Obama's Constitution twisting: His arrogant claims are worse than Nixon's

[Frediano]

"get" stoned?

[Frediano]

How can something that requires so much practice yet not require delivery of a college transcript when all the practice is over and some acolyte wants to lay his greasy fingers all over 'the[sic] economy.'

Including, the sick economies.

You started this, wench, with your drive by explanation; "it is politics." I found that lacking in any explanation. I am still looking in vain for an explanation. There isn't one. Your Mr. Otto didn't help much with the explanation, but he was the closest to explaining: "because he can; because enough of the tribe lets him get away with it."

You know, pure Democracy.

It's the same reasoning behind a gang rape: "because they can."

I was thinking there might be some deeper, more meaningful meaining, deserving of my respect for the process. Nope; pretty much baseless, and deserving only of contempt.

You'd think with so many folks approving of it, there would be some defense of it to found. Crickets.

Oh well.

[Mikee]

Politics is the art of manipulating others into giving you what you can't get for yourself. A baby crying is practicing politics. That's why women are so often liberals.

That is another insight into why the word politics is never accurately defined; the last thing in the world politicians want is for those they are begging, cajoling, and huckstering to clearly understanding what the Hell the activity is really about.

Hell; they have most of us convinced they are engaged in some kind of honarable tradition, even as we despise what they are all doing. That is some politics.

The beggars in Media (please lets us keep making a living doing this, we really never want to get anywhere near a real job) have the nation perseverating on politics 24/7/365 every year, not just during election years.

Just, not in any informed way.

That's so unfair to journalists; do I think it is easy to put opinions down in writing?

Karen didn't like my analogy, "babies grow up and take care of themselves" she says. Maybe a better analogy for politics would be the cowbird. Generation after generation of them. That's politics.

[Frediano]

We're getting closer; cow pies?

That's politics. As soon as you step in it, there is a definite stink in the air.

[Brant Gaede]

Okay, children, here's how it's done.

Politics: The legalized initiation of force and the art of getting and keeping this power with bullshit and scaredycatism as needed.

--Brant

next time, send out the signal!

[Frediano]

Okay, children, here's how it's done.

Politics: The legalized initiation of force and the art of getting and keeping this power with bullshit and scaredycatism as needed.

--Brant

next time, send out the signal!

Ding! Another perfectly acceptable definition, join the endless parade.

There are dictionary definitions, plural, of the word 'politics.' (As many as there are dictionaries, which is telling.) And God bless them, they try. It's their job. They just can't skip over the word 'politics' just because it has no widely accepted 'the' definition.

So inevitably, they try to clean up one of the instances, and then proceed to start one of those snake eating its tail things...

Politics: the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, esp. the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.

Oh, well then....just don't go look up 'governance.'

Governance: the action or manner of governing.

Uh-oh. Starting to get that dizzy feeling. The BS meter is kicking a 7.3...

Governing: conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).

Gee, that narrows the topic down; all of them? Sounds like a political definition, wouldn't you say? No room for 'limited' in any of that.

It is as if Totalitarians wrote the dictionaries.

Didn't they?

Society: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

"drugs, crime, and other dangers to society"

synonyms: the community, the (general) public, the people, the population; More

civilization, humankind, mankind, humanity

"a danger to society"

• the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.

  plural noun: societies

  "the high incidence of violence in American society"

  synonyms: culture, community, civilization, nation, population More

  "an industrial society"
• a specified section of a community.

  "no one in polite society uttered the word"
• the aggregate of people who are fashionable, wealthy, and influential, regarded as forming a distinct group in a community.

  noun: high society; plural noun: high societies

  "a society wedding"

  synonyms: high society, polite society, the upper classes, the elite, the smart set, the beautiful people, the beau monde, the haut monde; More

  informalthe upper crust, the top drawer

  "Sir Paul will help you enter society"
• a plant or animal community.

2.

an organization or club formed for a particular purpose or activity.

"S"ociety: a single world community: the 'totalitarian aggregate of mankind, civilizations, plural into civilization, singular. an 'it' out of many.

e·con·o·my

iˈkänəmē

noun

noun: economy; plural noun: economies

1. 1.

   the wealth and resources of a country or region, esp. in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services.

   synonyms: wealth, (financial) resources; More

   financial system, financial management

   "the nation's economy"

   • a particular system or stage of an economy.

     "a free-market economy"
2. 2.

   careful management of available resources.

   "The" singular wealth and 'the' singular resources of a country or region, especially in terms of 'the' singular production and 'the singular consumption of same, though in practice, very little concern for the running uphills production parts and maximum concern for the running downhills consumption parts of economic activities, plural.

