1

"We do not see that person with contempt."

That, my fellow morons, is the crux of the biscuit.

2 Thanks for your view on this Ace.  I was hoping you would post on it.

3 El Rushbo ROCKS

4 Truly free people can never be equal and equal people can never be truly free.

or as rush has said before "the only way to keep a forest at equal height is by axe and saw"

5

Millions are now tuned in to hear what Rush has to say. Nobody is tuning in to hear what Rod Dreher has to say.

6

 This denies two bedrock truths of philosophical conservatism, which are that 1) human nature is fallen, and 2) man must learn to live within limits.

Who is the author of these bedrock truths or did he just pull them out of his ass?

7

I had never heard of this turd and I guess I can see why. I can go with the Jindal speech not being the best. It was a clear cut case of more of the old mushy “handlers” from the liberal wing having their say. We do need to purge them. I dopn’t get any of this other points though. I have watched large portions of the rush speech and I didn’t see anything in it but red meat for the real conservative crowd.

8 What crunchy-con Dreher didn't like was that there was a solid, fusionist, Reaganite libertarian-conservative strain running through Rush's address.  His very last line was something to the effect that "we want to make people better, but in the end, what they do behind the doors of their houses is no one's business," or words to that effect.  What crunchy-con really means is I want to be a social conservative and control your private lives AND be an economic liberal and control your economic lives through green regulation, enforced health codes, &c., &c.  Dreher's conservativism (like Russell Kirk's, in large part) is one essentially of statism and control.  What Rush realizes is that what the Republicans need to do now to survive is to re-invigorate a freedom coalition, not succumb to the "moderate/reformist" statists like McCain and David Brooks, or to the alternate-adjective statists like Dreher.  If Republican means freedom, personal responsibility, small government and strong defense, we win.  If it means "our kind of nanny state instead of theirs," then the Republicans lose -- since who among us can be bothered to play that fool's game.

9

"This is silly, bordering on the stupid-silly."

What do you expect?  Its Rod Dreher. A walking definition of silly.

10 You know why they're poor, you know why they remain poor?  Because their lives have been destroyed by the never-ending government hay that's designed to help them, but it destroys ambition. It destroys the education they might get to learn to be self-fulfilling.  And it breaks our heart. It breaks our heart.


Liberalism is cruel.

11

Here's a good response to Dreher and defence of Rush even if the blogger doesn't completely agree with him. (Charles Johnson also has an intelligent critique of part of Rush's speech out today, disagreeing with the end of Rush's speech and not turning into RINO-reformer crap.)

12 ...he was making the point that people, left to their own devices, are closer to such a natural state of grace...

Actually I don't think he even did that. Dreher's really off-base with the critique because Rush wasn't offering an evaluation of the morality of the American citizen. He just said that we aren't made better by Government. Not being made better by government is a far cry from saying that Americans are by nature good. Dreher's critique is a willfull misreading of what Rush actually said.

13 I don't see how Dreher got out of that quote of Limbaugh's any sort of advancement of tabula rasa (or, for that matter, Kant's "dark shadow"), rather, it's just stating the obvious that people have untapped potential.  While human nature may be fallen, it seems as though Dreher is advocating far more "limits" that mankind must operate under than I (or most people here, for that matter) would be comfortable with.  Natural liberty comes with expectations, not limits.  We should leave the limits in the domain of the Left.

14
He mostly spoke to the base.

You know what?

I think he had to remind the base and in particular remind the Republicans in Congress who have lost their way what we believe and why we believe it.

We needed that speech not to recruit new members but to refresh our memories. We've been in a funk with no leadership. We've let others tell us what Conservatism is as we lost our way wandering in the wilderness.

15

Rush is in a unique position where he really has a very big advantage against President Obama.  Barry cannot seem to contain himself when someone puts in a good jab.  He seems like the kind of personality that absolutely MUST counter.  Unfortuantely for Barry, the more he makes snippy remarks about Rush, the more people will start to listen / read Rush, and the more validity it lends to what Rush is saying.  Rush loses no face by criticising the President.  It is his job, and his base of patrons isn't going anywhere.  Barry, on the other hand, only comes across as snarky and (dar I say it?) unPresidential when he starts swiping back with personal attacks and attempts to marginalize.

There was even a soundbite I saw where Barry waffled on the exact quote about "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done" in Washington.  He certainly wouldn't provide the exact quote to the interviewer, but he seemed to get this defensive air about the fact that, since this remark was not delivered in a speech to the American People, it should not be quote-fodder.

16 Don't worry.  I got dozens more just like Dreher, and more applying for his position all the time.

17 "Rod Dreher" Fran who?

18

"Dreher's critique is a willfull misreading of what Rush actually said."

90% of the time, that's the way that anyone ever criticises something Rush Limbaugh says.  And since Rush went and spoiled everybody's fun by pointing out to his critics that his "Jindal got time off from 7-11" joke was accurately aimed at Joe Biden, they're left grasping at whatever else they can.

19

I want Obama to fail, too.  And not just a little, spectacularly.

There I said it.  I'm evil.

20

What crunchy-con really means is I want to be a social conservative and control your private lives AND be an economic liberal and control your economic lives through green regulation, enforced health codes, &c., &c. Dreher's conservativism (like Russell Kirk's, in large part) is one essentially of statism and control.

There are some people commenting on this blog who make seem Slow Joe Biden seem positively brilliant.

If you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, don't talk.

21
Shep is wrong and I'll tell you why: If Shep was right, then Rush Limbaugh is perfectly okay with the Left's social engineering, which he's not. Shep is wrong.

What people like Shep don't understand is that the so-called religious conservatives or social conservatives are not activists, they are re-activists. They simply react to the radical leftist anti-American agenda to change our American culture.

If you think I'm wrong, which I'm not, give me an example of when the "social cons" initiated any type of legislation or referendum without first being antagonized by the Liberal Left.

Sp please, stop equating the social conservative or religious right or whatever you want to call us in the GOP with the Leftwing social activists.

22 "Religious-Left Conservative-Socialism"

That's exactly how I would characterize southern and mid-western African-American democrat voters. They are largely socially conservative, but still vote for commie-crats...again, and again, and again.

23 I also thought the speech was excellent, and the portion you quote says it all. Why don't any Republican politicians talk like this?! And yes, our rights derive from our belief in a higher power.  Here's a quote from a speech from decades ago.

"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."

What right wing, Christianist nut said it?

JFK.

Sad how things have changed.

24

"There are some people commenting on this blog who make seem Slow Joe Biden seem positively brilliant.

If you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, don't talk."

 

I've read Dreher's blog and it seems pretty correct.  I do think that he's good on a few points (we shouldn't be buying crap we don't need).  Along with constantly scaring people about how we're entering a new Dark Ages and should all start planting gardens and preparing for the End Times, large portions of the blog seem dedicated to how government should limit citizens freedom both on the social/ morality front and the economic front. 

25 Rush spoke to the base

considering america is still a center right nation, i'd say he spoke to the base indeed

26
by the way, who the heck is Rod Drehner?

27

Liberalism, in addition to being cruel, is a symptom of a mental disease that seeks control. Not control of one's own self (the good kind), but control of others. It's a disease that's borne of a hugely inflated ego. "I'm the smartest guy in the room!" Usually, it doesn't take much to see that when someone says or thinks this, the reverse is actually true. Most of us have had our ego deflated at one time or another, the difference is we can learn from our mistakes. Liberals never do.

28

I wouldn;t be surprised if Rodd has a personal ad out there with a picture of his ass as the calling card.

29 Polynikes @ 6:

Q: Who is the author of these bedrock truths [...]?

A: God.

BTW, shouldn't you be rotting outside the walls of Thebes?

30 Dreher's an idiot. As soon as he went off on the "crunchy-con" tangent a few years back, I gave up on him.

Reading some of the pro/anti Rush debates today, it strikes me that the current conservative-on-conservative fights going on right now can be boiled down to a simple description:

The alleged conservative side consists of those who care what the Dems and the media think. The conservative side consists of those who don't give a damn what the Dems and the media think.

I'm on the "don't give a damn" side, FWIW.

As I commented last week, we aren't going to win their approval, EVER. So why bother?

31

I've read Dreher's blog and it seems pretty correct. 

Unless you've read Kirk you're not in a position to know whether Shep knows what he's talking about.

large portions of the blog seem dedicated to how government should limit citizens freedom both on the social/ morality front and the economic front. 

Not having read the blog I can't speak to that. But the entire point of government is to limit citizens freedom. This is sometimes a good thing and sometimes not. After all, our current economic meltdown was caused by people exercising their freedom.

 

In general "freedom" is a term tossed around alot but which means different things to different people. When we on the right say freedom, we mean some very specific things by the word. Other people use it to mean very different things.

32 Ugh, Michael Steele: "Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes it's incendiary, yes it's ugly." WTF?

33

On the same night he was offering the keynote address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Rush Limbaugh drew criticism from an unlikely source: Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

In a little-noticed interview Saturday night, Steele dismissed Limbaugh as an “entertainer” whose show is “incendiary” and “ugly.”

