Posted on 10/05/2005 1:55:23 AM PDT by rdb3
Lew Rockwell has no aversion whatsoever to printing trash from communists, fascists and even Nazi sympathizers (Noam Chomsky - look it up in Frontpage magazine for details) while completely refusing to identify the Marxist connections of these so-called writers.
There's no excuse not to ID communists and call them what they are.
At best he's a kook.
During my more sinister moods I believe him to be a Marxist plant roaming the net and perverting the concept of national self-defense.
Some former paleolibertarian FReepers used to argue that it was unconstitutional for us to have a standing army. In fact, one of those world-class idiots said that our Marines, airmen, sailors, and soldiers were on welfare! Why? Just because they were in the military and their salary came from Uncle Sam.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
The US Military is exactly the logical extension of this.
In re the socialism charge against the military. This subject has always held great fascination for me since I was a teenager. I heard it "way" back then given where I was raised.
To a point, the charge is correct; but its a stretch. Yes, the military does have to have what appears to be a socialistic "flavor" in order to have "unit cohesion". And yes, we do pay taxes to pay those in the military to defend us.
When I hear that argument in the here-and-now, I usually ask the "spewer" to tell me what defense of me -- those on the public dole are providing -- how do any of these defend or further my liberties and freedoms.
They get upset, and want to change the subject.
I compare a homeless person getting benefits from Uncle Sam to the military (defending my liberties) -- and they get hysterical that I would dare compare the two.
This tells me, how little thought is involved in what they spew about the military being "socialist". lol.
I haven't heard a single story about anyone on the dole going down to New Orleans to help out, have you?
Libertarians have "big gun" envy, and Socialists have "envy" of everyone and everything, period.
That was exactly one of those idiot's argument! I'm not playing.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
In the late 70s, I came across a book which I found useful: The Art of Selfishness (originally authored in 1977)
Good book in re interpersonal relationships and life scope. Principles taken to the large level have far more merit and usefulness than the Libertarian philosophy encompasses. IMHO, of course. There's constructive selfishness, and then there's "stuck on stupid".
George Bush is President. He has nominated Harriet Miers. The "trust me/check out my record" issue is one that mostly Libertarian (or leaning, thereof) are having a hard time with.
The left is railing about cronynism. When in fact, the President is rightfully exercising the options which go with his position.
When D-Carole Mosely-Braun, IL, with her "manager" were "nailed" with fraud (embezzlement), former President Clinton gave her the ambassadorship to New Zealand. Did the left "utter"? Not a word.
Conversely, libertarians did. They were livid, alongside Republicans and conservatives.
It's sad to see the Libertarians taking this perspective on the WOT; they've only undercut their own philosophy. But perhaps, since there is actual thinking going on within the Libertarian party (at times).. perhaps they are hoping to begin encouraging the libbies to think more, hate less.
Just a thought..
One thing I have seen, is that many of the Libertarians hold about the same view as the hard core Liberals except for markets, in which they want no restrictions.
Libertarians are often libertines without the hedonistic commitment.
Of course what idiot libertatians ignore is that their precious militias were based upon conscription, too.
Not legal conscription. Social conscription. If you got a reputation as a shirker you were an outcast for life. Who wanted to be "coward of the county" ? When your father and brothers are arming themselves, what are you going to do ? Develop a head cold ?
One must first realize that the term "libertarian" has been completely corrupted by the political party of the same name. However, let's take a look at the dictionary definition of the word...
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.
While I admit that this type of politics is not commonly practiced in Washington these days, it could become a very viable, self-sustaining political movement. Maybe I'm overly optimistic and hopeful, but I feel that the Republican Liberty Caucus and Mike Pence's RSC are positioning themselves to make great strides in the next decade or so, and to finally put today's big-government school of thought to a rest.
I saw few people shaking heads when freepers were probably the leading oppoonents of Clinton's use of big guns in Kosovo to bring "the rule of law." Heck, those freeper peaceniks opposed the war even while the troops were engaged!!! Had Al Gore been prez on 9-11 most probably would have continued their antiwar approach. Unlike the partisan freeper peaceniks, libertarians are models of consistency.
jmc813 wrote:
Maybe I'm overly optimistic and hopeful, but I feel that the Republican Liberty Caucus and Mike Pence's RSC are positioning themselves to make great strides in the next decade or so, and to finally put today's big-government school of thought to a rest.
REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts
Man, I'm feelin' the love in this thread.
I'm sorry, WHO joined the enemy a long time ago?
