It was simple and simple is where we need to return. All are harmed by what we have today.
Our Government an instigator of terror activities?
- Thread starter skyraider
- Start date
It was simple and simple is where we need to return. All are harmed by what we have today.
I guess it depends on what the "little" person did. If one did the "same thing", and expected a different outcome, one would be left behind. Far more do better in times of economic "freedom" than do well in the "anti-work", "anti-business" atmosphere we have today.
The most likely POTUS to have been an atheist or agnostic was Abraham Lincoln. Although there have been opinions written pro and con about this, one would tend to believe that his wife would know best about his thoughts on the subject:
The Wikipedia entry offers some interesting reading; I especially like Jefferson's views about religion.
However, there likely might have been some others that held the office that were in fact atheists but attended churches for appearances' sake, and to avoid the political ramifications of being labeled an atheist.
Yeah, and Lincoln was one of the worst presidents we have ever had. Ranks right up there near the top of the scum heap.
What Pilgrim posted: "As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron."
- H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
Maybe someone will read this.
- H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
Maybe someone will read this.
And some narcissistic Republican moron just couldn't help themselves and took a perfectly good quote, embellished it by adding "fool and complete narcissistic" and then passed it off as as actual quote.
Possibly. Just because you agree with his opinion doesn't necessarily make him correct with respect to the current president. When Mencken wrote that, the term had not yet entered the lexicon as an insult. The term was coined in 1910 to mean something very specific, namely someone with an IQ of between 51 and 70 (or someone with the mental intelligence of a child between 8-12 years of age), to differentiate between imbecile (IQ 26-50) and idiot (IQ 0-25). Regardless of how much you or anyone else disdains the man, it is highly unlikely that Obama has an IQ of 51-70. Lest we not forget that Junior was a C student, and even that was a gift.
Giving ANY president of the last 80 years, or longer, more than a "D" would be generous. Obama gets an "F-".
Yes it had, and Mencken obviously meant it as an insult considering the context of either version of his quote. Several sources state that "By 1922, “moron” was being used as an insult, and it was subsequently dropped from diagnostic use" including Ableist Word Profile: Moron. It has been applied to both Bush and Obama, and will no doubt be applied to future presidents as well in spite of the current standards of political correctness which seem to be applied selectively. Regarding the intellectual levels of either Bush or Obama, it's rather obvious that the former is continually underrated and the latter is seriously overrated thanks to the mainstream media. Obama won't release any academic records so we don't really know what his intellectual test scores and accomplishments are. His record of career success so far is average at best, and his presidency will be judged by history as the consequences of his policies become reality. With this in mind Jimmy Carter breathes a sigh of relief and sleeps more peacefully at night.
Yes, by 1922 is was being used an as insult. Mencken wrote his comment in 1920. 1920 does not a 1922 make. But even in 1922 its use as a derogatory insult wasn't particularly widespread. It took 40 years for that to happen.
(On a side note, the Able-ist word profile at disabledfeminists.com? Seriously?)
As for it being obvious that Mencken meant it as an insult considering the context of either quote, there is actually only one quote, with the other being a fictional representation of a quote. In the fictional context with the addition of narcissistic so as to directly apply today to Obama, it's clearly an insult tailored for today's contemporary president. But that's not what Mencken said. If you consider Mencken's actual quote in the context of the quote itself, it's not obvious at all that he meant it as the insult you want it to be. It only becomes obvious if you view it in the context of your own political ideology (or experiences and knowledge of the subject) and then apply it to the president du jour you oppose. Feels good. "Yeah, man, he's a moron, and somebody I don't really know from 100 years ago called it! Whohoo! I'm singing in the rain. Just singing in the rain. What a glorious feelin', I'm haaaappy again."
A better context would be that of Mencken's own views and philosophy. He meant it as an insult, but not in the sense that it began being used after 1922, not in the sense that we use the term today. Mencken had a passionate dislike for Representative Democracy, because he believed it to be a system where inferior men (inferior in every way: intellect and intelligence, breeding, morals, character, etc.) dominated their superiors. He believed that every community produced a rare handful of people of clear superiority, which created a natural elitism and a natural hierarchy of communities (and nations) that should naturally be led by the intellectually and achieving superiors. He once wrote, "... it is impossible to talk anything resembling disretion or judgment to a colored woman. They are all essentially child-like, and even hard experience does not teach them anything." He wrote about colored men in even less flattering terms. He thought Hitler was a thug, but nevertheless sided with Germany in WWI and WWII (he was of German ancestry), so you can imagine how glowingly he wrote about the Jews.
