The fact is that, although Bush hasn’t been perfect on domestic issues, I now feel much less threatened in regard to my Second Amendment rights than I did during the Clinton years. Of course, a spreadsheet-obsessed accountant wannabe like yourself wouldn’t understand that.

A little clue, though–those Democrat girls you’re trying to impress by bad-mouthing Republicans? They don’t get turned on by green eyeshades, any more than any women do.

Fred- Easy to see why folks who bought into, say, the wonders of the Soviet U. or the Cultural Revolution or the Sandinistas or…might be shamed into heading way right – But you know there have alwasy been leftists (and more liberals) who were anti-totalitarians. Think on (the greatest of em all?) Orwell. And there are other writers on left who are more modern, more clear than Orwell ever was about what might offered up INSTEAD of statism/socialism to people aware that Western (& Christian!) values don’t match up with wbat’s on offer from Ayn Rand or Bill Buckley or minds ruled by the Market.

I mentioned Lawrence Goodwyn’s stuff here – Alexis checked it out and found his books are not worthless – I think someother clubbers might have got the groove there too. Goodwyn is a radical democrat. At the end of the Populist Moment – (hsi abridged version of his standard history of American populism) he provides a chapter on “economics” that challenges preconceptons on both the left and right. Read that myself matters of “provision’ ever since…A couple other writers might interest you as well – Might look into Castoriadis and Mauss…Interesting European heads…Key is to keep looking out for genuinely new ideas that are in great Tradition(s). (Castoriadis, for example, is the great updater of Greek demos – Mauss is a hero of Social Anthropology) – Though as Bob Dylan once said in a song that came out right after 9/11 – “You can’t open your mind to every conceivable point of view.”

Stealth secularist? LOL! Would be a perspective on Franklin or maybe Jefferson or perhaps JFK. I dunno, did FDR attend services?

The notion of stealth involving secularism, is like a foul smelling whiskey swilling Boston papist trying to be pious in a house where all the residents are staunch anabaptists.

I don’t think its possible.

I often mention myself as an ex-Leftist because I want it known that there are thinking people who were at one time thinking Leftists who continued to think and followed evidence and logic. That’s all. I’m not alone in this experience. I’m sure there are people who used to be on the Right who have now gone over to the Left. I’d be curious to know how, based on reason and fact, they did so. And I’d love to engage such a person in a civil and interesting dialog. I left the Left because, primarily, it betrayed some of the foundational principles of Western culture. In the mid to late eighties I began to pay attention to the reality of socialist regimes in the world. I also caught on to many lies being bandied about on the Left. And lots of other reasons besides.

And at present I still find myself of two minds on a score of topics, the legacy of my Catholic upbringing which had a healthy dose of the social teachings of the Church down through the centuries. But, overall I think socialism has been a failure everywhere it’s been tried. There are reasons for this beyond the excuses for it that I’ve heard from the Left over the years.

FYI -Here’s the Wiki entry on the “US Involvement/Corporate Business Interests” in the Chilean Coup…Seems crazy to
Main article: United States intervention in Chile
The possibility of Allende winning Chile’s 1970 election was deemed a disaster by a US government desirous of protecting US business interests and preventing any further spread of communism during the Cold War. In September 1970, President Nixon informed the CIA that an Allende regime in Chile would not be acceptable and authorized $10 million to stop Allende from coming to power or unseat him [34]. The CIA’s plans to impede Allende’s investiture as President of Chile were known as “Track I” and “Track II”; Track I sought to prevent Allende from assuming power via so-called “parliamentary trickery”, while under the Track II initiative, the CIA tried to convince key Chilean military officers to carry out a coup.[34]

After the 1970 election, the Track I operation attempted to incite Chile’s outgoing president, Eduardo Frei Montalva, to persuade his party (PDC) to vote in Congress for Alessandri. Under the plan, Alessandri would resign his office immediately after assuming it and call new elections. Eduardo Frei would then be constitutionally able to run again (since the Chilean Constitution did not allow a president to hold two consecutive terms, but allowed multiple non-consecutive ones), and presumably easily defeat Allende. The Chilean Congress instead chose Allende as President, on the condition that he would sign a “Statute of Constitutional Guarantees” affirming that he would respect and obey the Chilean Constitution, and that his reforms would not undermine any element of it.

Track II was abortive, as parallel initiatives already underway within the Chilean military rendered it moot.[35]

The United States has acknowledged having played a role in Chilean politics prior to the coup, but its degree of involvement in the coup itself is debated. The CIA was notified by its Chilean contacts of the impending coup two days in advance, but contends it “played no direct role in” the coup.[36]

President Allende’s economic policy had involved nationalizations of many key companies, notably U.S.-owned copper mines. This had been a significant reason behind the United States opposition to Allende’s reformist socialist government, in addition to his establishing diplomatic relations and cooperation agreements with Cuba and the Soviet Union. Much of the internal opposition to Allende’s policies came from business sector, and recently-released U.S. government documents confirm that the U.S. funded the truck drivers’ strike,[37] which had exacerbated the already chaotic economic situation prior to the coup.

The most prominent U.S. corporations in Chile prior to Allende’s presidency were the Anaconda and Kennecott Copper companies, and ITT, International Telephone and Telegraph. Both the copper corporations aimed to expand privatized copper production in the city of El Teniente, Chile, the world’s largest underground copper mine. At the end of 1968, according to Department of Commerce data, U.S. corporate holdings in Chile amounted to $964 million. Anaconda and Kennecott accounted for 28% of U.S. holdings, but ITT had by far the largest holding of any single corporation, with an investment of $200 million in Chile. In 1970, before Allende was elected, ITT owned 70% of Chitelco, the Chilean Telephone Company and funded El Mercurio, a Chilean right-wing newspaper. Documents released in 2000 by the CIA confirmed that before the elections of 1970, ITT gave $700,000 to Allende’s conservative opponent, Jorge Allesandri, with help from the CIA on how to channel the money safely. ITT president Harold Geneen also offered $1 million to the CIA to help defeat Allende in the elections. [38]

After General Pinochet assumed power, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told U.S. President Richard Nixon that the U.S. “didn’t do it,” but “we helped them…created the conditions as great as possible.” (referring to the coup itself)[39]. Recent documents declassified under the Clinton administration’s Chile Declassification Project show that the United States government and the CIA had sought the overthrow of Allende in 1970 immediately before he took office (”Project FUBELT”), but claims of their direct involvement in the 1973 coup are not proven by publicly available documentary evidence, but many documents still remain classified.
dge -

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/

have fun!!