Ok, I won’t call Newt a fascist. But he’s still a sleazy little right wing turd. Feel any better?

But again, I’m flexible. If you come up with a new word that means someone who believes the state should control economic and other activity at every level, I’m willing to use it. Ironically, both “socialism” and “fascism” work just fine for this, at least in the economic field. Other useful words include “statism” and “collectivism.” Statism is coming more into vogue now, because it doesn’t have the arbitrary baggage the other words do.

Tell me how Newt Gingrich is going to control my life. Be specific.

I may be totally ignorant of what your definition of fascism is, but I do know a sleazy little right wing turd like Newt is close enough to make the perfect example for mine.

What exactly is a “defender of the poor?” And how do they accomplish this?

As for the magazine, what the hell did you want me to say?

Every goddam nickel governments spend have someone at the other end who really, really wants that nickel. And the politicians who promise more and more nickels tend to get elected. Those who point out that the nickels aren’t infinite are selfish, fascist bastards who hate sportsmen, outdoorsmen, and probably kittens.

This is what we call in engineering a “positive feedback system.”

Of course, the liberal fantasy is that the only reason we can’t spend as much money as we want on everything we can possibly think of is that we just haven’t bled out enough rich people yet.

Here’s the Florida Wildlife Commission budget. Feel free to go down the list and check off all the stuff less important than a magazine.

Even above, when I remarked about my magazine ceasing publication, all that that you thought of was how they could save money that way. It never occurred to you that the staff and the contributors might be affected, some of them severely when they lose their livelihoods. Not to mention, the readership, sportsmen and outdoorsmen, are not the kind of folks likely to spend much time on the web reading online content.

Tom, you’re some piece of work. You’re not really evil, you were
just raised by aliens.

“Well, if it’s ok to slam environmental activists for living energy-profligate lifestyles, and its allowed to condemn defenders of the poor for living luxuriously, then I suppose its perfectly legitimate to point out the hypocrisy of those who make a career of advocating public frugality while spending extravagantly on pure luxuries.”

I’m not sure these are all the same. It would be a valid comparison if the wasteful environmental activist lived in his own ecosystem. I don’t know what a “defender of the poor” is, although there have been a long line of millionaire populists who are quite willing to be generous with money other than their own.

I’m not sure why being rich or spending money is an issue only for Republicans. A fundamental conservative principle is frugality with other people’s money. Meanwhile, the Democrats seem to define “compassion” and “generosity” as spending other people’s money liberally, and hanging on to their own.

As far as presidential and vice-presidential candidates go, look at the list of wealthy scuzzbags that Democrats have crawled over broken glass to vote for over the past few elections.

Democrats really, really shouldn’t be bringing up the subject of marital fidelity and character in a candidate for high office.