Pres. Obama Tells Students to Reject Voices Warning of Tyrannical Government

[KacyRay]

My left/right political identification seems to be entirely dependent upon, and exactly inversely proportionate to, the political identifications and inclinations of whomever is evaluating mine.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My left/right political identification seems to be entirely dependent upon, and exactly inversely proportionate to, the political identifications and inclinations of whomever is evaluating mine.

Kacy,

Try the ideas as the standard and not "whomevers" squeezed into classes they don't fit in.

Michael

[KacyRay]

Kacy,

Try the ideas as the standard and not "whomevers" squeezed into classes they don't fit in.

Michael

I'm afraid I don't understand.

I'm not saying I accept the evaluations conferred upon me by others. I just find it amusing how transparent the motives are behind those assignments when other people make them.

As Michael Marotta pointed out - people tend to label you based on where they themselves stand, not by where you do. And I find that lack of self-awareness amusing.

At least, it's amusing until they go out of their way to make it annoying.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

Do you accept Obama's insinuation that all people who distrust the government are supporters of: "voices that incessantly warn of government as some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems"?

And do you accept his conclusions that his targeted scapegoats really think: "our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we cannot be trusted"?

And do you accept his insinuation about those he indirectly targets like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz by saying, "Some of these same voices do their best to gum up the works," are such people who believe self-rule is a sham?

Do you even accept his premise that "gumming up the works" and opposing government expansion are the same thing?

To me, this is exactly the error you claim others make. Lots and lots of people distrust the government without saying it is the "root of all our problems." They look at one government blunder and failure after another and decide that maybe a bloated government is not a good thing. Then they look at our Founding Fathers and talk about the American experiment in self-rule and openly discuss that. Even a child can see Obama's Congressional targets participate in government. They do not think it is a sham. Hell, they are members of Congress.

Yet Obama essentially says all these people are in the same boat as no-government-at-all anarchists.

In other words, he is labeling and characterizing a wide group of Americans based on where he himself stands, not by what the vast majority of these small-government people actually think and do.

Do you find that equally amusing? You seemed to dismiss this as some kind of trivial kerfuffle.

Does the amusement run only in one direction based on false class designations, or does the idea itself cause amusement? I've only seen you amused within class framework misrepresentations.

I'm not saying Obama's behavior, for example, doesn't amuse you for being hypocritical, lacking self-awareness, etc. I've just never seen it.

(EDIT: To be clear about what I've never seen, I've never seen you be amused at Obama being hypocritical, lacking self-awareness, etc. Not that I have not seen Obama being hypocritical, lacking self-awareness, etc. I've seen plenty of that.)

Michael

[Robert Baratheon]

Basically, we make up our minds first, then when someone agrees with us, we boost their credibility; and when they disagree with us, we denigrate their credentials.

I don't know who this "we" is. Individuals all have their biases, but you have no solid basis upon which to claim that all of humanity acts uniformly on those biases. I think this is more an example of how a thief thinks everyone steals.

We, the People, chose to do these things together because we know that this country cannot accomplish great things if we pursue nothing greater than our own individual ambition. Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny is always just lurking around the corner. You should reject these voices because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we cannot be trusted. We have never been a people to place all of our faith in government to solve all of our problems - we shouldn't want to - but we don't think that government is the source of all our problems, either, because we understand that this democracy is ours; and that as citizens we understand that it is not about what America can do for us, but what can be done by us together by the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government and Class of 2013 you have to be involved in that process.

Is this the text of the video that the OP was about???

This is what the kerfluffel was about???

Obama's statement isn't even close to being "neutral," as Michael implied it was. The purpose was to persuade, not to inform. The tone was argumentative, not objective. The central theme is politically controversial. I shouldn't have to point out that holding one's position out as "neutral" or "moderate" and labelling opponents as radical/fringe is a favored political exercise in social conditioning and goalpost shifting. See, for example, the Rally to Restore Sanity, where 95% of the crowd just happened to be liberals/Progressives, the conservative/libertarian Tea Party was almost exclusively targeted, and "moderation" was used in connection with such Progressive agenda elements as universal health care. So the clear implication is if you disagree with Jon Stewart, et al, you are not "sane." My question to attendees was, if universal healthcare - which Stewart regularly advocates on television - is a "moderate" position, then what would be the radical leftist position? I never did receive a coherent response to that question.