He still has several books in print, and his writing is fascinating. His satire was particularly pointed. He was the one who coined the phrase "Scopes Monkey Trial," when he wrote about it daily. (His fictionalized character was played by Gene Kelly in Inherit the Wind, the movie about the trial.) A lot of Republicans who are just giddy about the quote probably wouldn't be fans of his, though, as he detested religion even more than representative democracy, was a fan and friend of Ayn Rand, and is identified more with Libertarians than anybody mainly because of his "no entangling alliances" stance and criticisms of the US during WWII, and his general philosophies.
He believed that superior men should be the ones to elect other superior men to office, and that inferior men (those with naturally inferior intelligence, those without wildly prosperous businesses, or those without having amassed large amounts of land) should not be involved. The more people who involved in an electorate, the lower the average intelligence of those who make the decisions. Thus it allows unintelligent inferiors to dominate the small group of intelligent superiors.
His quote wasn't a prophesy about some eventual outcome in the present day elections (despite efforts of numbnuts in 2004 discovering the quote and applying it to Bush, and then a completely new set of numbnuts applying it to Obama), he was speaking in the here and now of 1922. He wrote that it had already happened to a very large degree, and that inferiors routinely got elected to the presidency. But that one day, it wouldn't just be an inferior that got elected, but a downright moron inferior that got elected. And he absolutely knew the clinical definition of a moron, as he'd written about it and other categories of intelligence on many occasions. He was almost obsessed with hierarchical intelligence and how the different levels were scored and categorized. He was intimate with the various IQ tests, particularly the Wechsler IQ Tests and the Stanford-Binet IQ Tests, where Moron was listed right below "Dullard" and Dullard-Normal." He chose "downright moron" specifically, and not because it was a 'stick your tongue out at someone' insult. He meant it to be quite specifically a particular level of inferiority.
Ironically, Mencken's comments don't even apply today, because they were written about the inability of a candidate to personally interact with voters on a large scale. When you have a small group of elite superiors electing other superiors, they all have the opportunity to get to know the candidate in person. But when you have large scale inferiors involved, the candidate has no practical means of being seen and heard by voters on a large scale, other than that of campaign trails using trains that still only reached a very small percentage of the voters. When that happens, it greatly increases the chances of a moron getting elected, because, of course, he believed that the majority of the inferiors to be of the moron intelligence level.
The reason his comments don't even apply today is because of radio, television and the Internet, where candidates have no problem in reaching large numbers of people. A train-based campaign trail pales in comparison. It's certainly more fun and satisfying to use that quote to point to the president you don't like, regardless of who that president might be, but if you look at the entire thing in the original context, it's impact and prophetic profundity falls weak.
Mencken wrote the quote as part of a larger article entitled "Bayard vs. Lionheart" that talked about the difficulties mentioned above of good men reaching national office when the scale of their campaigns precluded them from directly reaching out to large segments of the voting public. He was very cynical, and wrote with great cynicism, and disdain for inferiors participating in elections, so it should be read with the same cynicism.
It's extremely unlikely that the useage of "moron" as a personal insult began on 1/1/1922, and more likely started with wordsmiths like Mencken describing individuals or groups of people they didn't like or whose political views they opposed.
What...??? You have a problem with disabled feminists?
"Fictional representation" - maybe, but "alteration" would seem to be a more appropriate description considering the popular labeling of Obama by his critics as a narcissist. The message of the quote is also appropriate considering the way Obama was elected - and especially re-elected with one of the worst records of any POTUS in history. The MSM completely glossed over his numerous failures and continues that practice to this day, while the low information voters continue to believe myths like the rich not paying their "fair share" and that they're entitled to free/low-cost health care, cell phones and now free college. They don't understand the concept of the national debt, and that it now exceeds national GDP; in other words, we're spending more money than we make. At some point in time the Fed will no longer be allowed to keep interest rates artificially low, so when rates rise the interest we'll have to pay on this obscene level of debt will be disastrous to the economy.
Granted, Obama is neither a fool or a moron in the literal sense but many of his policies - both foreign and domestic - are downright foolish, to say nothing of dangerous. His stated goal is to "fundamentally transform" this country, seemingly to the mold of European Socialism; so far he's doing a dam good job of it and those who voted for him think they're getting what they asked for. The sad truth is they won't realize the damage he did until years after he's gone and then as usual, somebody else will get the blame.
