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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (39716)	1/1/2004 1:15:58 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 59480

2004 is a time for choosing George Will (archive) January 1, 2004 \| Print \| Send URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20040101.shtml It is the year before the year in which Democrats probably will have one of their agonizing reappraisals. And it is the year before the year in which Republicans, having come to terms with the fact that the welfare state is here to stay, will prove that they are, or are not, serious about governing it. When you turned the page on the calendar Wednesday night, the first page of 2004 should have had printed -- in large letters, in red ink -- this insomnia-producing warning: ``DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY AND IT IS NOW JUST FOUR YEARS BEFORE THE DEMOGRAPHIC DELUGE -- THE BEGINNING OF THE RETIREMENT OF 77 MILLION BABY BOOMERS.'' Fortunately, Democrats seem determined to nominate an angry apostle of reactionary liberalism, ready to die on the barricades in defense of the unsustainable Medicare and Social Security status quos. If Democrats do that, the electoral aftermath could be a creative moment for welfare state reform. Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory over Barry Goldwater in 1964 created in Congress something that had not existed since 1938 -- a liberal legislative majority. It lasted only two years, but it did much. Howard Dean could be the catalyst of a conservative legislative majority which, although probably evanescent, might be emboldened to begin coming to grips with this: The baby boom generation is twice as large as the generation it follows and 50 percent larger than the one that is following it. By 2030 the nation's population will be older than Florida's is today. Unless there are politically difficult changes, such as raising the retirement age, there will be twice as many retirees as there are today. And there will be perhaps only 18 percent more workers to pay for the retirees -- unless there is a much higher rate of immigration, which would involve its own political difficulties. To begin dealing with all this, President Bush needs two things. One is the emancipation from re-election concerns that comes with a second term and the 22nd Amendment foreclosing a third. The other is an enlarged legislative majority to work with before he begins to be, after 2006, a seriously lame duck. Every president seeking a second term wants to have at his back the wind from three things -- a strong foreign policy, a strong economy and a weak opponent. The new year dawns with Democrats apparently determined to complete the wish-list trifecta of the president they dislike more than any president since Richard Nixon. In 1972 they did Nixon the favor of nominating the opponent he would have chosen, George McGovern. If this year the Democratic Party marginalizes itself, it will give Bush a chance to broaden his presidency. Before 9/11, he had a minimalist presidency, symbolized by what he was doing when the planes struck the World Trade Center -- reading to some Florida grade school pupils. He had pleased his core supporters and fulfilled a campaign promise by cutting taxes. He had launched his initiative to involve ``faith-based'' institutions in the delivery of social services. He had formulated a sophisticated policy on stem cell research. But as late as 8:45 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, it was unclear what would be the important additional substance, if any, of his presidency. At 8:46 a.m. there was clarity. By then Bush had already begun taking Democratic issues off the 2004 table with the No Child Left Behind Act, which blurred traditional Democratic possession of the education issue. That bill became law just seven years after Republicans rode to a smashing victory in the 1994 elections promising, among many other things, to abolish the Department of Education. In 1996 Democrat Bill Clinton became the first president to sign a law repealing a major entitlement (Aid to Families with Dependent Children, repealed as part of welfare reform). And in 2003 his Republican successor signed a law creating a major entitlement (to prescription drug benefits). Regarding the post-New Deal role of the federal government, the differences between the parties have narrowed. There shall be an enormous federal role in assuaging the two great fears of life, illness and old age. The arguments are about modalities. But they are important arguments. They concern the feasible and proper role of individual choice in medical and retirement entitlements. And the use of private retirement accounts to give Americans of modest means access to serious accumulation over a lifetime. This could be the year before the year when Congress comes to grips with those arguments. ©2003 Washington Post Writers Group

To: sandintoes who wrote (39716)	1/1/2004 2:32:13 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

The new Mariners stadium is wonderful. It has an early 20th century feel to it.

