The Superbowl, politics and deism

Quote :

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all."--Vladimir Lenin, Not By Politics Alone, by Tamara Deutsche

"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual".--Adolph Hitler, A Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock

“A true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of [individual] liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position.”—Benito Mussolini, The Philosophy of Fascism",1936.

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."--Nikita Khrushchev, address to the USSR Communist Party Congress, 1956

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans"-- Bill Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."--Hillary Clinton, I've Always Been a Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton In Her Own Words, by Thomas D. Kuiper.

"We are engaged in a war against individuality"--Ted Kennedy, Superbowl post-game broadcast, Feb. 4, 2002.

For those who would establish an elite class for their own benefit, the first step is to establish an upper class which is the only one that's quietly granted the privilege of individuality. Do you think any of those quoted above were talking about themselves?

What would professional football be like if Kennedy actually won the "war against individuality". The owner, the coach, high government officials in the stands and even the announcers would all have names, but the players would only be numbers. There would still be cheers for quarterback #7, linebacker #75, or wide receiver #40 when they made a good play, but there would be no individual recognition or stats, and only "The Team" would receive the glory before, during AND AFTER the game.

This isn't to downplay the importance of contributing, and even sacrificing, for the team, it's only to underscore the need for individual recognition. What would become of the game if Kennedy and his double standard ilk had their way? Salaries probably wouldn't be as high, but neither would the level of play without the incentives for individual excellence. I expect the quality of the game would quickly decline as would the interest of the masses if the individuals they wanted to identify with only had numbers.

Freethought such as deism and even atheism, and entrepreneurship are other individual risk taking pursuits which often go against or work outside the mainstream--the biggest team of all. If you would stifle the individual, you must take the steps which would include establishing the double standard, and thought police who would enforce politically correct thinking starting with those institutions which are supposed to teach us to think, the schools and universities.

If revealed religion and socialism are the most expedient vehicles for maintaining the double standard, "so be it" sayeth the tyrants.

I usually tend to pull for the underdog, but I can't help but think of all those individual players putting forward historic outstanding efforts for the team when I say, Go Patriots and give 'em hell Tom--not a sunshine patriot among 'em.

I, of course, wholeheartedly support your observation of the power and importance of the indiviual.

And, of course, wholeheartedly disagree, as usual, with the way you've framed this point, kinda like sweeping everything left of Libertarianism onto the Borg ship, as evidenced by the line-up for your opening quotes, Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Krushcev, Clinton, Clinton and Kennedy. And then even having the audacity of referencing the group as a whole.

And then you knock down the straw man you've created by using out of context quotes to insinuate that everything left of Libertarianism must be against the power and importance of the individual.

Maybe you should look to the other Kennedy that stood up to Kruscheve in 62 with a line in the ocean.

Rest assured it will not just be LIbertarians hoping for great individual plays in the Super Bowl.

Say, I watched the Colts lose last week. That was the first time I saw that punter. Man that punt out of the end zone was the best punt I've ever seen.

Helium wrote:

I, of course, wholeheartedly support your observation of the power and importance of the indiviual.

And, of course, wholeheartedly disagree, as usual, with the way you've framed this point, kinda like sweeping everything left of Libertarianism onto the Borg ship, as evidenced by the line-up for your opening quotes, Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Krushcev, Clinton, Clinton and Kennedy. And then even having the audacity of referencing the group as a whole.

And then you knock down the straw man you've created by using out of context quotes to insinuate that everything left of Libertarianism must be against the power and importance of the individual.

What out of context? And they're all saying the same thing. The real pity is that this should be a straw man, but it isn't because people are exchanging freedom for liberty right and left. His Vice President and successor, LBJ, completely changed our attitude about that, launching a stream of ever increasing and irrepealable handouts that no president since has had the leadership to reverse.

Quote :

Maybe you should look to the other Kennedy that stood up to Kruscheve in 62 with a line in the ocean.

JFK then was to the right of Bush today, which doesn't say much except to show how far to the left we've moved. If John was alive today he'd slap Teddy upside the head for what he said.

When JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", he was admonishing us as individuals to pull our own weight and stop whining for government handouts. In fact, his VP and successor, LBJ, launched a never ending stream of just such handouts and big government growth that no president since has had the leadership to even attempt to reverse. Lip service is all we get.

What I'm saying is that your original post is nothing more than propaganda.

And just wait a minute. It's not the insult that it appears to be.

Look propaganda has a bad connotation because it has been used by some bad people like hitler and mao and stalin.

