I disagree, however, that the more outre possibilities I mentioned in response to Wolla Dalbo’s claim are out of bounds. If Democrats have no respect for the rule of law, where and why would they draw the line at those things?

It’s a serious matter to accuse others of having no respect for the law.

I say more in the current tyranny topic. http://neoneocon.com/2010/03/16/heres-what-tyranny-looks-like-at-the-beginning/

Then it’s easy to slide into confirmation bias where one mostly notices information that confirms one’s bias and mostly ignores information to the contrary.

In one of neo’s responses to me she spoke of “what is clearly before us” as though her perception were so self-evidently true that we would all agree. But I don’t agree and there is a world of people, non-Democrats even, that don’t.

What to do?

It’s important to me to think clearly. I’ve been convinced of all sorts of things in my life and later revised my thinking substantially.

It’s like the fight against the jihad boys. They taunt us, with some truth, that “YOU have to be successful in thwarting us ALL of the time. WE only have to be successful ONE time.”

The very fact that the Dimwit leadership would consider the Slaughter option, and publicly, is horrifying. Think about what this means! It means they are so far gone in their corruption and malfeasance and (especially) their lust for power that they don’t give a Damn about our Constitution, the rule of law, or the principles of democracy. In fact, they’re willing to fling these down and dance upon them.

That means they’re capable of anything.

Ponder That, folks.

Yes, I hope that this particular attempt will be a damp squib. But even their consideration of such an unconstitutional maneuver is a terrible portent.

My father is 82. He told me, when Hussein was elected, “I feel like I’ve lost my country.” And this sort of monstrousness was what he was talking about.

Nice work. I’m in the middle of doing some things and can’t take much time now, but I do have some thoughts on these matters.

For now, though, I will simply say that I think Huxley has indulged in some remarkably graceless characterizations and criticisms of others on these threads. For example, he has gone out of his way–really–to hit Artfldgr. Artfldgr has some stylistic quirks that put some people off, but he always speaks frankly and from an apparent wealth of unhappy personal experience. Huxley’s attitudes towards him have led me to conclude that Huxley is a snob. I don’t know precisely what intent can be read into that, so I’ll just make the statement and let it stand.

What Sergey said.

I understand what Huxley is trying to say. If I understand it correctly, it is that some commenters have been inferring the worst intent based on the actions of Obama and his allies in Congress, and have applied such inference too broadly to “all Democrats.”

I agree with the latter part of this. It is too broad to apply to “all” Democrats one particular view. One of Neo’s recent posts contains a link to an article from two Democrat pollsters, Pat Cadell and Doug Schoen, which stand in stark contrast to what the present Denocrat leadership is doing. So, that takes care of “all.”

As for the inference that some Democrats, particulalry Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and those allied with them have the intent to subvert the rule of law, my view was expressed in a similar comment at the very end of another of Neo’s posts.

Andrew M. Garland suggested the following scenario:

A man standing beside you at the bus stop contorts his face and pulls his arm back, fist clenched. It seems he is about to hit you.

Huxley: He hasn’t hit you yet. It is broad daylight, and this is merely a threat. We don’t know if he will strike. In fact, it is problably just an indication of how irrational and weak he is.

Neo-neocon: Duck!

Now, I have committed the offence of interpreting the thoughts and intent of the man at the bus stop, Huxley, and Neo. Relating cause and effect, threat and result, is what careful people do. It is a matter of survival.

In regard to this scenario: First, I would actually agree with Garland (and many other here) that inferring intent from the actions of others in common practice, and sometimes a “matter of survival.”

But, secondly, as I said in regard to this scenario originally :

In either case: I would suggest that merely making such a violent threat, and employing what are essentially “Fighting Words” , is by itself, without more, sufficiemnt provocation. In other words, this man has already crossed the line of propriety.

My point is this: that maybe we dont need to decifer intention here to now say that what is being attempted is contrary to the will of the American people, and contrary to the represenntative democracy form of government that we have. When the people’s representatives fail to properly represent the people, then maybe its time to recall them.

Let me provide a better example: Lets say were all on a cruise ship, and the captain is about to direct the ship right into an iceberg. We can all argue about the “intent” of the captain. In the end, we really cannot decifer whether he is actually intebnding harm, or whether he is just a total fool. He could be either.

What we do know is that the ship is being directed in a manner that most passengers believe, with good reason, will result in the destruction of the ship at worst (or at best, the sustaining by the ship of substantial damage), and the probable (or at least possible) loss of life.

We do not need to reach a conclusion as to whether this captain actually intends harm. We can accept that he may not mean harm, and that he is only a fool. In either case, the passengers of the ship are in the grave situation of needing to prevent the captain from carrying out his directions. In either case, he must be stopped.

