Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stupid Vogue (Angry Little Man on lewrockwell.com Rips FR, et al.)
www.lewrockwell.com ^ | 1/6/04 | Jeffrey Tucker

Posted on 01/07/2004 12:38:18 AM PST by BroncosFan

Edited on 01/07/2004 7:41:33 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]

Stupid Vogue by Jeffrey A. Tucker

The gym has Fox television on, and perhaps I should be grateful, because otherwise it would not have dawned on me just how popular and widely embraced stupid is. By stupid, I don't really intend insult. Stupid is a mental outlook that affirms the crude and base while eschewing the noble and thoughtful. It is an attitude of mind that can be adopted by both low lights and bright lights.

That low lights be can be stupid is not a surprise. It is typified by posters on FreeRepublic, callers to talk radio, the O'Reilly Factor, and College Republicans. Among this crowd, not only is reading in history and libraries not undertaken; it is not encouraged and is even actively discouraged. The thinking goes: Rush doesn't bother with footnotes so why should I?

More puzzling is when stupid is adopted by the bright-light set after its members have come to the conviction that some modes of thought are more useful to achieving socio-political goals than others. Intellectual affectations, long deductive processes, self-control, and abstract ideals are fine in many cases, they conclude, but not as effective for some purposes as base instinct, first thoughts, anger unleashed, and raw emotion.

For intellectuals to believe in stupid means to embrace the attitude that sometimes society thrives best in the absence of serious thought, that stupid is more conducive to revolutionary change in society than carefully pondered ideology. It is about the conclusion that ideas and reflection do far less good for society that screaming insults, and that to live in our times and make a difference requires that we set aside our intellectual pretensions and appreciate anew the things that move the masses.

Thus is stupid in vogue. Without attempting an update of Walter Pitkin's Short Introduction to the History of Human Stupidity (1932), or getting bogged down in a full theoretical treatise, let us explore the how and why smart people decide to embrace stupid.

Stupid Vogue accounts for how it is that otherwise smart people could defend the preposterous propaganda on Fox day after day, the howls of talk radio hosts, the spewing forth of James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal, the blathering lunacies of political activists who consider a criticism of Bush to be the equivalent of treason. Smart people know this is all very stupid and, in their heart of hearts, they are embarrassed by it. But they have concluded that it is pointless to fight it; once must join in the parade of stupid or be left behind.

The intellectuals sometimes admit that they have joined the parade. David Brooks writes: "In an age of conflict, bourgeois virtues like compassion, tolerance, and industriousness are valued less than the classical virtues of courage, steadfastness, and a ruthless desire for victory." That's another way of saying that much good can come from the most brutal (stupid) side of man. To unleash it requires not talk and debate but something, well, ruthless; something, well, stupid.

Stupid Vogue is not just about politics, but it is in the political sphere where it thrives most fully. Consider that most Americans still believe that Saddam had something to do with 9-11. The intellectuals know this belief is mistaken yet they are glad that the myth exists, as a way of justifying the war. It is a lie, to be sure, but an essential one. In this case, stupid has served their essential purposes, just as Bush himself does. How much better for the neoconservatives that Bush is not critically minded but rather goes with his instincts over careful thought? To observe this is to stumble on a profound insight that stupid might not be such a bad thing after all.

This is evidently the lesson right-wing intellectuals have taken from the political experience of our time. You can go to National Review online and click any story about the war. You will find that essential facts and serious moral analysis are edited out and replaced by implausible claims and conclusions barren of thought. These are standard devices. Last week, for example, Victor David Hansen credits Bush's Iraq war for "bringing consensual government into the heart of Middle Eastern autocracy." That's a really stupid way to describe martial law imposed by a foreign military conquering power, and don't think he doesn't know this. To respond to such claims is like trying to prove that the moon is not made of Roquefort. The remark is not designed to elucidate reality but merely to assert something that only the most ignorant person (willfully or not) would accept. It is also to prepare such people believe other outlandish claims no matter how disconnected from reality.

