly, the "monetarist experiment" to control inflation was initiated in October 1979, following Carter's appointment of Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. The bipartisan support of these policies permitted Reagan to implement more radical changes than in other areas of economic policy."

Reaganomics, by William A. Niskanen: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

"Reagan left three major adverse legacies at the end of his second term. First, the privately held federal debt increased from 22.3 percent of GDP to 38.1 percent and, despite the record peacetime expansion, the federal deficit in Reagan's last budget was still 2.9 percent of GDP. Second, the failure to address the savings and loan problem early led to an additional debt of about $125 billion. Third, the administration added more trade barriers than any administration since Hoover. The share of U.S. imports subject to some form of trade restraint increased from 12 percent in 1980 to 23 percent in 1988." from above


"[Reagan] opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation....
Congress overrode the veto. Reagan also vetoed the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa. Congress overrode that veto, too."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html?_r=1


Reagan's legacy from others
Salon.com Politics | The Reagan legacy
The Reagan Legacy
Ronald Reagan's Legacy
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html
graphs
Hale "Bonddad" Stewart: Ronald Reagan: Fiscal Disaster


"Remember Reagan; respect him. But don't let them make you revere him. He was a divider, not a uniter." Rick Perlstein

 

[Toro]

For those who point to Carter, Google stagflation and Nixon/Ford. Carter inherited a mess. Clinton inherited a mess. Obama inherited a mess, history for republicans does indeed repeat itself.

It goes further than that, however. The genesis of the 1970s inflation was the Vietnam War, and the escalation of it in the 60s under LBJ. Legend has it that at his ranch in Texas, LBJ threw Fed Governor William McChesney Martin - i.e. yesterday's Alan Greenspan or Ben Bernanke - up against a wall and demanded that the Fed lower interest rates to inflate the economy for the war effort.

 

[midcan5]

You don't and have not criticized anyone but the right since coming to this board, and if there's nothing to criticize, you make shit up.

I will agree with the first part of that, but not the second. And by the way, I will continue the first part especially when I see nonsense like this thread.


"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."

Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech

 

[BrianH]

Are you threatening me, Gunny? Still with the rightwingnut claim that anyone that doesn't agree with your view is a traitor?

I was commenting on his claim that Obama called this guy and told him not to tell anyone.

As usual, Madame Twist-a-Lot and her melodrama can't answer even an simple question without attempting to deflect by putting words never spoken into someone's mouth. I must admit though, you HAVE outdone even YOUR usual with this load of shit.

One, there's not threat, idiot.

Two, put up or shut up. Provide the evidence that I have ever stated anyone that does not agree with my views a traitor.

O r I can save you the trouble. You're a liar. I have never stated anything even YOU could misconstrue into THAT. You have knowingly attempted to attribute to me something I have never said.

And it doesn't take a rightwingnut to be to the right of you. Just a fucking brain.

No offense, but go fuck yourself. You claim that it is people like me that the revolution will be against. Why? Because I think the economy is worth saving? Because I didn't vote for McCain? Because I think the government should not penalize AIG employees for their bonuses? Because I think illegal immigration is a wedge issue and not the problem it is made out to be? Because I think the war in Iraq was a mistake? Why exactly are you singling me out, Gunny, what viewpoint of mine makes you claim that I am the type of people the revolution will be against?

As for your question, I have more loyalty to the country than the government...but they are both intertwined because WE are the government.

Not at our current state as a nation. That's the point of this thread, is that the representatives are not really representing us. You have all of these bills and stimulus packages being passed even though a HUGE majority of people are pissed off about it and don't approve of it. Now if WE are the government, why is our government governing without us? How can something pass into law when the vast majority of people are opposed to it? Our presidents can be elected with 51 percent of the vote, why are laws and bills passed with only 20 percent approval? I'm not suggesting the actual numbers of real events, but simply demonstrating that at the moment, WE are not the government....and that's the problem.

 

[BrianH]

If you believe in revolution in this country, you do not believe in democracy.

Full stop.

This country is the most democratic in the world, by far! Americans vote on everything. FFS, Americans elect their national college football champion. That's a little over the top for me - democracy on steroids. But it is a compelling argument that democracy permeates through most everything this country does.

When did you cast your vote for both stimulus packages? When did you cast your vote for both wars we're involved in?

No one is talking about having an armed revolution and beheading all of the bureaucrats and politicians. But our system needs to be "checked and balanced." The government currently has WAY TOO MUCH power and is wanting more.

