[MD] Intellect battles the [immigrant] barbarians

[Platt Holden]

> [Case]
> Now, now Platt, and we were doing so well. It is sad to see you turn into
> Ham's errand boy. 

I agree with Ham. You agree with the left. Does that make you the left's 
errand boy? (Logic, my friend, logic.)

> Is there a single thing on that list below that you think is good? Do you
> support abandoning the rearing of children to television and the dispersion
> of extended families? Are you for personal gratification over
> responsibility to loved ones? Are you seriously against public investment
> in infrastructure and human capital? Are you against stewardship of the
> environment?

Are you against individual liberty?  Responsibility? Self-discipline? Hard 
work? Competition? Initiative? Craftsmanship? Marriage?   

> I am also curious about this comment:
> 
> "Yes! FDR's "freedoms" were socialist from the get go. We are reaping the
> whirlwind of the FDR presidency, and going broke to boot."
> 
> I had to look this up but here is what Roosevelt said:
> 
> "The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.
> 
> The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way --
> everywhere in the world.
> 
> The third is freedom from want -- which, translated into world terms, means
> economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy
> peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.
> 
> The fourth is freedom from fear -- which, translated into world terms,
> means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a
> thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of
> physical aggression against any neighbor-- anywhere in the world.
> 
> That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a
> kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world
> is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the
> dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
> 
> To that new order we oppose the greater conception -- the moral order. A
> good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign
> revolutions alike without fear."
> 
> Clearly Roosevelt was wrong. These goals still elude us. In fact reading
> over the last to paragraphs it is almost like we decided if you can't lick
> 'em join 'em.
> 
> But do you seriously oppose these freedoms? 

I seriously oppose Utopian socialist schemes whereby Peter is robbed to 
pay Paul ("economic understandings") and nations are stripped of their 
right of self-defense (reduction of armaments).

> Are you against free of speech and worship?
> You think people should be unhealthy or at war?
> You support a climate of Fear?

Are you against individual liberty? Responsibility? Etc, etc?

> I don't mind being called a left winger because it is true. But I am
> actually a sucker for a rational argument if you can offer one up.

What is the rational argument for your list?

> Oh yeah, and remind your pal Ham that it was Reagan who ran up more debt
> during his tenure than all of his predecessors combined. Or perhaps the two
> of you could get together and explain how Clinton had balanced the budget
> and was actually having surpluses. But then poor George took over, spent
> the surplus and started borrowing again. What kind of economics is it you
> guys support again?

Clinton no more balanced the budget than Saddam bestowed freedom on his 
subjects. Whether you know it or not, Congress controls the purse strings. 
Clinton had a Republican Congress. Congress, including a majority of 
Democrats, also voted for the war and the funds to support it. Did you 
know the debt after WW II was 120 percent of GNP? How did we survive?

> Here is something I read on a bumper recently that might be worth
> pondering:
> 
> Clinton ruined a dress. Bush ruined a nation.

Is that your idea of a rational argument? :-)

Platt