WWTBAM Bored

Well, now that this new spending bill is all but cast in stone, I came across this little gem and couldn't help but consider its implications.

"This is a story told by Ezra T. Benson, who served as the Secretary of Agriculture during the Eisenhower administration. The leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita Kruschev (who followed Stalin) was going to visit the U.S. and Benson was ordered by Eisenhower to give Kruschev a tour of some of our agricultural facilities. With great reluctance, Benson agreed to do as requested by the President.

During the tour Kruschev remarked to Secretary Benson that communism would eventually consume democracy. Benson replied that Americans would never accept such a drastic change in their form of government as communism. Kruschev then told Benson that it was already beginning to happen.

He said that Americans were being fed one small bite of communism at a time, and that over the course of several years, Americans will have accepted so many communistic ideals, including a massive and uncontrollable federal government, that one day we would wake up to discover that we are a democracy only in name - that our policies and methods of government will be communist in nature. Kruschev concluded that it will be the slow injection of socialist/communist principles into America - not nuclear missiles - that would destroy our nation."

I sure hope that I have not posted another Urban Legend.

Gee, I guess you have a new political idol, then.

Ezra Taft Benson was an elder in the Mormon Church, which may have been the only thing that kept him from joining, and perhaps leading, the John Birch Society. His wife was a member, and his son was the coordinator for the state of Utah, according to the cites I found.

But your story is essentially correct, not an urban legend. Of course, Benson made the speech in the 1960s, and he died in 1994, so I don't quite see how it's relevant to Mr. Obama. But there are apparently millions of AOLers who are as gleeful as you about it-- witness all the videos out there about it.

I don't even necessarily disagree with Mr. Benson's main point -- I detest the degree to which government has inserted itself into my life. But how did Mr. Benson feel about Mr. Nixon? Mr. Reagan? Messrs. Bush?

mrkelley23 wrote:. But there are apparently millions of AOLers who are as gleeful as you about it-- witness all the videos out there about it.

I am not at all "gleeful" about it. I Just think that it is another testament as to the direction this country is going.

mrkelley23 wrote:Ezra Taft Benson ..... died in 1994, ..... how did Mr. Benson feel about Mr. Nixon? Mr. Reagan? Messrs. Bush?

I'm sure his opinion of GWB is the same as it was the day he died. "Can't believe he traded Rafael Palmero."

BackInTex wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:Ezra Taft Benson ..... died in 1994, ..... how did Mr. Benson feel about Mr. Nixon? Mr. Reagan? Messrs. Bush?

I'm sure his opinion of GWB is the same as it was the day he died. "Can't believe he traded Rafael Palmero."

I love it when threads evolve to discuss the important things! (See my answers in LS.)

silvercamaro wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:Ezra Taft Benson ..... died in 1994, ..... how did Mr. Benson feel about Mr. Nixon? Mr. Reagan? Messrs. Bush?

I'm sure his opinion of GWB is the same as it was the day he died. "Can't believe he traded Rafael Palmero."

I love it when threads evolve to discuss the important things! (See my answers in LS.)

Now THAT was karma.

That political democracy would become necessary and flourish in the Soviet Union, and that an intelligently planned economy would become necessary and flourish in America was a common belief in the 1940's. Khrushchev's statement would have been akin to agreeing in part. Please keep the extra H's in Nikita's name -- expecially the second one is very important, since the four letters "shch" correspond to a different Cyrillic alphabet character.

BackInTex wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:Ezra Taft Benson ..... died in 1994, ..... how did Mr. Benson feel about Mr. Nixon? Mr. Reagan? Messrs. Bush?

I'm sure his opinion of GWB is the same as it was the day he died. "Can't believe he traded Rafael Palmero."

When did GWB ever trade Rafael Palmeiro? He may have traded FOR Palmeiro, stealing him from the Cubs for Wild Thing Williams, but Palmeiro left Texas both times as a free agent....

lb13

Sir_Galahad wrote: He said that Americans were being fed one small bite of communism at a time, and that over the course of several years, Americans will have accepted so many communistic ideals, including a massive and uncontrollable federal government, that one day we would wake up to discover that we are a democracy only in name - that our policies and methods of government will be communist in nature. Kruschev concluded that it will be the slow injection of socialist/communist principles into America - not nuclear missiles - that would destroy our nation."

Communism... a system under which people suspected of being dangerous to the State are shipped off to a remote location where they are held and tortured without being charged of crimes, afforded due process, or being subject to press and public scrutiny.

A system under which the Government has wide powers of surveillance and intelligence gathering over other people suspected of being dangerous to the State, all without judicial oversight.

I'm sure that a good Republican like George W. Bush would never allow anything like that to happen in this country....

silverscreenselect wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote: He said that Americans were being fed one small bite of communism at a time, and that over the course of several years, Americans will have accepted so many communistic ideals, including a massive and uncontrollable federal government, that one day we would wake up to discover that we are a democracy only in name - that our policies and methods of government will be communist in nature. Kruschev concluded that it will be the slow injection of socialist/communist principles into America - not nuclear missiles - that would destroy our nation."

Communism... a system under which people suspected of being dangerous to the State are shipped off to a remote location where they are held and tortured without being charged of crimes, afforded due process, or being subject to press and public scrutiny.

A system under which the Government has wide powers of surveillance and intelligence gathering over other people suspected of being dangerous to the State, all without judicial oversight.

I'm sure that a good Republican like George W. Bush would never allow anything like that to happen in this country....

