Rollye out at WLAC.
Probably for the best. She had moments of genius, but you had to sort through hours of muck to get to those moments.
Is it a coincidence that her last show before being kicked off the station was about the Bilderbergers and John Edwards visit to them?
She's been replaced by a self-described "conservative Libertarian."
The guy had my hopes up until he urged us not to vote Libertarian, but to vote Republican because of that whole "lesser of two evils" crapument*. The lesser of two evils is still evil, Mister Sisco, and the two parties in the duopoly are equally evil anyway. It's just that one is evil in an economic sense and the other is evil in a social sense.
But suppose he's right about the lesser of two evils, and that a vote for a Libertarian is a vote for a Democrat. Is the rightness or wrongness of my vote a function of how other people vote? I think not. My vote, like my morality, stands on it's own. It does not depend on the votes or the morality of others.
If you vote for a Republican, you become an accomplice in every gay-bashing, theocracy-establishing, citizen-detaining action he takes. If you vote for a Libertarian, your hands are clean.
Suppose candidate A is polling at 49% and is running on a platform supporting killing all your male children. And suppose candidate B is polling at 49% and is running on a platform of killing all your female children. Now suppose candidate C is polling at 2% and is running on a platform of not killing ANY of your children.
If all you have are sons, do you vote for candidate B? If so, you are complicit in the killing of all the female children. No. You take the moral stand and vote for candidate C. And your hands are clean.
* - crapument: n., argument that is a load of crap.
posted by The Last American at 9:31:00 AM
View blog reactions
2 Comments:
Actually, you're underestimating the difference. And I know you occasionally, vote Republican, so I'm sure you realize it, but let me make you feel a little better about those Republican votes. ;) The Democrats have leaned in such a socialist direction that the different there is night and day. In terms of civil liberties, Democrats are often and perhaps usually worse than Republicans. Yes, Democrats defend gays in their bedrooms and in everyone's face. On the other hand, they oppose free speech far more than Republicans whether it's political correctness, hate crime laws, campaign finance laws cooked up with their RINO accomplices or bringing back the "Fairness" Doctrine in radio. Tipper Gore was a leading light in regulating music lyrics. Gun rights, a social issue and our ultimate defense against tyranny, Democrats are completely on the wrong side of.
On the other hand, Republicans regularly champion civil liberties. Bob Barr and other noted Republican conservatives oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, while an equal number of Democrats support it. If you figure in the heavy support of Republicans for real enforcement of Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties, Republicans certainly lean libertarian in both spheres while Democrats actually lean authoritarian in both.
Then there's the point, both practical and philosophical, that all rights are really property rights. If you're dependent on government for pen and paper, freedom of the press is moot. If you're dependent on government for your next meal, freedom of speech can be short circuited. Or, to paraphrase Mel Hancock, If you cut the government's purse strings, they CAN'T police your bedroom.
The basic philosophy of the Republican party is "that government is best which governs least." It's not a lesser of two evils situation since the "evil" is not the Republican philosophy, but the at best necessary and at worst intolerable evil of having a government in the first place.
I voted Republican in 2000 for some of the reasons you cited -- that it was supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility.
But the growth in non-defense spending has convinced me that the perception of the Republicans as fiscally responsible came as a result of them being the minority party in Congress all those years, when they COULD bitch about the majority's pork and other excesses, not as any inherent fiscal responsibility. The Republicans now control all three branches of government. If they believed what they SAY they believe, spending would be decreasing. Instead, it is growing faster than it did under Clinton.
I also sort of believed that while the Republicans were too authoritarian on the social side, their fiscal better natures would prevent them from funding Big Brother programs. Sadly, that is not the case.
Post a Comment
<< Home