But the new RNC chairman’s extraordinary comments won’t sit well with the millions of conservative listeners Limbaugh draws each week, and Steele aides scrambled to limit the damage Monday morning by trying to change the subject.

“Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats know they lose an argument with the Republican Party on substance so they are building straw men to attack and distract,” said RNC spokesman Alex Conant.

34

I agree with the Shep guy.

That's how I read it too, right from the get go with the reference to Russeau. He's bitching about the libertarian bend to the speech. He's a kind of guy that wants to impose a certain life on people. It's probably the McCain type of moderate shit, not the wackie fundie stuff where they want to ban Harry Potter and gambling, but it's the same damn thing as the left, only a different flavor. Different guys have different visions of how they should be forcing you to live.

Dreher thinks that people left to their own devices will be no good, and the government exists to force them to behave better.

I think that guy is right about Kirk too. Very much old school 'conservatism', not the Goldwater/Reagan libertarian/conservative stuff. Statist authoritarianism. Tories.

35

Rod Dreher used to write for NR (yeah huge shocker).

The guy is a bitter punk. Like I said over at Hot Air these "conservative intellectuals" really hate morons like us and Rush, because

1. We're smarter than them

2. We don't care if our positions piss off our libtard friends like they do

These guys have bought the libtard canard that liberalism is based on reason. Its not. Its based on emotion. It just cloaks itself with the mantel of reason. Conservatism is based on reason. Conservatives only adopt a position if it is proven to be good (good in the classical sense). Not if it sounds good or feels good. Conservatism naturally views all ideas with skepticism, which is why some smear conservatism as anti-intellectual, when in fact it is rigourously intellectual. Dipshits like Dreher don't get that.

36 What crunchy-con Dreher didn't like was that there was a solid, fusionist, Reaganite libertarian-conservative strain running through Rush's address

Of course, Dreher's larger problem is that he's a complete fuckwit. He used to be mostly OK back in the day, but then a few years ago, he got on that silly-stupid "crunchy con" kick and ended up huffing Wendell Berry's butt gas.

37

OT  This story is over at the mypetjawa:

BRITAIN’S nuclear defence HQ could be under threat from terrorists using Google Earth.

I stated this in another thread today about Holder's statement that under O we will not torture, er waterboard, I FEEL SAFE.  Okay, not really.  I think they want an attack so they can establish martial law. Then they can take our guns, quell 'riots', stop all speech, and stop all 'arguments' against the STATE.

38

Rush was brilliant and saying EXACTLY what needs to be said. The ISSUE IS freedom! The rest of it is arguing about details. We are LOSING our freedom right now to a bunch of communist motherfuckers...exactly how are we losing? Because we are trying to sell a slightly different version of the bullshit that the Democrats/Communists are selling.

We have two ways out of this mess. We win the political debate or we fight a shooting war. No fucking way am I giving up my freedom to that bunch of fucks who pal around with the likes of Ayers and Wright. Fuck that!

Fuck Dreyer, Parker, Frum, Will, and the rest of those asskissing conservatives...we are at war and they simply don't get it. Rush on the other hand gets it.

39 And by the way, "crunchy con" = "Luddism on the half shell."

40 Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 02, 2009 12:47 PM (1Jaio)

I just saw that, too.  In fact, it's a featured news item on Yahoo front page.  WTF??

41 But the entire point of government is to limit citizens freedom.

Exactly wrong.  The entire point of (our) government, from the Declaration to the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, starts from the premise that government has no inherent power to limit any freedom; and that it is the people who tell the government what it can and cannot do -  not the other way around.

42

After all, our current economic meltdown was caused by people exercising their freedom.

Bullshit.

Bull. Shit.

Our current economic meltdown is a result of government regulations that forced businesses to create conditions of perverse incentives. People then - of course - acted mostly rationally and in their best interest according to the new idiotic ass backward rules.

43

@31

After all, our current economic meltdown was caused by people exercising their freedom.

Au contraire. Our current economic meltdown was caused by the government forcing the free market system to violate basic the basic rules that have helped our country prosper for over two centuries. Lenders were forced to give loans to folks who couldn't afford them, in the well-meaning notion that everyone should own a home. Can't fault that notion, but there's a right way and a wrong way to achieve it. The right way is to stay out of the way of businesses so everyone who wants a decent paying job has one. The wrong way is what we're seeing now, with negative results that reach around the world.

44 Ok Steele, no matter what form it comes in, the truth hurts.  Rush has the crazy ability to articulate things well, better than Obama IMHO.  No flowery talk, no talking out both sides of his mouth, just genuine truth.

45

That's how I read it too, right from the get go with the reference to Russeau. He's bitching about the libertarian bend to the speech.

Dude, unless you think that Rousseau was a libertarian, that makes zero sense. And I know you don't think Rousseau was a libertarian.

Dreher thinks that people left to their own devices will be no good, and the government exists to force them to behave better.

The first half of that statement is correct, and it describes Reaganite conservatism.

I think that guy is right about Kirk too. Very much old school 'conservatism', not the Goldwater/Reagan libertarian/conservative stuff.

Conservatism by definition is "old school". And Reagan believed exactly as Kirk did. Why do I keep getting the feeling that I'm the only person who's ever read Reagan or is familiar with his policies?

 

 

46 But the entire point of government is to limit citizens freedom.

That right there sums up the difference between "progressives" and conservatives and I'm afraid Drehr and the seem to have fallen in with the "progressive" world-view.

"Progressives" believe in Government.  Conservatives believe in the Constitution which was expressly designed to promote citizen's freedom by limiting the power of government.

47

I'm not a talk-radio fan, but I've always said that there is both a qualitative and a perceptive difference between Rush Limbaugh and his many imitators. It isn't just that he did talk-radio first, or that he gave a voice to conservatives in a media environment saturated with left-liberal bias; it isn't just that he brough showmanship and media savvy to socio-political discourse; it isn't just that he's genuinely funny. It's that he's smart. Far smarter than both his detractors and many of his own fans give him credit for.

Rush, whatever you think of him, has to be admired for his consistency if nothing else. He is not a fair-weather conservative. He will tack against the wind or sail along with it, but his compass always points to the north star. He has a well thought out, internally-consistent, and philosophically sound ideology -- something others of both right and left are bereft of.

Both political poles are prone to totalitarian absolutism: on the left, it is the socialist/communist kind; on the right, it is of the fascist/corporatist kind. Rush's conception of highly-individualized freedom is the utter antithesis of the totalitarian bent of mind, which is why I'm perfectly comfortable with him being "the voice of the GOP" (although Rush himself has often stressed that he is a Conservative, not a Republican -- he votes along conservative lines, not party lines).

Rush himself needs no defenders or champions; he is quite able to deal with the many slings and arrows directed at him. But I would like people to take him more seriously as an examplar of political philosophy, because I think his ideas are the most coherent and fully-formed conservative philosophy abroad today.

BTW, greetz to my fellow morons whom I have shamefully ignored for many a lonesome moon.

 

48

I think the entire point of government is to protect people's freedom.

Specifically, I NEED a government to protect me from other governments. The #1 purpose of any government. Defense against foreign governments. Nature abhors a vacuum, and all that, so you need a place holder.

Beyond that, what use are they to me? None.

Protect me from thieves, murderers, mobs, and chinese emporers, and otherwise bugger off.

49

OT   War College warns of civil unrest, looting, and violence against the government.

http://tinyurl.com/3v9rfa

 

50

In a little-noticed interview Saturday night, Steele dismissed Limbaugh as an “entertainer” whose show is “incendiary” and “ugly.”

Well, I guess it's easier for you people to beat up on Dreher than  Steele, considering how many of you cheered on Steeles election to the RNC. I told you the man was trouble.

 

51
And this is why we lose at the polls...

Wer'e on a runaway freigh train with Obama while he is turning America into Venezuela and we're worried about Don Drener, or whatever his name is.

Ron Dreher is not our problem. He might be rubbing some of us the wrong way, but that's merely an internal problem. People like Michael Steele are killing the GOP.

Michael Steele is causing the Republican party decay and wither. That piece of shit cocksucker sold out Rush Limbaugh to a typical Hollywood ignoramus, DL Hughley, and some hip hop rapper.

The rapper, who has done more damage to the "black community" in the last 20 years than they can ever dream "the Man" did, was treated like Gandhi by DL Hughley while Michael Steele was treated like an Uncle Tom piece of shit.

Steele, being a man of no integrity, giggled like a bitch and agreed with those two assholes while they shit all over the GOP.

52

I think the entire point of government is to protect people's freedom.

Aw, please. What the hell is "freedom"?

I know what you mean by it. I'm just saying you need to give the full explanation and not do this shorthand thing. Because a lot of people use "freedom" to mean something different. So you end up saying stuff you don't want to say.

For instance, I don't think you really want to say that the government exists to protect Madoff's freedom to rip people off.

53

After all, our current economic meltdown was caused by people exercising their freedom.

I clipped this to paste and ask for an explanation.  If you claim to know anything about the issues you have know that this meltdown was caused almost exclusively by the Democraps.

54

But the entire point of government is to limit citizens freedom.

