Letters to the Editor
-
I don't know, William
To use another ancient analogy, if we replaced our present senators with horses, who would even notice?
-- William Timberman
If you can convince me that it isn't already too late and the next step isn't Cloud Cukoo Land, I might not hang with Plato in the cave just yet. But Jeebus! We are starting to sound like LV!
-
The Party of Oxymoron!
One can not hold that the collectivist word view
Individualists unite!
-
BTW
"Collectivist" is the new PC term for commie pinko. Only the the really lame still use commie. Eisenhower was a "collectivist mole" and corporatists are the new socialists. I thought you should all know the new jargon when the New World Order of Cloud Cukoo Land takes over.
-
re: The Party of Oxymoron!
B1: "One can not hold that the collectivist word view ..."
LWM: Individualists unite!
Odd title, but I suppose it means that you are unaware that "collectivist" is the polite way of saying socialist, and is William's preferred self-designation.
The two of you are are morons just as you say, but I do not know if you use oxycontin like the fellow that you use to model tactics from; that fat drug user Rush.
You do not see that socialism is a failure, as is corporatism. All collectivist ideologies end up in tyranny simply because collectivism relies on the force of government to make people do what they would not voluntarily agree to do.
Of course, the two of you always evade answering anything that can not be cut&pasted, so the snide little remarks are what you have left.
-
Ron Paul?
Ayn Rand in drag?
"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism."
-- Ayn Rand
-
re: BTW
LWM:
"Collectivist" is the new PC term for commie pinko. Only the the really lame still use commie. Eisenhower was a "collectivist mole" and corporatists are the new socialists. I thought you should all know the new jargon when the New World Order of Cloud Cukoo Land takes over.
You had better tell William; he used the term to describe himself. Are you calling him a wing-nut mole? Hmmm. That would explain ...
:-)
-
How did Ron Paul vote? He didn't.
How did Ron Paul vote? Against it; you know that before you check. You are a loon.
Sorry, Bucky, but you should've checked. Ron Paul didn't vote.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml
-
Christy Hardin Smith at Firedoglake...
...has a post up about this, and links to another with a bit of good news hidden in yesterday's votes:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/05/a-bit-of-good-news/#comments
that demonstrates that there are STILL differences among politicians. Especially those endorsed by Blue America...
The answer is to support more of those candidates in 2008.
-
Seriouness
Just saw this wonderful qoute regarding seriouness. Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Mark Knudsen
-
See?
that demonstrates that there are STILL differences among politicians. Especially those endorsed by Blue America...
The answer is to support more of those candidates in 2008.
-- Karen M
That's all some of us were saying but no one listens to us because our sky isn't falling... yet.
-
Bucky
I doubt you are the dimmest bulb on the planet, but awfully damn close. You should read this, however. It can happen to you. Uncle Murray said so.
The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult
by Murray N. Rothbard
(...)
Neither Liberty Nor Reason
There seems to be only one way to resolve the contradiction in the Randian strategic outlook of extreme sectarianism within the libertarian movement, coupled with extreme opportunism, and willingness to coalesce with slightly more conservative heads of State, in the outside world. That resolution, confirmed by the remainder of our analysis of the cult, holds that the guiding spirit of the Randian movement was not individual liberty – as it seemed to many young members – but rather personal power for Ayn Rand and her leading disciples...
Thus, power not liberty or reason, was the central thrust of the Randian movement. The major lesson of the history of the movement to libertarians is that It Can Happen Here, that libertarians, despite explicit devotion to reason and individuality, are not exempt from the mystical and totalitarian cultism that pervades other ideological as well as religious movements. Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
-
The chattering classes
Why exactly should be believe this felonious regime when they tell us that there has been "increasing chatter" indicating a looming terrorist attack? What kind of truth telling track record do they have that should oblige anyone to believe a word they say? They have been crying wolf for 6 years now. The one time they refused to see or hear anything we had 9/11. This claim of "increasing chatter"is just another scam on the road to a police state with no civil liberties. Jim Webb and his Democratic colleagues have fallen for this crude con-job, and probably not for the last time.
-
Frank Rich
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/opinion/05rich-1.html
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Patriots Who Love the Troops to Death
By FRANK RICH[...] an Op-Ed article in The Times, “A War We Just Might Win,” by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack.
[...] But even more galling was the authors’ effort to elevate their credibility by describing themselves as “analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq.” That’s disingenuous. For all their late-in-the-game criticisms of the administration’s incompetence, Mr. Pollack proselytized vociferously for the war before it started, including in an appearance with Oprah, and both men have helped prolong the quagmire with mistakenly optimistic sightings of progress since the days of “Mission Accomplished.”
You can find a compendium of their past wisdom in Glenn Greenwald’s Salon column. That think-tank pundits with this track record would try to pass themselves off as harsh war critics in 2007 shows how desperate they are to preserve their status as Beltway “experts” now that the political winds have shifted. [...]
- - Frank Rich, August 5, 2007
-
Who is bought off ?
Senator Dodd : So I'm a little stunned, and grasping for some answer here. So I really don't know. . . .
We all need to start thinking like Italians and people in other countries that have a deep experience with corrupt government. Over there, when people act in strange ways that appear to be against their self interest, it is assumed that they are bought off or blackmailed. Now, we have a list of 16 names in the Senate - and a man with Senator Dodd's experience can't understand their actions. I think that the Senator should wake up. I would bet that at least half of the 16 are compromised. I would also bet that with some digging, the blogosphere could figure out who is who.