Boris needs to drink some more coffee.
I smell netroot.
Posted on 08/14/2009 10:34:28 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
An early morning line of thought...
The issue of firearms, rightwing violence (at least the implication) and Obama's healthcare is all over the news and blogs these days. It subsequently dawned on me this morning that every potentially violent divisive period in American history has a common macro-theme where one group of people at least in part feels that a disadvantaged population should be relieved of their burdens, be it slavery, being the subjectively wrong sort of Asian, or having no healthcare.
If we conceive culture as a complex and dynamic system of discourses, and analog this to broader complex and dynamic systems, like a human body, we can see how toxic patterns discourse might (re)emerge and disappear over time like a cancer. The symbolism and mythmaking (origin myths?) nurtured from the Revolutionary War onward produced some arguably very healthy socio-cultural cells, but also some utterly poisoness ones. Maybe the conflict-birth of that nation planted an adversarial and violent seed whereby anything that threatens certain (mis)perceptions of what ought to be or is, promotes a radical and violent pushback.
Perhaps part of this is the pathological adherence to rugged individualism and weapons by some segments of that society. To me this also implies a the hegemonic individual perception of a Hobbesian brutality to individual lives where the first response anything new is not to try to understand or discuss, but to resist with extreme paranoia. Particularly if it challenges the the very idea of that brutality. Is the rightwing blather about 'socialism' and the expressed racism of some, really about maintaining the old and carcinogenic discourse of violence?
Rightwing violence? Union thugs are not Rightwingers! Geeesh!
Somewhere Oregon, a grad school is missing its idiot.
Typical liberal gibberish that they think represents deep intellectual thought when it’s the same nonsense no matter what words they used to illicit it. In other words, trash talk.
The name, The Galloping Beaver would lead me to believe that this might be some kind of liberal female.
LOL!
That was some serious gobbledegook.
Someplace there is an Indian tribe missing their peyote.
“I recognize most of the words, but not in the order he puts them in. WTF?!”
Just another “academic” with a squishy “degree” who confuses overly complex language for intelligent argument. There’s a million of them produced every year by “-studies” departments nationwide.
It’s basically Stalinism - the author is trying to rationalize suppression of political opponents by rhetorically marginalizing them as “toxic discourse,” “cancer,” etc.
This is not unlike the old Soviet Union in which political dissidents were deemed to be mentally ill, justifying extreme methods of suppression.
The author’s views are foreign to a free society but are of a piece with the cult of personality surrounding Obama, the ends-justify-the-means mentality of his supporters and attempts by the Left to use the power of government to chill and silence opposition.
Pseudointellectual scum who think they are know-it-alls.
Boris needs to drink some more coffee.
I smell netroot.
Where did you find this "news source"?
Under a rock?
Or a log, perhaps? ;^)
dismissed as internet clutter
Eschew obfuscation. Dork. What he's really trying to say is: Conservative anti-socialists -- neanderthals, latte sucking Birkenstock wearers -- thoughtful intellectuals.
The only actual violence that has occurred is when Obama encouraged his supporters to “Hit back twice as hard,” and they did.
I know of no “right wing violence.”
That moral judgment on his part reveals much about his ideology. He is the typical liberal that sees self-reliance or rugged individualism as inherently evil. The logical consequences of his logic is Marxism, in which you have the redistribution of wealth: “Each according to his ability to each according to his need.”
One of the greatest misinterpretations of Scripture is found in Genesis when Cain responds to the Lord, “Am I my brother's keeper?” The answer is NO. How many times is it assumed that the answer is YES? We can care about our brothers, but we are not their keepers, nor is the government our keeper. In order to “keep” someone, you have to be able to take control of his life. This is precisely what we see the government doing, namely, creating rules and regulations that force us to depend upon the government.
This is a fine illustration of the lack of reason in the liberal mind. It first sets up false premises such as the primary one in this case which is that unless government compels by taking the assets of one individual without consent and using them to provide for another individual the health care he desires or needs that there is no other way to satisfy the health care needs of someone who for whatever reason can not obtain it. We know that this is not the case. People contribute huge sums of money amounting to billions of dollars in charity to health causes all voluntarily.
This kind of thinking is so insidious and so very small in vision that it should disgust any man who values his own liberty or thinks anything of himself or family. Even if we did not know from years of government lies, incompetence, and waste that government does not particular run much very well at all we should at least out of respect for the ideas of liberty and the decency towards our neighbors and fellow citizens not so quickly toss away their rights as individuals and disregard their ownership of their lives, the money they earn, and the sovereignty they inherit from God.
How can a good people justify tyranny in the name of charity? It is an act of evil. It takes what should be an experience of community and goodwill and turns it into a bureaucratic monstrosity. This has at its heart the same philosophy that fueled the furnaces at places with names like Auschwitz. When you have no respect for the liberty or sovereignty of the individual then it makes all kinds of horrors all the more acceptable.
We can help those who need health care but we do not have to give up our liberty to an ever growing beast of a bureaucracy to accomplish it. We have in truth allowed this nation to be enslaved to this beast and it is corrupting the very core of our nation. It takes the money of the successful hardworking man and then without thanks gives it to the man who for what ever reason can or will not take care of himself and then it blames the successful hardworking man for the bad condition of the unfortunate man which causes the unfortunate man to become bitter and think to himself not on how to improve his lot in life but only that he has been cheated and is entitled to the earnings of the more fortunate man. All the while no one thinks to merely ask for help.
I helped a guy who needed some gas tonight. He had ran out on the way and for whatever reason didn’t have enough to reach his destination. I didn’t have to help nor did several others who also helped. He didn’t go round up the local sheriff to threaten and harass people to help him buy some gasoline but that is exactly the kind of behavior we have come to tolerate in a country that claims allegiance to liberty when instead it shows more allegiance to the lazy beast of bureaucracy.
We do not have to run things the way they are being run. This country did exist before big government.
A very smart ex marine English teacher once told me, “putting big words in your essay, just for their own sake, does nothing to help get your point across.”
This guy should go back to English class.
Someplace there is an Indian tribe missing their peyote.
***If it wasn’t 2divVet who posted this, we’d all be calling for a zot right about now.
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.