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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (597766)	1/12/2011 4:32:19 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1575010

Why did liberal Obama say this about the founding fathers 'charter of negative liberties'? “The Constitution reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day” stoptheaclu.com moonbattery.com If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. freedomswings.wordpress.com

To: bentway who wrote (597766)	1/12/2011 4:33:59 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575010

Bentway, > The two divisions you cite were BOTH liberal. You're trying to blur the lines. No way the liberals of the post-modern era can be compared with the Founding Fathers. The world is vastly different. We have rights and liberties guaranteed to us today that weren't available back during the colonial era. If anything, the liberals of today want to return us to an era of more government control. Not much different than King George, only this time it's King Soros, Queen Pelosi, and Prince Gore. Even this week, it's modern-day liberals who want to tear up the Constitution. All "for our safety." Tenchusatsu

To: bentway who wrote (597766)	1/12/2011 6:21:52 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1575010

The CONSERVATIVES of the day really DID want to remain a British colony, and there were quite a few of them! "Conservative" has a generic meaning, of not liking a lot of change, or not liking change to come quickly. By that definition the torries/loyalists where conservative. But they have essentially no connection to the modern American political conservative movement, or to the British conservatives for that matter. Liberal and conservative both have many meanings, one who is liberal by one can be conservative by another. Supporters of free market capitalism are "liberal" in terms of supporting freedom over government control, but are somewhat more likely to be considered "conservatives" today (if the person doing the considering doesn't think of using "libertarian" instead or if their other views don't show a libertarian trend). Supporting the status quo on entitlements is a "conservative" (resistance to change) position, but one held by many "liberals".