 

[Ravi]

As usual, Madame Twist-a-Lot and her melodrama can't answer even an simple question without attempting to deflect by putting words never spoken into someone's mouth. I must admit though, you HAVE outdone even YOUR usual with this load of shit.

One, there's not threat, idiot.

Two, put up or shut up. Provide the evidence that I have ever stated anyone that does not agree with my views a traitor.

O r I can save you the trouble. You're a liar. I have never stated anything even YOU could misconstrue into THAT. You have knowingly attempted to attribute to me something I have never said.

And it doesn't take a rightwingnut to be to the right of you. Just a fucking brain.

No offense, but go fuck yourself. You claim that it is people like me that the revolution will be against. Why? Because I think the economy is worth saving? Because I didn't vote for McCain? Because I think the government should not penalize AIG employees for their bonuses? Because I think illegal immigration is a wedge issue and not the problem it is made out to be? Because I think the war in Iraq was a mistake? Why exactly are you singling me out, Gunny, what viewpoint of mine makes you claim that I am the type of people the revolution will be against?

As for your question, I have more loyalty to the country than the government...but they are both intertwined because WE are the government.

Not at our current state as a nation. That's the point of this thread, is that the representatives are not really representing us. You have all of these bills and stimulus packages being passed even though a HUGE majority of people are pissed off about it and don't approve of it. Now if WE are the government, why is our government governing without us? How can something pass into law when the vast majority of people are opposed to it? Our presidents can be elected with 51 percent of the vote, why are laws and bills passed with only 20 percent approval? I'm not suggesting the actual numbers of real events, but simply demonstrating that at the moment, WE are not the government....and that's the problem.

I don't think you are right, Brian. Most Americans support the stimulus package.

Support for stimulus plan slips, poll finds - CNN.com

 

[Toro]

When did you cast your vote for both stimulus packages? When did you cast your vote for both wars we're involved in?

You can say that about any policy you do not like. We live in a representative democracy where we elect individuals to make decisions for us.

Democracy would not work if every single person refused to accept the outcome unless they received every single thing they wanted. Democracy is about reaching a consensus amongst competing interests, not everyone being strident and absolute in one's own position and not accepting the outcome.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Hello ... there's been a LOT of talk about revolution lately. Think you can make it go away by trying to marginalize and hide it?

Only among the wingiest of wingnuts who have been anti-democracy for the past eight years. They really need to grow up....

or is "democracy" only good when their guy wins.

I'm sorry... I don't take people who want to live in a banana republic very seriously.

Democracy is not the end to any means which provides for it. Which is what you're saying here... that the imperative IS the Democracy...

Democracy is merely a Democratic process... Your position requires the imperative be the existence of the Democracy itself. That somehow 'Democracy' means something, in and of itself...

In reality what 'counts,' which is to say the IMPERATIVE, is the individual liberty, which is sustained through the bed-rock principle upon which liberty rests... democracy is the means which seeks to serve THAT END through the means of each individual to cast a virtuous; prudent and morally sound vote, which serves that IMPERATIVE; but where a democracy lacks virtue and where that absence of virtue rejects it's natural prudence; such a democracy stands as a threat to THE JUST AND VALID PRINCIPLES OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY; it becomes the tyranny that smothers individual liberty; thus destroying it; such a democracy comes to stand in opposition to those bed-rock principles on which individual liberty rests.

Democracy as such becomes little more than the popular whimsy of a misguided majority; 'mob rule' where the perception of a majority which is the result of deception and manipulation by a devious ruling minority, who use democracy to feather their own duplicitous nest; the tiny tyrants for instance who used the power granted them through democratic rule, to coerce those in the financial markets to set aside prudent actuarial lending thresholds, in the name of equality!! Manipulating the meaning of equality, blurring it with that of subjective fairness; inevitably destroying the very market which had provided for decades, a stable and sustainable means for hundreds of millions of free people to trade their fair value for fair value in return; but which was set upon and all but destroyed by the non-virtuous tyrants wielding tiny minds and cold hearts, because that market failed to provide HOME OWNERSHIP to those who were not otherwise capable of such; that the market did provide housing to the least able WAS NOT ENOUGH, it wasn't FAIR.

The tiny tyrants rejected out of hand that such could not 'own' a home because of their inherent financial instability.

