Richard Dreyfus Civics Initiative

[45Doll 5,877]

Tucker Carlson had Richard Dreyfus on Friday night. When I saw him come on I was ready to hit the mute button, expecting the usual you-know-what. But I'm glad I didn't.

In this six minute interview, Dreyus stunned both of us with an absolutely rational and cogent argument about why civics needs to be learned and promulgated. He was so together that Carlson basically remained quiet through most of it, and ultimately agreed with Dreyfus' entire proposition. I think if you watch it you'll agree it's six minutes well spent.

I followed up this morning and checked out the Dreyfus Civics Initiative website. It looks like he's really serious. IMO we need a lot more of this.

[Rob0115 1,105]

I'm now a huge Dreyfus fan. Thanks for posting and I signed the preamble.  

[BobA 1,235]

It was terrific!  Thanks 45Doll.  What I liked the best about it is that it wasn't liberal or conservative.  It was about the dumbing of america.  The less and less people are taught to understand what we are and what our rights really are the less and less intelligent conversations and rulings we can have.   

[Zeke 5,504]

34 minutes ago, 45Doll said:

Tucker Carlson had Richard Dreyfus on Friday night. When I saw him come on I was ready to hit the mute button, expecting the usual you-know-what. But I'm glad I didn't.

In this six minute interview, Dreyus stunned both of us with an absolutely rational and cogent argument about why civics needs to be learned and promulgated. He was so together that Carlson basically remained quiet through most of it, and ultimately agreed with Dreyfus' entire proposition. I think if you watch it you'll agree its six minutes well spent.

I followed up this morning and checked out the Dreyfus Civics Initiative website. It looks like he's really serious. IMO we need a lot more of this.

" the constitution is centric, and the party's are peripheral "

agree.

"the money is under the purview of the congress" agree and disagree. The monies associated in this instance are grants and aid.These grants are under the control of the issuing department. Ergo, under the executive purview.

if not, then executive has no power to inforce the laws congress makes.

Congressional control of money is in the form of budgetary ( need a word)

 

[njpilot 671]

Thanks for posting that 45. I saw that the other night but didn't listen as I expected the usual Dreyfus ultra liberal view.

[YankeeSC 1,204]

This is spot on, and precisely why we have the snowflakes whining about the popular vote versus electoral college. They fundamentally don't understand our founding principles.

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

It seems some of the events happening recently on today's campuses for instance are creating a backlash - even in the unlikeliest of circles. Perhaps some of those older liberals like Dreyfus who upheld the idea of free speech in their youth... are growing increasingly uncomfortable about how so many of today's college kids want to tear down what they fought for so long ago.

I agree that taking civics out of education was a bad choice. People are waking up to that. Good for Mr. Dreyfus! Perhaps the fact that he's had a long Hollywood career will allow this movement to get more "traction" than if it was put forth by someone on the right. Hey, whatever works!

[Newtonian 453]

It's a theme I've been big on lately, namely old school liberals vs. today's "progressive" social justice warriors. The former were misguided but tolerable, and in some cases and to varying degrees correct (e.g. "fairness," liberty, equal rights, education, and caring for the extremely unlucky). The crazies first caricaturized those goals, then expanded them to meaninglessness, and finally turned them on their heads.

They have no concept of what has been accomplished in the past 50 years. They don't know a lick about history and embrace any real or imagined offence as a reason to march and protest. They live in perpetual fantasy. I wonder how they could equate human beings who could not sit at lunch counters, or who were barred from entering schools or entire professions, with some punk P.O.S. getting shot after trying to grab a cop's gun?

 

 

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Awesome post, I watched as well and was amazed at what I heard.

[Rob0115 1,105]

It's funny he brought up the preamble to the constitution.  I still know it by heart because it was drilled into my head in grammar school.  I of course signed it on his website.  

[raz-0 1,259]

On 4/30/2017 at 11:48 AM, Mrs. Peel said:

It seems some of the events happening recently on today's campuses for instance are creating a backlash - even in the unlikeliest of circles. Perhaps some of those older liberals like Dreyfus who upheld the idea of free speech in their youth... are growing increasingly uncomfortable about how so many of today's college kids want to tear down what they fought for so long ago.

