10/28/2008 11:21:00 AM

Quote :

" What do you mean by "classic republican?" Do you mean like Abe Lincoln, who finally took the idiocy of states' rights supremacy out back and shot it like Ole Yeller? Do you mean like Teddy Roosevelt, who decided to buck what everyone else was saying and push for an extremely aggressive (and at times, expensive) foreign policy? Do you mean like Dwight Eisenhower, who expanded the power of American intelligence services? Do you mean like Richard Nixon, who, among other things, was Richard Nixon? Do you mean like Ronald Reagan, who vastly increased the national deficit/debt and pursued aggressive foreign policy? I'm just curious as to which of these classic republicans you consider to be classically republican."

Whoa whoa whoa. This coming from someone who claims to fealty to the Constitution and federalism but never, ever seemed to find a federal program he didn't like? Someone who, despite all his garment rending and chest beating is voting for someone who toes the line pretty goddamned close to fascism -a candidate who actually has no conception of basic constitutional principles like Habeaus Corpus, the First Amendment, or the like? Someone with a hair trigger and a loose temper who routinely castigates anyone who opposes him as venal and corrupt?

Really? You're going to go on that diatribe?

Whatever, man.

10/28/2008 12:00:41 PM

Quote :

"Someone who, despite all his garment rending and chest beating is voting for someone who toes the line pretty goddamned close to fascism -a candidate who actually has no conception of basic constitutional principles like Habeaus Corpus, the First Amendment, or the like?"

What does this have to do with anything? I was merely pointing out that, for all the idolizing done of Republican ideals of days gone by, they don't appear to ever have existed. In anybody. Ever. So I guess you can call yourself whatever you want, but when none of the "classic" Republican presidents were all that Libertarian, I don't see where you get off calling yourself a "classic Republican."

Quote :

"This coming from someone who claims to fealty to the Constitution and federalism but never, ever seemed to find a federal program he didn't like?"

What makes you think there aren't a number of federal programs I don't like?

10/28/2008 4:18:22 PM

Quote :

"What does this have to do with anything? I was merely pointing out that, for all the idolizing done of Republican ideals of days gone by, they don't appear to ever have existed. In anybody. Ever. So I guess you can call yourself whatever you want, but when none of the "classic" Republican presidents were all that Libertarian, I don't see where you get off calling yourself a "classic Republican.""

Let's start with the notion that "classic Republican" - whether its pedigree is mythic or not - is not exactly tied to who exactly has been president.

Then, taking the issue of its pedigree aside, there's the issue of whether it's a useful qualifier of distinction against the current prevailing ideology of the Republican qualifier. My guess is "yes."

Finally, there's the question of why you would even choose to go onto this particular rant. Because it's starting to sound like another of your tired, unprovoked diatribes against libertarians.

Quote :

"What makes you think there aren't a number of federal programs I don't like?"

Because in my year of posting here I believe I have yet to see an example, coupled with the fact that you regularly turn into a blowhard with a specific animus against libertarians (whether or not the libertarian philosophy has even come into specific play) whenever it comes to any discussion of what programs should get the axe.

Call it a hunch.

10/28/2008 5:13:17 PM

Quote :

"Finally, there's the question of why you would even choose to go onto this particular rant. Because it's starting to sound like another of your tired, unprovoked diatribes against libertarians."

It wasn't about libertarians per se, it was about this attempt I frequently see to co-opt the Republican party into being libertarianism gone astray.

Quote :

"Because in my year of posting here I believe I have yet to see an example, coupled with the fact that you regularly turn into a blowhard with a specific animus against libertarians (whether or not the libertarian philosophy has even come into specific play) whenever it comes to any discussion of what programs should get the axe."

I started listing examples but decided against it. I'll try to make it a point to bold all my future oppositions to federal programs. And the odd thing is, it's pretty frequent that I don't disagree with the libertarian bunch when they say a program should get the axe, or perhaps I only think that some serious fat-cutting would suffice. It's the reasons behind your position and the means you use to express them.

10/28/2008 5:23:45 PM

Quote :

"And the odd thing is, it's pretty frequent that I don't disagree with the libertarian bunch when they say a program should get the axe, or perhaps I only think that some serious fat-cutting would suffice. It's the reasons behind your position and the means you use to express them."

Look, let me put it this way - this is fairly non-obvious given the pretty specific animus you tend to roll out toward libertarians regardless of whether someone is speaking to the libertarian philosophy or not. I'm not saying it's untrue, I'm saying you tend to grind an axe over libertarians rather frequently, often in cases where it's completely unwarranted.

Suffice to say, it grates after awhile. Especially in those cases where it feels like an unprovoked attack.

10/28/2008 5:43:09 PM