Prudence requires that where one injects instability into a market, that the market will inevitably succumb to the calamitous effects of instability... but the tiny tyrants did not care... they demanded that PRUDENCE BE DAMNED! That what COUNTED WAS FAIRNESS and they implied a MAJORITY DEMAND that prudence be set aside to accommodate that projected majorities desire for fairness and in so doing CORRUPTED THE FINANCIAL MARKETS, leaving them in their present state of calamity which we're all so very familiar... Sadly, the tiny tyrants are presently setting aside prudence and virtue and stealing the incomes of four generations, obligating THEM to pay for their mistakes; punishing success and subsiding that which succumbed to their catastrophic lack of concern for prudent, virtuous judgment.



Democracy is not an end in and of itself... fairness is not equality and popular will is not the measure of prudent and virtuous governance; and where popular will seeks to empower that majority over the valid and just rights of the individual; it is the duty of the virtuous people to cast off that misnomer and replace it governance that understands that the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE can only be sustained WHERE THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL ARE RESPECTED AND THEIR MEANS TO EXERCISE THOSE RIGHTS PROTECTED... that ONLY THEN, will the Right of the sum of individuals; "THE PEOPLE" be secure.

 

[Ravi]

Keep typing, Cheeta
.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

When did you cast your vote for both stimulus packages? When did you cast your vote for both wars we're involved in?

You can say that about any policy you do not like. We live in a representative democracy where we elect individuals to make decisions for us.

Democracy would not work if every single person refused to accept the outcome unless they received every single thing they wanted. Democracy is about reaching a consensus amongst competing interests, not everyone being strident and absolute in one's own position and not accepting the outcome.

What we find here is an excuse which serves to set aside the responsibility of the elected representatives in a democratic representative republic to exercise virtuous prudence... in effect the assertion is that because Representatives have been elected, THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME VALID REASONING WHICH SUSTAINS INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY without regard to the specific form of governence which is charged with defending it.

Similar to that of Jillian, the imperative becomes the Representative Republic itself... and NOT the principles on which that Republic was formed... the implication being that the Republic is the end, by which the means served to promote; and nothing can or could be farther from the truth.

Democracy can only "WORK" where a virtuous people, seek to serve through that Democracy, Democratic Representative Republic or other forms of democratic government; the principled imperative for which it was designed to promote. Which is to say that the Democracy rest upon a virtuous people who understand the principles which the Democracy was designed to serve and will use their influence to promote those principles, thus sustaining the culture which designed the democracy towards that end in the first place.

Where the people who comprise that Democracy do not possess the knowledge or understanding of those principles, or who have come to reject those principles, then that government no longer serves such and where there remains present, those who DO understand and who DO respect the natural and immutable principles, it falls to them at some point to CHANGE that government and REFORM those who would contest its natural sustenance.

The US government is, as noted by Toro, a Representative Republic which is designed to promote and defend the Constitution which established that Republic. A constitution which was written and designed to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL from the power of a government from usurping their means to exercise those rights.

The gentleman in the video who has become the subject of the OP was precisely correct in every one of his many points which described the absurd detachment which the US Legislature has established for themselves... He is precisely correct, that there is NO MEANS WITHIN REASON which could possibly argue that these detachments from their responsibility could POSSIBLY SERVE A SUSTAINABLE FREEDOM...

And where those detachments PREVENT the means of the sum of individuals which comprise 'the people' to bring that legislature back into alignment with their constitutional responsibilities... inevitably it falls to the sum of those individuals to do so by whatever means is available to them; and to initiate those means in the order which prudent judgment provides.

Revolution comes in many forms.. but in every revolution sweeping change is its function and as such, once it begins, where it ends is always in doubt... and because of this, it is the tendency of most people to tolerate the intolerable... up to the point, where the intolerable earns it's stripe and the anxiety born in the doubtful outcome is preferable to that which left such as their only remaining alternative, to that which they could no longer accept.

These are immutable principles; they're not subject to the whimsy of a projected popular consensus or the threat of unspeakable power... they're not impressed by haughty rejections born of some faux intellectual enlightenment...

They are the principles of nature; and while one can fight the inevitable effect inherent in nature, one cannot long withstand the inexorable forces which nature's inevitability assures.

So I suggest you govern yourself accordingly and in so doing, be prepared to accept the inevitable consequences of your actions... which I should note, in closing, come to us all... Except the consequences of actions born of principled virtue are commonly recognized as the benefit of such... in contrast to the 'consequences' negatively associated with it's antithesis.