One last thought about the altered quote; it's been widely published, in countless blogs, newspapers, Wikipedia, even LewRockwell.com. Google has 21 pages of sources' usage of it. Although this version has obviously been directed at Obama, the correct quote was also used by the liberal press to bash Bush for many of the same sins assigned to Obama:
Likely it's been applied to other occupants of the Oval Office as well, but no other president's election has been so influenced by the bias of the mainstream media as that of Barack Hussein Obama. The people bought the snake oil, but some of them may be having second thoughts.
whoa,,,9 paragraphs or so...I gonna have to go for coffee.
I don't disagree at all, it's just that I'm very familiar with Mencken and his writings and views and know how he used the term, both before that article and for several years afterwards. Like I said, he used it as an insult, but it was really more of an unflattering statement of strong opinion rather than the general insult in the way we use it today. He was all about superior and inferior, and the categories thereof, and used the term with speficicity rather than as a general insult.
That's not to say the quote can't or shouldn't be co-opted to make a point today. People do that all the time with quotes, including Bible verses. It's just the mistake people are making with it is when they use their own contemporary mindset to place prophetic meaning on the quote, when the original quote had a different meaning than is today's context. The quote when used today about Obama, Bush or any other president really, is funny. It's hilarious, because of the meaning of moron that we use and know. But it shouldn't be presented as prophecy, because it truly meant something else when he said it.
You have Mencken quote in your signature which I have a sneaking suspicion is there to poke fun at the stupidity of the American voter in electing Obama. And it certainly fits well for that. But the original context was within his utter hatred of Democracy. In many ways that quote becomes even funnier when you know the original context, and then and apply it to today. He believed that the inferiors were too unintelligent to understand or think about important things, and that they only concerned themselves with and understand their own personal pleasures (so think chrome wheels, big screen TVs, Obama phones, and the present tense of the F-word used as a verb, with an -ing on the end). So when he wrote about what the common people knew they wanted, it was in that sense, to a degree, and when he wrote that they deserve to get it good and hard, he was literally referencing the dual meanings of the same F-word in past tense. That's hilarious.
He wrote that Puritanism was "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
He wrote that the "New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flophouses and disturbing the peace."
He also wrote, "The government I live under has been my enemy all my active life. When it has not been engaged in silencing me it has been engaged in robbing me. So far as I can recall I have never had any contact with it that was not an outrage on my dignity and an attack on my security."
"I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind, that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking. I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious."
I encourage people to read as much of his stuff as they can. He was more Libertarian than anything, but many of his comments will delight conservatives and anger liberals, while other comments will do just the opposite to both. Whether you agree or disagree with a particular piece of his, it's still an entertaining read because his writings are smart, funny, witty and usually dead on point.
He was a prolific writer, writing more than 30 books and tens of thousands of newspaper columns, not even including his magazine. He wrote more than 100,000 personal letters to people. Between 60 and 125 letters every working day was typical. Holy crap. And you people think I write a lot. And he did all his writing with two fingers on a little Corona portable typewriter. He spent his own money to defend freedom of the press. He had to, because the government tried to suppress him more than most. FDR even ridiculed him by name on several occasions. He denounced Woodrow Wilson for whipping up patriotic fervor to enter WWI (which cost him his job at the newspaper), and mercilessly denounced FDR for amassing dangerous political power and for his maneuvering to enter WWII (that one cost him his job, too).
“I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air - that progress made under the shadow of the policeman’s club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave. In any dispute between a citizen and the government, it is my instinct to side with the citizen. . . I am against all efforts to make men virtuous by law."
Words to live by...
"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant."
No, not at all. I just never pictured pairing you up with that site. Just struck me as funny.What...??? You have a problem with disabled feminists?
Whatever term you like is fine with me. My only issue is making the alteration, and then passing it off as genuine. It not only changes the meaning of the original, it's a lie.
I can't disagree with any of that.
Again, I don't disagree. They are in fact getting what they asked for, and they're getting it good and hard.
The fact that the altered quote is ubiquitous on the Internet speaks more to the laziness and ignorance of those perpetuating it, and the speed-of-light speed at which something on the Internet can reproduce, than it does to its appropriateness. Using the original unaltered quote in the context of a prophecy is just politics and political rhetoric, and speaks more to ignorance and wishful thinking than it does to truth and accuracy.
Keep in mind that just because there's a lot of something, or that something is believed by a majority of the people, that doesn't make it true. If that were the case, Fox News would actually be Fair and Balanced. <rimshot>