It could be argued that even if the captain does not intend harm, he is at least criminally negligent (a category which does not require specific intent). ( “”Negligence” is not the same as “carelessness”, because someone might be exercising as much care as they are capable of, yet still fall below the level of competence expected of them. “)

I think, with regard to Obama and his allies in Congress, that I cannot come to the conclusion that they intend harm. In essence, I agree with Huxley on this. But they are definitely creating harm, and I agree that the actions they are pursuing are such that alarm is called for. I believe in using all legal means possible, from protest to, if possible, recall petitions, to prevent them from passing this Obamacare monstrosity that most of the American people do not want.

Okay.. sorry for the long-windedness of this. I will try to restrain myself from these type of long, multi-volume posts. I hope i have not offended anyone, as that was not my intent.

(Also, it has occurred to me that I may have employed some hyperbole in this post with my “ship hitting the iceberg” concept. If thats so, I apologize, especially to Huxley and Gray, since I took them to task in my prior post. I suppose we can now have a long debate on what “hyperbole” means.)

I’ve noticed this in the manner that each side of this debate has quoted the other’s statements, and then in the response to said statements. For example, Wolla Dalbo said:

I think that a lot of commenters here are basing their analysis on a false assumption, and that false assumption is that the Democrats care at all about the rule of law, parliamentary procedure, Democracy, our traditions of government, or the rules of the House or Senate.

In responding to Wola Dalbo, Huxley said:

Of course declaring an assumption to be false does not make the assumption false.

Wolla Dalbo’s claim strikes me as an extreme generalization that is more suited for rhetoric than debate.

All Democrats? No care at all for the rule of law?

If this were true, I would expect that Democratic opponents would be jailed, their communication networks squelched or outlawed, and even mysterious deaths and assassinations.

Now, of Huxley’s comments, the first two paragraphs are rational criticisms of Wolla Dalbo’s prior statement. One can agree or disagree with it, but its a rational critique.

But then you get to the fourth paragraph, and here is a statement which speaks of assasinations, jailing political prisoners, and myseterious deaths. I would suggest this is hyperbolic because Wolla Dalbo never mentioned such activities in her post. W.D. writes only of violating the rule of law, which is not necessarily implicative of assasinations, mysetrious deaths, and political imprisonment.

Then, further on, there is this comment from Gray, responding to Huxley’s assertion that “. . . I still don’t see how people know Obama’s intentions here with respect to tyranny.”

No…. No, of course not; a mugger stabbing you in the heart is of course an itinerant doctor who knows you have a blockage in the aorta and wishes to heal you.

Of course one can never know the intent of anyone! When I piss down your neck, it’s only a friendly warning that it could rain later today.

In the same fashion, Obama’s stated intentions to “spread the wealth around” and “the time for debate is over”, means that he is a supporter of the Free Market who values disparate opinions.

I would suggest there is quite a bit of hyperbole here too. If this were as simple as someone stabbing you in the heart or pissing on you, then we wouldn’t be discussing this. I realize statements like this are largely the result of losing patience with Huxley’s position on this, but making such an overstatement isn’t going to change the fact thet Huxley simply doesn’t see this as equivalent to being pissed on or to being stabbed at with a knife.

My point is that we’ve moved from the very specific, concrete topic of our political leaders’ intent, to whether such intent involves assassination, to whether inferring such intent is equivalent to being pissed on. Maybe, in this circumstance, hyperbole has failed to clarify the topics being discussed, and muddied the water further.

One more post coming.

Let me carefully try to untangle what I think I see here, which may be right or wrong… but here it is:

1. Many commenters have expressed concern over both the overall agenda of the Obama administration and its allies in Congress, and in particular the latest effort, notwithstanding the opposition of the majority of the public, to enact the so-called “Obamacare” health care program.

2. Huxley, who I should add I greatly respect as an individualistic voice among the commenters, has taken issue with some statements by other commenters which appear to imply knowledge of the intent of Obama and his allies in Congress in carrying out their policies, and which state this knowledge of intent with language that is excessively overbroad.

(To wit: Wolla Dalbo’s comment to the effect that “that false assumption is that the Democrats care at all about the rule of law, parliamentary procedure, Democracy, our traditions of government, or the rules of the House or Senate.“, which caused Huxley’s response that “Wolla Dalbo’s claim strikes me as an extreme generalization that is more suited for rhetoric than debate).

3. Huxley’s issue then caused a rebuttal by many commenters to the effect that, in their opinion, it is quite acceptable in many circumstances to infer from the behavior of certain people (in this case Obama and his allies in Congress) what their intent is, and that in this situation, such intent is one directed at violating the rule of law and imposing on an unwilling public an unnecessary expansion of government power.

Okay… I’m going to hit “submit” on this, refill my cup of coffee, and submit a follow up post.

No…. No, of course not; a mugger stabbing you in the heart is of course an itinerant doctor who knows you have a blockage in the aorta and wishes to heal you.

Of course one can never know the intent of anyone! When I piss down your neck, it’s only a friendly warning that it could rain later today.

In the same fashion, Obama’s stated intentions to “spread the wealth around” and “the time for debate is over”, means that he is a supporter of the Free Market who values disparate opinions.