This phenomenon, born of nihilism, can be initially disturbing to well-formed minds. Truly, it can be difficult for very smart people to affect stupid. Let's say you inadvertently hear a news item that points out the US just killed a half a dozen civilians in a foreign land. A government spokesman is dismissive. How do you react? As an intellectual who has read the classics and put some serious time into thinking through a variety of ethical concerns, you might be tempted to reach beyond the propaganda and conclude that this is not a good thing. Some people have lost their lives. You wonder: Is this murder? Is this contrary to international law? But then you remember the glory of stupidity, you dull your higher sense, and reach into your gut and shout at the TV: They are Enemies, get it? Enemies!

Now, at first you might be a bit embarrassed at such a brazen display of emotion based on nothing but belligerence and hate. But then you remember that populist longing for violence and chauvinism are the fastest means for pushing history forward. Look at the mobs during the French Revolutionaries, the Bolsheviks, even the Nazis: how boring would history be without them! These are the movements that wrought titanic shifts in world affairs, and they weren't about books, art, manners, and reflection. Quite the contrary: these movements understood the need for slogans, songs, instinct, hate, and raw emotion. These are the things that move people. ("When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty," says GB Shaw.)

Further reflection confirms the centrality of stupid in the whole of cultural, social, and political affairs. How many people came to the last professional meeting of academics you attended? A couple hundred at most. Most of them didn't even bother to attend the sessions. And who read your last three articles in scholarly journals? Five or six? These people and articles are irrelevant! Compare to the football games on TV, with the mass of fans paying a hundred or more per ticket, waving Styrofoam hands in the air, painting their chests, whooping it up on booze and team spirit. Whatever it is that makes football tick, that is the central stuff of history. It's stupid! Stupid is the key to life itself. Join the masses and embrace it as your own. Now is the time.

It goes without saying that stupid and violence go together, but there is also the nonlethal version of stupid, which is based entirely on ad hominem insult. This approach is evident in the titles of bestselling books of both left and right. "Liars!" "Dude!" "Shut Up" "Slander" "An End to Evil." It is obvious from the emails sent that claim that any disagreement with the government amounts to an unpardonable sin. It is clear from the blogs we read that use the most vitriolic and unthinking rhetoric against any deviation from the party line. For many talk radio hosts, stupid is the one and only mode. Stupid Vogue is why some pundits make it and others don't and why some books sell and others don't.

Most of all, stupid is the key to why people support war. The case against an invasion of a relatively liberal state that never intended any harm to the US, against launching a war that crushed a suffering country and killed thousands, and recruited many more into the terrorist camp – the case against such a war is as easy to make as reading itself. But no. That would be too smart, too analytical, too ponderous and tedious. What we need are not words but actions, and not just any actions but actions of mass violence and big events – events that make headlines and heroes, and win elections. These are the essential forces of history. What our times need are not more eggheads but an aggressive and unapologetic embrace of stupidity.

Stupid Vogue represents the triumph of irrationalism, but it is more than that. It is the fulfillment of intellectual trends that have developed over many decades. It comes down to the rejection of the merit of logic and even the existence of truth itself and the culminating insight that nothingness can become meaning only through the working out of mass passion. The utilitarians began the process by showing us that natural law is a myth. The Marxists then demonstrated that history can take great leaps toward the radically implausible. The modern philosophers showed us that truth is a very slippery concept and so contingent as to be functionally useless.

Theologians further demonstrated that what was once thought to be dogma is nothing but superstition, while ethicists demonstrated that everything is a shade of grey. The scientists conceded that community consensus, not research, is what drives science. The linguists showed us that words themselves have no intrinsic meaning but are merely social constructions. The literary scholars then showed us that text, all text ever written, contains no fixed meaning. Political texts in particular are constructed to achieve social ends and should not be taken as holy writ. And what does politics show but that history is nothing but a struggle over money and power? Even law has no organic origin. What is left in this nihilist scenario but brute force? If you want a piece of the action in this world, you had better give up old-fashioned longings for virtue and meaning and start being stupid.

Stupid is also consistent with another dominant trend of our time: egalitarianism. The search for equality can conceptually mean raising everyone up, but that ambition fails to tap into envy which is one of the great social forces of our time or any time. It may seem really stupid to throw Martha in jail, sue and loot great investment firms, to lynch innocent CEOs or otherwise harass and regulate the rich and other benefactors of society. But the masses love this, and doing so does serve an important social function of redistributing wealth away from aristocrats to the common man and their representatives in government. Yes, it is stupid to do these things, but it is also the surest method known to make exciting things happen in history. Down with drudgery and up with Drudge. People want excitement. People want stupid. In the politicized society, stupidity reigns. This is why intellectuals have embraced it.

