Where Did Our Republic Go??

[PoliticalChic]

I've pointed out before, PC, that when soundly trounced -- when your arguments have been shown to be completely empty and without foundation -- you fall back on personal insult and present a post containing nothing in the way of argument or evidence whatsoever; nothing, in fact, EXCEPT personal invective. It's a clear concession of defeat, whether you realize it or not.

Ever see a cat-fight? (I mean a literal cat-fight, not one between two women.) Ever see the loser scamper away into a safe place, hiss at the winner, and lick its wounds as nonchalant as possible, apparently attempting to convey that it COULD have won if the other cat was worth the bother?

That's what you remind me of at times like these.

1. personal insult ...no more than you deserve.

2. soundly trounced...absurd.

3. You...attempting to express any expertise in this thread would be akin to Charlie Sheen doing a testimonial for eHarmony.


Step off.

 

[Dr Grump]

I've pointed out before, PC, that when soundly trounced -- when your arguments have been shown to be completely empty and without foundation -- you fall back on personal insult and present a post containing nothing in the way of argument or evidence whatsoever; nothing, in fact, EXCEPT personal invective. It's a clear concession of defeat, whether you realize it or not.

Ever see a cat-fight? (I mean a literal cat-fight, not one between two women.) Ever see the loser scamper away into a safe place, hiss at the winner, and lick its wounds as nonchalant as possible, apparently attempting to convey that it COULD have won if the other cat was worth the bother?

That's what you remind me of at times like these.

She's always been like that...posts inane right-wing rhetoric, gets called on it, then insults..

Pathetic really...

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've pointed out before, PC, that when soundly trounced -- when your arguments have been shown to be completely empty and without foundation -- you fall back on personal insult and present a post containing nothing in the way of argument or evidence whatsoever; nothing, in fact, EXCEPT personal invective. It's a clear concession of defeat, whether you realize it or not.

Ever see a cat-fight? (I mean a literal cat-fight, not one between two women.) Ever see the loser scamper away into a safe place, hiss at the winner, and lick its wounds as nonchalant as possible, apparently attempting to convey that it COULD have won if the other cat was worth the bother?

That's what you remind me of at times like these.

She's always been like that...posts inane right-wing rhetoric, gets called on it, then insults..

Pathetic really...

If you can't stand the heat, stay outta the kitchen.

 

[Dragon]

I can stand the heat just fine. I can even keep my cool and stay rational in the process, which, PC, quite obviously you can't. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can stand the heat just fine. I can even keep my cool and stay rational in the process, which, PC, quite obviously you can't. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

1. I admit to one teensy-weensy character flaw...so insignificant, it is hardly worth mentioning...but since you refer to same, here goes:

I find it difficult to suffer fools easily.

(2 Corinthians 11:19) reads, "ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise."

2. So, according to St. Paul, I am less than wise.
Guilty.
I have not the resignation to accept the fact that a poster either pretends expertise or knowledge that he does not have, or is willing to trumpet his own ignorance.

3. According to you and Grump, I'm supposed to simply stroke my chin, furrow my brow, and pretend you have a point.
That's not gonna happen.

4.If you are correct, I won't deny it. I expect the same....or else I will find some retort that amuses me and impales you.
In the case of Senator McCarthy, I have done extensive study. You have not. You got what you deserve.

5. In the following you show the consistent lack of perception: "I can even keep my cool and stay rational in the process, which, PC, quite obviously you can't."
I rarely lose my cool. And certainly have not in this thread.

Better luck in your future studies.

 

[Dragon]

LOL a lot of words saying nothing. Hope it made you feel better. It accomplished bugger-all otherwise.

Looks like we're done here. Till next time, au revoir.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1. re·pub·lic/riˈpəblik/ Noun:
A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president...
...


When did Americans decide to cede their power to a bureaucracy?
When did we lose our republic?

Everything is fine. The republic stands. Democracy (politics) is messy.

Grow up

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. re·pub·lic/riˈpəblik/ Noun:
A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president...
...


When did Americans decide to cede their power to a bureaucracy?
When did we lose our republic?

Everything is fine. The republic stands. Democracy (politics) is messy.

Grow up

So...when you buy a defective product..."Everything is fine."