That right there sums up the difference between "progressives" and conservatives

No, it does not. If we had zero need to limit peoples "freedoms" we have have zero need for any government and would have no Constitutuion or country at all.

55

To some, man's fallen nature calls out for regulation by government. To others, it's proof that any government by men, including those attempting to represent God's intent, will fall prey to that fallen nature, and therefore must be limited.

Same vein, those limits that man must live within may be imposed by government, or learned by the influence of societal mores--most often reflected in the marketplace.

So Entropy is correct to invoke the word "Tory" here. There is a difference between an American conservative and an Old World conservative. That's something we don't often discuss.

 

56 The trouble with the Crunchy Cons is that they also pursue the 'golden age' fallacy, believing that historical, simpler ways are the natural cure towards the good. And yet they constantly lambaste the 'Noble Savage' fallacy without seeing any contradiction. 'Luddite on the half-shell' about sums it up.

BTW, I haven't any ill-will harbored towards Crunchies.

57

Come on, Michael Steele had the courage to oppose Eric Holder based on his lack of integrity (oh, wait, he drooled over Holder because of his skin color). 

58

Dude, unless you think that Rousseau was a libertarian, that makes zero sense. And I know you don't think Rousseau was a libertarian.

No, he was not. It was the reference. He was comparing Limbaugh's speech to Rousseau. The whole man is born perfect and then made  flawed 'tear down the institutions' thing. To see that in Limbaugh's speech says a lot of the vantage point of the person who makes the observation. He's defending the idea that institutions are needed to better the nature of man - which is fine and dandy and I agree, except - He's using it in reference to the institution of government.

At which point I must pull out John Locke - there can be no moral virtue without choice.

The first half of that statement is correct, and it describes Reaganite conservatism.

B.S. Total BS.

Reagan (and Goldwater before him) redefined "conservative" like F.D.R. redefined "liberal". Liberal use to mean the exact opposite of what it means today. Liberal use to mean ... well, what Reagan was. Classically liberal.

Old school "conservatives", conservative back when "liberal" was still classical, was not what it is today. Back then Reagan and Goldwater would have been liberals. 'classical conservatism' so to speak is as different from modern conservatism as modern liberalism is from classical liberalism. Since FDR stole 'liberal', Goldwater types needed a new name and stole 'conservative'. Because it was available - nothing but a handful of stodgy old country-club types drinking martinis and smoking cigars.

Conservatism by definition is "old school".

See above. No.

And Reagan believed exactly as Kirk did.

He was influenced by Kirk. They agreed on some things. I'd hardly call them identical.

Do not forget who Reagan entered politics championing: Barry Goldwater. To deny the libertarian bend of either of them is plainly idiotic.

59 @35:

As an intellectual conservative-turned-libertarian, I have one thing to say...

...keep up the witch hunt.  We'll just leave the GOP, take our ideas with us, and never look back.  I did that five years ago and couldn't be happier.

If your political movement denigrates your ideas, look for a new movement.

60
Here's cocksucker Steele on DL Hughley.

You're not going to believe your ears.

Listen how Steele agrees with some douchbag racist rapper "Chuck D" when "D" says the Republicans do nothing for the blacks.

61

I clipped this to paste and ask for an explanation.  If you claim to know anything about the issues you have know that this meltdown was caused almost exclusively by the Democraps.

Assuming that it was caused almost exclusively by the Democraps, than they were simply exercising their freedoms. How is that not obvious? You don't think Angelo Melillo was exercising his freedom?

You and a lot of others here are not really using freedom to mean "people behaving the way they want to behave". You're using it to mean "people behaving the way I think they should behave". You don't really think the Democraps should be free to do the things they've been doing.

When people on the right, very much including libertarians, use the word "freedom", they do not mean people doing whatever they want. This should be blindlingly obvious. But the libertarians are so fucking gung-ho to try to make a distinction between themselves and the hated Christo-fascists that they keep forgetting it.

 

62 If Steele had a fucking brain and a set, he'd be on the phone to Limbaugh's show TODAY to try to explain away his statement!.  The Libune's e-lede is a faceoff between that lizard Emanuel and Limbaugh.  Steele should be embarrassed, like Biden-level embarrassed, that he's not even considered ta rival for power. 

63 I knew Steele was gonna bite us in the ass, I just didn't think it'd be that quick.

64 flenser: "No, it does not. If we had zero need to limit peoples "freedoms" we have have zero need for any government and would have no Constitutuion or country at all."

Now that's just plain obtuse. You know he didn't mean "zero need." I'm pretty sure he meant an extremely limited need to limit people's freedoms -- as in, the huddled masses have retain all rights not expressly defined by the Constitution -- and not zero.

65 Darling--

Michael Steele is not killing off the GOP. That idiot Mike Duncan did far more in his short tenure than Steele will ever do. How can anyone not understand that a 9 percent-approval Congress led by Democrats must be targeted? How can anyone not understand that the mendacious leftwing pap spewed from the Beltway press is designed and implemented as a means of discouraging Republicans? It is this--the self-fulfilling prophecy that Republicans would lose in 2006--that caused the very thing to happen by causing the feckless and spineless to retire from office rather than be in the "all but certain" minority position. Q.E.D.

Michael Steele has barely even found the coffeemaker at RNC. I don't think he is really blameworthy of anything yet. You should truly give this anti-Steele, anti-Jindal thing a rest.

66
OT: Whoever linked the song on the sidebar: Niiiiiiiiiice

67

I still don't get this argument.  What it the point?  Why are we arguing such trivialities?  That is what our leaders want us to do.  They bring up RUSH, not to belittle his message, but to keep Cons. and Repubs. busy.

If we are debating amongst ourselves, we have no time to keep an eye on what they are doing.

68 have/retain

69 If your political movement denigrates your ideas, look for a new movement.

Word.  But where is the new movement?

70

Aw, please. What the hell is "freedom"?

A question that has bedeviled many over the ages, to be sure. However, I think that in this context it's clear that we're talking about "freedom" in a spiritual and socio-political sense, not in the sense of being able to move in an unrestricted fashion. Perhaps we should use "liberty" rather than "freedom", much as the Founders did, to avoid just such problems.

I think the basic axiom is that only persons may have liberty; that liberty is a property of the individual and not the collective. Restricting the liberty of law-abiding citizens is by definition injurious to the whole concept of liberty.

Government is a necessary evil, being as it is a regulartory body. It exists, at base, to do three things: to moderate the behavior of the more extreme among us (via the criminal justice system), foster an environment where the economy can function on a level playing-field (via contract and tort law), and protect the body politic from foreign threat (via military and diplomatic action). That's it.

Now obviously people hold vastly different conceptions as to the area enclosed by these three purposes, but I think it's self-evident that the greater the government's power over the individual grows, the less liberty an individual has. Sometimes this is justified, as when a criminal is incarcerated; most often, though, the power is misused. (Confiscatory taxes, favors to special-interest groups, and so on.) The problem at base is that a republican form of government is simply not very efficient, beholden as it is to the whims of voters. Big-government types assume that size confers the benefits of scale, whereas in reality size simply makes an already-inefficient government more ponderous and corrupt than it would normally be.

Government is a cost center, not a profit center. It does not generate wealth (although it can foster growth through policy) but only eats it via taxes. If government is allowed to grow too large, then it consumes everything and gives nothing back: it's a beast that eats and eats and grows larger still and must eat still more. Eventually it will collapse under its own weight.

 

71

Hey, man, like lighten up dude.  Don't you know Wednesday nights are now officially get fucked up and dance nights?

Give me that good ole time "Hope and Change".

http://tinyurl.com/awrhpj

Kemp

72 P.S. --

I really despise anyone who calls himself "crunchy." The only good thing about Dreher is that instead of writing in perpetuity for NRO, he will be out of a job soon when the Dallas Morning News goes bankrupt.

73 No the government doesn't exist to protect Madoff's freedom to rip people off.  It exists to protect my freedom to invest my money however and with whomever I choose even if my judgement may be poor or my priorities might be different from John Kerry's.

Hey John, is that you?  I'm kinda curious why'd you pick "flenser" as a handel?

74 Towards the larger point, nuancing it a bit and spitting in the wind at the same time:

I know a lot of us are disgusted with the NorthEastern Establishment/ Ivy- League Republicans, but we're going to need them and I think the next round of candidates, especially Presidential, are going to have to come from their ranks.

We need someone wicked smart and polished who won't take shit from O based on his obvious poor character. To give an example: When O started up with the middle finger scratching BS, McC [if he wasn't a shitheel] should've said: "That, sir, is a filthy and base personal insult which highlights your low origins and lack of basic respect and character. Allowing this evidently filthy-minded scurrilous cur to rule the nation would be the height of stupidity."

And then the warfare would begin in earnest. As long as the man retains composure and class, but is willing to fight in the spirit of honorable duels - and not give a shit about the MSM but only the voter and leadership - he should do well.

The populist Red Stater type has a role, of course, but I think this fight is going to call for another type right now.

75

There is a difference between an American conservative and an Old World conservative.

Absolutely. I totally agree with everything you said.

But I point out - there is a difference between an American liberal and an Old World liberal. Old World liberals are American conservative.

