Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (451926)	9/3/2003 12:10:07 AM
From: laura_bush	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

I was just going to post that article via truthout here myself. LOL. Back to the media problem: Reporters such as William Rivers Pitt, Mark Morford of SFgate, the Salon bunch ... are who I want to see asking the Bush WH questions. I can't imagine that such reporters would be 'granted audience' with the Pope or his representative, the dickless Scott McLellan, for even WH briefings. We saw the shamable treatment of Helen Thomas. I think that Karl Rove is dictating to the major media who to hire these days, for the plum job of WH correspondent. Again: the wall is impenetrable. lb

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (451926)	9/3/2003 12:26:49 AM
From: laura_bush	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Karl Rove: Hobbes incarnate I received this in an email with no URL. I like the simplicity of the remarks, whoever made them. I see "Hobbes" and "Locke" tossed around here and there mostly by RW neocon bigots, so I'm glad to have a handy way to begin to understand how those assholes use such historical writers/philosophers to serve their own purposes... _________ John Locke wrote, among others, "Essays Concerning Human Understand". He puts the case against absolutism and for constitutional monarchy, which is a monarchy that is bound by laws. In his theory Locke wanted to show that "civilisation has some independence from the sovereign, and that rights exist independent from the sovereign." What he is speaking of are not rights established by a sovereign or ruling power, but fundamental rights that belong to us as human beings. While both Hobbes and Locke are "state of nature" theorists Hobbes is a conservative, and John Locke is believed to be one of the main founders of liberal theory. Hobbes believed that "man by nature is evil and that, in nature, there is no formal law, no order, no culture, and hope. In other words, a state of total chaos where no man has any individual rights, and all men are at war. Here, life is a constant battle for power, ending in death. All men, by nature, are equal. "Nature hath made men so equal...[that] when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable." In this state, a man's property is what he can take, and what he can prevent others from taking. If one item is desired by two men, they will become enemies, and in order to obtain this item, man will attempt to repress or destroy the other. So that in the nature of man, we find three principle causes of quarrel. First, competition; second, diffidence; third, glory. The first cause is primarily for material gain which involves violence, used generally to become master of your own and other men's property. The second is for personal safety, that is to defend what you have obtained through violence. The third is for reputation and defending one's name." ----------------------------------------------- lb