But look, most of us that have ever sold a house, for instance, have used propoganda. By that I mean you don't give buyers all the facts; you give buyers the facts that will put your home in the best light. This is fairly standard isn't it.

Same thing when you're on your first couple of dates. Typically it's your good traits on display, and not bad.

So what I'm saying is that your statement fits into this qualified statement of propaganda (which I apparently can't spell).

And normally that's actually not a bad thing. But I hold you to a higher standard because of your self stated quest and respect for the holy grail of truth.

Again the most serious mistake is the group you've made and then referencing the group. And you're too smart for me to have to illustrate the differences between Hillary and Adolf. In fact even the American voter is (as well as the interested Canadian observor).

And then the second mistake you make is claiming the strong and vibrant individual as belonging only to those in the Libertarian camp.

That's as wrong as me saying that all Libertarians are freekin nuts because of the LIbertarian leader hopeful that thought 9-11 was an inside job and that individual micro-chipping has begun.

Helium wrote:

What I'm saying is that your original post is nothing more than propaganda.

Again the most serious mistake is the group you've made and then referencing the group. And you're too smart for me to have to illustrate the differences between Hillary and Adolf.

Yes there are different flavors of socialism, but it's my point that socialism and anti-individualism are necessarily inseparable because of it's need for a double standard. And just because Hillary or Bill or Teddy aren't like Hitler doesn't mean they wouldn't be if the constraints of our Constitutional system were removed or they had blind popular support such as Hitler had during his takeover.

And it's not just Libertarians. Can you point to any true conservatives (not socialists-lite) who've expressed similar sentiments? JFK in many ways was a conservative, including not appeasing the Russians during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Quote :

And then the second mistake you make is claiming the strong and vibrant individual as belonging only to those in the Libertarian camp.

(See above)

Quote :

That's as wrong as me saying that all Libertarians are freekin nuts because of the LIbertarian leader hopeful that thought 9-11 was an inside job and that individual micro-chipping has begun.

You could make that point pretty fairly about Libertarian Party members. Crap like that is why I left the party. Again, the point of those quotes are about any brand of socialism that has as one of its goals the concentration of power. The only exception I can think of are small communes or cults that are happy to live such a life on a small scale (while hypocritically benefiting from the capitalist system around them).

Quote :

And just because Hillary or Bill or Teddy aren't like Hitler doesn't mean they wouldn't be if the constraints of our Constitutional system were removed or they had blind popular support such as Hitler had during his takeover.

Well you know them more than I do (although Mr. Clinton is certainly a regular to T.O. on the speaking tour) but I think if I could replace Adolph with Bill, things would turn out a lot differently. For one we know, Bill wouldn't, ahem, shoot his mistress. Actually I'd be more worried about your right wing wingnuts then Bill or your left wing wingnuts.

Helium wrote:

And just because Hillary or Bill or Teddy aren't like Hitler doesn't mean they wouldn't be if the constraints of our Constitutional system were removed or they had blind popular support such as Hitler had during his takeover.

Quote :

Well you know them more than I do (although Mr. Clinton is certainly a regular to T.O. on the speaking tour)

It's an extension of our Northeast liberal bloc.

Quote :

but I think if I could replace Adolph with Bill, things would turn out a lot differently.

D'you leave out Hillary intentionally?

Quote :

For one we know, Bill wouldn't, ahem, shoot his mistress.

You don't think Monica wouldn't have been found in Marcy Park if he'd thought he could get away with it. A lot of people, particuarly in Arkansas had a habit of disappearing.

Quote :

Actually I'd be more worried about your right wing wingnuts then Bill or your left wing wingnuts.

I wouldn't be if they were truly right wing--and sane.

I'm not a big Bill Clinton fan but here's the quote in full context...

Quote :

You know, we can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles—it's something I strongly support—we can't be so fixated on that that we are unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation—no other nations—has permitted to exist. And at some point, I still hope that the leadership of the National Rifle Association will go back to doing what it did when I was a boy and which made me want to be a lifetime member because they put out valuable information about hunting and marksmanship and safe use of guns. But just to know of the conditions we face today in a lot of our cities and other places in this country and the enormous threat to public safety is amazing.

I couldn't find the full context of the Hillary quote but when you think about it, it isn't all that much different from J.F.K.'s famous quote "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what can you do for your country." Although it's not put so eloquently.


As far as the Teddy Kennedy quote goes. Here's the real thing...

Quote :

Since September 11th, the courageous acts of countless Americans have set a new standard for the nation. Indeed, a new American spirit has been forged. That sprit is characterized by sacrifice, humility, and a refusal to quit in the face of adversity. At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good.