Pick up your suit and it still has a stain..."Everything is fine."

Steak is raw....."Everything is fine."

Politicians break their word...."Everything is fine."


I shudder to think, if everyone were like you....

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps without intending to, I think you may have touched on the No. #1 issue that is eroding the Republic that the Founders intended that we have.

That issue is a woeful lack of education re three important game changers.

Those of us who are students of American history, including modern history, have seen the creep of authoritarian government gradually eroding the Founders' concept of self governance.

The first game changer was the Teddy Roosevelt administration who was the first to use big government and his office in any significant way to bend commerce and industry to the will of the President. Through regulation, threats, and manipulation, he significantly expanded the scope, reach, and authority of the Presidential office and the federal government. The free market system and individaul rights began to erode at that point, slowly at first, and escalating ever since.

The second game changer was the Franklin Roosevelt administration who was the first to use the federal treasury to dispense charity. However limited and innouous and intended to be temporary that federal government benevolenvce was, it formed the snowball that has been rolling and gathering size and momentum ever since to create a welfare state in which the government holds the power, and the people are slowly and systematically stripped of their dignity, self worth, incentives, and rights.

The third game changer was the cultural revolution of the Sixties in which rebels tuned out, zoned out, opted out of the traditional American culture and trashed traditional American values in all aspects of American life. Gradually most of those rebels returned to the mainstream, but not before the new American Left had fully emerged and taken over a huge segment of the education system, most especially higher education, the media, and had infiltrated government. They and those they mentored to follow in their footsteps have manipulated and twisted the histories and traditional values into concepts that would have horrified Founders.

And too many Americans have been so dumbed down, brain washed, misled, and misdirected so that they now can see only how bad it once and reject any evidence to the contrary. Many believe that the pre 1960's America never existed and was a myth promoted by the shrinking traditional values crowd. And they have been conditioned to exalt, trust, and accept an ever more powerful, more overreaching, more intrusive, more authoritarian federal government that they see as more honest, more trustworthy, more noble, and more righteous than the state and local governments are percveived.

And in my opinion, THAT is where our Republic has gone.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Pretty good post, fox.

the only thing I will add, and I believe it is the start point of all that comes into your post, is the federal reserve act of 1913. those who know our history, know that the founders were dead set against central banking and for very good measure. We fought wars to keep the central banks off these shores.

Without the ability to expand the money supply, the wars and the welfare programs would never have been possible without taaxing the populace into oblivion. Which, would have made both of these terrible policies extremely unfavorable with voters and would likely have kept the authoritarian creep at bay.

otherwise, perhaps debatable on your third point (as I believe the 60s counterculture was actually a reaction, verse a stand alone problem), I'm in complete agreement with that assessment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps without intending to, I think you may have touched on the No. #1 issue that is eroding the Republic that the Founders intended that we have.

That issue is a woeful lack of education re three important game changers.

Those of us who are students of American history, including modern history, have seen the creep of authoritarian government gradually eroding the Founders' concept of self governance.

The first game changer was the Teddy Roosevelt administration who was the first to use big government and his office in any significant way to bend commerce and industry to the will of the President. Through regulation, threats, and manipulation, he significantly expanded the scope, reach, and authority of the Presidential office and the federal government. The free market system and individaul rights began to erode at that point, slowly at first, and escalating ever since.

The second game changer was the Franklin Roosevelt administration who was the first to use the federal treasury to dispense charity. However limited and innouous and intended to be temporary that federal government benevolenvce was, it formed the snowball that has been rolling and gathering size and momentum ever since to create a welfare state in which the government holds the power, and the people are slowly and systematically stripped of their dignity, self worth, incentives, and rights.

The third game changer was the cultural revolution of the Sixties in which rebels tuned out, zoned out, opted out of the traditional American culture and trashed traditional American values in all aspects of American life. Gradually most of those rebels returned to the mainstream, but not before the new American Left had fully emerged and taken over a huge segment of the education system, most especially higher education, the media, and had infiltrated government. They and those they mentored to follow in their footsteps have manipulated and twisted the histories and traditional values into concepts that would have horrified Founders.