There are recognizable Progressive talking points and ideas peppered throughout Obama's speech. If we are truly synonymous with our government, as he claims we are, then why would we need something like a Constitution of negative rights or separation of powers? It's also clear that he's characterizing attempts to scale back government as a malicious sabotage campaign (gumming up the works) rather than a legitimate difference of political and legal opinion. None of this is a "neutral" position and attempts to characterize it as such are not neutral either.

[Selene]

Folks:

FYI: We are not, and have never been a Democracy. We are a limited Constitutional Republic. A Republic with separate powers, specifically enumerated. Additionally, we have a Bill of Rights that specifically prohibits government from doing certain acts.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

The title says it all...

Who is this guy trying to fool?

His once unfailing charisma is quickly eroding at this point. The layers are being pulled back, and the truth is becoming clearer and clearer with every word he speaks.

The curtains have fallen from the rings to reveal a plotting, would-be, king.

Also, could this guy be more condescending? Telling people what to do as if they wouldn't know what to do if not for his guidance. Is this the mind-set of a benevolent-dictator? Is Obama benevolent?

Sure, just ask his boot. Y'know the boot pressed firmly on a few million throats.

(I'm starting to think I should have placed this in the "Rants" section...)

I only wonder if the bastard has learned to speak without using a teleprompter.

--Brant

if he has he could have used similar effort to learn some American revolutionary history

he has exposed us to dangers and savages and the quartering of troops . . .

[syrakusos]

I don't know who this "we" is. Individuals all have their biases, but you have no solid basis upon which to claim that all of humanity acts uniformly on those biases. I think this is more an example of how a thief thinks everyone steals.

As a card carrying criminologist, I assure you that everyone steals. We justify or excuse it in different ways; and those of us who engage socially appropriate language get away with it.

As for your more cogent point, yes, we have discussion here on OL about the fact that these studies are centered on university undegraduates in psychology who truly do not represent humanity. That said, though, read the original paper as cited in number 21 above. It deals not with humanity, but with Americans queried about political issues. Since none of "we" here on OL come from those other places - the highlands of Peru, New Guinea ... - the "we" is close enough to you and me.

[Brant Gaede]

The police steal? All of them?

--Brant

rape, murder?

[Robert Baratheon]

I don't know who this "we" is. Individuals all have their biases, but you have no solid basis upon which to claim that all of humanity acts uniformly on those biases. I think this is more an example of how a thief thinks everyone steals.

As a card carrying criminologist, I assure you that everyone steals. We justify or excuse it in different ways; and those of us who engage socially appropriate language get away with it.

As for your more cogent point, yes, we have discussion here on OL about the fact that these studies are centered on university undegraduates in psychology who truly do not represent humanity. That said, though, read the original paper as cited in number 21 above. It deals not with humanity, but with Americans queried about political issues. Since none of "we" here on OL come from those other places - the highlands of Peru, New Guinea ... - the "we" is close enough to you and me.

I suspect your definition of "stealing" is so broad that it covers many activities your average reasonable person wouldn't really consider "theft," such as taking a paper clip from work or failing to inform the cashier when a bottle of soda registers a lower price than it should. I think the pertinent meaning of the metaphor was sufficiently clear.

In any case, my argument doesn't hinge on these particular studies being wrong - although they very well could be. My central point is that they aren't applicable to this particular speech, which is quite politically charged and not in any way "neutral."

[syrakusos]

The police steal? All of them?

Aside from getting paid via taxation, I had a supervisor who was a retired police officer and he said that he would not leave his paycheck on his desk. Make of that what you will. By contrast, however, I interviewed the fire chief of our township. He said that he could go to any fire station in the world and be part of a community. You can empty your pockets on the kitchen table, go to sleep, and wake up to find nothing moved, even if you left it in the way (they'd work around it rather than disturb it). Just sayin'...