That example came from the top, and it came from the start of the season. Choosing to be introduced before the game as a team, not as individuals, the Patriots set the tone for their victory. Coach Bill Belichick stressed teamwork, saying that only by working together could the Patriots overcome their opponent, the best team in the NFL’s regular season, the St. Louis Rams.

http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press_release.cfm?id=6bf2b9d7-47de-4f6f-8501-b62cc60f9433

The quote that Paineful listed above is apparently a common misquote by Nealz Boortz that has been popping up around the web for some time now.

Quote :

You don't think Monica wouldn't have been found in Marcy Park if he'd thought he could get away with it. A lot of people, particuarly in Arkansas had a habit of disappearing.

Oh I hadn't heard of the disappearing people in Arkansas.

And you really think Clinton would have murdered Monica if he thought he could get away with it?

I don't see any of those being taken out of context.

Yes, the first place I heard about most of them was Neal Boortz, but before I used them in a column I was doing at the time, I dug up with the same references you did rather than trust Boortz.

Bill's quote it very poorly written (spoken?) to begin with: "You know, we can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles—it's something I strongly support." What's something that he strongly supports? I think this was deliberately obscure to give each side a chance to think he was supporting them. In any case, the words are incredibly damning when you study them. It is also consistent with his arrogant anti-individualist comment that "We (the government) could give the money back to you but you might not spend it right."

The Hillary quote was admittedly second hand, but she's never denied it, and it's also consistent with the sentiments she expressed in It Takes a Village.

Ted's reference was redacted from a TV interview, but the point in question ("our country is banding together and facing down individualism") isn't and stands alone in any context.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Ted's reference was redacted from a TV interview, but the point in question ("our country is banding together and facing down individualism") isn't and stands alone in any context.

Look, I like Teddy Kennedy even less than I like the Clintons but isn't it possible that he misspoke? Based on the context of his little speech it seems that what he might have meant was ("our country is banding together and facing down terrorism"). At least that makes more sense anyway.

You really gotta work hard to believe "facing down individualism" was misspoken. If that was a credible excuse, why wouldn't he have said so? Because it was so blatant. Better to let the press cover his back and fade to black.

Helium:
http://www.prorev.com/WWDEATH.HTM

(The question raised by a pathologist in the Ron Brown case was about an apparent gun shot wound in the top of the head.

Almost certainly all of these cases don't involve Clinton, but there are too many questions for which answers would have been imperative otherwise.)

Politics, deism and the superbowl.

What do they have in common.

Well deism doesn’t believe in an intervening God and in any event most deists would suggest that either A) God doesn’t care or B) would care about all of his players equally, so in effect would cancel each other out.

Because deism doesn’t believe in supernatural or devine intervention we believe that everyone is equal in the sense that everyone regardless of all the usual caveats such as age, race, colour etc, should have equal opportunity. And we celebrate the fact that this is indeed the case and that by and large the best players in the world regardless of their colour, age and religion are able to realize their dreams and play in the NFL.
Of course, we acknowledge the role the Canadian Football League played in providing that opportunity to black quarterbacks like Warren Moon until such a point as the NFL could not ignore their talent, and acknowledge the role of teams like the Toronto Argonauts which has seen its star Black players like Pinball Clemons become a star running back, Grey Cup winning coach and now team president.

As deists we believe every individual should have equal opportunity to empower themselves.

As deists we recognize that we need a society that provides the means for its citizens to at least have equal opportunity to empower themselves.

As deists we realize that strong individuals are not possible without a strong society. We also realize that a strong society is not possible without strong individuals.

As deists we realize that if you could somehow divorce those two issues from each other, that is strong individuals and strong society, that, of course, most everyone except anarchists would agree that both are good.

That is that a strong, vibrant society with strong, vibrant individuals is good.

But how do we get there.

As deists we know it’s a sometimes a precarious balance and dance between the individual and his society.

As deistis we know that not all will agree on what the right balance is.

But as deists we let logic rule and are careful to look at all the facts, arguments and discussions before formulating our truth, rather than to choose facts and “truths” as propaganda to support our preconceived notions.

As deists we wish all participants good health and good luck.
We urge them to set an unabiding exaple of sportsmanship as our society is sorely lacking in role models.
And we remind that it isn’t whether the winning or losing.
But doing the best damn job ya could.

And if ya didn't.

Then try all the harder next time.

Helium wrote:

Politics, deism and the superbowl.

What do they have in common.

The application (or not) of reason toward achieving a goal.