And too many Americans have been so dumbed down, brain washed, misled, and misdirected so that they now can see only how bad it once and reject any evidence to the contrary. Many believe that the pre 1960's America never existed and was a myth promoted by the shrinking traditional values crowd. And they have been conditioned to exalt, trust, and accept an ever more powerful, more overreaching, more intrusive, more authoritarian federal government that they see as more honest, more trustworthy, more noble, and more righteous than the state and local governments are percveived.

And in my opinion, THAT is where our Republic has gone.

What a nice job, Foxy.

If you don't mind my gilding the lily, I'd like add some evidence to your post...

1. Danica Patrick: “I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans.”

2. From a poster on the board:
"What you CONZ seem to fail to understand is that when government gets involved regulating an industry, it's for the PUBLIC GOOD, as the PUBLIC GOOD is NOT in the charter of private business. MAKING MONEY is."

3. The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”

4. And, another one of our colleagues:
"We have really messed up our environment, and we don't have another planet to go to.

Any protection that the average person from the polluters has IS FROM GOVERNMENT.

Any consumer protection is from the government.

Our educational system is from the government.

Our transportation. Our military. Our police.

We vote in officials, who make decisions on expenditures for our societal benefit.

That is not servitude. I'm freer under this government [along with people in other modern democracies] than any average person in the history of the world."



This is what they never learned:
Reagan – “we are a nation that HAS a government … not the other way around.”

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1. re·pub·lic/riˈpəblik/ Noun:
A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president...
...


When did Americans decide to cede their power to a bureaucracy?
When did we lose our republic?

Everything is fine. The republic stands. Democracy (politics) is messy.

Grow up

So...when you buy a defective product..."Everything is fine."

Pick up your suit and it still has a stain..."Everything is fine."

Steak is raw....."Everything is fine."

Politicians break their word...."Everything is fine."


I shudder to think, if everyone were like you....

Democracy by definition is a defective product. It's in the fine print.

You truly live in a dream world.

 

[Foxfyre]

Pretty good post, fox.

the only thing I will add, and I believe it is the start point of all that comes into your post, is the federal reserve act of 1913. those who know our history, know that the founders were dead set against central banking and for very good measure. We fought wars to keep the central banks off these shores.

Without the ability to expand the money supply, the wars and the welfare programs would never have been possible without taaxing the populace into oblivion. Which, would have made both of these terrible policies extremely unfavorable with voters and would likely have kept the authoritarian creep at bay.

otherwise, perhaps debatable on your third point (as I believe the 60s counterculture was actually a reaction, verse a stand alone problem), I'm in complete agreement with that assessment.

Good points. However, I think if Teddy Roosevelt had been challenged and stopped when he began federalizing the free market and manipulating the system--he was far too popular and admired to challenge I suppose--then Woodrow Wilson, two administrations later and sometimes thought of as the father of modern progressivism, would never have been able to create the Federal Reserve. Probably neither of them were able to see what monsters they had given birth to though. I don't think either of them intended to harm the country, but unless power is checked, it seems to almost always careen out of control.

As for the cultural revolution, it of course began as a protest of the insanity of the Vietnam War. And then it morphed into its own thing, sucking in the young by the thousands, and lulling them into complacency and full rebellion by unlimited access to booze and mind altering drugs. And much of it was utilized and absorbed into the progressive moment started under Wilson.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

points taken. Excellent assessment.

 

[Moonglow]

1. If one sees the hallmark of Progressivism as disrespect for the Constitution, and the idea of unalienable rights, and supports the primacy of the state over the individual, than the nod must go to Wilson....

Well, if you insist on seeing progressivism as something it absolutely and demonstrably isn't, then you start out by ignoring reality and can set the starting point at any arbitrary time and with any arbitrary person you wish, and just make shit up in support as you go along. If that's what you want, have fun.

EDIT: "Hamilton as a hero of progressives"-- LOL. I rest my case.

I make nothing up.
"...the hallmark of Progressivism as disrespect for the Constitution, and the idea of unalienable rights, and supports the primacy of the state over the individual, than the nod must go to Wilson...."

Sorry, but Washington taxing whiskey makers and then killing them for rebelling started the whole process. How could early America be considered a republic when the masses could not even vote for the executive branch and slavery was allowed by the state and the nation.