In the stupid vogue of intellectuals, cynicism overrides their sense of responsibility, which they now find to be socially useless. To rally the masses behind a cause, no matter how dangerous or emotionally indulgent, is the best use of the intellect. The far left has always understood the need to draw stark lines between friends and enemies. The right is only now catching on, thanks to the leadership of the neoconservatives. They know the value of propaganda. Yes, Bush may be technically in violation of conservative principles to erect protectionist barriers, wage undeclared war, vastly increase spending, and regulate industry. But look! He's popular, and if we want to be popular too, we had better climb on board. We had better embrace the sentiment that makes him popular. We had better embrace stupid.

There might be an interesting psychological dynamic here at work among conservatives, who have been told for years that they are captive of various ailments ranging from paranoia to hate, whereas the left is dominated by cool reason. Perhaps conservatives decided to embrace the critique, noting that for all their much-vaunted reason, the left doesn't win elections. Fine, conservative may have said, we are stupid, and we rule.

Further evidence that this is true is provided by conservative criticisms of libertarianism, which come down to: libertarianism is too smart. People will never go for that deductive, consistent, intellectual stuff, they say. Ideology of this sort has no capacity for marketing itself. Go have your seminars with 30 attendees, they tell us; there is a country to run, a war to wage, a world to manage. And doing all these things requires not treatises but tracts, not syllogisms but slogans. In other words, theirs is a counsel of despair: power not truth is all that matters in the end.

What is the libertarian response to Stupid Vogue? Do we need our own version of stupid, one that can make a good halftime show, be the subject of country songs, and drive the public to mass action? Is there a way to boil down libertarian theory in a way that it connects with the basest human instincts, causes people to stand on their chairs and turn red-face with screams and yells? If there were such a way to link an abstract and deductive system to mass action, surely libertarians would be foolish not to lend it at least tacit support. After all, the fundamental problem with stupid vogue is not the core method but the motivating force of war and statism. All political movements must be popular to enjoy success.

Can the ideas of liberty and rights enjoy a sudden leap into mass appeal, as has Stupid Vogue, or must they always bear the burden that they require deliberation and thought before taking root? Mises counseled patience. He faced the problem of stupid vogue with the rise of socialism and then Nazism. He believed that we must never join in, that the only means we have for victory is the relentless demonstration and re-assertion of what is true.

No sect and no political party has believed that it could afford to forgo advancing its cause by appealing to men's senses. Rhetorical bombast, music and song resound, banners wave, flowers and colors serve as symbols, and the leaders seek to attach their followers to their own person. Liberalism has nothing to do with all this. It has no party flower and no party color, no party song and no party idols, no symbols and no slogans. It has the substance and the arguments. These must lead it to victory.

Mises believed that reason, peace, reflection, logic, and truth do stand a chance against Stupid Vogue. In any case, they might be the only hope we have. After the orgy of stupidity has passed, and it will, libertarians will be in a position to say that they never participated. They were conscientious objectors. And when those days come, we can join with the many people who today regret the stupid periods in American history such as the Salem Witch Trials, Prohibition, the Vietnam War, and say: "You know, that War on Iraq was really stupid."

January 6, 2004


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: condescendingliberal; crybaby; drudge; foxnews; freerepublic; iraq; jealous; lewrockwell; lewsers; libertarian; pacifer; playerhaters; saddamfreude; waaaaah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-128 next last
Fire away. Have fun!
1 posted on 01/07/2004 12:38:18 AM PST by BroncosFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
He's too easy a target. Who cares what some snobbish, arrogant dim thinks of the majority of the American population. He can sit in his little viper pit and rail against the world and go on about alien invasions and anything else he'd care to go off the deep end about.
2 posted on 01/07/2004 12:42:30 AM PST by highlander_UW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
"Among this crowd, not only is reading in history and libraries not undertaken; it is not encouraged and is even actively discouraged."

Apparently he is one of those people who figures that if someone says something that goes over his head, that means the person saying it must be stupid. This guy is about as sharp as a bowling ball.

