Comments by "Fumble_ Brewski" (@fumble_brewski5410) on "Unvaxxed Child Less Risk Of Serious COVID Than Vaxxed 70 Year Old" video.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” -- C. S. Lewis, English essayist & juvenile novelist (1898 - 1963)
66
“In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.” = “In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.” (credited to Desiderius Erasmus's "Adagia," circa 1500).
17
@Jay...777 Consider the evolution of the term "liberal" over the past 3 centuries. At one time, Liberalism signified a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espoused a wide array of views, depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally supported limited government, individual rights, democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy with a minimum of government interference. Fast forward to the 21st century, and the term "liberalism" has morphed into a philosophy favoring big, pervasive government, aggressive foreign interventionism (especially neo-liberalism, which is a bedfellow with neo-conservatism), social engineering, enormous government (deficit) spending, erosion of privacy rights and economic freedom, and an authoritarian statist regime, regardless of which major party happens to be in power. IOW, Joe Biden is merely a demented version of Donald Trump with an active Twitter account. Cheers.
8
@Jay...777 The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. One Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Well, we didn't, alas.
3
@Jay...777 Such a scenario as you describe could only be possible with the support and consent of both house of Congress, as well as the Executive branch of government. Being that the oligarchy controls all branches of government, it is doubtful that such a thing would be allowed to pass into law. FYI, the ancient Hebrews had what was called the “Year of Jubilee,” whereby every 50 years all debts were cancelled, all slaves and/or indentured servants were set free and allowed to return to their families, and all properties had to be ceded back to their original owners. God commanded this of the Hebrews, and their failure to do so was one of the reasons they went into captivity. Our whole system is one of legalized indebtedness, which, short of worldwide calamity, will never be allowed to be extinguished. Cheers.
3
@PJ-ns6um “In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.” = “In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.” (credited to Desiderius Erasmus's Adagia, circa 1500).
2
@keefbeef2002 Really? Because HISTORY has shown repeatedly that, if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. That leaves the one-eyed man in a good position to take charge. You may not wish to live with the blind, but, sorry holmes, the blind are all around us. Just look at the results of the last two Presidential elections. People "blindly" voting for candidates, and then later living to regret their choice(s). Your logic falls apart.
1
@keefbeef2002 Perhaps that is because whatever point you were originally attempting to make was so poorly stated it was incomprehensible.
1
@dnickaroo3574 Your knowledge of history is most flawed. Liberalism was promoted in OPPOSITION to the egregious imperialism of Great Britain. The Crown and Parliament both sought to actively oppose this philosophy, as any furtherance of liberalism would tend to undermine their authority and position as oligarchs. Indeed, you err greatly. Study history before making such unfounded remarks.
1
@dnickaroo3574 Palmerston was a British nationalist; he said that the country had no permanent allies, only permanent interests. As such, he may have encouraged liberalism in those countries which were perceived as natural enemies of the British crown, but he never supported liberalism in Great Britain. His thought was that liberalism, if made to flourish in countries such as Russia, France and Austria (all enemies of GB), would tend to weaken those nations, and thus serve to strengthen British foreign objectives. The Reform Bills of 1831 and 1832 were more considerable than Palmerston liked, and he tried to modify them. Failing, he blamed “the stupid old Tory party” for making them necessary by refusing minor concessions, emphasized the “final” nature of the 1832 Act, and proclaimed his confidence that the landed interest would continue to prevail in politics as he thought it should. From 1849 to 1865 he came to personify the opposition of the landsmen and many of the middle classes to the enfranchisement of trade unionists and to resist fiscal and legislative assaults on landed property, opining (with regard to Ireland) that “tenant right was landlord’s wrong.” Lord Palmerston, who became prime minister for the first time in 1855, stood out as the dominant political personality of mid-Victorian Britain precisely because he was opposed to dramatic change and because he knew through long experience how to maneuver politics within the half-reformed constitution. Doesn't sound like much of a "liberal" to me.
1