Yes, I see it. You’re exactly right.

I don’t think you understand what your saying.

If they were competent, they wouldn’t need tyranny

your statement implies that we can only fall to a Tyranny of the competent, but there is no such thing, that’s a contradiction.

this is why all over the world, the tyrannies are pretty poorly run. they put the brute in brute force. and that they mobilize the larger mass of people who are less intelligent to over throw the more intelligent the people naturally selected in a meritocracy. its why its about feelings not logic. (to the dull you appeal emotionally, to the smart you appeal with logic (or what sounds like it with a dash of authority washed down by their own naivete))

watch out for the tyranny of the brutish and dull minded Malthusian Luddite of cargo cult mentality, of few morals (mostly situational), afraid and paranoid of regular people (who have a competency they don’t understand), who believes that there really is no such thing as merit, that others are like them, posers and fakes who pretend to be smart, inventive, capable and such.

Mr.Hatter, Mr.Bunny, Mz.Alice. Um, is there more room at your table?

Someone is cordially invited to Shady Oaks Asylum.

First of all, although I have wondered at times whether that is a plan of this administration, and I have thought that indeed it might be, never have I said it will occur or that (as you write) “the Democratic leadership has got the bank shots in this pool game all figured out.” You are misrepresenting my position if that’s supposed to refer to me. I continue to maintain that it might indeed be a plan, however, and that there is a distinct possibility that it could be successful, and that it is certainly a valid thing to think about and be aware of.

As for other blogs—all those thoughts are often discussed in blogs. I’m not about to do some sort of exhaustive search, but a very quick one revealed, almost immediately, this from a well-known blog, this from a well-known media source, and this from a blog with which you might disagree, but which is certainly a very popular one. And that only took a moment. The possibility has been discussed on many, many blogs, by many, many bloggers, and an even larger number of commenters.

when they do this they facilitate playing both sides and asuaging us of the collusion as a good thing.

in truth, it allows a progressive hidden in the opponents side to vote against his side, and not be seen as a traitor to the side.

otherwise we might be wise that they should nto be behind closedd doors, should not collude, making deals selling out what we elected them for..

the whole methodology is what allows them to not represent anyone and yet appear to represent them.

i explained it with feminism.. you ahve womrn for porn, and women against porn… if they stay apart, they will debate and side with those that side with them… but if you wrap both under a higher order umbrella, then both oppositions are now still oppositions, but they are under one choice. .. and since they push both ways, the umbrella gets to choose whatever it wants without any need to do so in regard to the people..

its a case of they want both things, so i dont have to listen to them to choose, i pick what i want.

in this way… you get democrats, and republicans… they are in opposition.. but if you put them both under progressive, then progressive gets to decide what gets done, as the higher order set controls both ends… (against us the middle).

we have no choice because we are stupid enouhg to stand under the same single statist ideal, of progressive (communism,socialism,etc)..

it puts us in the position of arguing whether we will be communist totalitarian, or facist totalitarian… but goes pass the question of totalitarianism!!! it avoids it completely..

if the left yell fascist
nad the right yells communst

where is the small government free argument?

its not even on the table.
they are fighting in front of you as they did in germany… over two totalitariansms, not whether it will be totalitarian.

they want the chinese model
(only looking at the 200 million not the whole)

so much i could say… why bother.
i am wrong because waht i say is not entertaining, isnt useful after the fact, and generally is a downer to the perpetual party.

I haven’t seen anyone suggest that concern is not warranted. Nor that Obama et al won’t do all that they can to move us further down the road to their socialist/communist utopia.

A declaration that they are incompetent does not equate to an assertion that they are therefore not politically dangerous.

An observation that they really believe their own rhetoric is not an assertion that their wrongheadedness will prevent them from subjecting the country to great harm.

But their incompetence and “a ground unsuitable for planting a crop of socialism” will prevent them from taking over the country in a coup which denies the franchise to all but liberals.

If a conservative were President you’d never see such reporting of an ongoing economic collapse in a 100 years.