   Two fisherman are at the dock, loading up their boats for a day of risky fishing. Do they fish the shallows, or fish the deep? The right daily decision is not always the same one. They use their experience and heuristics, they risk their investment in supplies, and they each go fishing.

   A storm at sea destroys one of them.

   The other returns to the dock with his boat loaded with fish.

   He is met at the docks by politicians and economists concerned about consumption of the nation's wealth.

[Selene]

I still argue for Aristotle's definition...

[Frediano]

I still argue for Aristotle's definition...

Which is:

"Politics is a practical science, since it is concerned with the noble action or happiness of the citizens "

In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle describes his subject matter as political science, which he characterizes as the most authoritative science. It prescribes which sciences are to be studied in the city-state, and the others -- such as military science, household management, and rhetoric — fall under its authority. Since it governs the other practical sciences, their ends serve as means to its end, which is nothing less than the human good. “Even if the end is the same for an individual and for a city-state, that of the city-state seems at any rate greater and more complete to attain and preserve. For although it is worthy to attain it for only an individual, it is nobler and more divine to do so for a nation or city-state”

Aristotle, it appears, was also a political scientist. No doubt.

But in your own words....not the assertions without definition above -- what was Aristotle's definition, if you are arguing for it?

Because I can't find Aristotles definition in any of that; only his assertions of where it places itself in relationship to other human efforts.

It appears to be baseless leglifting so far, even attributed to no less than Aristotle himself.

So, politics is concerned with nothing less than the human good, concerned with the noble action or happiness of the citizens?

Could he be any less specific about what it is?

[Frediano]

I'll try again to make this fit: "The reason that it is reasonable for 25 yr olds to pony up resumes and college transcripts when applying for crap cubicle jobs, but also reasonable that folks claiming to want to run 17% of 'the economy' need not be asked to produce same, is because the latter are involved with nothing less than the human good,, concerned with the noble action or happiness of the citizens. (I edited this to try an make it as complete as possible from the offered definition.)

I'm not trying to be a wise ass. I understand you are advocating only for the definition and not its application in the original assertion. I'm just trying to understand the argument in terms of the original assertion "It is politics" if this is what politics is in its oldest incantation.

And yet, if this is its accepted defintion, then I must yet ask; w.t.f. is politics, and what is its special nature that shields one from the reasonableness of showing one's college transcript when claiming to want to lay one's greasy fingers all over 'the[sic] economy?'

Could it possibly be the especially bright, astute, and competent air often found around poltiical science majors when I run into them? Like, the ones who crumble at the simple query "What is your working definition of the word 'politics' after four years of studying political science?"

No, really. These are the folks we want running 'the'[sic] Economy. The results are looking smashing.

[Brant Gaede]

Running the economy only means how much will that damage it? There are a few, very few, regulations that rational though disputable cases can be made for. They don't define "politics" because they don't need to. What they need--want--is political power for its own sake and once inside the machine "define" and manipulate it to their hearts content and ability. I assure you they do know the difference between "public" and "private" and don't need no stinkin' action-limiting definition!

--Brant

[Selene]

Fred...et. al:

I believe we are running into the problem in the social "sciences" area of applied philosophical principles and definitions.

One of the "problems" with "political sciences," is that it is precisely not a pure science because it deals with individual human actors spread across the entire landscape of reality.

A...

[Frediano]

I've considered Aristotle's definition and found it lacking in any meaning or defintion. I will thus cling to my own meta-definition, because so far, it fits all the offered up variants:

politics: the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence; the supserset that includes violence I call mega-politics.

My meta-definition applies to such common instances of usage as 'sexual politics'(when what we want is a BJ) ... 'personal politics'(can I have the TV remote?...no, let's move to Boston) ... 'gender politics'(The reason you are paying me less is because of menses and your mysogony .. 'geo-politics'(I want Kuwait) etc.

Examples of politics are ... commerce, begging, lieing, stealing, cajoling, huckstering, cheating, and very rarely, almost never in this nation, convincing due to rational , honest, thoughful well considered debate among peers.

Examples of politics in moderm AMerica are James Carville, not two years after the visible public collapse of command and control/sentralized planning when the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR went belly up, coming out with his pithy Cajin folksy wisdom of "Heeeeeeeeits the Economy, Stooooooopit!" ... and sweeping both parties with that 'argument.'

Or, Obama with his PROFORMA you fill in the blank "Hope and Change." As in, he hopes AMerica will let him get away with his plans to change it from a free America to something else, while millions make up whatever they want, in their desperation, and inerpret 'Hope and CHange' to mean whatever they wish for. Brilliant politics...for a nation of complete idiots.

[Frediano]

Fred...et. al:

I believe we are running into the problem in the social "sciences" area of applied philosophical principles and definitions.

