Discussion Topic.......Lets discuss

[audtatious]

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;2. from spiritual faith to great courage;3. from courage to liberty;4. from liberty to abundance;5. from abundance to complacency;6. from complacency to apathy;7. from apathy to dependence;8. from dependence back into bondage'

The above is "supposed" to be the beginning to the end of a democracy. Where do you think we are and why, or is it not valid to you and you dismiss the notion altogether that the above is anything worthwhile?

[smockers83]

Hmm, this shall be interesting. I would say we're at step 6 because we had the abundance after WWII and became complacent and now we're on our way to apathy. Maybe that would be step 5, either way I say we're at the complacent stage.

I say that it is valid because we've seen it happen before in history.

[heliochrome85]

Hmm, this shall be interesting. I would say we're at step 6 because we had the abundance after WWII and became complacent and now we're on our way to apathy. Maybe that would be step 5, either way I say we're at the complacent stage.

I say that it is valid because we've seen it happen before in history.

i agree with eric.

[themadscientist]

#7 undoubtedly. I hope I can survive #8 long enough to get my John Conner on.

[OriginalWheelman]

1.

We have become so dependent on the government to dictate social rules of right and wrong that political figures are being elevated to celestial / abyssal status.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

7. Obama brought voting to millions, bringing us out of a general tread toward voter apathy.

What did they vote for? A big, fat, government teat. Government dependence runs rampant through voters aligned with both parties.

[audtatious]

Which is a problem with creating more dependency on the Gov which leads to more and more people who will elect those who will make their lives easier, which is more social programs and welfare.

[smockers83]

7. Obama brought voting to millions, bringing us out of a general tread toward voter apathy.

What did they vote for? A big, fat, government teat. Government dependence runs rampant through voters aligned with both parties.

This is why I think we're still in a complacent stage. Many were complacent about McCain and many were complacent about Obama.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

This is why I think we're still in a complacent stage. Many were complacent about McCain and many were complacent about Obama.

Are we entering complacency stage, or leaving it?

Today I saw a t-shirt with the presidential seal, Obama in shades, and the words "Mission Accomplished" on some lower-middle class fat black lady (aka not a traditional voter). I suspect voter apathy is on the out...

What's the timetable on these things? THAT begs the question.

Has the U.S. cycled through these before?

[marlin29311]

Plato wrote that democracy is the next closest thing to anarchy...aristocracy is the most pure form of rulership.

[themadscientist]

I declare myself king, bring forth the wenches.

[smockers83]

Are we entering complacency stage, or leaving it?

Leaving it. I think we're in transition to apathy.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Plato wrote that democracy is the next closest thing to anarchy...aristocracy is the most pure form of rulership.

I had to find and thumb through The Republic because that didn't quite sit right.

Democracy is sandwiched between Oligarchy and Tyranny. There is some connection by Plato between Democracy and Anarchy, as the dangers of Democracy (Anarchy) breed Tyranny ( because of too much freedom), but it's Machiavelli wrote that Anarchy follows Democracy.

It's in Part III, if you want to read that section. I don't remember the section in Machiavelli's works where he talks about Anarchy more explicitly.

[marlin29311]

Hmm...it has been a few years since I gave it a gander...I'll have to go back through and read that again when I get a chance...but for some reason that's what I thought it was...

But hey, at the rate our country was going at, Obama might as well have been king!

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Hmm...it has been a few years since I gave it a gander...I'll have to go back through and read that again when I get a chance...but for some reason that's what I thought it was...

But hey, at the rate our country was going at, Obama might as well have been king!

We're splitting hairs, really, and Plato is so hard to read any confusion is totally forgiveable.

Do you have a copy? I think I've got multiple copies, and I'd lend it out to a fellow NICOnaut

[marlin29311]

I do have my own copy - it's totally possible that we have different translators though. I have the Oxford University Press version (has a red binder, paperback...IIRC).

I read it once as a senior in HS, and again in college. I'll definatly take a look at it if I can find it when I get home from work.

EDIT: Did some online browsing...

That question, I said, is easily answered: the four governments of which I spoke, so far as they have distinct names, are first, those of Crete and Sparta, which are generally applauded; what is termed oligarchy comes next; this is not equally approved, and is a form of government which teems with evils: thirdly, democracy, which naturally follows oligarchy, although very different: and lastly comes tyranny, great and famous, which differs from them all, and is the fourth and worst disorder of a State. I do not know, do you? of any other constitution which can be said to have a distinct character. There are lordships and principalities which are bought and sold, and some other intermediate forms of government. But these are nondescripts and may be found equally among Hellenes and among barbarians.

I see where you are coming from. Though it is entirely possible for a translation issue to be at hand here. I'm still trying to remember where I saw discussion regarding anarchy though.

[heliochrome85]

But hey, at the rate our country was going at, Obama might as well have been king!

who started us down that path? seriously. from a figure standpoint, Carter was the last US president. Reagan was the one that was put on a pedistal and made into a demigod. He still is.

