Posted on 01/09/2007 8:27:45 AM PST by jmc813
"Dumb" is a vast understatement.
Well, it is upsetting. Being betrayed is never conducive to sleeping well at night.
As observed by Marcus Tullus Cicero:
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear.
And by our own Founders, such as the Adamses:
John Adams, quotes about Corruption:
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.Samuel Adams, quotes about Corruption:
How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!Samuel Adams,
The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.
As I recall the liberal press provided plenty of coverage, as did both liberal and conservative websites.
Doubtful in the extreme. He was an agrarian utopionist. He initially fought against protection, until he witnessed on his own watch, how critical it was to maintain U.S. independence, not just military/industrially, but politically/economically.
Anyways,
If you wanted to use historical precendent, and you were smart, you would have gone with Alexander Hamilton.
I was merely quoting the Times Magazine observation. Alexander Hamilton did get on our Currency anyways...just not on Mount Rushmore as he never got the chance to be President, since he was shot by Aaron Burr.
That being said, the economics of 18th century America (or even TR's America) are not a template for the current global economy.
So you "modern types" must just not be conservative enough. Perhaps they should be our templates today.
Today, information, materials, products, and consumers all move in a fashion that would be unrecognizable to the earlier eras.
So? You think they were idiots and wouldn't be able to adapt their protectionist policies accordingly? Typical LIBERAL presumption.
And there was no income tax back then either.
So? And how is it better to have that??? Give us back Hamilton. So that the Income tax, and your precious "global economy" can then go straight to Hell where they belong, LOL!
The U.S. did just fine without having to prostrate itself before foreign powers and World Government dictums.
Jerome Corsi is by all indications, unlike Kerry, a practicing Catholic.
Is he not entitled to an opinion or being a little piqued at the former Pope's demonstrably slow and weak efforts to clean house?
As for his suddenly being a "paranoid liar", he may or may not be paranoid, but "liar"? Where's your proof?
>those of us who claim to have isolated its main features are delusional.<
I was kind of enjoying this new status.
Yes, and if you will note, that is when action was finally taken.
Corsi's umbrage appears to be that it took just that kind of coverage...and falling Vatican revenues from the U.S. to prompt sterner measures.
Why is Corsi not entitled to concern that only bad publicity triggered a correction? That moral response was not the first response?
Since Corsi has both repudiated and apologized for that comment and other similar comments made here in the interest of being provocative, I don't see much point in discussing their validity.
Really? Then why did you cite the quotes? And maybe I missed something, but I guess I didn't read the apology the same way.
The Pope is certainly NOT "okay with boy buggering."
That is a sleazy lie.
I didn't, Medved did. Go back to posts 23-38-39-43. I was commenting on their dismissal as ad hominum attacks. Since it's his conclusion we're discussing, he hasn't proved a conspiracy, prior "conclusions" are relevant. The conspiracy charge could simply be stirring the pot, he's used the technique before. The apology was mand a couple years ago, it's old news.
Anyone who listens to Medved knows he's for open borders. From the article it appears the "antisemitism card" was played by Corsi. I conclude Corsi's positions are indefensible.
Uh, isn't it a matter of which Pope? The Vatican finally took a more-definitive stance against practicing gays in the clergy with its position paper released in November of 2005.
The Vatican policies of the 60's however...actually started this whole mess, I believe you will agree.
You meant Medved, I assume.
There's proof that the administration is involved in a conspiracy? I'd like to see it, I'd likely support impeachment.
Corsi presents facts, and draws conclusions from them. Previous examples of his decision making, more accurately his advocacy, are relevant to his advocacy today.
And this brings me to the unfortunate Jerome Corsi, who felt the need in his response to my scorn to bring up some long-ago misunderstanding between us in which he believed I had charged him with anti-Semitism. As I communicated to Corsi in a telephone conversation, I did not recall making that charge on the air and I still don’t believe I ever attacked him in that manner. If I had even hinted at Jew-hatred on Corsi’s part I was willing to apologize, I said.
Obviously this is Medved's opinion, but it sounds like Corsi brought it up.
"Utopianist" is the very definition of a liberal. Protectionism is the least efficient method that a government can use to raise funds, because it makes everything more expensive while at the same time driving companies that export out of buisness. This is not a liberal concept like, say raising taxes through tariffs. The average Mexican spends more money on US imports than the average American spends on Mexican imports. Same thing with Canada, our number one and two trading partners. I'm all for eliminating the income tax (or moving to a flat tax), but the more feasible way would be through the use of a sales tax.
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.