Another clueless snake oil salesman that will cater to the different republican constituencies, telling each one how he is on their side, he will take their money and when candidates do get elected, they'll continue to NOT to do what the party stands for or what its constituents stand for. That is why they have been losing in Iowa and elsewhere. The republicans can't win if what they believe, what they say and what they do are different things and going high tech isn't going to solve that problem. It sounds to me like a continuing dilution of the message and morals in the party in order to grab more people for their $upport. Good luck.
Samuel Adams said "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
The problem with modern politics is that to use Steve Deace's comparison, they are all gangsters and there's not a crusader among them. Steve, there are times I love your ass and as most of the time, you are right. They want the power (and money) and screw everyone else. I don't see things changing here for quite awhile, and the republicans will have nothing to do with that change. I've seen it happen in New York: The predominant party will become so entrenched and comfortable with their own power, that they will become so corrupted as to eventually be caught in broad daylight by their brazenness and laxity. Ask Tom Gulotta and company how it worked out. Look at Isaiah McGee's cheesy smile. He's one of my councilmen, and yes, a groupie.
Thank you for reading this blog.
12 comments:
Just wondering: do you still consider yourself a Libertarian? From where I stand the last several posts to your blog, are right from the right-wing, Theocratic playbook. Oh, and I've said this before: Steve Deece is a Crypto-theocratic dolt who wouldn't know the Constitution if a copy fell on him. His social views are anathema to anyone who considers themselves a Libertarian, who hold personal freedom above all. I'd advise that you consider yourself by another political moniker.
I think you are looking a little too far into my response. I don't agree with steve on everything, but his treatise on Gangsters, Crusaders and Groupies is spot on. I also agree that a world view matters. Where Steve and I differ is that I do not think it's the government's business to do what the church is supposed to do. I also do not believe a marriage amendment is a good idea. I am not a libertarian either. More like a classical liberal like Thomas Jefferson. Steve may be other the top at times, I don't always agree with him, and sometimes he is wrong, but he's not a dolt. In fact I'd bet his philosophies are better thought out than most of people's. It's not a problem for me if his world view is different than mine. He's a lot more entertaining than any other local talk radio host. Thanks for writing.
Er.. reading too much into "Steve, there are times I love your ass and as most of the time, you are right."??? Sounds like your a prime disciple of the guy (pun intended).
You list Ayn Rand in your influences. "Classical Liberal" or not, Rand would have nothing to do with Mr. Deece's idiotic ideas on Church and State. His views may be "well thought out", but then again I'm sure Hitler thought his views were as well. A hyperbolic comparison, I'm the first to admit, but it just becuase it "well thought out" doesn't make it intelligent or right. In Deece's case its neither.
Why wouldn't I love Steve Steve, it's the humane thing to do. Ayn Rand wasn't right on everything too. Her ideas didn't integrate the emotional side of the brain with the rational. No one can be a purely rational being and be complete. While Ayn would have nothing to do with Steve, I will listen to him. Aristotle said that "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." I try, but sometimes fail, as I am only human. :)
And Godwin's Law continues...
Hector:
You mean Crypto-Godwinian. :)
Or Reductio ad Hitlerum, as it originally was described.
Indeed, Right Guy. Indeed.
Ahh the smugness and air of self-superiority of bloggers. I'm sure somewhere someone has come up with a "law" for that too.
Ironic that the primary critique against "Godwin's law" is that it renders logical arugment moot. While calling people on it allows the poster to do much the same thing, eh guys?
So tell you what: Try to read my whole post next time (I did preface my comment by saying it was hyperbole) and I'll remember to compare dimwits who want to impose their dogma on consenting adults whose actions harm no one to another historical figure.
Hector:
You've been called out by a cacasotto that won't stand by his convictions to post his name. I hope you respond Hector, or I fear you may be called a muxe. :)
Oooh...Italian insults. Now you've got me scared. (Sarcasm alert for those who are truly dimwitted). Now I know I've irked the blogmaster--apparently calling him on his Bromance with Steve Deace wasn't quite enough to do it.
I don't post my real name on any of the several blogs I post to--quite frankly there are enough nuts out there, why risk it?
If you are so brave to do so, guys, feel free to post your addresses and phone numbers right here:
As for hector's comeback--something as scintillating as the Sopranos-reject retort you lobbed my way I'm sure--keep in mind all of this could have been avoided if, instead of insulting my original post, Hector would have commented on its content.
As far as starting (from what I can see anyway) your blog's first and only flame war--I'll bow out. (I guess you pezzonovante are too much for me) By all means go back to the intellectual circle jerk you were having. You and the three other posters here.
You're still a cacasotto and for the record, I am of napolitano decent. As far as Steve Deace goes, I have more respect for him than you. At least I know where he stands, and he isn't ashamed to state it too. As far as being a pezzonovante, I don't think so. I really don't care about power. If you want to argue with that, go to the Libertarian Republican or Gateway Pundit. BTW, calling you a cacasotto wasn't a effort to inflict fear, but rather an observation.
Post a Comment