To: JohnGalt
There is no "Rockefeller Republican thing" for me to shed. He never had enough influence to even get a nomination much less stop the Party from pursuing entirely different courses from that he would recommend. It is a meaningless term to any who know something about the history of the GOP. Even if it weren't it has no relation to me or anything I have ever said. Certainly President Bush is not in that camp though his father leaned slightly in that direction prior to becoming VP. Nor is there any political scientist (LaRouche doesn't count) who calls Hamilton and internationalist. He was a Continentalist.
"Liberty" can never be an end of government though proper government must not arbitrarily and unnecessarily restrict liberty. It is sheer rhetoric used mainly by those unaware that government 200 yrs ago was far more repressive of liberty than ours is today. The ability to escape civilization and run to the wilderness is no longer an option and that was the only true "liberty" possessed by (some of) our forefathers. If you want to examine some real idiocy and lunatic beliefs our nation's history provides excellent examples. Crackpot ideas were a dime a dozen and mostly swarming around the proto-DemocRATs, the Jeffersonians, of that era. Lying press, cheating politicians, corruption and character assassination all were part of the DemocRAT-Republican arsenal. Today's RAT is an direct descendant of the conniving cheating RAT of Burr/Jefferson/Clinton/Tammaney.
Aside from all that your definition of socialism is not only incorrect but meaningless which explains why you are confused about the agenda from DC. There is NO agenda from DC merely from the representatives of the American People. Thus, it can be truly said the agenda of the People itself.
That is what must be changed if it is not to your liking. Any idea this is imposed upon an unwilling population is silly. Unaware or unthinking perhaps but not unwilling.
174 posted on
01/09/2004 12:16:59 PM PST by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
I am not calling Hamilton an internationalist; I am, as I stated, talking about the label that has been given to your neck of the ideological woods:
Hamiltonian internationalism."Liberty" can never be an end of government
Justshupandtakeit
"You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and prosperous people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the end of your government."
Patrick Henry
After much consideration, I'll ride it out with Pat Henry.
175 posted on
01/09/2004 12:24:26 PM PST by
JohnGalt
("the constitution as it is, the union as it was")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson