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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (130126)	7/30/2008 12:46:27 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Ayn Rand quotes: The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. It is futile to fight against, if one does not know what one is fighting for. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals -- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government -- that it is not a charter _for_ government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection _against_ the government. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed. Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgement and nothing can help you escape it -- that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life. Volumes can be and have been written about the issue of freedom versus dictatorship, but, in essence, it comes down to a single question: do you consider it moral to treat men as sacrificial animals and to rule them by physical force? I swear by my life, and love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers. Do you think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power the government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers. Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel. The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights... quotes.liberty-tree.ca

To: Land Shark who wrote (130126)	7/30/2008 1:27:26 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Your ignore list is growing and growing and growing. By golly you have the right to claim the sum total of your ignoring make you the most ignorant poster there ever was. Way to go, I.Kant Best regards, less_

To: Land Shark who wrote (130126)	7/30/2008 2:23:21 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 173976

30,000 people packed the streets in San Francisco to pay homage to the Emperor of the United States. Joshua Abraham Norton (c. 1819 – January 8, 1880), also known as His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, was a celebrated citizen of San Francisco, California who proclaimed himself "Emperor of these United States" and, in 1859, "Protector of Mexico." Born in London, Norton spent most of his early life in South Africa; he emigrated to San Francisco in 1849 after receiving a bequest of $40,000 from his father's estate. Norton initially made a living as a businessman, but he lost his fortune investing in Peruvian rice. After losing a lawsuit in which he tried to void his rice contract, Norton left San Francisco. He returned a few years later, apparently mentally unbalanced, claiming to be the emperor of the United States. Although he had no political power, and his influence extended only so far as he was humored by those around him, he was treated deferentially in San Francisco, and currency issued in his name was honored in the establishments he frequented. Though he was considered insane, or at least highly eccentric, the citizens of San Francisco celebrated his regal presence and his proclamations, most famously, his "order" that the United States Congress be dissolved by force (which Congress and the U.S. Army ignored) and his numerous decrees calling for a bridge and a tunnel to be built across San Francisco Bay. On January 8, 1880, Norton collapsed at a street corner, and died before he could be given medical treatment. The following day, nearly 30,000 people packed the streets of San Francisco to pay homage to Norton. Norton's legacy has been immortalized in the literature of writers like Mark Twain and Robert Louis Stevenson who based characters on him. In December 2004, a resolution was made to name the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in honor of Norton, but the idea did not progress further.

To: Land Shark who wrote (130126)	7/30/2008 2:29:05 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 173976

Are you aware it was illegal to be "found ugly" on the streets of some mainstream American cities like Chicago, Illinois (Chicago Municipal Code, sec. 36034) and Omaha, Nebraska (Unsightly Beggar Ordinance Nebraska Municipal Code of 1941, sec. 25) and Columbus, Ohio (General Offense Code, sec. 2387.04)? Your punishment for being caught public ranged from incarceration to fines of up to $50.00 USD for each ugly offense. boles.com

To: Land Shark who wrote (130126)	7/30/2008 2:36:46 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 173976

War in Canada... The Montreal Gazette Published: Monday, July 21, 2008 The pampering of the dairy industry has a long, if not distinguished, history in Canada. The news this week that Quebec is about to permit consumers to buy yellow-coloured margarine is being hailed as a victory for consumers and for common sense. But the end of this comic-opera rule should rather remind us of how much the well-organized dairy lobby still distorts markets, at consumers' expense. Canadian politicians are old hands at limiting consumer choice and keeping dairy prices high. Margarine, invented in France and patented in 1870, was banned in Canada in the 1880s at the behest of butter interests, according to The Canadian Encyclopedia. The ban was lifted in 1917 -- there was a war on -- but was reimposed from 1923 to the late 1940s. Thereafter the stuff was allowed, but subject to provincial regulation. Quebec producers are the hub of Canada's dairy industry: Our 7,162 milk-producing farms are half the Canadian total, says the government's Dairy Information Centre. And Quebec reportedly produces 47 per cent of Canada's "industrial" milk -- used for cheese, yogurt, ice cream and the like. So Quebec is not margarine-friendly. Dairy prices are high across Canada because governments restrict production and limit imports. But how to keep people from switching away from what margarine ads used to call "the high-priced spread?" Well, government action can always be relied on to fiddle with markets. And so margarine was kept out of Quebec until 1961; then allowed in only in the still-familiar nasty shade of white. Dairy power existed elsewhere in Canada, too -- Ontarians of a certain age remember squeezing the plastic bag to break the pellet and mix the food colouring into the white margarine in the 1950s. But all that ended years ago, except in Quebec. In Nova Scotia you can now even buy blends of margarine and butter. But Quebecers are still firmly "protected" from such choices. Three years ago an interprovincial trade tribunal demanded that Quebec drop the ban on tinted margarine; the province just shrugged. So now a Liberal cabinet is finally ending the ban. A formal announcement will come next week. This is less surprising when you consider nowadays Quebec's dairy producers have bigger fish to fry. As Canada's farm ministers meet in Quebec City this week to discuss internal trade agreements, the looming issue is reportedly yogurt: How much of yogurt should be milk, and how much of other non-dairy ingredients should be allowed? Should consumers be allowed to choose from a range of clearly-labelled products? Or should all-knowing government simply choose for consumers, to protect dairy incomes? It isn't difficult to guess which way our governments will decide.

To: Land Shark who wrote (130126)	7/30/2008 6:23:40 PM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

News Hounds We watch FOX so you don't have to. Fox Guest Ties Obama to al Qaeda Reported by Melanie - July 28, 2008 - 94 comments Your World w/Neil Cavuto loves the ex-Clinton supporters who have turned their allegiance to John McCain and who are more than willing to come on the show to get their 15 minutes and say whatever they want about Barack Obama. Fox is apparently unable to find actual Republicans who are going to vote for McCain so they're getting two-fers with this crowd. But today's (July 28, 2008) appearance by Cristi Adkins was the most vicious to date. In a segment captioned (via the chyron), "Clinton Supporters Donate $1.6M to Obama in June," Adkins, egged on by substitute host Alexis Glick, had some choice words for anyone thinking about voting for Obama and, of course, Fox loved every minute. Adkins said that "When most people go to the polls, they want someone they can trust. And for us, Clinton was that person and Obama is far from it." Glick wondered what was wrong with people giving funds to Obama because, "they have now decided that he's the candidate of their choice?" Adkins said, Well, to make the leap from Clinton to Obama surprises me because he's unqualified, he's unvetted, he's inexperienced and he's also very dangerous um, in my opinion, and in a lot of, opinion [sic] of other Clinton supporters in our group, Clintons4McCain. I don't understand how people can just blindly follow someone just because they slapped a Democratic label on him. We need to vet this man and he is dangerous and with the abundance of ties and affiliations that he has. Rezko, Odinga, just to name a few. With friends like those, who needs al Qaeda?" (Not a peep from Glick.) Comment: Is it any wonder Cavuto trots this crowd out roughly once a week? And is it any wonder Adkins was on immediately following an appearance by Larry Summers who talked about Obama's economic plan? Just in case anyone thought Summers made sense, Fox slapped Adkins up to slap that down. I'll try to post video later. Something screwy happened with my recording. I'll see if I can straighten it out and get it up. UPDATE: 7-29-08/12:20 a.m. ET: Here's the video: newshounds.us