Republicans Are Weak


#61

All of which apply to you.

I gave a straight answer, with direct evidence; you changed the goal posts of the debate to avoid admitting Dave was wrong.

Post-modernism, that’s all you’ve been giving me, I’m the only one who presented any ounce of evidence . All you did was try very hard to say "well, not being there is not the same as ‘not being there’ ".

The type of logic that would only make sense to the loons on the left.


#62

I stated I had not read the book, so I don’t that viewpoint.

My research which you said was the same as yours, did not factualy identify anyone, but in fact that statement had been made by many over many years.

At its core the state its true and factual just like a rose by any other name is still a rose.

This thread was never about who said what but rather the results of people who vote themselves largesse from the treasury. Instead at post #12 you began your dodge and weave game to derail the post into who quoted what, at not time was that the subject…PERIOD! Your actions put RO into the same caliber as most of the other forums out there…always someone wanting to argue about that which is not important, not the subject, therefore your contribution here is less than zero…

Had you been on the Titanic as it sunk you would have run around screaming the cocktail fork was on the wrong side of the dinner plate…


#63

It said it was Elmer T. Peterson who had the earliest known use of it.

> This thread was never about who said what

That’s how the disagreement started. The topic was never about “***What’s your perspective on this quote?***”

You tried to turn it into that, when I revealed there was no chance Tocqueville said it, in order to save face.

> but rather the results of people who vote themselves largesse from the treasury. Instead at post #12 you began your dodge and weave game

Incorrect.

There is no dodge, no weave, from anyone but you and Dave. You both kept up coming up with one excuse after another when the evidence didn’t bare out.

But-but I found it in my copy ( conveniently, no page citation)!”

That’s just an internet version!

But surely he said something like this, just with different words…

All excuses, all just sidestepping. Nothing genuine about any of it. Just two men too prideful to admit that they made a mistake. Something we all do, yet somehow, you’ve convinced yourselves that you’re incapable of it.


#64

Repubs aren’t weak. They’re just spineless. As far as deceitfulness goes…AT LEAST we know the damn democrats are liars, crooks and thieves. The repubs were just better at duplicitiousness. Not. any. more.


#65

Tocqeville said what Dave claimed in the chapter that Dave claimed he said it in the book that Dave physically owns and has read, he just said it less eloquently than the oft used axiom that has become popular in our time.

I broke down the entire quote from the book pages ago and it is entirely consistent with the more popular wording that Dave used, in fact Dave even said in his original exposition that he was quoting “from his memory” of a book that he had read and could see from where he was sitting.

Listening to the Left trying to make a mountain out of the minutia of the exact words used (at the expense of the sentiment) is becoming the favorite pastime of the Left.

We have another thread where Trump is being lambasted because he was saying “the murder rate is at a 50 year high” instead of “the increase in the murder rate is at a 50 year high”.

I love this more than I can express in words! People who have substantive criticism NEVER resort to such minutia, when they do it tells the whole world that they have no justification for their complaining and opposition.

Rock on oh adherents of the dying philosophy, and let me know if you need more shovels!


#66

RET,

Produce the quote, chapter, edition, and page, or stop bullshitting. Alaska Slim has produced tons of direct evidence that the quote (and nothing like it) exists in the book. Back up your claims. But we both know you won’t (can’t).


#67

Ok folks…
I have no idea who said that quote, or misquote, but I will say this:

The time to get out of gutter is now. It starts with “you.” Meaning everyone.

Who freakin cares who said it?

I’m going to assume that Alaska Slim is correct here.
I do know that even though the site was down for a while, now that it’s back the rules have not changed.

“You are stupid!” is not acceptable.
“Your post is stupid!” is acceptable.

Universally known bad language is not acceptable.

If there are any questions about that, please PM me. I’ll be happy to explain it further.

Let’s proceed with the topic. If the topic is not Mr. Sir Tokes-a lot, then let’s move on, please.
You can make a thread about Him and His quotes in an appropriate area. That is if Sir Mr. Tokes-a lot accepts the male gender. If not, then please assume the pronoun of it’s/their/that human’s choice.

Thanks!


#68

You’re right I won’t, because I already did in post #30 of this thread.

Those who know the book as opposed to just a Google cheat knew that.


#69

I look at this entire thread, and I can only nod my head in wonderment.

You people wonder why you are presented with the illusion of choice in politics, but it’s no wonder at all with the infighting you all do at each other. Do you really think leftists thinkers are any better? I assure you, they are not.

People will dig in their heels and not admit when they are wrong, or learn from their mistakes.
People disregard the truth while looking for a figment that they agree with inside of a lie.

