The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Rastus on September 22, 2014, 06:15:58 AM
-
I had not heard this before but I am not surprised. The link below has images of letters Hillary sent to Saul Alinsky. From the way it was written there is can be little doubt of her childish crush on the radical.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-letters/ (http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-letters/)
-
What difference does it make? :D
-
Read it this morning, so it was old news ;D. Not very old new, but a few hours anyway.
I was not surprised at all.
I would be surprised if a "useful idiot" who occupies a high level position was not influenced by him.
-
Any one who understands politics should "swoon" over Alinsky, the man was a genius.
He took Julius Caesar, Machiavelli,Lenin, and Hitler, people who actually successfully practiced politics, and distilled them down to a series of principles that any one but an idiot, or a Republican can understand.
-
and distilled them down to a series of principles that any one but an idiot, or a Republican can understand.
Good stuff, I see what you did there!
-
Any one who understands politics should "swoon" over Alinsky, the man was a genius.
He took Julius Caesar, Machiavelli,Lenin, and Hitler, people who actually successfully practiced politics, and distilled them down to a series of principles that any one but an idiot, or a Republican can understand.
True. Seems a major problem with Conservatives is that have a problem living as hypocrites.
-
True. Seems a major problem with Conservatives is that have a problem living as hypocrites.
My point exactly. As Machiavelli wrote in "The Prince" (paraphrased because I don't recall his exact words) If apparently virtuous things keep you from gaining power, or keeping it once you have gained it, (in this case we are talking about sensible pro American leadership for America that does not rape us on taxes , kill our jobs and aid our enemies) then it is in fact no virtue, since it may make the individual feel good but destroys the state.
This is my gripe with "Bible thumpers" they selfishly put their own spiritual gain above the practical needs of the country.
-
Bible thumpers as in Ted Cruz who is standing for something or pretenders like McConnell & Graham?
Trey Gowdy perhaps?
-
My point exactly. As Machiavelli wrote in "The Prince" (paraphrased because I don't recall his exact words) If apparently virtuous things keep you from gaining power, or keeping it once you have gained it, (in this case we are talking about sensible pro American leadership for America that does not rape us on taxes , kill our jobs and aid our enemies) then it is in fact no virtue, since it may make the individual feel good but destroys the state.
This is my gripe with "Bible thumpers" they selfishly put their own spiritual gain above the practical needs of the country.
Tom, I have been thinking for some time about something you said a little while ago. What you said was something like -You do what you have to do to get into power, then you use that power to do what is right for the country- something to that effect. After watching the failure of "good politicians" I can't disagree....but :D... again after thinking about agreeing, it became clear that if you needed to use any means to gain power, you would, on the same hand, need to use any means to stay in power. (Which is pretty much what you say in your quoted post above). Well, that is where I become concerned.
We have not eliminated the problem, we just give another "team" the chance to "rape us on taxes, kill our jobs and aid our enemies", if they feel they need to do so to secure their ability to stay in power.
And I'm not picking on the Republicans or Democrats. I have said I am a Libertarian. We don't need to discuss the pros/cons of Libertarians, I'm just using them as an example. I am Libertarian because I think they are more of what I think the country needs than either the other two. They have refereed to as the party of principal and I has seen it demonstrated by their candidates to accept matching federal funds for the campaign they had raised. After realizing that put their candidates at a significant disadvantage financially, they changed the police and left it up to the individual candidate to accept or not. So, just like the other parties, they are willing to sacrifice some of their principles in order to gain power.
My concern then is that they would be willing to sacrifice more of them to place more of their candidates in office and then again to keep them in office and it becomes "Politics As Usual".
I don't have much faith in any party to not become corrupted when they gain the rationale to compromise principles in order to gain and keep power.
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. And Lesser Power Corrupts as much as it is able to become Absolute Power.
I don't have what I consider as good solutions to all this, but as you have been "spouting this crap" ;) longer, perhaps you, or anyone else here, does?
The only measures I can think of that might help..and they both have drawbacks are:
1. Short Term Limits. Keeps the corruptible from gaining power. It also keeps the good politicians from gaining power...but gaining power is a risk, it seems.
2. Making violating the Constitution and your oath of office a capital offense. For sure a few public hangings of politicians who accepted bribes for their votes and for those offering those bribes would tend to dampen the enthusiasm in that market. We would have to lay those rules on Justices also, since they can also violate their oaths and the Constitution. So we have a problem on who decides if the oath and the Constitution has been violated. Also, what is a bribe? Surely a political contribution can be considered a bribe in a lot of circumstances, so how to you distinguish between "honest" contributions and "corrupt" ones?
Whew...maybe we will get some helpful observations.
-
Here's an example.
Charity is supposed to be a good thing, right ?
The Dems are extremely charitable, to the point that the nations economy is nearly destroyed by debt and rapacious taxes.
Charity on the personal level may be fine, on the national level it should be a death penalty offense.
-
Here's an example.
Charity is supposed to be a good thing, right ?
The Dems are extremely charitable, to the point that the nations economy is nearly destroyed by debt and rapacious taxes.
Charity on the personal level may be fine, on the national level it should be a death penalty offense.
Absolutely agree.
I remember the "Davey Crockett and the Farmer" story. If politicians think someone needs help let them help with their own money. And let everyone else do the same if they choose to.
Taking money for the needy by force from citizens who are not willing to give it is theft on a very grand scale.
And to cover just legitimate admin costs of gathering money from local community and passing it up to a federal bureaucracy and then back down to the local level, all through paid workers will make a major dent in the % that reaches those in need....even if the bureaucracy operates at 100% efficiency with no waste or corruption. A local charity could gather a lesser amount from local donors and still provide more to those in need. AND it doesn't take an act of congress to switch organizations if the local donors don't think a chairty is doing a good job.
-
Just as we have only lost by being reasonable, and merciful (good personal qualities) there is no room for any other form of morality in the exercise of power unless it is coldly calculated to achieve a specific result that benefits the nation.
-
It's not charity if you give other people's money away.
From the Oxford Dictionary: (emphasis mine)
the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.
-
Absolutely agree.
Taking money for the needy by force from citizens who are not willing to give it is theft on a very grand scale.
Yep.