One of the "problems" with "political sciences," is that it is precisely not a pure science because it deals with individual human actors spread across the entire landscape of reality.

A...

Selene:

See, that is -exactly- it -- it is never defined.... it always 'deals with....is concerned with ...' something. And that 'something' is always -- forever -- defined so broadly as to include anything imaginable at all.

The political defition of politics is 'The Universal Solvent--- able to dissolve any barrier, such as, a pathetic claim that our life is ours and not theirs, when a 'politiician' shows up with his substitute for an actual gun. Carte Blanche. The Keys to The Magic Kingdom.

Anything they need it to mean in order to get what they want from you as their peer on this earth which is no less than dominion over your one and only life here.

How dare you or I question what they are about; they are about no less than the Human Good....

[Selene]

Fred...et. al:

I believe we are running into the problem in the social "sciences" area of applied philosophical principles and definitions.

One of the "problems" with "political sciences," is that it is precisely not a pure science because it deals with individual human actors spread across the entire landscape of reality.

A...

Selene:

See, that is -exactly- it -- it is never defined.... it always 'deals with....is concerned with ...' something. And that 'something' is always -- forever -- defined so broadly as to include anything imaginable at all.

The political defition of politics is 'The Universal Solvent--- able to dissolve any barrier, such as, a pathetic claim that our life is yours and not theirs, when a 'politiician' shows up with his substitute for an actual gun. Carte Blanche. The Keys to The Magic Kingdom.

Anything they need it to mean in order to get what they want from you as their peer on this earth which is no less than dominion over your one and only life here.

How dare you or I question what they are about; they are about no less than the Human Good....

Fred:

I got the frustration. I even get the anger. I have occupied that exact space.

However, since the reality before us today exists because, like a Hank in Atlas, he did not pay attention to "politics," and also one of the fatal flaws in Ayn's armor, and, in Objectivism's failure to become a main stream political force in the US.

A....

[Frediano]

Do we elect political leaders to be emperors? Or do we elect them to be honorable state plumbers?

Do we hand them a scepter, or do we hand them a plunger?

When someone rises to the office of POTUS, are they awarded carte blanche to implement their personal favorite pet Soc. grad school theories on the entire nation, or are they granted the power of the (once) most powerful office on earth in order to fulfill a sacred obligation, which is, to defend the freedom of all Americans from attacks both domestic and foreign?

Those are fundamental questions that America isn't explicitely asking, only implicitly answering, by tolerating the hucksterism of a succession of seekers of power.

[Frediano]

Selene:

Well, Rand felt that way in 1960, and argued clearly-- and loudly -- that there was no real political choice between the GOP and Democrats. And absolutely, at the time, there little to distinguish between the administrations of Eisenhower and JFK. They were both convergent, centrist presidents, perhaps shaped by their sharedWWII experience. Yet with some irony, we'd kill today to have either of them back in office with their $100B of federal overhead..

What she would say about today I suspect would be akin to "I'm glad I'm dead, but I told you so,and so, sleep like a baby."

But that was obvious in the 70s. These ideas just were never going to be popular. I voted forClark in '80, not Reagan, a meaningless gesture.

But I recognized I was living in a stampede, so I did what I could. I didn't so much 'shrug' as I did 'duck.' I stopped worrying about popular politics, 1% in 1980 was more than enough writing on the wall, thank you.... in the sense of ever having any hope that libertarian ideas would ever be mainstream, and simply found a way to prevail personally, and watch social justice unfold from the sidelines. Comfortably, and also sleeping like a baby. When you find yourself floating in a vast Sea of Stupid, its time only to sink or swim; not going to swallow the ocean away, no matter how much we drown in it..

The folks paying the price for their political beliefs today are largely those that hold those political beliefs. I don't share them, and to the best of my ability, I don't share their consequences, either, other than, watching the nation go down the tube.

A tragedy. So was the Titanic. Tragedies happen, and history ain't over.

[Selene]

A tragedy. So was the Titanic. Tragedies happen, and history ain't over.

We are not far apart.

However, I enjoy politics. I love winning at the local level where you can still have an effective influence on pushing back intrusive government spending, programs, etc.

A...

[anthony]

The tone of this discussion brings to mind this quote of J. Krishnamurti:

"It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

Also Helen Keller:

"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in reality."

To be free of our political masters and nannies that life can be a daring adventure again!

[BaalChatzaf]

Selene:

Well, Rand felt that way in 1960, and argued clearly-- and loudly -- that there was no real political choice between the GOP and Democrats. And absolutely, at the time, there little to distinguish between the administrations of Eisenhower and JFK. They were both convergent, centrist presidents, perhaps shaped by their sharedWWII experience. Yet with some irony, we'd kill today to have either of them back in office with their $100B of federal overhead..

