Perverting science for politics

[Urbane Guerrilla]

My, Rich, speaking of alleged thought...

But I've compared your thinking to Mario Cuomo's before -- how does a guy clearly that bright stay so often wrong? And just where is "serfdom" in rejecting the thrust of a given party's policy habits anyway?

It's the Democratic Party's record that has me disenchanted with them. Intellectually, their socialism is all shoddy goods, unworthy of an intelligent electorate, and relying for its success on an electorate that isn't so intelligent.

The Dem Party has not been selling anything I wanted to buy since 1992 and before. My coming to Libertarianism from reading Murry Rothbard in 1983 has made me particularly resistant to the Dem Party's socialistic trend.

Then there's this party's inability at foreign policy: none of the present lot could win a war, though some few of them could probably start a war. But having started a war, then they flag, and as Ann Coulter remarks, declare that the war, whichever and any, is "unwinnable." Recall how utterly clueless the Clinton Administration was in its use of the military -- sporadic, half thought out activity, pursued halfheartedly, withdrawn muddledly. The last Democratic President to win a war was Truman. All since have uniformly dropped the ball. That's a long time to stay this incapable. Was Coulter right -- does the Democratic Party have a tropism towards treason? Or is this mere incompetence -- or would that be better evidenced by at least half of their decisions redounding in the national favor? John Kerry voted against the Contras, and thus for the good of the Communists -- and that one vote was no anomaly in the man's professional life.

If you want the nation to win, nowadays the choice is a Republican, until such time as we have enough Libertarians who think like I do. This is because a major power's political schools of thought have to be able to exert force when necessary, and have the intellectual and spiritual robustness to see it through. If any should lack this, they lack any prospect of attaining any position of power or influence.

I doubt that any Republicans abdicated any role whatsoever -- for they understood and I hope still understand that there's a mess out there to clean up. The Dems have adopted a posture of abdicating any responsibility to act in the Republic's interest vis-a-vis the anti-democrats that are our foes.

For a country that prides itself on it's 'citizen soldiers', how did we end up with someone like him?

I raised my right hand in 1977 and swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I stayed in a uniform and a short haircut until 1986. It is in considerable measure because of this experience that I speak as I do.

Now how about you, Rich? Did you commit so far -- or did you have "other priorities?"

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I raised my right hand in 1977 and swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I stayed in a uniform and a short haircut until 1986. It is in considerable measure because of this experience that I speak as I do.

I took the oath in 1978 but I never wore a uniform (ok, maybe once but it was a training exercise). I never enlisted and it is because or in spite of this that I speak as I do. There are many people besides soldiers who take the oath - Public officials, naturalized citizens, some law enforcement.

Even people who never get the chance can still support the Constitution by simply exercising their rights. The Democratic wave in Congress, and the Republican wave that preceded it were examples of the people doing just that.

Being in the military does not give one special insight into the purpose and care of the Constitution. It also does not disqualify one from doing so. The founding fathers, in fact, created the 2nd amendment partially as a response to the creation of a federal standing army. Maybe they thought that it might be a good idea if local militias stood ready in case a group of guys like UG started organizing within the Army.

Recall how utterly clueless the Clinton Administration was in its use of the military -- sporadic, half thought out activity, pursued halfheartedly, withdrawn muddledly.

You do remember that it was Reagan who pulled out of Lebanon after the barracks bombing, right?

As for Clinton, he did pull troops out of Somalia, but he also managed to help successfully prosecute a war in Bosnia with real international support that didn't cost us 300 billion dollars and 3000 lives.