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: Tom Clarke who wrote (223240)	10/10/2007 10:04:00 AM
From: mph	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 794032

I've decided to use the "oppressives" label henceforth... Two of my biggest beefs with the left have been their arrogance and the cram-down-the-throat attitude with their ideas. They give lip service to freedom of choice when what they really mean is freedom to make what THEY deem is the "right" choice. The proponents of their "big ideas" like universal health care or conservation to avert global warming are those who would be basically unaffected by implementation of their "big ideas", would get to be the steward(s) and therefore profit from it, and/or are too important to be bound by their own rules. [e.g., Al Gore and his carbon credits plus the company from which he profits after "paying" the "credits."] The people who "buy in" to the "big ideas" run the gamut from not being personally affected by the policies, like the rich Hollywood elite, to the illegals and non or lowest-tax paying segment of the population who think there might yet be something more in it for them. The folks in the middle must just be taken in by the language of compassion and "saving the children" in which all of these "big ideas" are packaged. Otherwise, I don't understand how any thinking person could vote for a Hillary. A vote for her is a vote for the Socialist experiment that's failed whenever it's been tried. The problem is that the Republicans have bungled their turn at the helm. The last Presidential candidate I voted FOR was Reagan. Since then, it's been a vote AGAINST the awful candidates offered by the left. The coming election is no different except that the prospect of Hillary is much more alarming than Kerry. Kerry, in my judgment, was a self-aggrandizing dufus whose lifelong desire to be President eclipsed any rational thought. [How else could he have even thought of that embarrassing "reporting for duty" line at the convention?] I don't think Kerry had in mind the kind of socialist upheaval for which Hillary has been working her entire life. Hillary is the modern equivalent of the Trojan Horse.