Still Hating America.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Snidely Condescending
"Unchangeable reality"? My dear Sebby, when I hear you talk about your belief in the religion of free trade, it reminds me of my Great-Uncle Winthrop, the black sheep of the family. ...
Your constant bleating about the "inevitability" of free trade reminds me of Uncle Winthrop's lectures about historical materialism, and dialectical materialism, and why even though it seemed like the proletariat (peasants in Kansas; workers in Akron) were perfectly happy with Maytag washing machines and Zenith televisions, their revolt against the capital overlords was a historical inevitability.

This is my favorite penske sock.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
This is my favorite penske sock.

Oh yeah?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
they're not all insightful parables. sometimes I just storytell.

Good story.

You should have taken the copyright case on contingency.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

So today's
NYT gives you liberals something new to feel bad about:

• Two-thirds of the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas that can persist in the air for centuries, has come in nearly equal proportions from the United States and Western European countries. Those and other wealthy nations are investing in windmill-powered plants that turn seawater to drinking water, in flood barriers and floatable homes, and in grains and soybeans genetically altered to flourish even in a drought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/sc...th&oref=slogin

Here's the thing, once grains and soybeans have been altered to flourish in drought, can't they be planted in poorer countries too? How can "smart" people buy into this paper?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


Here's the thing, once grains and soybeans have been altered to flourish in drought, can't they be planted in poorer countries too?

About as efficiently as AIDS drugs get circulated to poorer countries, I'd imagine.

C'mon, Hank. I thought you were a patent attorney, and a believer in free markets, not some hippie-dippie commie liberal pinko open-source freak. Connect the dots, man.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
About as efficiently as AIDS drugs get circulated to poorer countries, I'd imagine.

C'mon, Hank. I thought you were a patent attorney, and a believer in free markets, not some hippie-dippie commie liberal pinko open-source freak. Connect the dots, man.

the Federal Circuit is right by the White House. It'll be underwater.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Snoop Double-D on Bill O'Reilly.

[Gattigap]

Romney attended a recent Club for Growth meeting. NRO's Ponnuru mentions in passing:

• Crane says he was disappointed with Romney's answer to his question the other night. Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review. Romney said he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind.

Whoever Crane is, I imagine that he's disappointed because Romney's being such a pussy on the issue. And, BTW, Rudy's take?

• Crane said that he had asked Giuliani the same question a few weeks ago. The mayor said that he would want to use this authority infrequently.

Perhaps the new buzzword of the '08 campaign will be compassionate authoritarianism.

Good grief. This crap almost makes me miss the days when Republicans would use Ruby Ridge as their rallying cry, or have their eyes mist over when they quote Goldwater about extremism in the defense of liberty. Does the Heritage Foundation exist anymore, or was it simply burned to the ground?

Gattigap

[Adder]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Romney attended a recent Club for Growth meeting. NRO's Ponnuru mentions in passing:

• Crane says he was disappointed with Romney's answer to his question the other night. Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review. Romney said he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind.

Whoever Crane is, I imagine that he's disappointed because Romney's being such a pussy on the issue. And, BTW, Rudy's take?

• Crane said that he had asked Giuliani the same question a few weeks ago. The mayor said that he would want to use this authority infrequently.

Perhaps the new buzzword of the '08 campaign will be compassionate authoritarianism.

Good grief. This crap almost makes me miss the days when Republicans would use Ruby Ridge as their rallying cry, or have their eyes mist over when they quote Goldwater about extremism in the defense of liberty. Does the Heritage Foundation exist anymore, or was it simply burned to the ground?

Gattigap

Welcome to 1936.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Adder
Welcome to 1936.

Speaking of the Heritage Foundation, they rank freedom - http://www.heritage.org/research/fea.../countries.cfm - the US is allegedly 4th, Hong Kong (not a country, but whatever) 1st and Noth Korea last. Admittedly, there are flaws with the methodology, but your comparison is inapt, and a vague invocation of Hitler, so you lose.

Again.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Romney attended a recent Club for Growth meeting. NRO's Ponnuru mentions in passing:

• Crane says he was disappointed with Romney's answer to his question the other night. Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review. Romney said he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind.

Whoever Crane is, I imagine that he's disappointed because Romney's being such a pussy on the issue. And, BTW, Rudy's take?

