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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe Btfsplk who wrote (53932)	12/5/2006 2:56:30 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Thoughts inspired by a rolling cliche' By Jay Tea on Politics Wizbang Last Saturday, I took a bit of a road trip that took me within a couple miles of the Vermont border. And while on the road, I spotted a car that scored the trifecta of moonbattery: 1) A Toyota Prius hybrid that 2) had Vermont license plates and 3) a "Bush Freedom Countdown" sticker that highlighted Bush's last day in office (January 20, 2009). That started me thinking about a couple things. First, how many terrible, brutal, repressive, fascist dictatorships come with expiration dates, like the Bush Reign of (T)Error? It must kinda put a dent in the whole "Help! Help! We're being oppressed!" thing they have going. Second, I think I see a hidden benefit to the 22nd Amendment. I remember when I was just entering my teens seeing just how much the presidency aged Jimmy Carter. In four years, he look like he put on about 15 years. (I know most of the country felt like his single term lasted for a couple of decades. It's amazing how much suck one man can inflict on a nation in such a short period.) The stress that being president puts on a human being must be unimaginable. Since the Amendment limiting presidents to two terms (well, technically, ten years less one day at the maximum), I think only one president has had the health and energy and vigor to have stood more than two terms in office, and that's Bill Clinton. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan? Forget about it. Nixon? Too paranoid at the end. Ford and George H. W. Bush, long shots at best. George W. Bush? I'd give him 50/50 odds at best. Although philosophically, I disagree with the notion of term limits (people should not only get the government they want, but they should have to live with their choices), in this case I think that the backers of that Amendment did the right thing -- but for all the wrong reasons. Third, I strongly suspect that most of the people who have such stickers (or "freedom clocks" on their web sites) are often the same people who demand a firm timetable for the withdrawal from Iraq. They don't seem to make the connection to the sense of hope and relief they feel knowing the exact moment the Bush administration withdraws from the White House, and the similar feelings the terrorists in Iraq would have if they had such knowledge. So thank you, anonymous moonbat lady in your Prius. Your "messages" gave me pause for reflection, and some new insights. But I don't think they're the type of insights that you were hoping for. feeds.wizbangblog.com peterdavid.malibulist.com

To: Joe Btfsplk who wrote (53932)	12/5/2006 3:21:18 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

I don't think so. The mindset that Big Government is the answer to social inequality and that special interest groups may ethically curry special favor with Big Government has a genesis in a belief system pertinent to modern liberalism (which is really more properly termed socialism). That belief system may be unconsciously held, but it nevertheless informs the pandering to bureaucracy and Government as a means to achieve a certain "sharing" of resources--human resources that is to say. In order to justify such a belief there must be an underlying outlook on the nature of man. In classical (or Jeffersonian)liberalism, that outlook valued freedom above all things and relied on the essential value of man both for the distinction of freedom as value and for the practice of freedom (hands off). Without this belief in the essential worth, dignity, and competence of man to earn his own station in life, there would be no reason to honor freedom as the highest value. When the value of freedom is trivialized by the active support of intrusive interference and exploitation of human resources, it supposes a fundamental contempt for the individual. It is the mindset of the tribe or the hive. I don't think this mindset prevails in libertarianism--which is the original liberalism. Nor do I think it constitutes a "plurality" in conservatism. I think socialism (modern liberalism) embodies an ACTIVE embracement of totalitarian ideals--with government and special interest sharing the duties of dictator.