 

[Moonglow]

Pretty good post, fox.

the only thing I will add, and I believe it is the start point of all that comes into your post, is the federal reserve act of 1913. those who know our history, know that the founders were dead set against central banking and for very good measure. We fought wars to keep the central banks off these shores.

Without the ability to expand the money supply, the wars and the welfare programs would never have been possible without taaxing the populace into oblivion. Which, would have made both of these terrible policies extremely unfavorable with voters and would likely have kept the authoritarian creep at bay.

otherwise, perhaps debatable on your third point (as I believe the 60s counterculture was actually a reaction, verse a stand alone problem), I'm in complete agreement with that assessment.

Good points. However, I think if Teddy Roosevelt had been challenged and stopped when he began federalizing the free market and manipulating the system--he was far too popular and admired to challenge I suppose--then Woodrow Wilson, two administrations later and sometimes thought of as the father of modern progressivism, would never have been able to create the Federal Reserve. Probably neither of them were able to see what monsters they had given birth to though. I don't think either of them intended to harm the country, but unless power is checked, it seems to almost always careen out of control.

As for the cultural revolution, it of course began as a protest of the insanity of the Vietnam War. And then it morphed into its own thing, sucking in the young by the thousands, and lulling them into complacency and full rebellion by unlimited access to booze and mind altering drugs. And much of it was utilized and absorbed into the progressive moment started under Wilson.

Yes, great granny was a cocaine addict. President Grant was a drunk. We need to get back to our roots of killing injuns and beating the wife without government intervention.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well, if you insist on seeing progressivism as something it absolutely and demonstrably isn't, then you start out by ignoring reality and can set the starting point at any arbitrary time and with any arbitrary person you wish, and just make shit up in support as you go along. If that's what you want, have fun.

EDIT: "Hamilton as a hero of progressives"-- LOL. I rest my case.

I make nothing up.
"...the hallmark of Progressivism as disrespect for the Constitution, and the idea of unalienable rights, and supports the primacy of the state over the individual, than the nod must go to Wilson...."

Sorry, but Washington taxing whiskey makers and then killing them for rebelling started the whole process. How could early America be considered a republic when the masses could not even vote for the executive branch and slavery was allowed by the state and the nation.

Nothing about being a republic demands all people in it have the vote. Slavery existed in most all republics America was modeled on.

 

[Foxfyre]

Pretty good post, fox.

the only thing I will add, and I believe it is the start point of all that comes into your post, is the federal reserve act of 1913. those who know our history, know that the founders were dead set against central banking and for very good measure. We fought wars to keep the central banks off these shores.

Without the ability to expand the money supply, the wars and the welfare programs would never have been possible without taaxing the populace into oblivion. Which, would have made both of these terrible policies extremely unfavorable with voters and would likely have kept the authoritarian creep at bay.

otherwise, perhaps debatable on your third point (as I believe the 60s counterculture was actually a reaction, verse a stand alone problem), I'm in complete agreement with that assessment.

Good points. However, I think if Teddy Roosevelt had been challenged and stopped when he began federalizing the free market and manipulating the system--he was far too popular and admired to challenge I suppose--then Woodrow Wilson, two administrations later and sometimes thought of as the father of modern progressivism, would never have been able to create the Federal Reserve. Probably neither of them were able to see what monsters they had given birth to though. I don't think either of them intended to harm the country, but unless power is checked, it seems to almost always careen out of control.

As for the cultural revolution, it of course began as a protest of the insanity of the Vietnam War. And then it morphed into its own thing, sucking in the young by the thousands, and lulling them into complacency and full rebellion by unlimited access to booze and mind altering drugs. And much of it was utilized and absorbed into the progressive moment started under Wilson.

Yes, great granny was a cocaine addict. President Grant was a drunk.

And that relates to the topic how?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Everything is fine. The republic stands. Democracy (politics) is messy.

Grow up

So...when you buy a defective product..."Everything is fine."

Pick up your suit and it still has a stain..."Everything is fine."

Steak is raw....."Everything is fine."

Politicians break their word...."Everything is fine."


I shudder to think, if everyone were like you....