It seems to me, that people find it very hard to accept the truth, and thus all politicians know this, selling a sack of nice believable lies. The people will thus gobble those lies up, because they sound better than the truth.


#70

Nope , you broke down my quote of Tocqueville, from Vol II Chapter 14, How the Taste for Physical Gratifications Is United in America to Love of Freedom and Attention to Public Affairs. That is not the Chapter Dave claimed he found his quote in.

Further, my quote was speaking to Soft Despotism. Of the tendency to let central powers simply take care of things the average citizen doesn’t want to bother with. Not about getting “free stuff”.

No amount of verbal lifting will magically make my quote the one Dave had.


#71

The disingenuousness here is appalling, RET. The quote from Alaska Slim that you mentioned has absolutely nothing to do with the misattributed quote from Pappadave. There’s not even a reasonable debate to be had here; you’re just objectively wrong to conflate the two.


#72
  1. You are completely wrong as my breakdown of that quote displayed in the magnificent splendor that most of my writings are known for.
  2. AS was correct in pointing out that I had confused the Quote from Toqueville that he had posted with the section of Democracy in America that Dave thought was the source of these ideas.

That said, the fact remains that Toqueville agreed with the ideas that Dave’s quote encapsulated and wrote about them in multiple places at multiple times, that is why the various versions of the quote that Dave posted are so often attributed to Toqueville.

Here is another instance;

> That political freedom in its excesses may compromise the tranquillity, the property, the lives of individuals is obvious even to narrow and unthinking minds. On the contrary, none but attentive and clear-sighted men perceive the perils with which equality threatens us, and they commonly avoid pointing them out. They know that the calamities they apprehend are remote and flatter themselves that they will only fall upon future generations, for which the present generation takes but little thought.

> The evils that freedom sometimes brings with it are immediate; they are apparent to all, and all are more or less affected by them. The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.

> The passion for equality penetrates on every side into men’s hearts, expands there, and fills them entirely. Tell them not that by this blind surrender of themselves to an exclusive passion they risk their dearest interests; they are deaf. Show them not freedom escaping from their grasp while they are looking another way; they are blind, or rather they can discern but one object to be desired in the universe.

> What I have said is applicable to all democratic nations

Toqueville knew what every thinking mind that has experienced the reality of human nature as it plays out in day to day lives has learned, that Democracy as a stand alone system sucks and cannot endure; democratic components must be tempered by a Constitution to protect the minorities from the majorities and a structure of stated absolute INDIVIDUAL Rights that are continually taught and which exist above the whims of the democratic elements of the structure.

If Toqueville had heard someone say "Democracies will endure only until the people discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury" (or any of the other versions of this axiom) he would have applauded and said ***“Mind if I use that?***”

But please continue pretending that Toqueville shares your affinity for Direct Democracy if it means you will keep posting declarative statements and accusations with no substantiation, these voids speak quite clearly in themselves.


#73

I haven’t said a word about “direct democracy,” or Tocqueville’s thoughts on it. I said that the quote from Dave is misattributed, and that you’ve failed to demonstrate that anything like that quote exists in the book. Your quote is pathetic, and doesn’t come close to mentioning anything about voters using democracy to “vote themselves largess.” Not even close.

Also, here’s a fun quote from Tocqueville’s “Critique of Socialism” where Tocqueville essentially calls for a welfare state to provide aid to “poor” and the “suffering,” denies that the use of state funds to aid the poor is “socialism,” insisting that it is instead “Christian charity.” He’s a classical liberal. You don’t understand him at all.

Tocqueville’s Critique of Socialism (1848) - Online Library of Liberty


#74

On the idea that Tocqueville would have agreed with the idea that a country is in trouble if its citizens can vote themselves wealth from the public purse. Sure he would have agreed with this. But so would every political thinker in human history. It’s a silly, pointless quote. No serious political thinkers are pro public looting. No, not even Marx.

The problem with using Tocqueville as a grindstone for modern politics is that it’s almost always going to be anachronistic. He’s a classical liberal, and so doesn’t fit into our 21st century American categories. For Tocqueville, he could be pro-welfare state and pro-free markets at the same time, and didn’t view this as any sort of contradiction.


#75

Tocqueville’s inability to understand that Christianity cannot be “applied to politics” because politics is forced by the collective and Christian Charity must be chosen by the individual himself to be “Christian Charity” is irrelevant, that is why I do not consider him a thinker that fully understood the American system that he wrote exhaustively about.

