Comments | jordan179: Averting Soft Tyranny - Why the 2010 and 2012 Elections are Vital to America

jordan179

Averting Soft Tyranny - Why the 2010 and 2012 Elections are Vital to America

Oct 23, 2009 08:14

A cry of warning sounded by Joseph Ashby:

From "When tyranny calls," (American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/when_tyranny_calls.html)

History is calling with the warning that tyranny is at our doorstep ( Read more... )

socialism, america, diplomacy, health care, britain, barack obama, political

Comments 28

kalance October 23 2009, 15:35:03 UTC

I'll admit, at first I wasn't overly concerned about Obama being elected president. Dems have been in the White House before and the nation didn't burn to the ground. He even started sending troops over in numbers that balanced what he brought back. First time I was ever glad a president lied during his campaigning...

However, I have been growing considerably more uncomfortable with every passing week because of one thing: Merchandising.

NEVER, in all of my life, have I ever seen so much merchandising focused around the First Family. Obama portraits. Obama Chia heads. Obama cut outs. Obama anything-you-can-imagine. And people are buying these things! It's almost like a frickin' cult!

unixronin October 23 2009, 15:49:08 UTC

"Almost"?

What is this "almost" that you speak of?

galadrion October 23 2009, 16:05:16 UTC

What do you mean, "almost"? What do you mean, "like"?

Would you care for another cup of Brother Moon's punch?

cutelildrow October 23 2009, 16:37:41 UTC

not almost. IS. A personality cult. Like Mao.

So it's no wonder, really, that he surrounds himself with Maoists.

Thread 7

ellie_kay October 23 2009, 19:05:04 UTC

i am optimistic that the dems will lose a lot of seats in 2010. i think a lot of people who voted in 2008 were the "presidential beauty contest" voters, who only vote during a major presidential election. i think a lot of people who vote in those have no interest in the midterm elections, as they feel they're unimportant. but those of us who have been speaking out against this administration will hopefully elect some conservatives to the republican spots in the primaries and then defeat the democrats. at least i hope so...

jordan179 October 23 2009, 19:13:42 UTC

i think a lot of people who voted in 2008 were the "presidential beauty contest" voters, who only vote during a major presidential election.

I also think that a lot of the moderates were really voting for Mr. Notbush rather than Mr. Obama. They'd accepted the notion, fed to them by the media from 2004 to 2008, that Bush had been a terrible President, and they were willing to vote for any Democrat who ran against the Bush legacy.

Now they've had a chance to see Obama in power, and it's already driving them away from him in droves. The massive deficits, the socialist proposals, the apologetic foreign and weak military policy, coupled with his creepy narcissism and sinister threats to control the media, are alienating moderate voters. Those who vote in 2010 will be less likely to vote Democrat, and those who vote in 2012 less likely to vote for Obama.

ellie_kay October 25 2009, 02:49:42 UTC

At which point, it's up to the paid ACORN Volunteers (TM) running the elction and the lawyers challenging any doubleplusungood doubleplusunresults.

"The Rule of The Party is For Ever." -- Comrade O'Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania

And if The People's Will still isn't what It's Supposed to Be, there's always a Terrorist Strike/Reichstag Fire and the following Strictly Temporary State of Emergency.

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." -- Rahm Emmanuel

jordan179 October 25 2009, 09:56:58 UTC

I think you assume both that Obama is evil and that simply by being evil he can always win. I dispute both assumptions: first, I do not know that Obama would be willing to actually attempt to steal an election he'd actually lost; and secondly, I don't think that the attempt would work.

jane_etrix October 23 2009, 19:14:09 UTC

There are so many extraordinary over-simplifications of historical events here, it's hard to know where to start and no way to address them adequately, but what the hell, I'm a contrarian :)

England's colonial empire, not to mention the UK itself, were in decline before WWII even began- hell, before WWI even began; the decline actually began around the turn of the century, and the Boer War was a harbinger of many of the problems to come. The UK had lost anything resembling a firm grasp over their empire by 1918, and by the end of WWII, nationalist movements (which had begun decades before WWII began) were strong in all colonial empires, not just English colonies.

Internationalist and anti-colonialist ideals, also of the Left, hampered British attempts to hold on or even grant inndependence in an orderly fashion to the nations of her Empire. It is preposterous to blame the civil conflicts in former colonial territories on the left (or the right either for that matter). The people who lived in the empire were not dolls or chess ( ... )

Decolonialization and Decivilization jordan179 October 23 2009, 19:34:13 UTC

England's colonial empire, not to mention the UK itself, were in decline before WWII even began- hell, before WWI even began; the decline actually began around the turn of the century, and the Boer War was a harbinger of many of the problems to come. The UK had lost anything resembling a firm grasp over their empire by 1918, and by the end of WWII, nationalist movements (which had begun decades before WWII began) were strong in all colonial empires, not just English colonies.