 

[roomy]

When did you cast your vote for both stimulus packages? When did you cast your vote for both wars we're involved in?

You can say that about any policy you do not like. We live in a representative democracy where we elect individuals to make decisions for us.

Democracy would not work if every single person refused to accept the outcome unless they received every single thing they wanted. Democracy is about reaching a consensus amongst competing interests, not everyone being strident and absolute in one's own position and not accepting the outcome.

What we find here is an excuse which serves to set aside the responsibility of the elected representatives in a democratic representative republic to exercise virtuous prudence... in effect the assertion is that because Representatives have been elected, THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME VALID REASONING WHICH SUSTAINS INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY without regard to the specific form of governence which is charged with defending it.

Similar to that of Jillian, the imperative becomes the Representative Republic itself... and NOT the principles on which that Republic was formed... the implication being that the Republic is the end, by which the means served to promote; and nothing can or could be farther from the truth.

Democracy can only "WORK" where a virtuous people, seek to serve through that Democracy, Democratic Representative Republic or other forms of democratic government; the principled imperative for which it was designed to promote. Which is to say that the Democracy rest upon a virtuous people who understand the principles which the Democracy was designed to serve and will use their influence to promote those principles, thus sustaining the culture which designed the democracy towards that end in the first place.

Where the people who comprise that Democracy do not possess the knowledge or understanding of those principles, or who have come to reject those principles, then that government no longer serves such and where there remains present, those who DO understand and who DO respect the natural and immutable principles, it falls to them at some point to CHANGE that government and REFORM those who would contest its natural sustenance.

The US government is, as noted by Toro, a Representative Republic which is designed to promote and defend the Constitution which established that Republic. A constitution which was written and designed to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL from the power of a government from usurping their means to exercise those rights.

The gentleman in the video who has become the subject of the OP was precisely correct in every one of his many points which described the absurd detachment which the US Legislature has established for themselves... He is precisely correct, that there is NO MEANS WITHIN REASON which could possibly argue that these detachments from their responsibility could POSSIBLY SERVE A SUSTAINABLE FREEDOM...

And where those detachments PREVENT the means of the sum of individuals which comprise 'the people' to bring that legislature back into alignment with their constitutional responsibilities... inevitably it falls to the sum of those individuals to do so by whatever means is available to them; and to initiate those means in the order which prudent judgment provides.

Revolution comes in many forms.. but in every revolution sweeping change is its function and as such, once it begins, where it ends is always in doubt... and because of this, it is the tendency of most people to tolerate the intolerable... up to the point, where the intolerable earns it's stripe and the anxiety born in the doubtful outcome is preferable to that which left such as their only remaining alternative, to that which they could no longer accept.

These are immutable principles; they're not subject to the whimsy of a projected popular consensus or the threat of unspeakable power... they're not impressed by haughty rejections born of some faux intellectual enlightenment...

They are the principles of nature; and while one can fight the inevitable effect inherent in nature, one cannot long withstand the inexorable forces which nature's inevitability assures.

So I suggest you govern yourself accordingly and in so doing, be prepared to accept the inevitable consequences of your actions... which I should note, in closing, come to us all... Except the consequences of actions born of principled virtue are commonly recognized as the benefit of such... in contrast to the 'consequences' negatively associated with it's antithesis.

For the life of me I can't understand why everyone hates you, I think you are...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No offense, but go fuck yourself. You claim that it is people like me that the revolution will be against. Why? Because I think the economy is worth saving? Because I didn't vote for McCain? Because I think the government should not penalize AIG employees for their bonuses? Because I think illegal immigration is a wedge issue and not the problem it is made out to be? Because I think the war in Iraq was a mistake? Why exactly are you singling me out, Gunny, what viewpoint of mine makes you claim that I am the type of people the revolution will be against?

As for your question, I have more loyalty to the country than the government...but they are both intertwined because WE are the government.

Not at our current state as a nation. That's the point of this thread, is that the representatives are not really representing us. You have all of these bills and stimulus packages being passed even though a HUGE majority of people are pissed off about it and don't approve of it. Now if WE are the government, why is our government governing without us? How can something pass into law when the vast majority of people are opposed to it? Our presidents can be elected with 51 percent of the vote, why are laws and bills passed with only 20 percent approval? I'm not suggesting the actual numbers of real events, but simply demonstrating that at the moment, WE are not the government....and that's the problem.