I agree that taking civics out of education was a bad choice. People are waking up to that. Good for Mr. Dreyfus! Perhaps the fact that he's had a long Hollywood career will allow this movement to get more "traction" than if it was put forth by someone on the right. Hey, whatever works!

There's definitely a backlash. I think the cause is multi-faceted. 

1) It may seem great when "offensive" speech is used as a weapon against your opponent. But at some point you realize what you thought was a weapon you controlled is just a ticking bomb waiting to go off. This means that...

1a) Ramping up the "every offense taken is the end of the world" rhetoric now means that tenure is worth jack shit in many instances if you have offended the student body, tiwtter, facebook, or some other random population. 

1b) Academia is in very large part, fashion, and departing from the current trend can make one unpopular, and maximum offendedness makes that extra dangeroud. 

2) Even without opposition and malice, it is limiting intelligent discussion of certain subjects. Even for the SJW types, you can't make progress on the subject if you can't discuss the subject, and discussing the subject is fraught with risk in case anyone takes offense at simply describing injustices/imbalances. 

3) If your department is seen as a source of risk rather than scholarly work, your department may go bye bye, even with tenure you are gone. 

[Zeke 5,504]

42 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

There's definitely a backlash. I think the cause is multi-faceted. 

1) It may seem great when "offensive" speech is used as a weapon against your opponent. But at some point you realize what you thought was a weapon you controlled is just a ticking bomb waiting to go off. This means that...

1a) Ramping up the "every offense taken is the end of the world" rhetoric now means that tenure is worth jack shit in many instances if you have offended the student body, tiwtter, facebook, or some other random population. 

1b) Academia is in very large part, fashion, and departing from the current trend can make one unpopular, and maximum offendedness makes that extra dangeroud. 

2) Even without opposition and malice, it is limiting intelligent discussion of certain subjects. Even for the SJW types, you can't make progress on the subject if you can't discuss the subject, and discussing the subject is fraught with risk in case anyone takes offense at simply describing injustices/imbalances. 

3) If your department is seen as a source of risk rather than scholarly work, your department may go bye bye, even with tenure you are gone. 

When your things own you.

[Walt of Destiny 412]

Serious surprise. Somewhere in the cobwebs of my mind I remember something about Dreyfus being a rational Hollywood type. 

I remember that the first merit badge you have to earn is the citizenship badge. Yet the scouts are demonized by progressives. 

We must remember that the progressives' tool is ignorance. First they removed civics, then American history. Some of the most widely read books of our youth are banned now and a large chunk of our history is being wiped out by the politically correct state which rivals the Islamic state in their absolute adherence to ideology and punishment of any variance in views. 

While we continue to fund our own demise via tuition payments to institutions that indoctrinate our youth, the progressives wait us out and on occasion use our honor, intelligence and loyalty against us. They hold their ranks to absolute obedience above all and truly believe in "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".  Feminists align with Muslims, Jews with divestment organizations and lgbtqxyz actually demonstrate for a religion that would have them stoned. 

During the cruise missile attack on Syria, they interviewed three sets of protestors, one for the bombing, saying that it wasn't enough, another against the bombing, and a third pro Palestine group. They were  triametrically opposed in views, yet as the reporter stated, their only common ground was being anti-trump. How can we battle against that? We turn on our own at the slightest provocation. Progressives are adept at cleaving us apart. Look at the SA/RRA debacle and the discussion on this very forum over a vehement 2a proponent for not discussing his alleged NJ CCW permit. Do you EVER see anything like that amongst progressives? F'ing Shumer was supporting a radical anti-Jew Muslim for head of the DNC for god's sake. Luckily less radical heads prevailed. 

Until we learn the lesson of Ol' Ben we are doomed:

"If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately."

 

[Newtonian 453]

Anyone know why I can't post in the Ruger Mark IV thread?