This is because the terms have not been demagogued in the old world - only in the US. They don't mean what they use to over here - both have been redefined.

FDR redefined liberal and Goldwater (and much more prominently, Reagan with his sparkly new political map) redefined what it meant to be conservative.

And my position is they redefined it to mean exactly what 'liberal' use to mean before FDR turned it into progressivism.

76

Evil Midnight Bomber :

You want to nominate Bill Buckley?

Buckley is OK but he's sorta ... pining for the fjords. Because if we're calling in the Voodoo Priestesses I say we go way back and just ressurect Calvin Coolidge or Thomas Jefferson.

77
You should truly give this anti-Steele, anti-Jindal thing a rest.

Are you a dunce?

First, watch the video I linked and then tell me Steele still deserves a chance.

Second, calling me "anti-Jindal" proves you are a dunce. I've said many times I like Gov Jindal -- he's a great Conservative leader. I appreciate his sticking his neck out and advancing the conservative agenda when so many of the leaders in the GOP are scared. lazy, and mute.I even defended Jindal against other's silly criticsism about his speech last week. They ragged on Jindal as if they were judges on American Idol.

But since I don't think he's a good candidate for 2012, I anti-Jindal? I guess that makes me anti-Palin, too, right, dunce?

78

"Perhaps that's right and Dreher isn't merely contradicting to contradict -- perhaps he does dream of strong Daddy Government instructing and bullying us as regards both personal and economic morality."

True, and in which case, crunch-con is way too generous.  Sounds altogether progressive to me.  (In the liberal/socialist vernacular kinda way) - (as opposed to the good vernacular) (I'm kinda letting this comment get away from me) (so I'll just stop) (and go back to dreaming about green numbers in my portfolio... and ponies - pink ones).

79 76 -
Dunno who. I just know its a kind of type. Maybe a Southern Gentry sort who work as well, too, but we're going to need the polish and spirit.

None of that is to say we should sell out our values in favor of type.

80

It does not generate wealth (although it can foster growth through policy)

Monty -

Government can ONLY foster growth through policy when it's already hindered growth through policy first.

It can only cease doing what damage it was doing in the first place. I wouldn't really give it too much credit.

If I STOP pooring vodka in my potted fern, I guess you could say I'm 'helping it grow' now just by not pooring vodka in it anymore.

If I stop knocking off banks maybe I should get a check from law enforcement for helping protect them, simply by not myself robbing them anymore.

81 #47 Monty:  +10.

82 Darling, thanks for the link to that video.  I am dumbfounded by Steele's performance on that ridiculous show.  After the total destruction of our economy, Obama's next biggest legacy seems to be a revival of racism.  Although, my favorite part of the video was the look on Chuck D's face when Steele assumed he was from the projects, as part of his whole amazing shuck and jive routine.  Really, really distasteful.

83

No, he was not. It was the reference. He was comparing Limbaugh's speech to Rousseau.

So where does the libertarian thing you spoke of come in?

Reagan (and Goldwater before him) redefined "conservative" like F.D.R. redefined "liberal"

BS. Total BS.

Old school "conservatives", conservative back when "liberal" was still classical, was not what it is today.

You don't know what you're talking about. So-called "classical liberalism" is a modern innovation. People like Adam Smith and Edmund Burke thought exactly alike, and Burke was a conservative. Of course you could re-define Burke as a liberal, but in that sense everybody on earth is a liberal. If you asked any 18th or 19th century liberal about "gay marriage", they'd have had you committed to the nearest madhouse.

 

Do not forget who Reagan entered politics championing: Barry Goldwater. To deny the libertarian bend of either of them is plainly idiotic.

I suggest you take the time to consider the polices of Reagan while in office. They were not remotely libertarian. And then take the time to read his famous "evil empire" speech, which Dreher might approve of.

http://tinyurl.com/5l37n3

So I tell you there are a great many God-fearing, dedicated, noble men and women in public life, present company included. And yes, we need your help to keep us ever mindful of the ideas and the principles that brought us into the public arena in the first place. The basis of those ideals and principles is a commitment to freedom and personal liberty that, itself, is grounded in the much deeper realization that freedom prospers only where the blessings of God are avidly sought and humbly accepted.

 

84

I think you are arguing just to be arguing.  A real conservative knows that his freedom ends where another’s begins.

 

But still that is no explanation for why you think “freedom” caused the meltdown. In fact, it was the exact opposite.

 

First we had CRA with it’s revisions in the Clinton years. Force private companies to loan money to slum dwellers who could not afford it. The Democraps infringed on the freedom of the banks to operate as they saw fit without interference from the government.

 

Second, in order to facilitate the banks making loans to the slum dwellers the FOB at F&F devised an underhand scheme to package the bad loans and sell them to other banks and investment houses. Now they were exercising their freedom to operate as they saw fir but their operation engaged in fraud. Again, their activities infringed on others.

 

Third BO and his ilk used a malevolent law, a malevolent jury, and a corrupt tort system to force banks to make even more loans to the slum dwellers.

 

So what we have as described by Frederick Bastiat is a government that aids the plunderers by misuse of the law and state power instead of a government which is supposed to protect its citizens from the plunderers.

 

This is NOT freedom.

85 Also, what Rush pounds on is all about individual worth, dignity, responsibility, and struggle for achievement.

When the MSM turds try to hang Rush around the necks of Repubs, the answer comes right from Rush himself: "Rush is an individual saying what he believes. When we agree or disagree, its based on the merits. I'm entitled to my beliefs and so is he, and I don't think Rush would ever disagree with that. Trying to force us all into ideological conformity is the work of fascism, and I"m sure you're not in favor of that, are you?"

And then they should insist that Ann Coulter is the beating heart of the GOP, just for laughs.

86

When people on the right, very much including libertarians, use the word "freedom", they do not mean people doing whatever they want. This should be blindlingly obvious. But the libertarians are so fucking gung-ho to try to make a distinction between themselves and the hated Christo-fascists that they keep forgetting it.

Yes, I do mean it. Don't tell me what I mean.

I don't begrude democrats effective strategy. I expect them to act in their own best interest.

87

No the government doesn't exist to protect Madoff's freedom to rip people off.  It exists to protect my freedom to invest my money however and with whomever I choose ...

Well, yeah. Thanks for reinforcing what I've been saying.

88

Most of what Rush said was right, as usual, but he took way too long to say it. The speech was rambling and unfocused, and it was a bit annoying having to sit through him repeating the same things over and over in case there was some nugget that I wouldn't want to have missed.

89

Don't know who this "flenser" person is, but based on his/her/it's posts here today, we clearly have an idiot on our hands.  Nothing personal...

 

90

Most of what Rush said was right, as usual, but he took way too long to say it. The speech was rambling and unfocused, and it was a bit annoying having to sit through him repeating the same things over and over in case there was some nugget that I wouldn't want to have missed.

Posted by: CraigC at March 02, 2009 01:37 PM (Wqc7H)

Dittos.

91 "We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government."

" I liked that and . . ."

_____

I like it, too.  It was the contempt shown for regular Americans - like Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin this summer - that radicalized me.

How.  Dare they.

92

Yes, I do mean it. Don't tell me what I mean.

Great. Then on what basis do you object to the activites of the people who brought our economy and our culture to its current state? After all, they were simply exercising their freedom. By what right may other people impose statist laws to prevent them doing what they did?

 

I don't begrude democrats effective strategy. I expect them to act in their own best interest.

They are acting in their own best interest. They don't define their best interest in the same manner as you do.

93

we clearly have an idiot on our hands.

We sure do, "Cave Bear".

94

So where does the libertarian thing you spoke of come in?

In the part you didn't quote. Convienent, eh?

BS. Total BS.

See now when I said that, I actually explained it afterward.

People like Adam Smith and Edmund Burke thought exactly alike

For what it's worth - Burke was a Whig, not a Tory. The Whig party is indeed a part of Reagan's lineage and that of classical liberalism.

However, in Burkes day, the Whigs (which he was a part of) WERE NOT CONSERVATIVE. The Tory's were. Read your history.

Burke was considered part of the conservative wing OF the Whigs (we speak now of slight leanings), but not hardly a Tory himself. He accused the Tories of ruining what England meant through their authoritianism.

You say the meaning of 'conservative' has not changed yet your examples of what it was (Smith and Burke) weren't in the damn conservative party but the opposition to it. Hmmm.

95

They are acting in their own best interest. They don't define their best interest in the same manner as you do.

Uh-fuckin-duh, dude?

I said I don't begrudge them. It means what I said. I expect them to act the way they act.

I do not expect them to act in what I think are their best interests...

96 Hey, Darling--

Yeah, I'm a dunce. That really hurts.

The fact is that you have been on an anti-Steele, anti-Jindal jihad for about two weeks and it's getting a little old. Both of these guys are inside the tent and we should be glad to have them. What the hell is wrong with you?

97

>> BTW, greetz to my fellow morons whom I have shamefully ignored for many a lonesome moon.

 

What's UP BIZZATCH?

98

Great. Then on what basis do you object to the activites of the people who brought our economy and our culture to its current state? After all, they were simply exercising their freedom. By what right may other people impose statist laws to prevent them doing what they did?

A) What the bloody hell are you talking about?

B) As far as I can guess what the hell you're talking about: I don't.

I don't object to the activities of the people who caused this economic problem.

I object to the government setting up a perverse incentive system that made it perfectly reasonable, fine, and rational for them to behave in such a way.

And I don't want any "statist laws" imposed to stop them from doing anything. I want the existing "statist laws" that made them act this way, to go away.

You just keep reinterpreting everything I say to mean something else entirely. No, I actually mean what I say. Stop assuming my positions on everything - or at least, stop assuming wrongly.

99 RE: CraigC@88

Remember though that this was Limbaugh's "first national address to the nation." If it had just been to CPAC, I imagine he might have been less redundant or long-winded. (I didn't think it was since that is his style when he has a big theme to reveal, but anyhoo...) He was trying to be entertaining yet remind a larger audience with varying degrees of sophistication what Conservatism means. Becasue the voting public is full of Teh Stoopid, saying something over and over is necessary. See "Bush lied, people died."

Rush was a prisoner to his bigger audience.

100 If Rod and the "crunchy cons" don't prevail in the "conservative" movement, they will increasingly lose heart and formally become the "moderate" democrats they already actually are (and without such a migration, there will scarcely be a Democrat who's right of Marx in a very short while).  If that happens, the Republican party might become a worthwhile organization again.

101

Government can ONLY foster growth through policy when it's already hindered growth through policy first.

Well...government has a role in actually helping idividuals to build wealth. True, this role is mainly a "less is more" thing, but sometimes actual policy helps.

Think about property rights -- that's only viable due to a combination of contract and tort law. The regulation of a common stock market and commodities exchange(s) is another. Think of it as establishing the ground-rules for a baseball game. You have the "book" rules, but sometimes you also need special rules for a given place or situation. This requires mediation and enforcement. Government coercion is a necessary backstop to protect individual property rights; otherise you'd run into a "tragedy of the commons" situation, or outright warfare on the streets. (Of course, this can go too far and then you get the noxious "eminent domain" travesties where the government simply steals someones' property for "the public good" -- whatever the hell that is.)

There's also the issue of tax policy, but that's a very deep swamp.

 

102

In the part you didn't quote. Convienent, eh?

Uh, you never managed to connect Rousseau to libertarianism in any fashion. And I don't think it can be done. But by all means, feel free to quote whatever it was you think I left out.

For what it's worth - Burke was a Whig, not a Tory. The Whig party is indeed a part of Reagan's lineage and that of classical liberalism.

Burke is universally accepted as the father of the political movement we call "conservatism".

However, in Burkes day, the Whigs (which he was a part of) WERE NOT CONSERVATIVE. The Tory's were. Read your history.

 

Read yours. I'm not talking about the Tories. I'm discussing conservatism. It had nothing to do with the Torys. There was no Tory part in Burkes time.

http://tinyurl.com/d8f9xl

You say the meaning of 'conservative' has not changed yet your examples of what it was (Smith and Burke) weren't in the damn conservative party but the opposition to it.

There was no damn "conservative party" at all. Not by that name or by the Tory name. There were simply different factions of Whigs. Crack a history book sometime.

 

103

What's UP BIZZATCH?

I've been trying to live my life as I think you would have wished it, O Most Illustrious Child of the Moon and Stars.

Werd!

 

104

To the topic of who do the Republicans get to run up against the O team -- too bad they can't find a Red Stater, conservative/liberatarian populist who can get the Northeastern statist Republican jive on ...or a Northeastern  Republican who can seriously hang with Red Stater, conservative/liberatarian, populist principles.

Imho, besides losing the "American message" (and which hope for the change quite happily poached from), that's the biggest obstacle the Republicans are up against -- they will need both working together in harmony if they want to win; right now, that doesn't seem to be the case.  One could almost conjecture that the Republicans have become irreversably splintered -- and with the split none of the different factions are able to offer up a winner against the Dems, nor will they be able to swell their ranks, any of them, which also makes them a loser against the Dems.

Sad state of affairs -- especially now, when the timing is becoming ripe to pick up even some hard core Dem supporters (I'm thinking some of the Blue Dogs and classic liberals are going to be getting pretty fed up with their party of choice really soon).  Maybe this was what was supposed to happen (yes, I'm feeling a bit pessimistic today).

 

105

True, this role is mainly a "less is more" thing, but sometimes actual policy helps.

On second consideration, you have a point.

Enforcing contract laws helps.

I thought, at first, things being what they are, the scope of your view was limited to the current modern framework where all these laws are allready in place, and repealing them seems to be 'helping' over the natural way of things.

In fact, my view was limited by the current situation - I just didn't even immediately fathom anything that far removed from what we have now.

106

Uh, you never managed to connect Rousseau to libertarianism in any fashion.

Nor shall I, because that was never my goal.

Funny how that works. See, you don't get to select MY side of the argument as well.

I note you yourself, never managed to prove Communism was a viable economic policy.

Does that mean I win?

107 104 -
jane, there is no wall to keep the NE GOP apart from the Red Staters except mental ones. Reality is that its more of a continuum between the two poles.

Only thing I was getting at is O is wanting a class war, so the classes he targets must get a spine and go to war, especeially if they can bring the peops with them.

108

You just keep reinterpreting everything I say to mean something else entirely.

No, I'm just pointing out what you are really saying, given that you're too thick to understand it yourself.

I don't object to the activities of the people who caused this economic problem.

Yes, you do. You may not realise it of course. But you do.

I object to the government setting up a perverse incentive system that made it perfectly reasonable, fine, and rational for them to behave in such a way.

Then you object to the activities of the people who caused this economic problem.

I want the existing "statist laws" that made them act this way, to go away.

There's the heart of the matter.  You may think that, absent any government laws, people would behave in ways you approve of. I think you're wrong about that. We get the bad laws in the first place because people are not inherently good.

Melillo and friends were simply acting on the First Libertarian Commandment, "Greed Is Good". And so were the Congressmen taking the bribes to either pass laws, or not pass laws.

 

109  There was no Tory part in Burkes time.

http://tinyurl.com/d8f9xl

OK dipshit, I have to take this in bad faith. Either that, or your a dipshit.

You link an article saying the Tories weren't in power after 1714 and take that to mean they didn't exist anymore? Did you even read your own link?

No tory party in Burkes time? Really?

Is that so?

Dipshit.

In February 1783 Burke resumed the post of Paymaster of the Forces when Shelburne's government fell and was replaced by a coalition headed by North and including Charles James Fox. The coalition fell in 1783, and was succeeded by the long Tory administration of William Pitt the Younger, which lasted until 1801. Burke was accordingly in opposition for the remainder of his political life.

link

110

Uh, you never managed to connect Rousseau to libertarianism in any fashion.

Nor shall I, because that was never my goal.

 

Pathetic. You wrote this:

That's how I read it too, right from the get go with the reference to Russeau. He's bitching about the libertarian bend to the speech.

 

I asked you to explain how you saw a reference to Rousseau as "bitching about libertarianism", and you've been slipping and sliding ever since to dodge answering the question.

 

I note you yourself, never managed to prove Communism was a viable economic policy.

Probably because I never mentioned commusim. While you did draw an explicit connection between Rousseau and libertarianism.

 

Does that mean I win?

It means you possess all the reasoning prowness of Andy Sullivan.

111 What's a crunchy-con?

112

No, I'm just pointing out what you are really saying, given that you're too thick to understand it yourself.

Gee I'm having a hard time seeing where you get your political views from.

Is this like 'positive liberty'? If I'm not doing what you think I ought, I'm not really free from some malevolent 'influence' tyranny?

To be really, TRULY free to decide whether or not I should smoke, I must first be forced to quit and be removed of any addiction? And then badgered with health factoids until I 'understand' I shouldn't start again?

Thanks for telling me what I think. I'll let you handle my part for the rest of this debate as well.

113 The speech was extended in length during its presentation, so some of the material got folded in again.  It was long, but did have its moments.

I just got back from Romania and saw Rush giving the speech on the monitors while passing through JFK. --I thought that was unusual because he does not get televised much.

In Bucharest the main plaza is listed as "Constitution Plaza (formerly the Victory of Socialism)"  It was interesting to talk with our hosts about life under communist rule and present day.  Occasionally there are callers to Rush or Glenn Beck that have lived under Soviet rule and are apoplectic about the direction of the country.

While typing Rush just carefully carved Steele a new anal cavity.

114 "93

we clearly have an idiot on our hands.

We sure do, "Cave Bear"."

Yes we do, "flenser".  Anyone who thinks that it was GWB and the Repubs who brought this economic clusterfuck down upon us is indeed an idiot.  Deal with it.

 

115

 

OK dipshit, I have to take this in bad faith. Either that, or your a dipshit.

 

You are an illiterate fuckwit. I've noticed that you cannot even understand the words you write yourself, so I guess I can't expect you to understand what other people write.

"Tory" was the name Pitts political oppoents called him. It was the equivalent at the time of "neo-con" or "communist". That is to say, a term of derison, not a description of any formal political Alligence. Pitt himself always called himself Whig and was a "progressive" by the standards of the time.

You're assuming that there existed such things as a Whig and Tory party with registered members, like todays Republicans and Democrats. It did not work that way.

It was only now that a genuine two-party system can be seen to emerge, with Pitt and the government on the one side, and the ousted Fox-North coalition on the other. Although Pitt is often referred to as a "Tory" and Fox as a "Whig," Pitt always considered himself to be an independent Whig, and generally opposed the development of a strict partisan political system.

Fox's supporters, however, certainly saw themselves as legitimate heirs of the Whig tradition, and they strongly opposed Pitt in his early years in office, notably during the regency crisis revolving around the King's temporary insanity in 1788–1789, when Fox and his allies supported full powers for their ally, the Prince of Wales, as regent.

The opposition Whigs were split, however, by the onset of the French Revolution. While Fox and some younger members of the party such as Charles Grey and Richard Brinsley Sheridan were sympathetic to the French revolutionaries, others, led by Edmund Burke, were strongly opposed. Although Burke himself was largely alone in defecting to Pitt in 1791 ...

So (a) Pitt was not a "Tory" in the sense you are trying to use the term, and (b) Burke was a "Tory" in the same sense.

116 Anyone who thinks that it was GWB and the Repubs who brought this economic clusterfuck down upon us is indeed an idiot.

Not to sound like a Democrat or anything, but they didn't do much of anything to help.  And if you're not part of the solution...

Let's be bluntly honest: Politicians, of both parties, brought this fuck-up on themselves, and us by extension.  The number of people who seemed even remotely concerned about such an occurrence in Congress could be counted on one hand.

117

I'd argue, but there's no point.

You'll just tell me I meant something other then what I said, and then refute that instead.

Have fun. Just pretend I said something relevant here, and then argue with it. In other words, just like you've been doing only without me.

118

Conservatism by definition is "old school". And Reagan believed exactly as Kirk did. Why do I keep getting the feeling that I'm the only person who's ever read Reagan or is familiar with his policies?

Posted by: flenser at March 02, 2009 12:54 PM (7kL2

I don't know.  Because you have some deep-seated need to preen on blogs and through your self-assumed intellectual cred in total strangers' faces?

Just a guess.

119

Yes we do, "flenser". 

Do we really, "Cave Bear"?

Anyone who thinks that it was GWB and the Repubs who brought this economic clusterfuck down upon us is indeed an idiot. 

They sure are. Although not nearly as big an idiot as the person who thinks that I've said "It was GWB and the Repubs who brought this economic clusterfuck down on us". That idiot would be you, in case you're too dim to figure it out.

120

Although not nearly as big an idiot as the person who thinks that I've said "It was GWB and the Repubs who brought this economic clusterfuck down on us".

That was you. You said that.

Maybe not in those words, but that's what you really meant.

You just don't know it.

Now stop dodging the issue and tell us why you think that.

121

I'd argue, but there's no point.

There's no point because your own fucking words are there in black and white linking Rousseau and libertarianism. So rather then simply say "Oops, my bad", you're shucking and jiving me and pretending I'm putting words in your mouth.

 

122

That was you. You said that.

Nope, dopy, that was you.

123

Just pretend I said something relevant here, and then argue with it.

Given your inability to say something relevant, I guess that's my only option.

 

124

There's no point because your own fucking words are there in black and white linking Rousseau and libertarianism.

No. My own words linking his reference to Rousseau with his bitching about libertarianism. I never said Rousseau was libertarian and I've already explained all this.

You ignored it and pretended it didn't exist the first time, why should the second be any different?

"his reference to Rousseau" is not actually Rousseau. A referance to a man and the man himself are actually - get this - two different things entirely!

Also, 'his bitching about libertarianism' is not actually libertarianism. In fact, I think libertarians are actually starkly opposed to his bitching about them! Fancy that!

Mad, crazy world.

125

Honestly, I think you can't understand no matter how much I explain because the whole thing just goes over your head.

Like when you told me that what I was really thinking of was a tory party that operates officially, like the GOP or the Democrats with capitol letters.

Why yes! That's... exactly the complete fucking opposite of what I was thinking of! Good job!

Very intuitive of you. Way to keep up with the conversation.

126 Well, you can tell it's a snow day, the morons are into the valu rite and debating philosophy. Can't we all just get a long? Fuck no, not if I have to pay for your valu rite! Kemp

127
Dreher is right about one thing... that conservatives believe that

  "human nature is fallen"

But he's wrong that Limbaugh doesn't recognize it.  Rush noted at least a couple of times that people are going to do the wrong thing.

More importantly,  he completely ignores the conservative conclusion that is to be drawn from this premise...  namely, that government because it is made up of fallen humans, cannot be trusted with too much power.  Indeed, the framers set up a system that contained both horizontal (checks and balances) and vertical (federalism) divisions of power in order to take advantage of "ambition to counteract ambition".

DUH.

128

Dreher's hard to nail down at  times. His "crunchy con" stuff is all lifestyle choices, and who can fault him for saying "no" to processed foods as long as he's not urging legislation forcing others to do the same?

Sometimes he lets his emotions get the better of him, like when he applauded the Lehman Bros. employee who (allegedly) sucker-punched Richard Fuld in the gym over some ethical offense. Other times, Dreher lets that emotion drive him to advocate the kind of nanny-state action that horrifies dyed-in-the-wool conservatives.

Also, Dreher's MSM. He instinctively resents common-sense guys like Rush and Joe the Plumber, whereas I wish he'd embrace them for cutting through the USAToday-think that dominates MSM.

129
I see Comatus (#55) already made more or less the same point.

130 Rush is right. Dreher is a douchetard. End of story.

131

Let's be bluntly honest: Politicians, of both parties, brought this fuck-up on themselves, and us by extension.  

 

 

OK, lets be bluntly honest; YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT

 

This is totally 100% owned by the Democraps. Both Bush and McLame (the fuck-weasel) tried to stop it on at least 3 different occasions and they were blocked every time by the Dems.

132

I never said Rousseau was libertarian and I've already explained all this.

You claimed that you detected anti-libertarian sentiment in Drehers remarks based on his mention of Rousseau. I asked you to explain how a shot at Rousseau could be considered a shot at libertarianism.

You ignored it and pretended it didn't exist the first time, why should the second be any different?

Here is what you are saying I ignored.

It was the reference. He was comparing Limbaugh's speech to Rousseau. The whole man is born perfect and then made  flawed 'tear down the institutions' thing. To see that in Limbaugh's speech says a lot of the vantage point of the person who makes the observation. He's defending the idea that institutions are needed to better the nature of man - which is fine and dandy and I agree, except - He's using it in reference to the institution of government.

Unless you are saying that these things are libertarian then I don't see the connection to libertarianism, which you introduced. I'm trying without success so far to get you to explain the connection.

If you see a connection between libertariasm and Rousseau, fine. Say so. If you don't, please explain why you saw a shot at Rousseau as shot at libertariansim.

"his reference to Rousseau" is not actually Rousseau. A referance to a man and the man himself are actually - get this - two different things entirely!

I don't know what you are trying to say here. Is it that you think his reference to Rousseau was mistaken and that he attributed to Rousseau ideas Rousseau did not actually hold?

133

Like when you told me that what I was really thinking of was a tory party that operates officially, like the GOP or the Democrats with capitol letters.

Why yes! That's... exactly the complete fucking opposite of what I was thinking of! Good job!

 

Entropy, you were not thinking at all. You thought you'd scored some "gotcha" point on me and went no further than that.

You want to argue that Burke and Adam Smith and Kirk and Reagan and Hayek and Buckley and you and me are not really conservatives, but true liberals? Knock yourself out. And yes, I've read Hayeks odd essay about why he is not a conservative. I guess unless we want to make Ace the monarch of America we're not conservatives.

Anyway, I'm bored now. I do hope you read that Reagan speech I linked above.

 

134

Because you have some deep-seated need to preen on blogs

You're free to come to the next meet-up and tell me that to my face, ricky. Unless you're the sort of person who just preens on blogs.

135

This is totally 100% owned by the Democraps. Both Bush and McLame (the fuck-weasel) tried to stop it on at least 3 different occasions and they were blocked every time by the Dems.

 

Sorry Vic, but the GOP owns a partial share in this disaster.  What drove the whole mess was illegal immigration.  The mortgage meltdown was concentrated in few states, and they were the states with highest concentrations of illegals.

136

Unless you are saying that these things are libertarian then I don't see the connection to libertarianism, which you introduced.

No, moron, I'm not saying Dreher is a libertarian.

FFS.

I'm saying the EXACT OPPOSITE. Again.

I'm saying those things are incompatible with libertarianism. What "things"? It was singular. That thinG is incompatible with libertarianism.

Which is why Dreher is bitching about the libertarian aspect of Rush's speech. To write an article about a cry for less regulation (made by Rush, keep up) to Rousseau's philosophies (Dreher's reference, not Rousseau's) which may have been a precursor to modern cultural marxism, says a good deal about the philosophy of the person who makes such a comparison (Dreher).

