Skip to main content

View Diary: To the self-described "patriots" of 2013: My friends, this is NOT what tyranny looks like (177 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, they want to replace what they perceive as... (31+ / 0-)

    "tyranny" with their own tyranny.  They want to force their minority fundamentalist views on the majority of people who voted against such views/ policies/ dictates.  

    They really don't want the lawlessness of anarchy.  They want to subjugate the majority to the rules of the radical minority.

    •  I see both of you here, (3+ / 0-)

      but jimraff has a point.  

      They want unlimited and unfettered use of assault weaponry and body piercing ammo...

      They want to rape any woman they want and not be bothered by the consequences...

      The future with these ideas prevailing are indeed anarchy, and that is, pretty much, what I've been hearing from them through this election cycle to now.  What rights do we have, those of us who believe that fun has an equal importance in our lives as work, family, friendships, you know, the stuff that gives our lives meaningfulness?  We have none.  They want to do what they want when they want and tough to us.  And you are right, also.  They want to subjugate us to their world.

      •  they want to live in 1958 when white men (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, LilithGardener, jimraff

        could lynch blacks, beat their wives and children with impunity, rape without consequences, foul the water, poison the air, buy guns without an ID, and generally piss all over anyone and anything that wasn't pleasing to them.  

        We are a vastly better nation today on multiple fronts.  The only people who have a serious problem with the 21st Century are those who know they're no longer protected from competition in the workplace, who are no longer demigods in their homes, are no longer guaranteed first choice of everything they desire.  Short form:  WATBs

        I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

        by I love OCD on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 03:05:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Brings to mind how spontaneously Mitt Romney's (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, I love OCD, jimraff

          son blurted out that at family dinner's Mitt is always the first one through the Buffet line, which he promptly tried to diffuse by pointing out the parents (Mitt's sons and their wives) needing time to help the children with their plates, and so on.

          That told me all I needed to know about the Romney family values and what is considered orderly and legitimate social structure. Mitt decides, everyone else abides.

        •  I'm pretty excited about the 21st century (3+ / 0-)

          It's been cool to live through the changes of the 60s and witness "progress" to much as I loved the 50's, (I was born in 53 so I didn't know about the dark side until way later) I am totally psyched about this century.  We will probably see more of this anger and gun lust for awhile, who knows, but when we've gotten through it, it might just be the world we envisioned earlier...collaboration, cooperation, multi-racial, multi-ethnic, a fairer society, a planet and it's wildlife respected and sustainable...maybe...and maybe I'm wanting this so badly I can't see through to the clearing.  There is this idea that said, adapt or die...

          •  Love your optimism, and am inclined to see (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            collaboration, cooperation, ingenuity, and many other reasons to hope that the vocal minority will get tired of hearing themselves and each other LOOOOOOOONG, LOOOOOONG, LOOOOOOONNNNNG before the rest of us do.

            While I'm disappointed with some of Obama's decisions and policies too, I think that he picks his battles.  

            In particular, I see his voting record and his decisions re the military and the MIC as thoughtful, measured, and willing to risk total failure on some cherished values, to begin trimming and dismantling significant fat from the defense sector.

            While I think the drone program is atrocious, he is willing to risk permanent criticism for failing on those civil rights issues in order to bring the troops home and begin spending some of those billions investing here at home. The MIC is an enormous ship that won't be turned in one Administration, or even two. It will take a long and concerted effort, and cutting off General Petraeus' path to the White House was a significant decision, IMO.

            I also know that he went against many people with his decision to intervene in Libya (for which there was little upside at the time, except the purely humanitarian ideal of  sparing a million lives). Without Obama's willingness to make a decision there would be no Banghazi. There would be another million people dead or displaced, their homes and city destroyed, another failing country on the African continent destabilizing the whole region.

            •  I think I see where you are (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              ...and agree that optimism is a long term project; I remember being very upset with Pres. Obama for awhile, but at the same time, I don't understand all the inner dynamics of Washington politics, either.  He sure had a divergent cabinet working with him, with Geitner on one hand and Stephen Chu on the other.  I share your feelings about Gen. Petraeus, on the other hand, I'm not sure about Brenner.  

              That said, we have lots of work to do, of course, and we both know what it entails.  Things are really heating up, shaking up everywhere; it could go in many different directions, and I'm glad that Obama is in office, considering we'd be looking at a John Boltan-style cabinet if things had worked out differently.  That in itself leaves a lot of room for optimism!

    •  Depends on usage... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, LilithGardener, jimraff

      I know you're using the word anarchy in the sense of no organization or order, but Anarchy in the classic sense of anarchist theory simply means no ruler. In other words, no single person or group of persons has unchecked authority over others. It doesn't imply chaos.

      I only point this out because so many are confused and misinformed about the different usages of the term.

      So, the meaning of the word depends on usage and context. Social Anarchism is actually highly organized and efficient, and is far more democratic and people-directed than representational democracy. It is self-management by the community, collectively.

      I would rather people used a different word when they want to describe the chaos of the dog-eat-dog conditions of lack of organization, which is not really Anarchism (as an ideology) but rather rulership by whomever is the accepted strongman on the block.

      Anarchist society doesn't permit individuals to have unjustified power over the community. No thug is allowed to run wild doing as he/she pleases. Instead, the people govern themselves by processes of consensus and direct democracy, which is actually highly organized and effective.  

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 12:44:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site