Then I commend to your attention this post on Dan Drezner's blog. Not Drezner's post itself, which merely relays the common observation that a Giuliani presidency would be a disaster. But the comments. Like this:
The repuration [sic] Giuliani has here in Atlanta is:And this, from someone who signs himself "Houstoner":1. He got the crime out of New York;
2. He was tough after 9/11;
3. He's had an awful lot of wives, mistresses and stuff; but
3. We can forgive him all those wives and that social liberal stuff because of 1 and 2.
Could you elaborate on why all the experts think that gives us an unmitigated disaster as prez?
Keep in mind that what is a "civil-rights violation" to Al Sharpton is a "crackdown which Sharpton calls a civil-rights violation" to most of the rest of the country. Boo hoo, the enablers of thugs and hoodlums are whining! That is a feature, not a bug. ...This is what the modern Conservative movement has brought to America: Fascism, at least in the mold of Mussolini and Franco, is now respectable enough to walk around in public without embarassment.Lastly, I'm not interested in democracy. What is so magical about democracy? Democracy just means the thugs can vote to steal from me rather than try it themselves. If Iraq has taught me anything it is that, when the proportion of those who sympathise with thugs reached a critical point, democracy doesn't work. I'm put that point at about 30% and I will state categorically that certain cities have long ago passed that point. New York was one such city under Dinkins; and then there is Baghdad and (I'd argue) Houston.
3 Comments:
Indeed, the modern conservative movement can openly attack democracy and it doesn't hardly raise an eyebrow. If a Mussolini or Franco figure appeared on the political scene all of a sudden in the United States, he would not have to work all that hard to get at least a decent-sized following.
Sorry, but unfettered democracy does mean that the thugs can vote to steal from the productive people. And, it is also true that democracy becomes unworkable if too many people decide to vote themselves money from the productive people rather than to produce for themselves.
Of course, to the exten that I dislike "democracy" it is from a point of view of a semi-libertarian who, for the most part, doesn't like people using the vote to impose new regulations; not, as I suspect it is with Giuliani supporters, a dislike on having the populace as a check on the power of an autocratic executive.
I also think that Dinkins was definitely too easy on crime. Perhaps Giuliani went too far in the other direction, but there were real reasons why a "tough-on-crime" prosecutor was chosen for Mayor of New York.
Still, what New York may have needed in the 1990s is not what we need now. Giuliani would destroy civil liberties while promoting a liberal social agenda and likely push upon us more unnecessary wars.
Ron Paul 2008!
This was lovely thanks for sharing this
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home