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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (18038)	11/28/2003 11:33:05 PM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793625

The declaration of independence "that they (mankind) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" archives.gov The reference to the pursuit of Happiness is thought by many scholars to be a reference to economic freedom, which is being eroded day by day by the government. It is odd to me that the government can: 1. control where I build my home, 2. how I use my property, 3. require me to provide it with all sorts of personal information, without any apparant limit, in a census, which the constitution permits only for purposes of counting the number of inhabitants of the US. 4. require me to wear a seatbelt where only my health is in danger. 5. Require me to wear a helmet if I ride a motorcycle, again where only my health is in danger. 6. etc, etc, etc. Yet somehow it finds that there is a constitutional right for people of the same sex to marry. Marriage by legal definition is and has been since time imemorial defined as follows: MARRIAGE. A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. Dig. 23, 2, 1; Ayl. Parer. 359; Stair, Inst. tit. 4, s. 1; Shelford on Mar. and Div. c. 1, s. 1. constitution.org See also dictionary.law.com It seems that the courts view is that freedom is not for all of us or maybe that some of us are more free than others. Little joe

To: Dayuhan who wrote (18038)	11/29/2003 12:28:48 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793625

Rice defends Bush trip to Iraq CRAWFORD, United States (AFP) - President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s national security adviser defended his lightning trip to Baghdad, denying it was a political stunt that inadvertently highlighted the chaos still blighting Iraq (news - web sites). "Obviously, Iraq is still a dangerous place, and that's no secret to anyone," Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) told ABC television just hours after returning with Bush from the surprise Thanksgiving holiday visit. But charges that the secrecy and security blanketing his two-and-a-half stop at Baghdad airport showed that Iraq has made little progress towards stability since the US-led March invasion are "just not true," she said. "The Iraqis are taking control of their own future. Most of the country remains quite stable. The Iraqis are planning and looking forward to the transfer of sovereignty. They're taking over ministries, schools are opening, all of those things are happening," she said. Some critics, including the presidential campaign of retired general Wesley Clark (news - web sites), said the brevity and cloak-and-dagger nature of the visit -- which the White House sold as a morale-booster -- actually showed how little Washington has accomplished in Iraq since taking control in April. "The trip highlights how insecure Iraq is and shows how we need to get our allies in to get the American face off the occupation," Clark spokesman Jamal Simmons told AFP. "Hopefully, President Bush realized, when he looked into the faces of those soldiers, that he owes them a success strategy in Iraq so that we can get back to the business of fighting the war on terrorism," said Simmons. Concerns over rising insurgent violence led the White House to impose a vow of silence on media accompanying the president, lifting it only once he was safely away from the Iraqi capital after a stay confined to the airport. Bush's Air Force One airplane made a special landing designed to limit its exposure to surface-to-air missiles, arriving with its running lights turned off and all shades drawn to prevent light from seeping out and giving away its position. "Presidential trips require extraordinary security under any circumstances. Under this circumstance, it required even more extraordinary security, but the president wanted to send a message," said Rice. She also acknowledged that the missile attack earlier this month on a German DHL cargo plane had almost caused the White House to scrap Bush's visit, which was planned for weeks starting in mid-October. "The DHL incident made people go back and take a look at whether we thought the plane would be safe going in. They determined that it was defended and that it could be done," she said. Rice also denied that the White House -- which is famed for its attention to political detail -- made the trip to bolster Bush's chances to win a second term in November 2004. "This originated out of the president and the policy side," said Rice, who stopped short of saying that political adviser Karl Rove did not know about the trip. Bush's visit overshadowed a similar one a day later by Senator Hillary Clinton (news - web sites). A source familiar with the planning of her visit said the administration was informed in late September that she would go. Rice said Bush's visit was designed to boost eroding US troop morale and let Iraqis know that the United States will stay until the war-ravaged country is stable and on the road to democracy and prosperity. "We are still engaged in trying to rid the place of the horrible remnants of the Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) regime. The people who brutalized their fellow Iraqis are still trying to do that, there are foreign terrorists in the country -- everybody knows it's a dangerous place," Rice told the network. story.news.yahoo.com

To: Dayuhan who wrote (18038)	11/29/2003 4:40:18 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793625

Brooks writes another good column. November 29, 2003 OP-ED COLUMNIST The Promised Land By DAVID BROOKS The history of American conservatism is an exodus tale. It begins in the wilderness, in the early 1950's, with Russell Kirk, Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley Jr. writing tracts for small bands of true believers. Conservatives crashed into the walls of power during the Goldwater debacle of 1964, and then breached those walls with Reagan's triumph 16 years later. But even with Reagan in the Oval Office, Republicans were not the majority party. Democrats controlled the House, and few Reaganites actually knew how to run a government. In 1994, with the Gingrich revolution, the conservatives strode closer to the center of power. But even then, they were not quite there. For the rule of exodus tales is that the chiefs who lead in the wilderness and storm the citadels do not get to govern once their troops have occupied the city. Renegades are too combative to govern well. It was only this week that we can truly say the exodus story is over, with the success of the Medicare reform bill. This week the G.O.P. behaved as a majority party in full. The Republicans used the powers of government to entrench their own dominance. They used their control of the federal budget to create a new entitlement, to woo new allies and service a key constituency group, the elderly. From now on, as Tony Blankley observed in The Washington Times, if you work at an interest group and you want to know what's going on with your legislation, you have to go to the Republicans. The Democrats don't even know the state of play. If you are the AARP, seeking a benefit, you have to go to the Republicans. If you are a centrist Democrat like John Breaux or Max Baucus seeking to pass legislation, you have to work with the Republicans. Under the leadership of Bush, Frist, Hastert and DeLay, the Republicans have built a fully mature establishment of activist groups, think tanks and lobbyists, which is amazingly aloof from the older Washington establishment (not to mention the media establishment). Republicans now speak in that calm, and to their opponents infuriating, manner of those who believe they were born to rule. The Democrats, meanwhile, behave just as the Republicans did when they were stuck in the minority. They complain about their outrageous mistreatment by the majority. They are right to complain. The treatment is outrageous. But the complaints only communicate weakness. Democrats indulge in the joys of opposition. They get to sputter about fiscal irresponsibility, just as the green-eyeshade Republicans used to, as the majority party uses the power of the purse to buy votes. They get to make wild charges. They get to propose solutions that ignore inconvenient realities. They never have to betray their principles to get something done, and so they savor their own righteousness. Minority parties are pure but defeated; governing parties are impure but victorious. The Republicans are now in the habit of winning, and are on permanent offense on all fronts. They offer tax cuts to stimulate the economy and please business. They nominate conservative judges to advance conservative social reform and satisfy religious conservatives. They fight a war on terror. They have even come to occupy the Democratic holy of the holies, the welfare state. In exchange for massive new spending, they demand competitive reforms. The only drawback is that now, as the governing party, they have to betray some of the principles that first animated them. This week we saw dozens of conservatives, who once believed in limited government, vote for a new spending program that will cost over $2 trillion over the next 20 years. In the past three years, federal education spending has increased by 65 percent. Unemployment benefit payments are up by 85 percent. Many conservatives are dismayed over what has happened to their movement as it has grown fat and happy in the Promised Land. A significant rift has opened up between the conservative think tankers and journalists, who are loyal to ideas, and the K Street establishmentarians, who are loyal to groups. The good news for Democrats is that the K Street establishment will slowly win this struggle. The majority will ossify. It will lose touch with its principles and eventually crumble under the weight of its own spoils. The bad news for Democrats is that, as Republicans can tell you, the ossification process is maddeningly slow. After the New Deal, it took 60 years. nytimes.com