Replies

Sure, we'll just send Jimmy Carter down there to make sur the election isn't rigged. We can trust him! /sarcasm. Or maybe even Warren Christopher!

What exactly are you trying to say? That all elections are rigged?

Communists don't believe in orderly freedom.

What is orderly freedom, if it isn't the power to choose your own leaders? I think you have your priorities confused.

When people are stupid enough to elect a communist, they kiss orderly freedom goodbye.

Perhaps to some extent, then they wise up and elect a decent leader to take his place. But when the military comes and usurps the will of the people, you've lost all freedom, orderly or otherwise.

Do you think every dictator who rides to power on a wave of mob hysteria has the right to treat his slaves how he pleases?

No.

I notice you don't jump up to defend Robert Mugabe from Zimbabwe. Well he is a perfect example of the insanity you are defending.

Not really, because everyone agrees he was defeated for reelection, and only won because of widespread fraud, harassment, and violence. Before the sham "election," I really had no problem with him. He was a fairly bad ruler, but one which his citizens had chosen.

Quote by Alexander Fraser Ty[t]ler, Lord Woodhouselee snipped]

Lord Woodhouselee was an ardent monarchist. Are you?

What exactly are you trying to say? That all elections are rigged?

No. I am saying that I do not trust Jimmy Carter. He never met a Latin American dictator whose boots he didn't lick. I don't believe for a second that Arafat is the legitimately elected leader of the Palestinians. Free elections cannot be held under duress. You don't seem to care that Communists are even more antidemocratic than me. They only use democracy to take power, and then they rule as totalitarians. To them, the ends justify the means, and yes, they always cheat.

What is orderly freedom, if it isn't the power to choose your own leaders? I think you have your priorities confused.

Absolutely wrong. Once again, you are dismissing the possibility that an elected leader may dispose of orderly freedom once they have seized the apparatus of the state. This possibility becomes a certainty when Communists are involved.

Perhaps to some extent, then they wise up and elect a decent leader to take his place.

Wrong again, because once they vote the Communists in, there will never be another free election.

But when the military comes and usurps the will of the people, you've lost all freedom, orderly or otherwise.

Wrong. If the military is overthrowing an oppressive dictator, then they are fighting to preserve freedom. A well regulated militia is necessary for protecting the freedom and property of the citzens from the thieving communists. You don't seem to care to much about those whose freedom will be voted away from them by the Bolshevik majority. I believe in the Rule of Law, not in the pernicious whims of the mob or the demogogues they serve.

Before the sham "election," I really had no problem with him.

That's unforunate, because he was a genocidal Communist before the election too. The differnce between Allende and Mugabe is that we stopped Allende from doing what we are standing by and watching Mugabe do.

Lord Woodhouselee was an ardent monarchist.

So was Edmund Burke. He was right about the Colonies, and Tytler was right about democracy. Why not address his argument rather than attack the man? Is it because his argument is irrefutable?

Lord Woodhouselee was an ardent monarchist. Are you?

I serve no king but King Jesus. Whom do you serve? Are you against all monarchies? You seem to prefer Communists to Monarchs. I'll take England over Zimbabwe any day.