3 posted on 01/07/2004 12:44:45 AM PST by sweetliberty (Even the smallest person can change the course of the future. - (LOTR))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
The intellectual calibur of that site was much higher a few years back. They were still nutty on occasion, but used better reasoning. This ranks with something on democraticunderground.
4 posted on 01/07/2004 12:47:50 AM PST by BroncosFan (Pat Toomey for Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
Histrionic girlie man puffs and preens before the mirror not realizing that he is describing his own reflection.
5 posted on 01/07/2004 12:47:52 AM PST by sweetliberty (Even the smallest person can change the course of the future. - (LOTR))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
This guy must get paid by the word... What a waste of space...
6 posted on 01/07/2004 12:47:58 AM PST by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
" there is also the nonlethal version of stupid, which is based entirely on ad hominem insult.

It is interesting to find this little gem inside this ad hominem insult against every conservative.

Do you think the irony escapes the author?

7 posted on 01/07/2004 12:48:30 AM PST by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
The thug is aware that loudness convinces sixty persons where reasoning convinces but one. == Mark Twain, "Is Shakespeare Dead?" essay
8 posted on 01/07/2004 12:50:05 AM PST by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
He ain't the first in the LEW to attack FR... I guess they just need readers badly
9 posted on 01/07/2004 12:50:17 AM PST by GeronL (Ah daunt yous spiel cheekier ether)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
1 - You screwed up the link; it doesn't go to the article, just the website.

2 - You falsified the headline, which is against FR policy.

It just takes a minute to do it right, so why insist upon getting it wrong?
10 posted on 01/07/2004 12:51:14 AM PST by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
. . . seems like they need authors worse.
11 posted on 01/07/2004 12:51:57 AM PST by BroncosFan (Pat Toomey for Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
This man is proof that Moron is in Vogue in the guise of 'Intellectualism'.
12 posted on 01/07/2004 12:52:31 AM PST by GeronL (Ah daunt yous spiel cheekier ether)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
I didn't "insist" on getting it wrong.

Here's the correct link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker42.html

As for the title, "Stupid Vogue" tells one nothing. Perhaps I was a bit pointed, though.

13 posted on 01/07/2004 12:57:10 AM PST by BroncosFan (Pat Toomey for Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
This article only proves what many of us have been saying about LR - he's not much better (or different) than DU. It is this characterization of the LP - that they have become 'commie lite' - that has driven many of them out of that asylum once they see it is true.
14 posted on 01/07/2004 12:59:37 AM PST by 11B3 (Democratic Socialists of America: 78 members in Congress. Treason? YES.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
This is the second article that I have seen on stupid people who support the president and the war. There was one posted a day or two ago from one of the San Francisco papers...not as long, but along the same lines.

I guess the new mantra isn't that "Bush is stupid." It is that "Bush supporters are stupid."

15 posted on 01/07/2004 1:00:46 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
He's kind of overlooking the actions of his thoughtful well reasoned "enlightened" compatriots that are burning down forests and new housing additions, breaking into labs and freeing test animals, spray painting ladies wearing fur, rioting at global meetings around the world, spiking trees in the forest, and the list goes on.

Good thing for the nation that the average stupid, angry, illiterate American slob still thinks the nations laws are for observing.
16 posted on 01/07/2004 1:01:04 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
Tucker spends the first half-dozen paragraphs using half-truths to set up his straw man arguments then ends up with nothing more substantive than an apologetic for libertarianism.

Sounds sorta stupid to me.

17 posted on 01/07/2004 1:04:01 AM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
This is what comes from expanding college loan programs.
18 posted on 01/07/2004 1:07:44 AM PST by polemikos (A million French Derrida-schooled Marxist deconstructionist chefs can't be wrong - can they?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
How do these people stay in business?
19 posted on 01/07/2004 1:08:33 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
the blathering lunacies of political activists who consider a criticism of Bush to be the equivalent of treason.

"Its the economy (of the criticism), Stupid"

20 posted on 01/07/2004 1:12:22 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
Most of all, stupid is the key to why people support war. The case against an invasion of a relatively liberal state that never intended any harm to the US, against launching a war that crushed a suffering country and killed thousands, and recruited many more into the terrorist camp – the case against such a war is as easy to make as reading itself.

Relatively Liberal State??? Relative to what!

dvwjr

21 posted on 01/07/2004 1:38:51 AM PST by dvwjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dvwjr
Relatively Liberal State??? Relative to what!