• Crane said that he had asked Giuliani the same question a few weeks ago. The mayor said that he would want to use this authority infrequently.

Perhaps the new buzzword of the '08 campaign will be compassionate authoritarianism.

Good grief. This crap almost makes me miss the days when Republicans would use Ruby Ridge as their rallying cry, or have their eyes mist over when they quote Goldwater about extremism in the defense of liberty. Does the Heritage Foundation exist anymore, or was it simply burned to the ground?

Gattigap

2. There's a definite paternalistic, follow-the-rules-and-don't-ask-questions wing of the GOP asserting dominance these days.

We're in confusing times for a lot of stupid people. A lot of this country wants to be guided rather than make its own decisions. I think this "Daddy knows best" faction of the GOP appeals to politicos because its policies drag a lot of simpletons to the voting booth. It appeals to right wing intellectuals who think a lot us need to be led and the politicians can sell it as "strong leadership."

I think you're going to see a lot more of this Daddy State-ism sold by the GOP over the next 18 months. What's easier to sell than a combined panacea for the stupid and gift to the Religious Right?

I've been amused for the past eight or so months by the dueling incompatible arguments of libertarians and Daddy Staters sharing space in National Review. The GOP sounds as ideologically bankrupt as the Democrats.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
2. There's a definite paternalistic, follow-the-rules-and-don't-ask-questions wing of the GOP asserting dominance these days.

We're in confusing times for a lot of stupid people. A lot of this country wants to be guided rather than make its own decisions. I think this "Daddy knows best" faction of the GOP appeals to politicos because its policies drag a lot of simpletons to the voting booth. It appeals to right wing intellectuals who think a lot us need to be led and the politicians can sell it as "strong leadership."

I think you're going to see a lot more of this Daddy State-ism sold by the GOP over the next 18 months. What's easier to sell than a combined panacea for the stupid and gift to the Religious Right?

I've been amused for the past eight or so months by the dueling incompatible arguments of libertarians and Daddy Staters sharing space in National Review. The GOP sounds as ideologically bankrupt as the Democrats.

I dunno. If the Dems win the White House, I think that the advocacy of Daddy rule will subside considerably.

[Adder]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Speaking of the Heritage Foundation, they rank freedom - http://www.heritage.org/research/fea.../countries.cfm - the US is allegedly 4th, Hong Kong (not a country, but whatever) 1st and Noth Korea last. Admittedly, there are flaws with the methodology, but your comparison is inapt, and a vague invocation of Hitler, so you lose.

Again.

Hitler's was hardly the only state to take a turn toward the authoritarian in the '30s.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I dunno. If the Dems win the White House, I think that the advocacy of Daddy rule will subside considerably.

If the Dems win the WH, we'll get the same "I know better than you" activism. The only difference will be that it will be sold as benevolent Mommy State-ism.

With either party, you get a pack of people obliterating the vision of the founding fathers in favor of proactive experimentation to see if their views of how society ought to operate can be implemented and succeed. They inevitably fail, at great cost to all of us, leaving a few decent policies, poorly administered, if at all, via hundreds of bureaucratic programs, in their wake. The balance of their legacy is usually a junkyard of failed attempted policies.

The only time they're perceived to have done anything good is when history lays opportunity at their feet and they have the good sense to do the right thing in response (Clinton leaving the economy alone; Reagan spending the USSR to death; Bush I stopping outside Baghdad).

This campaign could be called Mommy v. Daddy. Either way, we get an incomplete, malfunctioning household.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If the Dems win the WH, we'll get the same "I know better than you" activism. The only difference will be that it will be sold as benevolent Mommy State-ism.

With either party, you get a pack of people obliterating the vision of the founding fathers in favor of proactive experimentation to see if their views of how society ought to operate can be implemented and succeed. They inevitably fail, at great cost to all of us, leaving a few decent policies, poorly administered, if at all, via hundreds of bureaucratic programs, in their wake. The balance of their legacy is usually a junkyard of failed attempted policies.

The only time they're perceived to have done anything good is when history lays opportunity at their feet and they have the good sense to do the right thing in response (Clinton leaving the economy alone; Reagan spending the USSR to death; Bush I stopping outside Baghdad).

This campaign could be called Mommy v. Daddy. Either way, we get an incomplete, malfunctioning household.

POTY