To: sandintoes who wrote (39716)	1/1/2004 3:12:22 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Place Your Right Hand On The Quran And Repeat After Me December 30, 2003 THE AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union began its onslaught against Alabama Judge Roy Moore in 1995, when an ACLU lawyer, depressed that he was not chosen to play Mrs. Claus in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade that year, wrote a letter to all the state judges in Alabama protesting their practice of having a prayer in the courtroom every few weeks. (Obviously you can't have prayer in court: It might distract all the people holding their hand over a Bible and swearing before God almighty to tell the truth.) Everything had been going just fine in Alabama – no defendant had ever complained about the practice – but upon receiving a testy letter from the ACLU, all the other Alabama judges immediately ceased and desisted from the foul practice of allowing prayer in court. Judge Moore did not. For resisting the ACLU's bullying, Moore became High Value Target No. 1. Soon the ACLU and its ilk were filing lawsuits and anonymous ethics complaints against Moore. The ACLU along with the Southern Poverty Law Center sued Moore for having a Ten Commandments plaque in his courtroom. (Poverty had been nearly eliminated in the South until a poor person happened to gaze upon Moore's Ten Commandments – and then it was back to square one.) An affirmative action, Carter-appointed judge (oh sorry, I forgot – we're only allowed to say that about Clarence Thomas) found that the Ten Commandments plaque violated the First Amendment. Apparently, in a little-noticed development, Judge Moore had become "Congress," his Ten Commandments plaque was a "law," and the plaque established a national religion. The Taliban had better legal justification to blow up centuries-old Buddha statues in Afghanistan. The then-governor of Alabama, "Fob" James, responded to the inane ruling by saying he'd send in the Alabama National Guard if anyone tried to take down Moore's Ten Commandments. That's all it took. The Alabama Supreme Court backed off from a confrontation with the governor by dismissing the ACLU's suit on technical grounds. Both Moore and James were soon re-elected in landslides, Moore to chief justice. Liberals reacted to the overwhelming popularity of the state officials who resisted the ACLU by accusing them of stirring up the Ten Commandments dispute as a publicity stunt. The president of the Alabama ACLU said "the whole thing is political," and that Moore and James were using it as an election issue. The ACLU sues, and for not surrendering immediately, state officials are media whores. Thus, according to Time magazine, Judge Moore has been on a "crusade" since – in Time's own words – "he defended his right to display" the Ten Commandments. It "should have surprised no one" the magazine continued, when Moore installed the Ten Commandments monument in the courthouse lobby and "forced a showdown by refusing to remove it." In other words, Moore defended himself from one ACLU lawsuit and then – as if that weren't enough! – he did not instantly surrender when the ACLU filed a second lawsuit. That guy sure knows how to get publicity. Indeed, Moore maintained his disagreement with the ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution as creating a universal ban on God right up until he was out of a job. A lot of conservatives said Moore was wrong to refuse to comply with the court's idiotic ruling. The conservative argument for enforcing manifestly absurd court rulings is that the only other option is anarchy. But we are already living in anarchy. It's a one-sided, "Alice in Wonderland" anarchy in which liberals always win and conservatives always lose – and then cheerfully enforce their own defeats. Oh, you see an abortion clause in there? OK, I don't see it, but we'll enforce it. Sodomy, too, you say? OK, it's legal. Gay marriage? Just give us a minute to change the law. No prayer in schools? It's out. Go-go dancing is speech, but protest at abortion clinics isn't? Okey-dokey. No Ten Commandments in the courthouse? Somebody get the number of a monument removal service. What passes for "constitutional law" can be fairly summarized as: Heads we win, tails you lose. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court. Apparently the only thing standing between a government of laws and total anarchy is the fact that conservatives are good losers. If we don't give liberals everything they want, when they want it, anarchy will result. We must obey manifestly absurd court rulings, so that liberals obey court rulings when they lose. Point one: They almost never lose. Point two: They already refuse to accept laws they don't like. They do it all the time – race discrimination bans, bilingual education bans, marijuana bans. They refuse to accept the Electoral College when their candidate wins the popular vote, and they refuse to accept sexual harassment laws when their president is the accused. If you don't let them win every game, they walk off with the football. I'm not sure what horror is supposed to befall the nation if the liberals started ignoring the law more than they already do, but apparently it would be even worse than a country in which the Ten Commandments have been stripped from every public space, prayer in schools is outlawed, sodomy is a constitutional right, and more than 1 million unborn children are aborted every year. anncoulter.org