Democracy by definition is a defective product. It's in the fine print.

You truly live in a dream world.

1. "Democracy by definition is a defective product."
Can you produce that definition, from a source other than your imagination?

There are those who find that evincing a world-weary cynicism gives a certain sophistication....I see it as either a lack of understanding or a pretension.

2. "You truly live in a dream world."

a. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
Robert Kennedy

b. Our ideals resemble the stars, which illuminate the night. NO one will ever be able to touch them. But the men, who, like the sailors on the ocean, take them for guidelines, will undoubtedly reach their goal.
Carl Schurz

c. “Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?”
Robert Browning


Hope this helps you out.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pretty good post, fox.

the only thing I will add, and I believe it is the start point of all that comes into your post, is the federal reserve act of 1913. those who know our history, know that the founders were dead set against central banking and for very good measure. We fought wars to keep the central banks off these shores.

Without the ability to expand the money supply, the wars and the welfare programs would never have been possible without taaxing the populace into oblivion. Which, would have made both of these terrible policies extremely unfavorable with voters and would likely have kept the authoritarian creep at bay.

otherwise, perhaps debatable on your third point (as I believe the 60s counterculture was actually a reaction, verse a stand alone problem), I'm in complete agreement with that assessment.

Good points. However, I think if Teddy Roosevelt had been challenged and stopped when he began federalizing the free market and manipulating the system--he was far too popular and admired to challenge I suppose--then Woodrow Wilson, two administrations later and sometimes thought of as the father of modern progressivism, would never have been able to create the Federal Reserve. Probably neither of them were able to see what monsters they had given birth to though. I don't think either of them intended to harm the country, but unless power is checked, it seems to almost always careen out of control.

As for the cultural revolution, it of course began as a protest of the insanity of the Vietnam War. And then it morphed into its own thing, sucking in the young by the thousands, and lulling them into complacency and full rebellion by unlimited access to booze and mind altering drugs. And much of it was utilized and absorbed into the progressive moment started under Wilson.

"As for the cultural revolution, it of course began as a protest of the insanity of the Vietnam War. And then it morphed into its own thing, sucking in the young by the thousands, and lulling them into complacency and full rebellion by unlimited access to booze and mind altering drugs."

1. No doubt the war was a factor.

2. That said, it is easy to forget the huge numbers of babies born after WWII,...and there is a case to be made that the society could not assimilate same as far as values and attitude.

a. The sixties was a pivotal time in the formation, or reformation of this culture. One interesting explanation involves the huge numbers of individual coming of age at the time, who must be civilized by their families, schools, and churches. A particularly large wave may swamp the institutions responsible for teaching traditions and standards.
see chapter one of Bork, "Slouching Toward Gomorrah."

b. The baby boomers were a generation so large that they formed their own culture. The generation from 1922-1947 numbered 43.6 million, while that of 1946-1964 had 79 million. Would it surprise anyone if this culture was opposed to that of their parents?
“Rathenau called [this] ‘the vertical invasion of the barbarians.’” Jose Ortega y Gasset, “The Revolt of the Masses,” p. 53.

3. As far as a reaction to 'the insanity'...no, it was the creator of insanity.

a. The unrest of the sixties was born in June of 1962 at the AFL-CIO camp at Port Huron, Michigan.
Some prior rumblings had been heard in a nascent civil rights movement, and from the Free Speech movement at Berkeley- but it was the Port Huron meetings that represented the heart of Sixties radicalism.

b. Port Huron was an early convention of SDS, a small group of alienated, left-wing college students, 59 from 11 campuses.

c. One member gave this prescription: “four-square against anti-Communism, eight-square against American-culture, twelve-square against sell-out unions, one hundred and twenty against an interpretation of the Cold War that saw it as a Soviet plot and identified American policy fondly.” Todd Gitlin, “The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage,” p. 109-110

4. A draft of the meeting can be found at Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962.
It sets forth an agenda for changing human nature, the nation, and the world. In it, one can hear the ignorance and arrogance so inherent in adolescents: the euphoria due to being convinced of their own wisdom, moral purity, and ability to change everything.

5. Did you notice the hallmark of totalitarian thought, mentioned earlier in this thread, "agenda for changing human nature..."?