I think one might consider Saddam to the liberal side of Korea perhaps.

22 posted on 01/07/2004 2:12:42 AM PST by highlander_UW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW
North Korea, that is.
23 posted on 01/07/2004 2:13:48 AM PST by highlander_UW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
LewRockwell(head).com IS the DU of the right. And I don't mean that in a positive way. Unfortunately the right does have its share of loonies. Rockhead's site seems to have cornered the market on them.
24 posted on 01/07/2004 2:23:00 AM PST by driftless ( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
I would comment if I could bring myself to read the whole thing. Big words and shrill emotion don't make up for clumsy syntax and bad grammar.
25 posted on 01/07/2004 2:40:25 AM PST by NYpeanut (gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him, "Why did you lie to me?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
stu·pid    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (stpd, sty-)
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est
  1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
  2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
  3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
  4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
  5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

n.
A stupid or foolish person.

26 posted on 01/07/2004 3:07:00 AM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK (Islam .......it's worse than even the Muslims thought it was !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
Consider that most Americans still believe that Saddam had something to do with 9-11. The intellectuals know this belief is mistaken yet they are glad that the myth exists, as a way of justifying the war. It is a lie, to be sure, but an essential one.

I am really tired of this one. That particular set of ideas was credited to "most Americans" by the liberals "Progressives" and blamed on us neoconservatives as having spread this around ourselves. Tricky move, that. Convenient for them.

I'd like to trace back the first mention of this theory--it's fairly obvious that the "Progressives" spun those unwashed "most Americans" into all-of-a-sudden, en masse, group agreement on this. Sheesh.
27 posted on 01/07/2004 3:12:28 AM PST by lorrainer (Professional driver. Closed course.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
While I don't always agree with FR posters - and thank God for that, because if I did there would not be any debate - I have always been impressed at the amount of library or Web research most of them do to back up their propositions or their comments...
28 posted on 01/07/2004 3:26:04 AM PST by Atlantic Friend (Cursum Perficio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
Some of the author's generalizations are inaccurate, but some of his analysis of modern culture rings true, and unfortunately he indulges in that which he criticizes. But how can he not? In the age of the internet, in competing with blogs and millions of voices, a certain tone and style must be achieved in order to attract attention. Sensationalism and vitriole trumps quiet reason.

...the case against such a war is as easy to make as reading itself. But no. That would be too smart, too analytical, too ponderous and tedious.

This statement is a grand slam in my opinion. Thanks for posting this article.

29 posted on 01/07/2004 4:03:15 AM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Atlantic Friend
I have always been impressed at the amount of library or Web research most of them do to back up their propositions or their comments...

I don't know about most, but there is enough to make Mr. Tucker's broad criticism of FR grossly inaccurate.

30 posted on 01/07/2004 4:05:21 AM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
Mr Tucket should take off his blinders...and ponder the potential stupidity of the "Bush=Hitler" crowd. Talk about bigotry !
31 posted on 01/07/2004 4:10:31 AM PST by Atlantic Friend (Cursum Perficio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

thx for the fresh reminder of why i dumped the libertarian party after 20 years

btw, the poster who complained about the post title is right--it's not a matter of aesthetics or etiquette, but of avoiding duplicate threads
32 posted on 01/07/2004 4:13:50 AM PST by dwills
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
To BCrago66.

Illbay? Is that you Buddy?

33 posted on 01/07/2004 4:18:43 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (French: old Europe word meaning surrender)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
Oh my goodness, this reminds me of the crap I had to read for class last semester. This was better much unreadable. If the man knew what he was writing about he would try and write clearly and to the point.
34 posted on 01/07/2004 4:29:01 AM PST by LauraJean (Fukai please pass the squid sauce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LauraJean
better=pretty much
I'm still working on my first cup of coffee
35 posted on 01/07/2004 4:31:38 AM PST by LauraJean (Fukai please pass the squid sauce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
One should spend energy to swat a bee....but it isn't worth the effort for a nat.
36 posted on 01/07/2004 4:40:24 AM PST by Moby Grape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
The problem with liberals is they are too wordy. Let me translate for him

I wish Americans were not so stupid as to re-elect George Bush to a second term.

