tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post5061625914039092464..comments2024-02-29T02:10:56.878-08:00Comments on J O S H U A P U N D I T: From The BeginningFreedom Fighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-42439757453481400232008-11-06T09:10:00.000-08:002008-11-06T09:10:00.000-08:00Hello Anonymous 2:29 AM, and welcome to Joshua's A...Hello Anonymous 2:29 AM, and welcome to Joshua's Army.<BR/><BR/>So, why didn't I support the Libertarians? Several reasons.<BR/><BR/>While I consider a number of your remarks well founded, here are some simple truths; <BR/><BR/>(a)it is no longer 1798, we no longer have oceans as a buffer and we are no longer a mostly agrarian nation with a small population. We are a superpower and the bastion of freedom. The world has grown smaller, and our economy is increasingly diverse and linked to the world, as is our foreign policy. And because of these things, the role of government has necessarily had to expand far beyond what most libertarians are willing to allow for..although I agree with you that it's metasizing out of control.<BR/><BR/>(b) Politics has been defined as the art of the possible. The Libertarians have no chance of ever winning anelection and by their very nature are hardly a united party themselves.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry you fail to appreciate the incredible accomplishments of Reagan as president. He took a nation that was broken in spirit and reeling from economic and foreign policy mismanagement and turned it all around. And he did it with grace and style. He was by no means perfect, but when Reagan left the White House the nuclear threat we had lived under so long was a thing of the past, the economy was booming and the country had found its heart again and was left in better shape than it was when he began. There's not much more you can ask of a president.<BR/><BR/>I likewise do not agree that the `06 vote was a referendum on Iraq...but it WAS a referendum on the failed leadership of GWB and the GOP establishment in Congress.Unfortunately, the 'change' people voted for was very different from what they got, and the same thing will be true of the new administration, I fear.<BR/><BR/> I was never particularly enamoured of McCain as a candidate. I voted to keep Obama out of the White House for th especific reasons I mentioned in th earticle, and to put Sarah Palin in position for 2012.And I totally agree with your remarks on the bail out, which ws nothing more than a legal pilfering of the treasury for the benefit of congress's Wall Street cronies and to make good on the bad paper sold to the Arabs via the Carlyle Group (in which the Bush family has a major management and financial interest).<BR/><BR/>I don't think Fitzgerald wil be 'eliminated' Chicago style, but merely fired or re-assigned so the investigation dies from neglect.<BR/><BR/>All Best,<BR/>ffFreedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-80530571224379662102008-11-06T02:29:00.000-08:002008-11-06T02:29:00.000-08:00If you're opposed to 'big government &...If you're opposed to 'big government & socialism' (your words, verbatim), why don't you support the Libertarians (whom I voted for)? The GOP haven't demonstrated a whit of interest in reducing TOTAL federal spending since the Gerald Ford years (66 vetoes of spending bills in 29 months, I was told somewhere). Since then, they have specialised in shifting spending from the programmes they dislike to the ones they like. Not to mention dumping, unconstitutionally, federal mandates on the states (sc, Medicaid costs dumped on the states by your beloved Reagan, whose speeches seem to have been memorised by you, but whose real-world actions & activities both as President & California's governor, as well as failed Presidential 1968 & 1976 runs, seem to have been given a Hollywood film rendition). In particular, the GOP's socialist conservatives (oops, sorry, social conservatives -- we mustn't call them what they really are!), have only wanted to shift funding to their pork-barrel projects over the years : the unconstitutional federal drug-prohibition waste, FCC censorship waste, keeping alive War Department bases in the South (& elsewhere) which even the War Department wants to close, the unconstitutional Jimmy Carter crap military slavery sign-up on the kids, not to mention every conceivable local pork-barrel, or ear-mark, project which they can get for their local riding or state. The GOP have controlled Congress on several occasions, sometimes with a GOP pres. Why haven't they abolished something, anything? Couldn't they have abolished the unconstitutional DEA & the failed SOCIALIST federal drug prohibitions? Couldn't they have abolished the FCC (at least the nepotistic censorship board with former members with names like Powell)? Couldn't they have abolished the unconstitutional, immoral, & anti-Christian military slavery sign-up & its evil SOCIALIST agency? (Any president could have, by executive order, ended the sign-up itself.) Come to think of it : can you name anything which either McCain or Obama or Hillary Clinton promised to abolish? A single department, agency, ministry, or bureau? Anything? I can't. When did a Presidential candidate last promise to do so? The last one I can think of was Bob Dole. Dole promised to abolish the Department Of Education, so I voted for him. ( There, you see, I'm an easy vote to get if you are willing to promise me something specific to abolish, not 'cut', 'rationalise', 'reform', or any of that other codswallop. ) Re : McCain. The fault is not his but that of Bush & Iraque (or Irac, or Irak, or Irack, or anything other than that idiotic orthography which leaves a lonely Q incorrectly stranded -- don't even get me started on the replacement of Peking with the Communist-invented orthography). This was going to be a Democratic year. McCain made it interesting because of his unusually - left position in the GOP. The electorate in 2006 rendered their verdict on Iraque, but the GOP & Bush didn't listen. Yes, I know that it was a long time before the Surge's success was reported adequately, & the GOP & the conservatives had just cause for complaint apropos of that ; however, there is a classical expression that you should be careful re what you pray to the gods for, because they just might grant your petition. When the Surge's success was belatedly publicised, it simply served to remind most people why they wanted a 'change'. You see, the problem for most people was not how well the war was going ; it was that America was still involved with all of that. That doomed McCain (or any war supporter). Additionally, McCain should have opposed the Wall-Street bail-out. He then could have tied Bush to Obama & Pelosi in his TV ads. He could have had a field-day with the Hollywood-producers' credits in the bill. He could have charged into the next debate with scathing remarks (McCain : Why didn't you oppose that Wall-Street boondoggle? Obama : I couldn't help it. McCain : Yes, you could have. You could have said no!). McCain could have done a convincing Teddy Roosevelt. The mind reels with possibilities. Have to go. Insomnia makes me verbose ; apologies for the length of this letter. Thank you for your interesting blog & Have A Good Day. PS, thank you for your passing reference to Patrick Fitzgerald, whose life I truly, really fear for. In the papers, it was mentioned that Rezco et al had a meeting in 2004 to discuss how to 'remove' Fitzgerald. In Chicago, that means only one thing!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com