But using ones political freedom to vote for ones owns passions without regard for what Individual Rights must be surrendered in order to obtain ones passions is precisely what Dave’s quote AND Tocqueville understood well and wrote about.

“Largess” is but one manifestation of this diseased thinking, some “revolutionary’s” never even established a currency but used the peoples envy to murder the wealthy and take their property; the point of the quote from Dave and much of Tocqueville’s writing was that the majority will always eventually use that power to surrender their own Rights in exchange for satisfying their own desires; and this will ensure the demise of the State.

It was you who claimed that Tocqueville never uttered such sentiments or expressed such ideas, you went much further than simply saying that Tocqueville never said it that way; you are wrong.


#76

PD, post a photo.

And in any case,

Wrote a whole post, but this is my sentiment as well, and I wasted more time on it than I should. I deleted my post. No Tocqueville didn’t write it. Facts were presented. People defended a falsehood and called a not-liberal a “liberal” for no apparent good reason, and now, this thread.

Go figure, but that’s how political discussions seem to me most of the time for a number of years. If the Democrats were in control of Congress with a Republican president last year, the Republicans would have been crying about obstructionism over the Supreme Court nominee, and the Democrats would have held off confirmation hearings until the election. It’s all about teams and little to do with content, just any little thing (including the minutiae, RET). I mean, seriously, Obamacare? They’re going to repeal it and replace it with an even lousier version of Obamacare, and the Democrats are going to blame their failed policy on the Republicans in the end. But it’s the REPUBLICAN plan, so Republicans are going to defend the indefensible thing they once attacked.

(Aside: And I’m glad the Republicans did that bit with the Supreme Court and happy how things turned out for once.)


#77

Oh, and lies? Seems the president was somewhat honest. We are getting a crappy federal government healthcare plan. Still lied about “repealing” and “replacing” Obamacare. The plan he likes is virtually the same thing. Oh, and it’s “mean” at the same time.

<div class=“lazyYT” data-youtube-id=“TPJfKdp3bDs” data-width=“480” data-height=“270” data-parameters=“feature=oembed&wmode=opaque”></div>

Character still counts! Well it ought to. Too bad it doesn’t.

This is not minutia, RET. These are important issues and statements. What’s true here? What’s a lie? What’s a politician who mangles everything he says, says everything and anything and makes no sense the other half of the time? A liar, an exaggerator, incompetent or just another politician? Does that make it OK? What’s the effective difference?

Iraq
Trump: “I’m the only one on the stage who said we shouldn’t go into Iraq.” (2016)

Howard Stern: "Are you for invading Iraq?"
Trump: “Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly.” (2002)

Abortion
"I’m very pro-life."
“There has to be some form of punishment.”

“I’m very pro-choice.”
“I am pro-choice in every respect.”

Healthcare
Cruz: "True or false. You said the government should pay for everyone’s healthcare?"
Trump: "That’s false."
Trump previously: “I am going to take care of everybody. The government’s going to pay for it, but we’re going to save so much money on the other side.”

Bill Clinton
"They tried to impeach him, which was nonsense."
“She’s married to a man who got impeached. He was impeached for lying.”

The list can go on and on.


#78

What I said regarding minutia was about the murder rate and trying to amplify a misattributed quote into a claim the sentiment was completely foreign to the author that was mentioned, I never said that policy was minutia or that Trump was not a proved liar.

I have yet to see the Left critique Trump with substance, Conservatives have including me but the Left do not because they would be condemning their own philosophy in the process.


#79

Let’s just be clear on RET’s argument here. Dave attributed to Tocqueville this:

> “America will remain a great nation ONLY until the people figure out that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury!”

Now, no one except Dave is saying Tocqueville actually said the above in that wording.

However, RET is saying it’s correct to attribute that quote to Tocqueville, because Tocqueville said this:

Let’s put aside that RET oversimplifies and misinterprets the above quote, which is included in a rather nuanced discussion of the ways in which equality and freedom are perceived and valued, and how these two forces impact politics.

The inanity of RET’s argument should be clear, as even the most basic rules of quotation and citation would consider it laughably false to attribute the former quote on the basis of the latter. On RET’s rules of citation, I could say:

**“America will remain a great nation ONLY until the people figure out that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury!”

  • Plato**

Hey, Plato did once remark that there are dangers to excessive political freedom! See:

Because Plato said the above, I am justified in saying:

**“America will remain a great nation ONLY until the people figure out that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury!”

  • Plato**

It’s utterly ridiculous, not to mention painfully and pathetically dishonest.


#80

Actually, I like that quote, I think I’ll make it my sig.