![]() |
|
|
#9 | |
|
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,841 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474853 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Buchanan, Duke and Palin are all closer to one another than *any* of them is closer to the Pauls. I say this because Buchanan and Duke are just flat out white supremacists and Christian supremacists as well. Palin is, I think, a flat out theocrat while I don't think that Buchanan or Duke are theocrats. It is the Pauls (Ron and Rand) that I think are the more dangerous. Buchanan is unelectable, his moment has come and gone. Duke is unelectable as is Palin (she doomed herself when she quit being governor halfway through her term). Ron Paul may not be electable outside of the South but Rand just might be. The reason I think they are dangerous is that they favor such a minimal state that neither one of them would, if their public pronouncements are to be believed, lose a minute's worth of sleep if some large company were to institute a policy of overt discrimination. (Think Woolworth's lunch counters here) They would cluck about how 'regrettable' it was that a large company chose to discriminate and then they would happily give that company their patronage. They would then wax philosophical about how 'freedom' includes the freedom to be a racist ass and that while this is a sorry state of affairs, the government should not be involved in ameliorating this. Now, let's say that this discrimination takes the form of, say, not hiring non-whites. Let's say that this company is the largest employer in town. So effectively if you are non-white your chances of finding a job in this town have now rushed down toward zero. The Paul's would say that while this is sad, the people who found this untenable could just move or boycott the company. I think they are dangerous because until you actually take a hard look at what their libertarian philosophy leads to they might sound reasonable. Buchanan, Palin, Duke and, realistically, Bachmann you can see the danger a mile away. Either Paul would happily turn the clock back to a pre-1964 America and claim that this was the very essence of freedom. Cheers Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett) |
|
|
|
|
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post: |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|