What she would say about today I suspect would be akin to "I'm glad I'm dead, but I told you so,and so, sleep like a baby."

But that was obvious in the 70s. These ideas just were never going to be popular. I voted forClark in '80, not Reagan, a meaningless gesture.

But I recognized I was living in a stampede, so I did what I could. I didn't so much 'shrug' as I did 'duck.' I stopped worrying about popular politics, 1% in 1980 was more than enough writing on the wall, thank you.... in the sense of ever having any hope that libertarian ideas would ever be mainstream, and simply found a way to prevail personally, and watch social justice unfold from the sidelines. Comfortably, and also sleeping like a baby. When you find yourself floating in a vast Sea of Stupid, its time only to sink or swim; not going to swallow the ocean away, no matter how much we drown in it..

The folks paying the price for their political beliefs today are largely those that hold those political beliefs. I don't share them, and to the best of my ability, I don't share their consequences, either, other than, watching the nation go down the tube.

A tragedy. So was the Titanic. Tragedies happen, and history ain't over.

Atlas Ducked. That has a ring to it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand (1964): "It's earlier than you think," apropos Goldwater's defeat. All she really said was she was defeated politically--until the next election, it turned out. No one today understands where the human world is going and why though many think they do. Bill Gates' book on technology--1995--didn't even mention the word "Internet." (Did I read that on OL?) Politics is a giant garbage disposal disposing politicians and eating itself up. Let 'er rip! Because the Muslim religion combines itself with politics it will destroy and is destroying itself to that extent. This doesn't mean the death of politics. Politics will die off when humans die off. Politics will continually transmute themselves just as human societies do and will. There will never be an Utopian stasis with rational humans dancing through the tulips, not even an Objectivist Utopia. That's why Rand wrote "THE END" at the end of Atlas Shrugged.

--Brant

[Frediano]

Ayn Rand (1964): "It's earlier than you think," apropos Goldwater's defeat. All she really said was she was defeated politically--until the next election, it turned out. No one today understands where the human world is going and why though many think they do. Bill Gates' book on technology--1995--didn't even mention the word "Internet." (Did I read that on OL?) Politics is a giant garbage disposal disposing politicians and eating itself up. Let 'er rip! Because the Muslim religion combines itself with politics it will destroy and is destroying itself to that extent. This doesn't mean the death of politics. Politics will die off when humans die off. Politics will continually transmute themselves just as human societies do and will. There will never be an Utopian stasis with rational humans dancing through the tulips, not even an Objectivist Utopia. That's why Rand wrote "THE END" at the end of Atlas Shrugged.

--Brant

I was in NY this past weekend, talking with my 25 yr old son and his roomates. I'm encouraged. They are so burned out out on politicians and the prevailing institutions that have failed, including government and crony state capitalism, that they are also largely 'ducking.' By necessity. Humans love their life, and will do whatever they can to live it. Big government is failing in plain sight, the current generation doesn't need it drawn out in a huge crayon for them. Their human urge to live their lives will guide them to sanity, or they willbe mistaken in their assessment and it will fail them.

That is nothing less than the Universe asserting its harsh rules for getting up hills and for not finding oneself at the bottom of others.

[Mikee]

From Glenn Reynolds:

"Politicians are people who use power to help one group at the expense of others. Public interest seldom plays much of a role."

From here

[Selene]

From Glenn Reynolds:

"Politicians are people who use power to help one group at the expense of others. Public interest seldom plays much of a role."

From here

Way to broad. I would pick 80% from my five (5) decades in politics. Still an awful number.

Levin has an amendment in his new book that limits terms to a total of twelve (12) total which can be all in the Senate, all in the House, or, any combination that adds up to twelve (12).

[Brant Gaede]

From Glenn Reynolds:

"Politicians are people who use power to help one group at the expense of others. Public interest seldom plays much of a role."

From here

Way to broad. I would pick 80% from my five (5) decades in politics. Still an awful number.

Levin has an amendment in his new book that limits terms to a total of twelve (12) total which can be all in the Senate, all in the House, or, any combination that adds up to twelve (12).

Should be four, not twelve. Regardless, twelve is far too many.

--Brant

[Selene]

From Glenn Reynolds:

"Politicians are people who use power to help one group at the expense of others. Public interest seldom plays much of a role."

From here

Way to broad. I would pick 80% from my five (5) decades in politics. Still an awful number.

Levin has an amendment in his new book that limits terms to a total of twelve (12) total which can be all in the Senate, all in the House, or, any combination that adds up to twelve (12).

Should be four, not twelve. Regardless, twelve is far too many.

--Brant

Brant:

Levin has stated that these amendments are starting point suggestions. I think with your mind, you would get a lot out of the book.

A...