I am not arguing that it was solely because of the World Wars, the Cold War and postwar socialism that Britain lost her Empire qua empire. I am saying that it was for those causes, and particularly because of the weakness resulting from World War II followed by socialist policies, that Britain's empire failed to evolve into the sort of Commonwealth imagined by planners c. 1900 ( ... )

Re: Decolonialization and Decivilization brezhnev October 24 2009, 02:53:55 UTC

I do not blame the conflicts on the British Left. I blame the British failure in many cases to crush the nastiest factions of rebels before independence, thus dooming the new nations to continued civil war or bloody despotism, on the British Leftist idealization of "anti-colonialists."As for what happened in Rhodesia, the British were so busy playing footsie with the Marxist rebels that the Rhodesians had to declare independence. This continued even after that, and Margaret Thatcher herself -- not what one usually considers a leftist -- refused to help the British people in Rhodesia. I'm not sure if this was due to injured pride over the Unilateral Declaration of Independence, or crying crocodile tears over "racism" and "colonialism", but either way, she sold out her people ( ... )

Re: Decolonialization and Decivilization jane_etrix October 24 2009, 17:48:15 UTC

I am not arguing that it was solely because of the World Wars, the Cold War and postwar socialism that Britain lost her Empire qua empire...

My point is that the empire was never going to evolve the way the planners of 1900 imagined (and who are you speaking of, specifically?) because the empire and UK economy was already in decline before 1900, and this decline had nothing to do with socialism.

It was inevitable that the former Imperial possessions would become first Dominions and then fully-independent countries...The English didn't see it as inevitable, which is why they expended so much time, energy, resources and money trying to cling to that empire. Regardless, if you actually examine the history of European colonialism, especially in Africa, a rather striking trend is that former English colonies made the transition to independence with less violence and more stability than those of any other colonial power. Most of the 20th century upheaval in Africa has been in nations who were under the control of other colonial powers ( ... )

Thread 12

jane_etrix October 23 2009, 19:14:41 UTC

And:

If Obama's health care overhaul passes, it will reach across all age demographics and into nearly every income bracket. Health care legislation will quickly gain a political force surpassing Social Security. Once that happens, the only way to win elections will be to promise not to touch government health care.

Only such a weighty political payoff would prompt reelection-obsessed politicians to so thoroughly ignore opinion polls. Fox News' latest numbers show an overwhelming split of 54% against 35% for the current health care proposals.

These two sentiments contradict each other.

jordan179 October 23 2009, 19:54:00 UTC

If Obama's health care overhaul passes, it will reach across all age demographics and into nearly every income bracket. Health care legislation will quickly gain a political force surpassing Social Security. Once that happens, the only way to win elections will be to promise not to touch government health care.

Only such a weighty political payoff would prompt reelection-obsessed politicians to so thoroughly ignore opinion polls. Fox News' latest numbers show an overwhelming split of 54% against 35% for the current health care proposals.

These two sentiments contradict each other.

No, they don't (and you meant to say "arguments" rather than "sentiments", I believe). The first paragraph states that if Obamacare passes, it will create a dependent class who will reliably vote against any attempt to reduce its scope. The second paragraph states that right now the majority of the American public (54% to 35%) oppose Obamacare.

The point is that, once passed, many of those who now oppose Obamacare will make use of it, become dependent ( ... )

starblade_enkai October 23 2009, 22:51:32 UTC

Until they nationalize Health Insurance, wouldn't it technically be a heavily socialist/fascist leaning mixed economy, like it has been since, well, nearly forever?

If socialism is everything that isn't capitalism, then we've been living under socialism of some form throughout our entire history.

jane_etrix October 24 2009, 18:05:21 UTC

These two sentiments contradict each other.

No, they don't (and you meant to say "arguments" rather than "sentiments", I believe). The first paragraph states that if Obamacare passes, it will create a dependent class who will reliably vote against any attempt to reduce its scope. The second paragraph states that right now the majority of the American public (54% to 35%) oppose Obamacare.

The point is that, once passed, many of those who now oppose Obamacare will make use of it, become dependent upon it, and hence switch to supporting it. In other words, that Obamacare will corrode American resistance to socialism. And that, in order to obtain this FUTURE benefit, Democrats are willing to risk unpopularity now.

The tense shift may have been too subtle for you to see -- sorry, I didn't write the original article.

No, I meant sentiments. A sentiment is an expressed idea or opinion. A sentiment can be expressed while making an argument ( ... )

x_eleven November 5 2009, 04:57:10 UTC

I have long believed that 2008 was our last chance to preserve the Republic. More and more, it looks like I was right. We are so fucked.