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/009033.html
No, you definitely are NOT welcome here. Rockwellian troll zotted. Did you march in the terrorist supporting communist parade too? How many of our soldiers will die in Iraq thanks to you anti-American pro-terrorist protesters giving aid and comfort to the enemy? How many innocent Iraqi citizens will die for your groups misguided treasonous actions? Why should your giving aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime NOT be classified as treason? If I was sitting on the jury when you guys are charged, you would be swinging with your pal Saddam!
Look up useful idiot in the dictionary, troll. That's right. Describes you perfectly. Get off the phone, MORON!
Imagine! Cutting taxes. Oh the horror!
These guys have gone off the deep end.
libertarians are models of consistency.
Maybe so, but I'm not always sure what they are "models of consistency" for or about outside their ideology as a political theory group.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Revising and extending my remarks.
Why do I call these guys traitors? Well, we recently had the opportunity to witness up close and personal the communist led International Answer and Code PinkO people in action in Crawford and DC. I can tell you first hand that these slimy creeps are the real deal. Socialists, Marxists, Communists, punk anarchists, leftist revolutionaries, you name it.
America haters. Baby killers. They are absolutely in love with every slimeball communist/terrorist/tin-pot dictator in the world. They hate our way of life, hate our freedom and want no limits on the depths of their depravity. That's why they hate God and hate our constitution. No limits means NO limits.
They cannot wait to dissolve our constitution, our borders and our national sovereignty and make us subservient to some global socialistic power. Star-crossed communist utopians dancing, spitting and cussing in the streets. It was a real sight to behold.
Slimy, filthy, foulmouthed creeps. The same kind of long-haired weirdo hippy freaks that slimed us in the 60's. In fact many of them were resurrected hippies. Aging old communist farts trying to relive the glory days when they brought America to her knees and forced her to surrender to the Vietnam communists after having defeated them in battle.
Thank you Walter Cronkite. Puke!.
They hate America. Hate our troops. They are afraid that we're gonna win this war and bring peace and constitutional democracies to the Middle East. Can't have that. Spreading freedom would destroy their plans for global communism. They desperately want America to lose this war and the next one (which will be fought here at home if we do lose this one).
And now we learn here today that Lew Rockwell is part of this filthy traitorous movement. I knew that he and Buchanan and many of the paleocons had long ago gone over the edge with their hate Bush campaigns, and that they sympathized with the French, German, Russian, Iraqi axis against America, but I didn't know how far they would go.
Marching with communists in our nation's capital? Protesting at Army/Navy hospitals in full view of our recovering wounded servicemen? Parading in the streets with white crosses and makeshift coffins, spitting on the memory of our fallen heroes that fought and died for our country? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime? How low can you go?
How can this be called anything but treason?
If this is what the Rockwells and Buchanans and their followers want and believe, if they want to align themselves and protest against America and march arm-in-arm with their America hating communist comrades during wartime then they're nothing but traitors themselves and should own up to it.
And the rest of us should recognize them for what they are and treat them accordingly.
What do you think of "paleoconservatarians"? ;-)
Come on. Agreeing with a particular group of leftists on a particular issue does in no way make one a leftist. Sure, I don't support the war in Iraq, but can anyone here accuse me of being a leftist and back it up? No.
Have we really reached the point in this country when people are considered traitors merely for holding a certain political ideology? Most of the Founding Fathers would be considered traitors today by neocon standards.
Can you actually say that America is clearly in a better position after the past 60 years of global military interventionism than we would be had we not gotten involved in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq twice, Iran, Central and South America,... et al ??
Of course the above is a hypothetical question, but I fail to see the logic of those in the pro-war right who contend that preemptive wars, or those which are not fought out of necessity of self defense, can ever solve our problems.
Ultimately, the whole issue hangs on whether or not the United States has the legitimate right to act as "world policeman" in some sort of impossible effort to defend all those people who are being persecuted or slaughtered. (Why do so many of the people we want to protect seem to live near large oil reserves?)
Perhaps you could illustrate the wisdom of our current policy which has our military spread around the globe in well over 100 countries, yet fails to secure our borders and coasts through which terrorists arrive daily.
While I am not here to defend or reject Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, or anyone else's ideas besides my own, I do think that some of the hatred in the Muslim world derives from American presence in their lands.
Remember once upon a time when Patriots named Washington and Jefferson fought the British in order to expel foreign occupiers who thought they knew best how the colonists ought to live in spite of their wishes for self-determination?
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.