37 posted on 01/07/2004 4:55:06 AM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
This statement is a grand slam in my opinion.

Then make it.

38 posted on 01/07/2004 4:56:24 AM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Then make it.

It's a moot point. I'm not going to feed the Stupid machine.

39 posted on 01/07/2004 5:06:05 AM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
"Do you think the irony escapes the author?"

The author wouldn't recognize irony if it hit him in the face.
40 posted on 01/07/2004 5:19:40 AM PST by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
The Bush administration may be pursueing a questionable foriegn policy but I don't think the folks at LEW have a clue as to why. Isolation isn't a credible alternative to invasion.

If U.S. politicians and Americans doing business abroad would promote limited government, individual liberty, and the relatively unfettered right of individuals to own personal, real, and intellectual property, average Americans would pay a lot less in taxes, we'll have more prosperous markets for our products, and we won't have to deal with terrorists sponsored by totalitarian socialist states.

Promoting the importance of professional politicians and national elections so the winners can wield the awesome power of government will only produce more Saddams and Mugabes. I'd like to hear Bush and his senior aides promoting individual liberty and property rights instead of professional politicians and national elections. But it's kind of hard for an administration to promote individual liberty abroad at the same time it's condemning America's children to a lifetime of slavery to professional politicians in Washington D.C. because of severe intergenerational taxation inequities.
41 posted on 01/07/2004 5:20:03 AM PST by yoswif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
It's always entertaining when a whiny writer complains about the lack of facts from the other side - while providing few of his own, and pointing mainly to differences of opinion instead of factual errors or omissions.
42 posted on 01/07/2004 5:24:08 AM PST by dirtboy (Howard Dean - all bike and no path)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
It's a moot point. I'm not going to feed the Stupid machine.

I know you're not this funny on purpose.

43 posted on 01/07/2004 5:25:32 AM PST by dirtboy (Howard Dean - all bike and no path)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dvwjr
relatively liberal state

Good catch. That is a truly despicable line. For a group that supposedly worships the Constitution and Bill of Rights, calling Saddam's Iraq a "relatively liberal state" shows the depths of depravity to which they are willing to sink to attempt to hold onto their increasingly untenable position on the conflict. Hundreds of thousands of dead in mass graves and the legions of the tortured and imprisoned would love the opportunity to debate with this coward as to just how "relatively liberal" Iraq used to be.

44 posted on 01/07/2004 5:30:51 AM PST by dirtboy (Howard Dean - all bike and no path)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dvwjr; aculeus; general_re; BlueLancer; Poohbah; hellinahandcart; Catspaw; Coop; IowaHawk; ...
The case against an invasion of a relatively liberal state that never intended any harm to the US, against launching a war that crushed a suffering country and killed thousands, and recruited many more into the terrorist camp – the case against such a war is as easy to make as reading itself.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Outstanding catch, dvwjr.

45 posted on 01/07/2004 5:36:08 AM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Atlantic Friend
" I have always been impressed at the amount of library or Web research most of them do to back up their propositions or their comments..."

Precisely; which is what makes this hateful little man look so foolish, at least to anybody who actually spends any time here. Of course, it is fairly obvious that WE are not his target audience, but rather that he addresses smaller minds than his own in order to look "intellectually" complex, thus his many words to say little.

46 posted on 01/07/2004 5:36:43 AM PST by sweetliberty (Even the smallest person can change the course of the future. - (LOTR))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; dighton
"It's a moot point. I'm not going to feed the Stupid machine."
"I know you're not this funny on purpose."

I wouldn't bet good money on it...

47 posted on 01/07/2004 5:38:18 AM PST by BlueLancer (Der Elite Møøsënspåånkængrüppen ØberKømmååndø (EMØØK))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
Everybody at LoserRockwell is turning into Justine Raimondo: America-hating, tyrant-coddling, self-loathing girly men.
48 posted on 01/07/2004 5:41:04 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Be fair...they still can't stack it as high or as deep as justine.
49 posted on 01/07/2004 5:42:05 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan
There's a reason that I call the site "Spew PukeWell".

Jeffy Tucker (That Double-Digit IQ F***er) and his little rant don't impress me in the slightest. ;-)

50 posted on 01/07/2004 6:47:22 AM PST by an amused spectator (Have a Happy FR New Year)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-128 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson