The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Does Fabius Maximus Consider The Constitution A Delusion?

Posted on | March 26, 2010 | 19 Comments

by Smitty

Fabius Maximus quotes an email I sent regarding his post “About the political significance of the conservatives’ health care propaganda“.

Now Fabius is playing a equivalency card, pointing out historical warnings about major legislation. Fabius, have you seen the national debt? Have you seen that the Congress is willing to tamper with Article I of the Constitution, if necessary, continue the deconstruction and impoverishment of the country?

Fabius sorts quotations going back over a century in your post with a “what, me worry?” attitude. Sure. Those that have sufficient resources now may live out their lives comfortably, but don’t we care about future generations?

The final descent into a soft despotism (even this Judas Congress wasn’t brazen enough for DemonPass) may take a little longer, but your complacent attitude saddens. Possibly Fabius should consider changing pseudonyms to Elric of Melniboné, to capture better that sort of bored, decadent air. Yours is not the passion that drove the Apollo program, Fabius.

Those who, in emulation of the Founding Fathers, retain a passion for individual liberty will fight and win this battle against creeping Socialism, and its enfeebled, debt-laden results that we see in Europe. See also Bill Whittle.

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

19 Responses to “Does Fabius Maximus Consider The Constitution A Delusion?”

  1. Lisa Graas
    March 26th, 2010 @ 3:21 pm

    There is one potential problem with your post, Smitty. I am starting to think this despotism isn’t so “soft”.

  2. Lisa Graas
    March 26th, 2010 @ 10:21 am

    There is one potential problem with your post, Smitty. I am starting to think this despotism isn’t so “soft”.

  3. Lisa Graas
    March 26th, 2010 @ 10:24 am

    And that reminds me……..the first person I heard use the word “despotism” in regard to the President was Cardinal Francis George….one year ago.

    Via the USCCB…..
    http://usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-058.shtml

    It’s not all that “soft”.

  4. Lisa Graas
    March 26th, 2010 @ 3:24 pm

    And that reminds me……..the first person I heard use the word “despotism” in regard to the President was Cardinal Francis George….one year ago.

    Via the USCCB…..
    http://usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-058.shtml

    It’s not all that “soft”.

  5. smitty
    March 26th, 2010 @ 4:40 pm

    I was actually referring to Paul Rahe’s book of the same title, trying to point in the direction of tyranny without sounding so ‘Andrew Klavan’ about it.

  6. smitty
    March 26th, 2010 @ 11:40 am

    I was actually referring to Paul Rahe’s book of the same title, trying to point in the direction of tyranny without sounding so ‘Andrew Klavan’ about it.

  7. Adobe Walls
    March 26th, 2010 @ 4:42 pm

    I have to agree with Lisa; IMHO the only reason that the Social Democrats didn’t use demonpass is that they became aware that the people were paying attention for a change. The cowardly nature of the farce had already been exposed and no longer offered hope of any cover by avoiding actually voting for the bill. In short it was merely a tactical maneuver made necessary by all the light shown on the nefarious schemes of these despicable people. I honestly believe that only the risk of discovery limits what the Social Democrats are capable of doing. In their strategy sessions I assume the conversations on tactics go from whether or not their actions can be successfully hidden and if not can there be enough “plausible denial-ability” to weather what ever storm may arise. We would do well to remember we are not battling Woodrow Wilson but rather Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky.

  8. Adobe Walls
    March 26th, 2010 @ 11:42 am

    I have to agree with Lisa; IMHO the only reason that the Social Democrats didn’t use demonpass is that they became aware that the people were paying attention for a change. The cowardly nature of the farce had already been exposed and no longer offered hope of any cover by avoiding actually voting for the bill. In short it was merely a tactical maneuver made necessary by all the light shown on the nefarious schemes of these despicable people. I honestly believe that only the risk of discovery limits what the Social Democrats are capable of doing. In their strategy sessions I assume the conversations on tactics go from whether or not their actions can be successfully hidden and if not can there be enough “plausible denial-ability” to weather what ever storm may arise. We would do well to remember we are not battling Woodrow Wilson but rather Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky.

  9. ~ U.S. President Perfects the Art of Mocking the American People « Critical Political Thinking
    March 26th, 2010 @ 12:54 pm

    […] Other McCain: Does Fabius Maximus Consider The Constitution A Delusion? – Gee, ObamaCare Is Still […]

  10. Lisa Graas
    March 26th, 2010 @ 7:00 pm

    Okay, one problem with Adobe Wall’s theory. The Stupak deal was also a farce. Or do you think pro-life people are uniquely dense?

    Then again, maybe you’re right and they are simply not capable of avoiding farce twice in a row.

  11. Lisa Graas
    March 26th, 2010 @ 2:00 pm

    Okay, one problem with Adobe Wall’s theory. The Stupak deal was also a farce. Or do you think pro-life people are uniquely dense?

    Then again, maybe you’re right and they are simply not capable of avoiding farce twice in a row.

