Conservative logic

Peter C, in Harry’s comments: "It is Europe’s choice if it wants to spend its money on bulbous welfare systems and 35 hour weeks rather than the sort of military forces and economic power that win respect and influence in the world. But in no sense have they then the right to demand some of the influence that America won through her prudence. Yet again we see left-wingers utterly indifferent to the work that brought others success, happy to redistribute to the grasshopper the fruits of the ant’s toil."

Presumably, therefore, if I fail to spend my money on machine guns and petrol, then I’ve got no right to complain when an Aryan Nation nutcase shoots the family next door and burns down their house. It’s a point of view, I guess.

And no, I don’t think America’s military influence on the world is equivalent to that of a nutcase shooting everyone and burning down their houses. From country to country and campaign to campaign, it varies between that and the strongly positive (encompassing most shades in between). The point was the astonishing idiocy of the quote’s logic.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by John B. Bookmark the permalink.

4 thoughts on “Conservative logic

  1. Imagine a country that puts the health of its citizens and security of its workers before building large bombs. It’s just unthinkable. I think he does both the US and Europe a disservice with that comment.

    Incidentally, Terry ‘who’s your crack dealer’ is rather amusing in a special kind of way.

  2. Trying to find Mark Steyn’s original comments so I can be sure whether the loon is Peter in his spin, or if he’s just parroting someone else’s idiocy.

  3. The point was the astonishing idiocy of the quote’s logic.

    Given the source, why the astonishment?

    And for those who need a reminder of the absurd positions that young Peter has got himself into in the past through applying his own peculiar brand of logic to the real world, here’s a classic

Comments are closed.