If asking for lower taxes is tantamount to tearing down the institutions neccessary to better man, you are the antithesis of a libertarian.

Libertarians are not anti-institution. They are merely anti-coercion.

To paint a picture where the desire to remove the coercive element is no different then a desire to destroy the institution entirely, you must believe that the coercive element is in fact the core neccessity, and support it. He betrays his own desire to use coercion to better others, or at least his belief in the neccessity of it, by making this comparison. Making him an antithetical libertarian.

I don't know what you are trying to say here. Is it that you think his reference to Rousseau was mistaken and that he attributed to Rousseau ideas Rousseau did not actually hold?

I'm saying no one with an ounce of libertarianism in their body could make such a stupid comparison. A stupid comparison. To draw such a comparison tells me the one who does it is not at all libertine.

And then you spent 300 comments try to make me prove that stupid comparison was valid.

Maybe if you tried to understand what people said, instead of just telling them what they meant and then arguing against straw men of your own construction...

137

You thought you'd scored some "gotcha" point on me and went no further than that.

See, there you go again. "You thought"

Don't tell me what I thought. You haven't been right once yet.

138

Specifically, I'm speaking of ideological heritage. When I talk about libertarianism you'll notice it is not capitalized. I am not talking about the "Legalize Pot Party". I'm talking about political governing philosophy.

139

You're free to come to the next meet-up and tell me that to my face, ricky. Unless you're the sort of person who just preens on blogs.

Posted by: flenser at March 02, 2009 03:23 PM (jM55Y)

Well, I said it was just a guess.  Not so much now.

I'll look for the red-faced guy in a shouting match with the waitress at the next "meet up".  I'm sure she won't meet your standards either.

140

Sorry Vic, but the GOP owns a partial share in this disaster.  What drove the whole mess was illegal immigration.  The mortgage meltdown was concentrated in few states, and they were the states with highest concentrations of illegals.

 

Sorry, no bite. There is no point in trying to debate you; you just argue for the sake of argument.

141
Seriously, flenser?  Illegal immigration is partly to blame?

The mortgage meltdown was concentrated in few states, and they were the states with highest concentrations of illegals.

Sorry.  But Texas is doing rather well, and we have huge numbers of illegals.

142 wedding dresses wedding dress wedding gowns bridesmaid dresses bridesmaid dress

143 SEO Directory,Free Directory,Travel directory,Sports directory,Shopping directory,Web Directory,Internet directory,Open Directory,Health directory,Link Directory,Automotive directory,Business directory,Education directory,Entertainment directory,Finance directory,Url directory

144 Hi. The best of us must sometimes eat our words. Help me! Looking for sites on: How to solicit donations from businesses. I found only this - does shin support work. Indispensible step by step credit card guide. Use your home equity to pay off debt, go on a vacation or renovate your home. Waiting for a reply :mad:, Lari from Sierra.

145 货架 货架 托盘 托盘 货架

146 UGG Boots Sale
ugg shoes
ugg classic
cheap ugg
UGG UK
bape shoes
bape shoes sale
cheap bape shoes
UGG UK
UGG boots sale
UGG Classic
discount UGG
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Amelie Suede
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Classic Cardy
cheap UGG Cardy
UGG Classic Crochet
UGG Classic Mini
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Coquette Casual
UGG Gypsy Sandal
UGG Halendi Sandal
UGG Hammond Slipper
UGG Infant's Erin Baby
UGG KnightsBridge
UGG Layback Slipper
UGG Lo Pro Button
UGG Matala Sandal
UGG Napoule Sandal
UGG New Arrival 5389
UGG New Short Boots

147 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

148 discountugg boots sale
ugg shoes
tall ugg boots
ugg classic boots
nike shox
air jordan shoes
nike air max
nike air force one
bailey button ugg
rainier ugg boots
ugg classic cardy
ugg crochet boots
ugg mini
ugg classic short
classic tall ugg
ugg coquette
ugg baby boots
ugg knightsbridge
ugg lo pro
new ugg boots
ugg short boots
ugg nightfall boots
ugg skimmer
ugg sundance boots
ultra short ugg
ugg ultra tall
discount ugg slippers
ugg sandals
ugg halendi
ugg slippers
ugg layback
ugg matala sandal
ugg napoule sandal
ugg persephone
tasmina ugg
air force 1 shoes
jordan air shoes
nike shox shoes
air max nike
free shipping!

149 Your post very good,thanks for sharing!Are you also like these:ugg boots uk,buy ugg boots,australia ugg,cheap ugg boots,ugg boots,ugg boots sheepskin,womens ugg boots,ugg australia boots,cheap ugg boots

150 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

151 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

152 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

153 cheap ugg
buy ugg
ugg usa
ugg boots
ugg uk
ugg australia
ugg shoes
ugg sale
womens ugg boots
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
ugg shoes sale
ugg boots sale
ugg sundance
ugg 5819
ugg 5815
ugg knightsbridge
ugg 5825
ugg rainier

154 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

155 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

156 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

157 Replica Cartier | soccer jersey wholesale | Fake Cheap Rolex | soccer jersey supplier | Replica Cartier | Porsche Design Watch Replica | Bell & Ross Replica Watch | Rolex Replica Watches | Replica Aigner Watch | Glashutte Replica Watch | Replica Omega Watches | A Lange & Sohne Fake | Fake Swiss | Fake Panerai Watches | Mont Blanc Fake Watches

158 Replica Cartier | Replica watches | Replica Watches | soccer jersey supplier | Fake Watches | Hublot Replica | Replica Piaget | Vacheron Constantin Watches | Audemars Piguet Watch Replica | Replica Tissot | Longines Watch | Roger Dubuis Fake | 2009 New Arrival Watches | Fake Gucci Watches | Fake Omega Watches

159 UGG BOOTS

160 Replica Omega | Fake Cheap Rolex | soccer jersey supplier | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica Rolex | Replica Breguet Watch | U-boat Watch | Cheap Bvlgari | Fake Other Watch | Cheap Louis Vuitton Watches | Corum Replica | Panerai Replica Watches | Replica Titoni Watches | Benz Watch Replica | Fake Chopard

161 mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

162 None of us are born with a set of shoes mbt shoes on our feet, but they are infinitely important to our wellbeing. Even though the commercial shoe http://www.mbter.com industry didn't get underway during the beginnings of civilization, man is believed to have constructed footwear mbt shoes 40,000 years ago. So the question isn't whether you should buy a pair of shoes... it's how should you go about buying them!
When you're shoe shopping, the task can seem overwhelming and frustrating. You just want to try on a few pairs of shoes and then get out of the store. But the reality is that you should pick out a pair of shoes mbt shoes with a lot more care than other items of your wardrobe. After all, the health of your feet are at stake!

163 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

164 hot news for brand shoes online store ,do you want to win more discount ?and popular for younger,and nike air maxwith top quality A ,come on all air max shoes with lowest price for highest quality !

165 The cheap ugg boots sale for women are stylish, they are comfortable and what¡¯s more, they keep your feet. theres a pair of fellow sufferers,ugg australia uk to complement your personal preferences, why do we not take the traditional high discount ugg boots on salefor cold winter?
As a matter of fact, with the passing time, the love for ugg usa is increasing among girls in this modern world. The growing demand for these womens ugg made the manufacturers UGG Boots Sale to revamp the looks of these boots with different hues.come our website and buy a pair of ugg uk.UGG Classic Cardy are popular as shoes for cowboys. The SHOES close the whole parts of the foot. The ugg cardy are important to protect your feet from any dangerous things during your walking activities. There are many oatmeal ugg available in the Market and if you are interested to get one you can directly go to the store that sells it.

166 Replica Breitling Watches | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica Cartier | soccer jersey supplier | soccer jersey wholesale | soccer jersey supplier | Replica Cartier | replica soccer jersey | best replica watches | replica watch | Luxury watches | watches brand | watches brand | replica watches | watches brand | replica watches | watches brand | Luxury watches | replica watches | best replica watches | watches brand | replica wristwatch | replica wristwatch | replica watch | best replica watches | replica wristwatch | replica watches | best replica watches | best replica watches | replica wristwatch | Luxury watches | best replica watches | watches brand | replica watch | replica watch | replica watches | best replica watches | replica watch

167 Today ugg boots online have become a phenomenon.Every winter,the ugg classic crochet are one of the hottest goods in the market all over the world.So now don't be hesitation,own a pair of ugg usa immediately.

168 We supply authentic discount Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Trainers
New Lacoste
Lacoste Sale
Mens Lacoste
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste trainers shoes
lacoste camden retro
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste carnaby shoes
lacoste carnaby retro
lacoste shoes sale
New Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes online
cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoe
mens lacoste shoes
Lacoste Shua Lace
Black Lace shoes
white Lace shoes
lacoste swerve shoes
White Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes sale
Cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste Women Shoes
Women Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Shoes online
on line, cheap price,Top quality,Free shipping!