From an ideological/power standpoint, W. was the first president who had unprecidented power for both his and the vice-president's offices. Obama has not even taken office yet and you guys decry him as a diety/king. Take a good long look in the mirror before you make such ridiculous statements.

Obama may be a powerful president, but he will be able to govern without having to resort to raising the terror level, putting out messages about potential threats to the country, mentioning 9/11 every 2 min (which admittedly is less than Guiliani), and making the citizenry run for cover every time he opens his mouth.

give the guy a chance. you guys sound like the alumni at my alma-mater when Bob Knight was fired. the guy had the most difficult job in the NCAA, replacing Bob Knight and he never got credit for it. you want to retake the office in 2012, get rid of the noise, and focus on CORE GOP positions. You can't win by a technicality, which seems to be the current GOP tactic. That doesnt work anymore.

/end rant.

[audtatious]

The GOP is doomed as long as it keeps moving to the left and spending like the Dems are known for. Gov-based fiscal conservatism and general personal responsibility is key in my eyes and neither party is leaning that way.

[dusred]

who started us down that path? seriously. from a figure standpoint, Carter was the last US president. Reagan was the one that was put on a pedistal and made into a demigod. He still is.

Carter was a moron. /statement

However, Ragan was as smart as Carter was stupid and the contrast there made Regan look much better then he would have otherwise. However, Regan was still the best that ever happened to this Country.

Tell me, If Regan were to run today would you vote for him?

[heliochrome85]

Carter was a moron. /statement

However, Ragan was as smart as Carter was stupid and the contrast there made Regan look much better then he would have otherwise. However, Regan was still the best that ever happened to this Country.

Tell me, If Regan were to run today would you vote for him?

i find it funny that you call carter a moron, yet you cant spell Reagan's name properly. Yeah, i understand that such a long name would be difficult to spell, with all those letters...

Its REAGAN.not Ragan, or Regan.

Lastly, In response to your question, Reagan was the Obama of the 80s. Would i vote for him? I dont know, since I dont remember much about his presidency. I will say that his brand of HOPE and CHANGE did bring about some change in the US.

[heliochrome85]

i agree with you. Too bad we dont have Barry Goldwater around anymore.

[audtatious]

See, I'm not soo bad.

If McCain was elected I would be attacking him on Global Warming and other initiatives as well. But as mentioned before, McCain was running towards some fiscal measures (with other non-fiscal crap) while Obama ran on Change and Hope so there is much more to nit pick about with Obama and his decisions.

[heliochrome85]

oh matt. i hope to be an old curmudgeon like you one day. also, id like a 63 cadillac coupe deville. that would be perfect..

[dusred]

i find it funny that you call carter a moron, yet you cant spell Reagan's name properly. Yeah, i understand that such a long name would be difficult to spell, with all those letters...

Ah dammit! You pwn't me again. In my defense I would like to offer that you didn't capitalize the first letter of that sentence .

Quote »Lastly, In response to your question, Reagan was the Obama of the 80s. Would i vote for him? I dont know, since I dont remember much about his presidency. I will say that his brand of HOPE and CHANGE did bring about some change in the US.[/quote]To use the name REAGAN and Obama in the same sentence is offensive to me . Just kidding. Actually, since we don't know what Obama is going to do yet you can't say that he is the Reagan of our time.

But if he accomplishes 1/10th of what Reagan does he does deserve my respect.

[heliochrome85]

since you were around during his presidency, what exactly did he do?

[audtatious]

oh matt. i hope to be an old curmudgeon like you one day. also, id like a 63 cadillac coupe deville. that would be perfect..

You must have me confused with someone else cuz I doubt most people who have met me would say I'm a difficult old fart.

[heliochrome85]

You must have me confused with someone else cuz I doubt most people who have met me would say I'm a difficult old fart.

ha, maybe i was thinking of telco...

[dusred]

I may not have been around during his presidency but my parents were and I hear about him every day from them. Also, I did listen in History class when they talked about him.

First off he cut taxes. Very few politicians realize that when you lower taxes you increase revenue. . . which makes sense but I'm not totally sure it works that way now days.

Second, because of his economic policies he created something like 12 million new jobs for our economy (so I guess lowering taxes does increase revenue?).

Third, he ended the Cold War.

Those are just a few appetizers.

[audtatious]

ha, maybe i was thinking of telco...

Maybe. He'd be the one in the corner wondering who all these people are and what part in his conspiracy they play

[heliochrome85]

first, i have a degree in history with concentrations in US and Mid East history, so i suspect ive learned a little bit more about history than your history class, maybe even your parents.

second, while his economic policies worked, they are of questionable effectiveness, since he took office during a time of rampant inflation and unprecedented unemployment. Evidenced during the 1982 recession. The markets only had one way to go, UP.

third, he didnt end the cold war, he just sped it up. The Soviet union was self destructing starting in the early 80s with its defeat in afghanistan. His ridiculous increases in military budgets helped to outspend the soviets and thereby bring about their end. they could no longer pay their people.

so much for appetizers.