Actually, none of that has anything to do with Communism, it has to do with general totalitarianism, which exists anyplace where you have a regime that has difficulties or perceives that it has difficulties imposing its will on its subject population. In pure communism, the state would not have any power, because there would be no state-- when true 'communism' is achieved, the state withers away and we will all live in a perfect state of nature, each of us sharing what we have with everyone else. 'Totalitarianism' becomes involved only because 'communism' is a fantasy that cannot possibly exist on its own (except for very short times, in very small communities-- even in voluntary 'communistic' groups, like the hippie-ish communes that began to appear in the 1960's, and the places like Brook Farm in the 1800's, the commune members who actually do produce eventually become fed up with the parasites who do not, and the commune withers away as the more productive members leave), and a totalitarian state is necessary in order to force communism down people's throats.

And as for a good Republican like George W. Bush never allowing anything like this to happen in this country, well, how many people do you know who were rounded up and shipped off to distant locations to be tortured? and the rest? You can argue that none of that was necessary or proper, but at the same time, to suggest that those kinds of things that went on under Bush are really part and parcel of what went on under Stalin or Hitler or other totalitarian states is nonsense, based upon the sheer discrepancy in numbers if for no other reason. The problem with making clever arguments based upon analogies is that, well, the analogies have to be accurate, and most of the time they are not.

wintergreen48 wrote:And as for a good Republican like George W. Bush never allowing anything like this to happen in this country, well, how many people do you know who were rounded up and shipped off to distant locations to be tortured?

And besides, these practices actually started in 2000, during the Clinton administration, under Jeff Probst.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0239195/

wg:

to suggest that those kinds of things that went on under Bush are really part and parcel of what went on under Stalin or Hitler or other totalitarian states is nonsense, based upon the sheer discrepancy in numbers if for no other reason.

One was one too many. But, I will admit that your rebuttal was pure nonsense.

wintergreen48 wrote:And as for a good Republican like George W. Bush never allowing anything like this to happen in this country, well, how many people do you know who were rounded up and shipped off to distant locations to be tortured? and the rest? You can argue that none of that was necessary or proper, but at the same time, to suggest that those kinds of things that went on under Bush are really part and parcel of what went on under Stalin or Hitler or other totalitarian states is nonsense, based upon the sheer discrepancy in numbers if for no other reason.

Your argument reminds me of the joke about the woman who was asked if she'd sleep with a guy for a million dollars.

Either our Constitution and the international laws and treaties to which we have agreed are valid or they aren't. If you make exceptions for "really bad" people who want to do "really bad" things or who have "really important" information, all of these decisions being made by government officials who are completely unaccountable, then you have stripped the legal principles under which we are supposed to be governed of all validity. To say that Bush is better than Stalin or Hitler because he only felt that there were a few hundred "really bad" people out there, as opposed to the millions that the other two found suggests that there our legal system is based on principles of de minimis rather than right or wrong. As long as you don't violate too many people's rights, you are okay.



It

I just wonder if the "ends ever justify the means." IIRC Hitler and Stalin tortured and killed people just to advance their own power. IIRC, The Bush administration used waterboarding etc. to obtain information to prevent terrorist attacks. Does the end justify the means here? If not, then how would you feel if and when many people died from a terrorist attack that could have been prevented if you tortured that terrorist? Is torturing someone ever justified? To use an admittedly hypothetical and extreme situation, would you condemn someone for torturing a kidnapper who abducted his loved one, if you knew that that was the only way he could get that person to tell him where he may have locked up his loved one? Or would you just simply advise that person that the right thing to do is to simply wait until the police finds his loved one. Even though it may be too late, or not at all.

TheConfessor wrote:

wintergreen48 wrote:And as for a good Republican like George W. Bush never allowing anything like this to happen in this country, well, how many people do you know who were rounded up and shipped off to distant locations to be tortured?

And besides, these practices actually started in 2000, during the Clinton administration, under Jeff Probst.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0239195/

ROFL!!!!!

at the time of the quote, Nikki was trying to move the USSR towards true communism.

he didnt make it, though he tried.

you must be listening to Doc Savage again.

silverscreenselect wrote:As long as you don't violate too many people's rights, you are okay.

Well- the US thought that way during the Civil War.

And World War I.

And World War II.

We got through that OK as a nation.

War always brings out a strong illiberal element.

So, yes, to be realistic, as long as you don't get "too muddy", you should be OK.

You cannot be squeaky clean, white as the driven snow in this world. Be realistic.

The best you can hope for is not to get TOO muddy. It's a fine line.

But it's ridiculous to say if you get a little mud on your shoes, that's the same as if you wallowed up to your brow in it.

silverscreenselect wrote: Either our Constitution and the international laws and treaties to which we have agreed are valid or they aren't. If you make exceptions for "really bad" people who want to do "really bad" things or who have "really important" information, all of these decisions being made by government officials who are completely unaccountable, then you have stripped the legal principles under which we are supposed to be governed of all validity. To say that Bush is better than Stalin or Hitler because he only felt that there were a few hundred "really bad" people out there, as opposed to the millions that the other two found suggests that there our legal system is based on principles of de minimis rather than right or wrong. As long as you don't violate too many people's rights, you are okay.

And Obama has left the door open for renditions, and for torture.

As for "international laws and treaties," he has already said he will not respect the sovereignty of Pakistan.

Is Obama going to uphold the Constitution? No one has been able to answer this question in the affirmative.

How many of Bush's "disappeared" were in the U.S.? Zero

How many of them were captured under arms against our or Allied forces? Some hundreds.

How many many were turned in to settle some old score back in the 'old country?' A lesser number of hundreds.

How many of them have been accounted for? All.

Even if they are still, most have been released/given to home countries, in Guantanemo Bay, the fact that they are there is known.