You bet his sweet Republican ass he will!
He just can’t elect a replacement. Only the people of the state can do that.
It took a catastrophe, but not an uprising, to replace the era of Republican corporate free-market hegemony with the New Deal.
The Thurmond speech wasn’t the whole thing, ya know. Look up “Council of Conservative Citizens” and you’ll find a helluva lot more about Lott’s background.
Well, some of the people — a plurality of those who vote.
It’s not that leftists hate freedom; it’s just that they don’t know what it is.
You’re so full of shit, I bet your eyes are brown.
Your non sequitur notwithstanding, anyone who equates robber baron capitalism with a free market has a toad stool for a brain.
That’s got a pretty snappy, aphoristic structure, Lib, but doesn’t seem to mean anything in particular. I’m sure you aren’t suggesting that lefties are deficient in vocabulary. (We simply eschew obfuscatory sesquipedalianism.)
Since government by definition implies some restraint and restriction of freedoms, your crisp one-liner can only be reasonably interpeted as “Lefites don’t agree with me, that’s why they’re wrong. Or vice versa.” You’re still a libertarian, right? So it boils down to restricting a different set of freedoms, rather than some unitary, all-inclusive thing “Freedom”. You don’t seriously posit a condition of complete freedom, because its nonsense, unless libertarians are simply anarchists in suits.
Speaking of non sequiturs…
Well, unless something changed since I listened to (Mississippi)PR today, everything points to “The Governor is going to make it a special election on '08, and if you pussies don’t like it, we’ll let our lawyers fight about it”.
That may not be an exact quote.
-Joe
Your knee jerked so hard there, Lib, that it apparently prevented you from noticing that BG was specifically referring to “corporate free-market hegemony”, rather than a literal ideal free market.
Sure, all of us, liberals and libertarians alike, can happily agree that if ideal free markets really existed in the real world, they would be much more efficient at producing a smoothly productive economy than clunky bureaucratic government regulation is.
However, since ideal free markets don’t actually exist in any reliable form in the real world, we sane liberals are entirely within reason to critique the shortcomings of economic systems that merely pretend to be free markets. Such systems include the “corporate free-market hegemony” (or “robber baron capitalism”) that BG was talking about.
I await your well-deserved apology for your reflexive and ill-considered gratuitous leftist-bashing, but I ain’t holding my breath.
Two more links on Lott’s alleged walks on the wild side. (When Larry Flynt takes an interest in you, you know it’s time for a lateral career move . . .)
Seems like he might be involved in that Alaskan scandal, too.
The VECO oil thing.
It would be rather a refreshing change, at this point, for a pol to fall for some old-fashioned reason like a money scandal.
They’re moles, under the direct orders of the Homintern, advancing the gay agenda.
Proof? You want proof? OK, just one example!
First Some Like It Hot, then Bosom Buddies, then *Will and Grace * and then Brokeback Mountain.
Wake up, America!
Oh hell no. I think it’s about as safe a seat as you’ll find. It’s just that if the Dems have any chance at all, it’s in a sparsely-attended wintertime special election. In politics the difference between a sure thing and an almost sure thing is huge, and that’s especially true for the Republicans right now since the wind is blowing in the Democrats’ direction.
Well, if he indeed meant what you say then, despite that the meaning you took wasn’t at all clear to me, I do indeed apologize to BrainGlutton. There really is no reason, however, to use an oxymoron like “free-market hegemony” when a more descriptive phrase like “robber baron capitalism” will do.
As for your preachy bit about the ideal versus the real world, I would remind you that the real world is the place it is because of choices you make — like the choice to settle for a hegemonic economy.
Pfft. You’re no different than the guy sitting across the street from the White House with his little pavillion of “Anti-USA” and “Anti-Nuke” placards.
Just a lone nut, gibbering in the corner.
-Joe
I admire his lifespan.
Sailboat
With respect (and gratitude for your gracious apology, btw), I think that there is. “Free-market hegemony” is a recognized technical term that takes its name from the claims that the advocates of such systems make for them, and as such is useful and informative. (Not that a more colorful term such as “robber baron capitalism” isn’t also useful and informative in a different way, natch.)
I understand that you personally would prefer to reserve the term “free-market” to apply only in the context of true, ideally efficient free markets, just as you personally would prefer to reserve the term “liberal” to apply only to the context of the political philosophy of classical liberalism. However, in both cases your preferred meaning happens not to be what most people understand by the term in question, so we are to some extent stuck with the resulting ambiguity. I don’t agree that the ambiguity is enough of a problem to justify giving up the more “standard” and commonly understood usage.
The real world is the place it is partly because of choices we make, and partly because of certain fundamental facts that we can’t realistically expect to be able to change.
I might “choose” to stop “settling for” the tyranny of universal gravitation, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound or jump out of airplanes (sans parachute) without plunging to my death. We all have to accept that there are things about the real world that are not ultimately subject to our choices and preferences. Yes, economic and social realities are somewhat more subject to our control than gravitational ones, but not entirely so.