I don't think you are right, Brian. Most Americans support the stimulus package.

Support for stimulus plan slips, poll finds - CNN.com

That "most PEOPLE" support a given policy IN NO WAY ESTABLISHES THAT SUCH POLICY IS A VIRTUOUS AND PRUDENT DECISION WHICH BEST SERVES THE INTERESTS OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY...

If 98% of "THE PEOPLE" voted to BURN DOWN THE SUM OF ALL MEANS OF FOOD PRODUCTION... that would not be a virtuous and prudent decision in support of individual liberty either.

So this idiotic notion that "majority RULES" is BULLSHIT, where that majority does NOT SERVE THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THEIR MEANS TO GOVERN RESTS... The left doesn't have a right to destroy the US currency, just because they were elected to a majority.

PERIOD.

And this all hinges on the certainty that NO ACTION BY ANY INDIVIDUAL OF SOME OF INDIVIDUAL CAN RIGHTFULLY USURP THE MEANS OF OTHERS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS. And when your actions destroy my means to engage in commerce... you've indisputably usurped my means to exercise my right to pursue the fulfillment of my life through the fruit of my labor.

And that's a problem... Now you claim you have a majority and that this makes you right... well if you idiots keep pushing this freedom killing policy, you had better hope you've a majority and one which has the means to defend thsemselves from that very well regulated 'minority' who you'll have THROUGHLY pissed off and who will be in no mood to hear your snotty fallacious retorts, let alone to accept them as a viable defense.

But far be it from me to offer an opinion designed to PREVENT hostility... you just keep advancing that 'let them eat cake' attitude, Marie... and we'll see how it plays out.

 

[slackjawed]

"And that's a problem... Now you claim you have a majority and that this makes you right... well if you idiots keep pushing this freedom killing policy, you had better hope you've a majority and one which has the means to defend thsemselves from that very well regulated 'minority' who you'll have THROUGHLY pissed off and who will be in no mood to hear your snotty fallacious retorts, let alone to accept them as a viable defense."

I want to point out that the majority now may not be the majority in the future. Justifying unconstitutional actions by means of claiming a majority is a double edged sword and can be used against one group when another comes into power and is the 'majority'.
That's why we have a constitution that defines us a (democratic) representitive republic. This was an attempt by our founding fathers to protect our country from the "tyranny of democracy".(ie mob rule)
Until the American people start to see through the divisionary tactics used by our so-called leaders and unite with one voice, we the people won't see any results in our favor.
Stop the partisan bickering, it is a ploy by our corrupt leaders to divide us and manipulate us against each other all the while enriching themselves and their friends.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You can say that about any policy you do not like. We live in a representative democracy where we elect individuals to make decisions for us.

Democracy would not work if every single person refused to accept the outcome unless they received every single thing they wanted. Democracy is about reaching a consensus amongst competing interests, not everyone being strident and absolute in one's own position and not accepting the outcome.

What we find here is an excuse which serves to set aside the responsibility of the elected representatives in a democratic representative republic to exercise virtuous prudence... in effect the assertion is that because Representatives have been elected, THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME VALID REASONING WHICH SUSTAINS INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY without regard to the specific form of governence which is charged with defending it.

Similar to that of Jillian, the imperative becomes the Representative Republic itself... and NOT the principles on which that Republic was formed... the implication being that the Republic is the end, by which the means served to promote; and nothing can or could be farther from the truth.

Democracy can only "WORK" where a virtuous people, seek to serve through that Democracy, Democratic Representative Republic or other forms of democratic government; the principled imperative for which it was designed to promote. Which is to say that the Democracy rest upon a virtuous people who understand the principles which the Democracy was designed to serve and will use their influence to promote those principles, thus sustaining the culture which designed the democracy towards that end in the first place.

Where the people who comprise that Democracy do not possess the knowledge or understanding of those principles, or who have come to reject those principles, then that government no longer serves such and where there remains present, those who DO understand and who DO respect the natural and immutable principles, it falls to them at some point to CHANGE that government and REFORM those who would contest its natural sustenance.

The US government is, as noted by Toro, a Representative Republic which is designed to promote and defend the Constitution which established that Republic. A constitution which was written and designed to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL from the power of a government from usurping their means to exercise those rights.

