PDA

View Full Version : Was there a time when MOST Americans were Liberty-Minded?




clb09
04-03-2010, 05:35 AM
Now the Controllers of Mass Communication say "extremist" when they really mean "patriot":

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100403/NEWS/4030328/1001/NEWS/Extremist-group-that-sent-letter-to-Culver-is-recruiting-in-Iowa


Brian Lai, a University of Iowa political scientist who has studied terrorism, offered similar thoughts Friday. He said extremist groups fear that government is strengthening its control and that they need to take a stand. But it's also important to recognize such groups have long existed in the United States, he said.

Drake University political scientist Dennis Goldford said groups such as the Guardians "have an entirely unconventional sense of what the Constitution means."

In contrast, tea partiers, for the most part, are still part of mainstream American politics, although they may be at one end of the mainstream, he said. Tea party groups have adopted many different sets of guiding principles, but generally they coalesce around the philosophy of limiting the power of government.

Some extremist groups are often described as far right, but some of their anti-business views are strictly far left, said Tim Hagle, a University of Iowa political scientist. "So they are really kind of anarchists more than anything else," he said.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002967/images/imagine.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_35kDzNt-gTQ/Sc4_kRlERVI/AAAAAAAABiE/Jbcj6jvIjr4/s400/103294.jpg

Travlyr
04-03-2010, 07:58 AM
"Was there a time when MOST Americans were Liberty-Minded?"
Probably not. Likely 1/3 wanted to be in control, and another 1/3 wanted to be led, and the final 1/3 Liberty-Minded. It's just that the 1/3 liberty minded have the highest level of understanding, and they don't care to control others nor WILL THEY BE CONTROLLED.

Now for the university professors. They are the one group that will hopefully learn a lifelong lesson from their participation in this fraud. They may soon have to start working for a living.


Brian Lai, a University of Iowa political scientist who has studied terrorism, offered similar thoughts Friday. He said extremist groups fear that government is strengthening its control and that they need to take a stand. But it's also important to recognize such groups have long existed in the United States, he said.

Terrorism is not defined, therefore Brian Lai must be a very confused individual.
Government forcing its citizens to participate in government services at the point of a gun is more than fear, it is "government strengthening its control."
Labeling constitutionalists as extremist groups is itself extreme.


Drake University political scientist Dennis Goldford said groups such as the Guardians "have an entirely unconventional sense of what the Constitution means."

Dennis Goldford ~ "I'm going to be very vague here to see if I can distort their minds."
Unconventional, yes. Yet, the Guardians probably have a better understanding of the Constitution than Mr. Goldford; time will tell. The Guardians did "stick their necks out" with courage.


In contrast, tea partiers, for the most part, are still part of mainstream American politics, although they may be at one end of the mainstream, he said. Tea party groups have adopted many different sets of guiding principles, but generally they coalesce around the philosophy of limiting the power of government.

What does that mean, "they coalesce around the philosophy of limiting the power of government?" Only a handful of "evildoers" coalesce around the philosophy of unlimited power of government! Sheesh!
Of course tea partiers are mainstream. For the most part, they get their "news" from TV or radio. And yes, most of them do not have the time to study the Constitution because they been publicly indoctrinated and are too busy raising a family, paying bills and listening to the pope.


Some extremist groups are often described as far right, but some of their anti-business views are strictly far left, said Tim Hagle, a University of Iowa political scientist. "So they are really kind of anarchists more than anything else," he said.

The worst of the worst of these professors, Tim Hagle, muddies the waters by using "far right" & "far left" and calling them both anarchists!
Tyranny is left. Anarchy is right. People that use those divisive terms are intentionally misleading their audience.

University professors are "trained" to mis-inform. These frauds need to be exposed for who they are. Of course university professors will work to marginalize the liberty movement, they have a lot to lose and they know who "butters their bread."

AlexMerced
04-03-2010, 08:11 AM
it's always been a battle, and always will be, but you still got the fight if not liberties dissapear faster. It's part of the grander scheme of things I guess.

RforRevolution
04-03-2010, 08:31 AM
Probably not. I think most people are wired to prefer safety over liberty.

Erazmus
04-03-2010, 09:28 AM
We have a lot of surface dwellers in the country. What I mean by this is that the majority take everything at face value. There's no depth to the thought process. People generally don't think about actions or their long term consequences. They regurgitate what they hear from pundits, politicians, mainstream media, and so on. When you have this type of environment you can appeal to people's natural inclinations (as another mentioned above), security, protections, and dependency.

In general humanity tends to prefer the path of least resistance. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. When you have complete freedom, you also have complete responsibility. People tend to want others to perform tasks or do things for them. Then end up ceding this responsibility to a government who makes asinine promises that can never be kept, but the lure is too strong. The seduction of another protector is also difficult to resist. It's almost like Stockholm syndrome, people will generally defend their captor as now being their "protector." This is why we always hear, "I'll give up freedom for security," or "We need government to keep us safe." Unfortunately people don't have the long term thought process to see where this leads. Zero freedom and complete tyranny.

At least, this is my take on it. :)

John Taylor
04-03-2010, 09:35 AM
Now the Controllers of Mass Communication say "extremist" when they really mean "patriot":

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100403/NEWS/4030328/1001/NEWS/Extremist-group-that-sent-letter-to-Culver-is-recruiting-in-Iowa



http://blogs.salon.com/0002967/images/imagine.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_35kDzNt-gTQ/Sc4_kRlERVI/AAAAAAAABiE/Jbcj6jvIjr4/s400/103294.jpg

A country without socialist-lites would be tremendous. They don't really care about civil liberties anyway, and we all know the intelligence and executive departments of the federal government (in terms of gathering and maintaining "intelligence harvesting" systems) does not follow the law, so there's not much a net positive to be gained by the left's presence. The left isn't really concerned with the warfare state, they just want it directed towards "helping" foreign peoples under a foreign banner instead of killing them under our own. In either case, they aren't really against it, so at the end of the day, if I had to pick getting rid of one or the other, it'd be looney lefties.

KCIndy
04-03-2010, 11:15 AM
The worst of the worst of these professors, Tim Hagle, muddies the waters by using "far right" & "far left" and calling them both anarchists!
Tyranny is left. Anarchy is right. People that use those divisive terms are intentionally misleading their audience.

University professors are "trained" to mis-inform. These frauds need to be exposed for who they are. Of course university professors will work to marginalize the liberty movement, they have a lot to lose and they know who "butters their bread."


The really, truly ironic thing here is that whenever and wherever a totalitarian regime has come to power, it's usually the professors and academics who are among the first against the wall....