169 The womens mbt Tembea is a new generation lace-up with Dual Board construction and a striking style that pays tribute to the classic sneaker. It packs in all the mbt lami shoes benefits with a fresh look and feel, striking the perfect balance between health benefits ... The discount mbt Shuguli GTX is a is a sleek and stylish professional shoe ideal for work and more formal occasions whilst delivering full waterproofing from GORE-TEX. These are especially effective for those who have to stand or walk for long periods of time ...
The mbt shoes Fanaka GTX is a sporty but rugged styled shoe that combines fashionable, casual design with all the health benefits associated with the sporting style discount mbt shoes. These are especially effective for ladies who have to stand or walk for long periods ... The black mbt Bia is a classic, professional shoe ideal for work and more formal occasions whilst delivering all the health benefits from MBT design. These are especially effective for ladies who have to stand or walk for long periods of time during work ...

170 Magnet Necklace Wholesale | Stone Bracelets Fashion | Rubber Bracelets Yiwu | Corrosion Pendant Fashion | Wholesal Magnet Tungsten Bracelet | Wholesale Rubber Necklaces Jewelry | Zircon Earring Cheap | Cutting Pendant Luxury | Wood Bangles Cheap | Plating Cufflink Luxury | Wholesal Corrosion Bracelet | Wholesal Casting Pendant | Wholesal Rings Tiffany | Cutting Bracelet Yiwu | Business Cards Best | Wholesal Accessories | Plating Rings Cheap | Plating Tungsten Bracelet Luxury | Cutting Rings Wholesale | Plating Cufflink Best

171 Fake Watches | Fake Watches | Omega Watches | Tissot Watches | Fake Chopard | Omega Watch Replica | Fake Ulysse Nardin Watches | Cartier Watch Replica | Swiss Replica Watch | TAG Heuer Replica Watches | Bulgari Watches Replica | Replica Oris Watch | Fake Rado Watches | Movado Watch | Oris Watches | Replica Ulysse Nardin Watch | Chopard Fake | Corum Replica Watches | Zenith Fake | Replica Baume & Mercier Watches | Zenith Watches Replica | IWC Replica Watches | Fake Chopard Watches | Franck Muller Replica Watches | Replica Mont Blanc Watches | Fake Concord Watches | Fake Bulgari

172 Jaeger LeCoultre Fake Watches | Ebel Replica Watches | Alain Silberstein Replica Watches | Richard Mille Replica Watches | Watches Piaget Fashion | Ebel Fake Watches | Replica Omega Watches | Watches Bvlgari Fashion | Bulova Replica Watches | Watches Baume & Mercier Fashion | Hublot Fake Watches | Jaeger LeCoultre Fake Watches | Replica Juicy Couture Watches | Glashutte Fake Watches | Replica Patek Philippe Watches | Chopard Fake Watches | Watches Rolex Fashion | Replica Oris Watches | Replica Mont Blanc Watches | Watches Audemars Piguet Fashion

173 Best Louis Vuitton bags | Luxury Bvlgari handbags | Replica Concord Handbags | A. Lange & Sohne Replica bags | Replica Fashion Bedat & CO handbags | Vacheron Constantin Replica bags | Christian Dior Replica bags | Vacheron Constantin Replica bags | Best Aigner bags | Glashutte Fake Handbags | Replica Richard Mille Handbags | Luxury TAG Heuer handbags | Replica Fashion Daniel Roth handbags | Luxury Baume & Mercier handbags | Replica Louis Vuitton Handbags | Replica Fashion Movado handbags | Best Swiss bags | Rolex Replica bags | Omega Fake Handbags | U-Boat Replica bags | Zenith Fake Handbags | Best Louis Vuitton bags | Replica Piaget Handbags | Best TAG Heuer bags | Replica Technomarine Handbags

174 nike shox for kids
nike shox monster
nike shox nz
nike shox nz ii
nike shox oz
nike shox R3
nike shox R4
nike shox R4 torch
nike shox R5
nike shox TL1
nike shox TL3
nike shox Torch
nike shox turb

175 Hair Straightener
GHD
GHD MK4
GHD MK5
Pink GHD
Pink GHI Hair
CHI Camo
Hair Straightener
GHI

176 Un total de once comunidades autnomas estn este jueves en alerta naranja Christmas gift ugg tall boots (riesgo importante) por nevadas y bajan las temperaturas en toda Espa09a, segn la Agencia Estatal de Meteorologa (AEMET). En concreto, se Christmas gift ugg napoule sandal trata de Aragn, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalu09a, Christmas gift timberland classic boots Madrid, Navarra, Comunidad Valenciana, Galicia, Pas Vasco, Asturias y Murcia. La cota de nieve bajar a menos de 200 metros en el CantbricoLa Pennsula Ibrica est bajo dos borrascas y un anticicln que crearn un pasillo que permitir el paso de una corriente de aire muy fro, como la que est provocando un temporal de fro glaciar en Europa, aunque es esperan que el fro que suframos no sea tan intenso como en otros pases. An as, se espera que las bajas temperaturas se mantengan hasta el domingo. La cota de nieve baja en el Cantbrico a menos de 200 metros

177

I like this, if you need products for cheap ,visit us for

ugg boots on sale ，cheap ugg boots，discount ugg boots，black ugg boots,chestnut ugg bootsUgg Bailey Button boots ，Ugg Classic Tall Boots ，Ugg Classic Cardy Boots ,Ugg Classic Short Boots ，Ugg Classic Metallic Boots ，Ugg Classic Mini Boots

nfl jerseys,cheap nfl jerseys, nfl youth jerseys, nfl football jerseys,vikings jerseys, nfl replica jerseys,, wholesale nfl jerseys,NBA jerseys,MLB jerseys,NHL jerseys,

178 nike air max 360 shoes
womens air max
nike air max
womens air max
nike air max 360 shoes
air max
kids air max 90
kids air max classic BW
kids air max 360
kids air max 97
nike air max 180
nike air max 2009
nike air max 2010
nike air max 360 shoes
nike air max 87
nike air max 88
nike air max 89
nike air max 90
nike air max 91
nike air max 93
nike air max 95
nike air max classic BW
nike air max ltd
nike air max TN
womens air max 2007
womens air max 2009
womens air max 87
womens air max 90
womens air max 91
womens air max 95
womens air max 97
womens air max classic BW

179 Wholesale Chanel wallet|Replica Gucci wallet|Louis vuitton wallet Wholesale

180 nike air max 360 shoes
womens air max
nike air max
womens air max
nike air max 360 shoes
air max
kids air max 90
kids air max classic BW
kids air max 360
kids air max 97
nike air max 180
nike air max 2009
nike air max 2010
nike air max 360 shoes
nike air max 87
nike air max 88
nike air max 89
nike air max 90
nike air max 91
nike air max 93
nike air max 95
nike air max classic BW
nike air max ltd
nike air max TN
womens air max 2007
womens air max 2009
womens air max 87
womens air max 90
womens air max 91
womens air max 95
womens air max 97
womens air max classic BW
womens air max ltd

181 nike max
air max shoes
nike air max
nike max shoes
air max 1
nike air max 1
air max 2
nike air max 2
air max 89
nike air max 89
air max 90
nike air max 90
air max 91
nike air max 91
air max 95
nike air max 95
air max 97
nike air max 97
air max 180
nike air max 180
air max 360
nike air max 360
air max 2003
nike air max 2003
air max 2009
nike air max 2009
air max ltd
nike air max ltd
air max tn
nike air max tn
air max tailwind
nike air max tailwind
womens air max 1
womens air max 90
womens air max 95
womens air max BW
womens air max LTD
womens air max TN
womens air max 360
womens air max 2003
womens air max 2007
womens air max 2009

182 It seems replica watches that the watch brand Porsche Design is good at creating sporty classic watches. Many of the Replica watches from it are such watches. They are especially designed for men. Some of the products manufactured today by Porsche Design range from luggage, eye-glasses, replica watches wristwatches pens, wallets and so on, all this products being best-selling items. What makes the replica watches products of this brand so popular? That is not only because of the famous reputation of the brand, but because they display the most elegant and posh replica watches fappearance, for those who appreciate style and prestige. If you have enough knowledge of products from replica watches this brand, you would understand these reasons. Defined by modern appearance and functional mechanisms, the replica watches Porsche Design brand has remained true to its intentions as to create timepieces that would meet the expectations of our modern trends and contemporary times. People nowadays seek watches with amazing designs, but at the same time, to provide many functions and to be highly reliable. In a world of speed replica watche and dynamism, Porsche Design proposes sporty watches that managed to impress with their unpretentious designs and the amazing variety of technical functions provided.

183
online pharmacy make money online make money internet tips free online tips online tips tips online tip online tips work from home video tips Shopping Tips Car Tips Computer Tips Travel Tips Finance Tips cash gifting cash gifting programs gifting

184 nike max
air max shoes
nike air max
nike max shoes
air max 1
nike air max 1
air max 2
nike air max 2
air max 89
nike air max 89
air max 90
nike air max 90
air max 91
nike air max 91
air max 95
nike air max 95
air max 97
nike air max 97
air max 180
nike air max 180
air max 360
nike air max 360
air max 2003
nike air max 2003
air max 2009
nike air max 2009

185 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.