The gentleman in the video who has become the subject of the OP was precisely correct in every one of his many points which described the absurd detachment which the US Legislature has established for themselves... He is precisely correct, that there is NO MEANS WITHIN REASON which could possibly argue that these detachments from their responsibility could POSSIBLY SERVE A SUSTAINABLE FREEDOM...

And where those detachments PREVENT the means of the sum of individuals which comprise 'the people' to bring that legislature back into alignment with their constitutional responsibilities... inevitably it falls to the sum of those individuals to do so by whatever means is available to them; and to initiate those means in the order which prudent judgment provides.

Revolution comes in many forms.. but in every revolution sweeping change is its function and as such, once it begins, where it ends is always in doubt... and because of this, it is the tendency of most people to tolerate the intolerable... up to the point, where the intolerable earns it's stripe and the anxiety born in the doubtful outcome is preferable to that which left such as their only remaining alternative, to that which they could no longer accept.

These are immutable principles; they're not subject to the whimsy of a projected popular consensus or the threat of unspeakable power... they're not impressed by haughty rejections born of some faux intellectual enlightenment...

They are the principles of nature; and while one can fight the inevitable effect inherent in nature, one cannot long withstand the inexorable forces which nature's inevitability assures.

So I suggest you govern yourself accordingly and in so doing, be prepared to accept the inevitable consequences of your actions... which I should note, in closing, come to us all... Except the consequences of actions born of principled virtue are commonly recognized as the benefit of such... in contrast to the 'consequences' negatively associated with it's antithesis.

For the life of me I can't understand why everyone hates you, I think you are...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

First, that you believe that everyone hates me, says far more about your limited intellect, your lack of virtue and your disregard for prudence, than the comment could ever hope to say about me.

You have, as is the habit of your ilk, thus representing the danger inherent in your right to vote, sought to avoid the argument I presented. And ya did so for NO OTHER reason than you simply lack the intellectual means to do so; reason is served by the certainty, that IF you COULD advance a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid rebuttal, which YOU FELT offered a sound refutation of my position... or one which even mounted a worthy defense of that to which I contested... YOU WOULD.

But thank you for demonstrating my point...

I would like to take this time to inform the board that I in NO WAY, directly or indirectly encouraged this individual to offer a position which supports fundament elements of my position.

Had I so much as asserted that this person was limited to such intellectual non-starters, they'd have vociferously denied it and demanded I PROVE IT!

Thus, towards that end, I submit this members post as evidence of their severe intellectual means and their free deomonstration of the stark absence of any discernable moral virtue or prudent judgment being possessed by them.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

"And that's a problem... Now you claim you have a majority and that this makes you right... well if you idiots keep pushing this freedom killing policy, you had better hope you've a majority and one which has the means to defend thsemselves from that very well regulated 'minority' who you'll have THROUGHLY pissed off and who will be in no mood to hear your snotty fallacious retorts, let alone to accept them as a viable defense."

I want to point out that the majority now may not be the majority in the future. Justifying unconstitutional actions by means of claiming a majority is a double edged sword and can be used against one group when another comes into power and is the 'majority'.
That's why we have a constitution that defines us a (democratic) representitive republic. This was an attempt by our founding fathers to protect our country from the "tyranny of democracy".(ie mob rule)
Until the American people start to see through the divisionary tactics used by our so-called leaders and unite with one voice, we the people won't see any results in our favor.
Stop the partisan bickering, it is a ploy by our corrupt leaders to divide us and manipulate us against each other all the while enriching themselves and their friends.

First... I reject out of hand, the notion that 'partisan bickering' is even a valid notion... in my experience, its a term which is used by the 'middle way(ers), the centrist, the fascists... that use it in an vain attempt to establish their own moral superiority; which would be fine, if their positions were not being created from the ideological ether and didn't rest on the tedious infinite point of endless cliches and meaningless platitudes, such as that which "partisan bickering" effectively illustrates.

You will never find me resting from my opposition to the principle-less, liberty killing advocacies of the ideological left. The "American People" are but a tiny minority within the ranks of the US population. Leftism is the antithesis of American and as such they do not represent, cannot represent and will NEVER represent ANY AMERICAN, let alone advocate for American principle.

If you can't recognize that immutable fact, then you are part of the problem.

Now before ya start cryin' that I've misrepresented that for which you should be labeled; TAKE THE TIME TO ADVANCE A LEFTIST POSITION WHICH YOU FEEL ON SOME LEVEL EXEMPLIFIES "AMERICA."