Robert Baratheon: I was not thinking of people who steal office supplies - interesting that you mentioned it, though, the guilty fleeing and all that - but rather of people who send their children to public schools or use the post office instead of private carriers. (The USPS does "pay for itself" now and for more than a decade as I recall, but their infrastructure was created in the days of tax subsidy.)

And not everyone steals office supplies or keeps the wrong change. But everyone is engaged in the anonymous kleptocracy one way or another.

Have you ever bought anything at a flea market? Much of that new-in-the-box stuff was stolen from railroad freight cars or similar opportunities. Most people never focus and think about it, but just blank out and take the great bargain as their due.

[KacyRay]

Have you ever bought anything at a flea market? Much of that new-in-the-box stuff was stolen from railroad freight cars or similar opportunities. Most people never focus and think about it, but just blank out and take the great bargain as their due.

or... they didn't know. I mean, it's not like there's an information source for that sort of thing that one is required or expected to reference prior to going to a flea market. Or a yard sale. Or EBay. Or ...

I guess I'm saying that one can't always be blamed for unwittingly purchasing something that was gained illicitly. Good, legitimate deals do exist.

[Robert Baratheon]

I was not thinking of people who steal office supplies - interesting that you mentioned it, though, the guilty fleeing and all that - but rather of people who send their children to public schools or use the post office instead of private carriers. (The USPS does "pay for itself" now and for more than a decade as I recall, but their infrastructure was created in the days of tax subsidy.)

And not everyone steals office supplies or keeps the wrong change. But everyone is engaged in the anonymous kleptocracy one way or another.

I've long said that the United States has become a late-stage political kleptocracy, or bureaucratic spoils system if you prefer, but I view the institutionalized behavior as so different from petty criminal theft that it's not helpful to conflate the two activities. For example, I would never steal an item from a retail store (although a surprisingly large percentage of the population does this regularly) because I view it as individually destructive and unnecessary behavior, but I have no serious qualms about "getting mine" from the above-described system I view as fundamentally corrupted because the choice presented to me is "play or be played." One moral standard I do set for myself within this framework is not doing anything to make the existing system worse, and nudging it back in the right direction whenever I can within my limited capacity.

[GALTGULCH8]

<<<"FYI: We are not, and have never been a Democracy. We are a limited Constitutional Republic. A Republic with separate powers, specifically enumerated. Additionally, we have a Bill of Rights that specifically prohibits government from doing certain acts.">>>

I quote Adam above and agree that we started out as a limited Constitutional Republic. But in reality, these days, although there are some vestigial parts remaining superficially in some respects we have become a democracy.

The politicians in the Congress do not even think in terms of whether a power they want to create by law is constitutional or not. They leave that up to the supreme court which in turn acts like a rubber stamp which engages in whatever degree of sophistry is necessary to enable unconstitutional powers to pass. Witness the obamacare decision as constitutional! We all know that forcing everyone to buy health insurance is an unprecedented form of involuntary servitude hence unconstitutional regardless of that the supreme court justices say.

Look for my new post from CATO on the IPAB which shows we are about to become a fascist dictatorship.

GG

[KacyRay]

Probably wise to move to Canada at this point.

[BaalChatzaf]

<<<"FYI: We are not, and have never been a Democracy. We are a limited Constitutional Republic. A Republic with separate powers, specifically enumerated. Additionally, we have a Bill of Rights that specifically prohibits government from doing certain acts.">>>

In your dreams. That is what we are -supposed- to be. But that is not what we are. The Constitution you love to invoke died as a result of the Civil War and its rotting corpse was finally buried with the passage of the 17th amendment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jts]

A Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper. If a thug is about to beat you up and you stick a piece of paper listing your rights in front of his face, will that stop him?

[Brant Gaede]

A Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper. If a thug is about to beat you up and you stick a piece of paper listing your rights in front of his face, will that stop him?

Hasn't stopped Congress, the President or the Supreme Court--not much.

What I stick in the thug's face will stop him--and he'll be a thug no more. (They should be able to harvest his organs.)

--Brant