|
|
|
January 05, 2008
I'll Support The Socialist
I have thought for a long time that we needed a more libertarian oriented party in America. Huckabee's Republican socialism just doesn't cut it for me. I have been flirting with the idea of voting Dem in the general election. Especially if Clinton gets the nod. I like her evil underhandedness. I figure she will be as hard on America's enemies as she will be on us. Then I got to reading around the blogosphere. I'm looking at Backyard Conservative and Power Line and Town Hall and Politico and Yahoo News and Outside Report and World Net Daily and Right Thinking from the Left Coast. They all seem to agree that Huckabee is splitting the Republican coalition. I agree. So I have decided that if the nominee is Huckabee over my favorite Fred Thompson then I'm going to give Huck my support. I think it will be better to have a split coalition (in the hopes of a Reformation) than to keep going on the way things are going with the party. And my campaign theme for the Huckester? Support the Republican Socialist. That should help don't you think? If that sort of scenario doesn't appeal to you might I suggest: send Fred Thompson some money. Fred of course is quite popular among the blogging set. He is not a one issue candidate. Based on his positions, he could have socon support, Federalist support, neocon support and fisc-con support. In other words every ones (outside a the blogging cons) second choice. So if you don't wish to see the Republican coalition break up (just yet), may I suggest giving Fred a hand and some money. And if the above doesn't put the fear of God (har) in you, consider Obama vs Keyes '004. The Dems wrote the book on defeating a big name socon. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 01.05.08 at 03:57 PM
Comments
Brett, I don't agree with Rothbard totally ( I do agree a lot). Bud he did nail that one. M. Simon · January 6, 2008 12:09 AM So Simon resists paying taxes to fund his precious war, yet thinks nothing of pissing away his money on a loser like Fred Thompson. Remarkable! YogiBarrister · January 6, 2008 01:10 AM Yogi, War is one of the basic functions of the Federal government. Socialism is not. But being the fine legal mind you obviously are you knew that I'm sure. Keep up the good work. BTW can I steer some business your way? M. Simon · January 6, 2008 01:47 AM Well, Yogi, liberty is a right, while prosperity is not. I'll take liberty, thank you very much. Of course, I believe real liberty will result in true prosperity, given time. Socialism can work for a while; several generations living off of plunder will love it, as all thieves will. Given enough time, wealth creation will cease, and the Soviet Union's experience of 1989 will be the upshot. Brett · January 6, 2008 08:14 AM M. Simon, please DO send some business my way. I'm no longer a corrections officer, but I sure would appreciate it if you would help to bring the criminals in this administration to justice. YogiBarrister · January 6, 2008 01:28 PM Yogi, the criminals are those citizens who unnecessarily undermine the U.S. administration in a time of war, which necessarily aids the other side. Brett · January 6, 2008 01:40 PM M. Simon, I disagree, "socialism" is in fact the purpose of the Federal government. Besides the military, it is expected to maintain our schools, our infrastructure, our environment, and if we were smart, our health care industry. Oh yeah, it is also supposed to uphold the Constitution. How do you expect us to compete against the rest of the world with an uneducated and unhealthy work force, with crumbling roads and bridges? Why do you choose to destroy and rebuild Iraq when we desperately need to spend that money right here? How do you think the free market can magically solve the crisis we are facing? And if the free market is so magical, how come IT doesn't maintain the military? Why do the taxpayers have to give Blackwater and Halliburton SO much money? YogiBarrister · January 6, 2008 01:40 PM Brett, so citizens who demand that criminals in this administration be brought to justice are in fact criminals? Did you think that one through? I suppose Valerie Plame is a criminal, and the people who outed her, the people who forged documents and falsified intel so that we could invade Iraq are misunderstood heroes. The people who accepted bribes from lobbyists, violated election laws and committed perjury are the good guys? YogiBarrister · January 6, 2008 01:51 PM They aren't criminals. The only evidence I've heard to that effect are assertions by hysterics without security clearances. Now, I've fed you enough--go run five miles and work it off. Brett · January 6, 2008 02:05 PM Brett, Scooter Libby isn't a convicted criminal? Alberto Gozales didn't committ perjury? Do you have any idea whatsoever how destructive the outing of Valerie Plame was? Anyone associated with Brewster-Jennings was compromised. How can we collect reliable intel? Who in their right mind is going to be an informant, when they know members of this administration will betray them? YogiBarrister · January 6, 2008 02:16 PM >> I figure she will be as hard on America's An attractive thought, but I get a little queasy wondering who she thinks America's enemies are. Bruce H. · January 6, 2008 04:35 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2008
December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Don't cry for me?
• war on terror -- 2 interviews • Premature withdrawal syndrome? • unraveling unhinged segments • And now two Sunday debates • Who's Afraid? • A pox on Fox! • A Cool Cat • Choosing Our Masters • Regulation
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I believe Murray Rothbard, over 40 years ago, referred to the Democrats as Socialist Party A and the Republicans as Socialist Party B.
Apparently this is what the American voters want. They simply don't like liberty.