  12. McGehee
    March 26th, 2010 @ 7:14 pm

    Or do you think pro-life people are uniquely dense?

    What matters is that the Democrats — including Obama, Stupak and everyone in between — do.

  13. McGehee
    March 26th, 2010 @ 2:14 pm

    Or do you think pro-life people are uniquely dense?

    What matters is that the Democrats — including Obama, Stupak and everyone in between — do.

  14. DaveP.
    March 26th, 2010 @ 7:36 pm

    “Or do you think pro-life people are uniquely dense?”

    Nope, but I DO think that pro-life Democrats are on the vote plantation- just like black Democrats, female Democrats, et cetera.
    At the end of the day, they’ll ALL vote Democrat no matter how bad the clowns they’re voting for will be for their subgroup or their nation. They’ve been conditioned to kiss the whip that flays them, and love their chains- because freedom is low-class.

  15. DaveP.
    March 26th, 2010 @ 2:36 pm

    “Or do you think pro-life people are uniquely dense?”

    Nope, but I DO think that pro-life Democrats are on the vote plantation- just like black Democrats, female Democrats, et cetera.
    At the end of the day, they’ll ALL vote Democrat no matter how bad the clowns they’re voting for will be for their subgroup or their nation. They’ve been conditioned to kiss the whip that flays them, and love their chains- because freedom is low-class.

  16. Adobe Walls
    March 26th, 2010 @ 10:30 pm

    @ Lisa:
    I have no idea how my comment led to your aspersion that I “think pro-life people are uniquely dense?” particularly as I made no mention of Bart Stupak, abortion funding or pro-lifers. While I’ve only been visiting blog sites since last spring thus limiting my expertise I do believe that it’s unusual to begin a comment with, in this instance, I have to agree with Lisa; and then have “Lisa” take offense. Please accept my apology for only remarking on one of the many farces the Social Democrats offered for our amusement during this debacle. While I never said and do not believe that pro-lifers are dense I do not believe liberals can be pro-life at least not in the sense that most conservatives think of the term. Much was made of Stupak’s willingness to kill the bill leading up to November’s vote if it didn’t include his amendment. That was never the case to begin with. His position always was that he’d vote against HCR if he didn’t get an up or down vote on his amendment. At the time some argued that the republicans should have voted against his amendment for tactical reasons. This is a perfect example of why one should stand on principles. Had the amendment failed most of the supposed “pro-life “coalition including Stupak would have voted for HCR satisfied that they had done all they could. There may be genuine pro-lifers in the Social Democratic party, however the moral relativism that being a progressive requires make’s the murder of innocent life merely another issue to be compromised on for the good of the collective.

  17. Adobe Walls
    March 26th, 2010 @ 5:30 pm

    @ Lisa:
    I have no idea how my comment led to your aspersion that I “think pro-life people are uniquely dense?” particularly as I made no mention of Bart Stupak, abortion funding or pro-lifers. While I’ve only been visiting blog sites since last spring thus limiting my expertise I do believe that it’s unusual to begin a comment with, in this instance, I have to agree with Lisa; and then have “Lisa” take offense. Please accept my apology for only remarking on one of the many farces the Social Democrats offered for our amusement during this debacle. While I never said and do not believe that pro-lifers are dense I do not believe liberals can be pro-life at least not in the sense that most conservatives think of the term. Much was made of Stupak’s willingness to kill the bill leading up to November’s vote if it didn’t include his amendment. That was never the case to begin with. His position always was that he’d vote against HCR if he didn’t get an up or down vote on his amendment. At the time some argued that the republicans should have voted against his amendment for tactical reasons. This is a perfect example of why one should stand on principles. Had the amendment failed most of the supposed “pro-life “coalition including Stupak would have voted for HCR satisfied that they had done all they could. There may be genuine pro-lifers in the Social Democratic party, however the moral relativism that being a progressive requires make’s the murder of innocent life merely another issue to be compromised on for the good of the collective.

  18. atheist
    April 20th, 2010 @ 11:22 am

    You do realize that this post is totally incoherent to anyone who isn’t a conservative true believer, right?

    I can tell you’re mad that Fabius Maximus put your email alongside other examples of right wing paranoia and delusion. I can tell that you hate the Democrats. I can tell that you’re afraid of the weak-ass “Healthcare Reform” they just passed.

    What I can’t tell is why, because you offer no analysis, logic, or explanation. You only offer anger and fear. Not convincing.

  19. atheist
    April 20th, 2010 @ 6:22 am

    You do realize that this post is totally incoherent to anyone who isn’t a conservative true believer, right?

    I can tell you’re mad that Fabius Maximus put your email alongside other examples of right wing paranoia and delusion. I can tell that you hate the Democrats. I can tell that you’re afraid of the weak-ass “Healthcare Reform” they just passed.

    What I can’t tell is why, because you offer no analysis, logic, or explanation. You only offer anger and fear. Not convincing.