| | The confusion that I see here is that Pelosi is a potential tyrant. That is, she pushes the limits of our representative democracy as far towards tyranny as she can go. But she is saved from being a tyrant by the need to get the votes of other representatives and by the need to stay elected.
If she were an actual tyrant none of us would have any problem wishing for her death. The mixed economy means a mixed political system. Our structure, which was created to protect our rights has been turned against us to some degree. But it still derives some of its moral stature from those parts of the structure that haven't been destroyed.
Pelosi, Reed and Obama have very nearly destroyed that structure by making the bills they passed almost incomprehensible - very nonobjective, by not letting them be seen till the last minute, by lying about economic impact, by jury-rigging the CBO estimates, etc., etc. At some point they cross the line and become outright tyrants.
That point would be where they ignored voting results or falsified them so that either the passage of bills or their re-election was phony. Or when they began to censor freedom of speech or press or to stop free assembly. Or, it could be that the quantity of nonobjective law grows so great - that it is no longer a rule of law we live under.
It is hard to draw a bright-line to mark where a political figure becomes a tyrant as opposed to a potential tyrant or wannabe tyrant or an enabler of tyranny or just moving in the direction of tyranny. This is important to recognize because it marks the point where you take up arms - and that is different from just talk.
|
|
"I would not wish death upon Paul Krugman or Nancy Pelosi. However, if I outlive either of them and one day read their obituary, that particular day will almost certainly be a bit happier and more enjoyable than it otherwise would be. If that makes me a bad human being, so be it."
