Posted on 09/02/2006 6:34:38 PM PDT by little jeremiah
It's a good read. I wonder why Sobran's not welcome here?
REPOST: How Tyranny Came to America [re: Constitutionalism 101]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/862262/posts?q=1&&page=1
Sobran's not welcome here? I didn't know.
His essay should be mandatory reading. I more or less "knew" the basis of his essay, but reading it in detail made me even more despondent. :-/
He says the solution is simple but I don't see it that way, it's gone on far too long, too many mouths are firmly latched onto the teats of government (which includes state government), too many beaurocrats have lifetime jobs making our lives miserable at our expense. In order to change for the better, it's going to take several things all at once, some of which would be completely beyond humanity's control.
I think the future will be very interesting.
So, I'm open to being proven wrong, just provide some cites to writings of say, Marx or Engels where they say the Communist state will force everyone to have the same pay, education, etc, etc.
Communism was a failed experiment, and caused untold misery to millions, but there's no need to make stuff up about it like the original author did. It just makes her look ignorant, and more than slightly off-her-meds.
Others have noted other blatant errors in fact, I don't think I need to repeat them again surely. Anyone who thinks this writer is a genius or something really needs to improve the quality of their reading material and maybe get out more.
--R.
Marx was a loser who allowed his wife and children to live in squalor and poverty and eventually to die because he was too obsessed with his scribblings to get a job and provide for his family, which makes sense of why he advocated that the State be 'father & mother." Marx was a self-centered parasitic fanatic who actually believed he'd ingeniously created a magic formula that would "save the world." Bottom line on your icons: They were nasty, envious, miserable squatty sorts who, once in power, destroyed the lives of millions. Your icons said many things and made many claims, but what's important are the bloodbaths and wholesale destruction of society that occured as a result of their rantings being put into action. Those are the things that count. Words are cheap...it's the actions that count, which means that their miserable, worthless spewings are not worth debating except to those who actually empathize with the vomitus of Marx, Lenin, et al.
And yes indeed, I noticed that there were "all two of you" (perhaps even as many as a 'crowd' of 3??) that took offense to the article. That is as profoundly impressive as a blank sheet of paper.
Thanks for the elucidation.
It's easy to say something is wrong, but not necessarily as easy to provide documentation.
Communism (and, of course, there are many variations of the theme) is always a crime against nature. Human nature, mother nature, and the Author of all nature.
One of my grown children tried to tell me that Communism didn't work because it never was tried "well enough" but I squashed her argument in about 5 minutes and she had to agree that it is totally wrong not only in application but in theory.
You're welcome! And yes, communism--no matter its guise--is a crime against nature. Ever notice that its hard-core adherents are all, what was once known as "morally insane" (known today as sociopaths)? A morally insane (sociopath) person is an egoist(sinister to diabolical narcissist) who is in eternal rebellion against authority---most especially moral authority. They espouse moral relativity because they are envious, covetous, liars, thugs, pedos, bullies, thieves, cowards, gluttons, perverts, megalomaniacs, etc. Communism is the Cult of Cain.
Yes, moral "relativism" isn't relative at all. It's just reverse moralism - good is evil, evil is good. And they're damn vicious and intolerant into the bargain.
Nice rant, but it failed to address the point that the original author was making stuff up.
their miserable, worthless spewings are not worth debating
You're unable to either admit your error or provide evidence then. Ok.
I wasn't aware that 'blustering ignorance' was supposed to be a conservative 'value' -- usually I associate it with Dims, in fact. That's one of the reasons I actually learned something about Marxism - 'know your enemy' is more my style than your 'wallow in righteous ignorance' approach.
To each his own, however. You and the original author seem about the same mindset (frothing, hissing and spitting-wise) at least.
--R. 'lack of concern for accuracy, too'
CW2-ping
R...Nice rant, but it failed to address the point that the original author was making stuff up.
Essentially, you are using the scribblings of a disconnected-from-reality madman as the basis for your accusations against the author. In essence, you are holding up a comic book as a source of truth and reality and accusing the author thereon of, "making stuff up."
Should no one take you seriously in this forum RustM, just look in the mirror for the reason why. Then ask yourself who Lenin was really referring to when he contemptuously spoke of "useful idiots." Then check your mirror again.
I got an idea - RM, why not post some documentation? I have no dog in this fight, just interested in truth, as do many who read here but don't post.
I can agree with the article... up to a certain point.
I agree that the Constitution has been misused, and the federal government has overstepped its boundaries. Schools teach that the Constitution is a piece of paper the founding fathers signed. No one knows much about it. I myself didn't learn anything about it before the internet.
But the article lost me once it started on the Civil War. I can understand the importance of the right of a state to leave the union, but it can't act as a little tyranny within U.S. borders. Everything else in the article, though, was right on the mark, imho.
I agree - states cannot be little tyrannies - but they are right now. The vicious infringements of our rights, and the devastating taxation we suffer under (not just fedgov, but state income tax, sales, property, various fees and so on) could not even have been imagined by previous generations. And the reaction upon the South was absolutely ruinous - not just for the southern states, but for the entire nation.
Well, my point being that Marxism doesn't mandate an identical education for everyone (or wages, or...), it's somewhat hard to prove a negative. How do I quote Marx as 'not saying something'?
I invited the person claiming Marx or Communism does make such demands to post evidence, it normally being incumbent on the person making the *positive* claim to support their argument. Certainly the fact that Danny Goldstick stated the exact opposite puts the point in reasonable doubt, given that he's an expert on Marx.
And the borderline nutbar statements in the original article indicate the author seriously needs to either do some remedial reading or get back on the thorazine.
--R.
Thorazine?
Oh well. I think the bottom line is that Communism, large or small c, is an abomination and tortues humanity. I still think her points are valid, and not being a scholar, my fund of general knowledge tells me that the general position of Communism is to take peoples' individuality away from them and force them to be ciphers, with little to no voice of their own. The state runs and rules all, including their education, income, where they live, etc. Of course, the drawing board and reality aren't always exactly the same.
What would you say the goals or plan of Communism is/was regarding income and education, since you (vehemently to the point of name calling) disagree with the author?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.