SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125858)3/8/2012 6:33:36 PM
From: sm1th3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224744
 
unemployment so low after the Clinton years

Unemployment was so low because of the internet bubble. Thousands of companies with no hope of success were funded and employed people. Then those companies and jobs went back where they belong.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125858)3/8/2012 6:39:42 PM
From: lorne5 Recommendations  Respond to of 224744
 
ken, a few days ago I asked you if you thought this guy was snobby, snooty? I may have missed your answer so will try again.




To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125858)3/8/2012 6:41:31 PM
From: lorne4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224744
 
Ken, how about this guy...Not suggesting anything political, just overall appearence.

Ya think this guy was snobish?




To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125858)3/8/2012 6:55:12 PM
From: lorne4 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224744
 
THE OTHER RUSH
Yes, liberalism is manifestly evil
Thursday, March 08, 2012
wnd.com



Exclusive: Erik Rush show how leftist policies lead to cheating, stealing, killing

As I pondered the exponential increase in the quantity and intensity of far-left propaganda of late, the degree of misdirection being employed by the left and the Democratic machine’s attempts to make contraception (of all ridiculous things at this juncture) a campaign issue this year, I came across some interesting information. At first blush, it might appear to feed into the aforementioned misdirection, but it is quite germane to the discussion – assuming the discussion centers around the dissolution of our republic by a cabal of radical socialists.

In the upcoming film “October Baby,” a young woman traces the history and circumstances of a repressed traumatic birth experience with its genesis in her having been the survivor of a failed abortion – one in which the baby actually survives the procedure. In her case, she was adopted shortly afterward, knowing nothing of her origins until a frightening episode occurs when she is 19.

According to the film’s producers, the protagonist’s experience is culled from the accounts of hundreds of botched abortion survivors.

Hundreds?

Yes; as it turns out, there are perhaps thousands of people born since 1973 bearing deep psychological scars from having been unceremoniously scraped from their mother’s wombs and – miraculously – living to tell about it. I imagine I don’t have to explain to the initiated conservative news junkies out there why we haven’t heard any reportage on this fascinating if deeply disturbing phenomenon.

In Columbia, S.C., alongside Route 277N adjacent to a low-income housing project, there’s a huge billboard that describes in histrionic tones how lawmakers are trying to end birth control. This is a patent lie, but one that will go unchallenged for a couple of reasons: One, it’s targeting those who may not be in tune with the daily news and laws being passed in D.C. Two, those who are in tune with the daily news and laws being passed in D.C. don’t typically frequent low-income housing projects in South Carolina.

I recall quite well the public debate over abortion in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Essentially what ensued was a liberal propaganda campaign targeted at coercing the public into accepting abortion, which culminated in Roe v. Wade. Victims of incest and rape were showcased, as were women whose lives might be put at grave risk due to pregnancy. Abortion would be, as Bill Clinton echoed years later, “safe, legal and rare.”

As a result however, abortion became a means of contraception for the careless and indulgent, stem-cell research became a cottage industry, and there are people running around with traumatic birth experiences related to their unwilling participation in failed abortions. The insidious incrementalism of this culture of death has become painfully evident in recent discussions among ethicists who now argue that abortion should be extended to include newborns, according to a paper just published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

Volumes have already been written on the destructive and demoralizing ramifications of our acquiescence to liberal policies over the years, whether one cites economy-stultifying over-regulation, confiscatory taxation, milquetoast foreign policy, or the insinuation of libertine morality into our worldview. While the left continues to blame other agencies for problems they have caused or exacerbated, that’s just par for the course; denial is their thing. There isn’t anywhere liberals can point to illustrate the moral high ground that retroactive abortion or societal suicide occupies without comprehensive misrepresentation, propaganda, or outright lies.

Americans at large must arrive at – and then feel comfortable articulating – the truth that liberal policies are manifestly evil. Presented to us in an attractive altruistic, compassionate wrapper, they were in fact poisonous fare, formulated by the worst among us. Such people have raised the lie to a high art, that they might cheat Americans of their birthright, steal the fruits of our labor and even kill, as evidenced by their conspicuous lack of value for life.

This is neither about religion nor race; anyone with a grade-school education and a modicum of human decency can tell that this liberal-socialist doctrine we’ve been sold is retrograde. It is shepherding us backward, not forward, in terms of social development.

There’s no shame in admitting that one was fooled. Continuing to advocate for deception in the face of the truth makes one a fool, however – and foolishness has never been part of the American pedigree.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125858)3/9/2012 8:06:51 AM
From: lorne3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224744
 
LOYAL TO LIBERTY

Conditioned to be mastered by others
Exclusive: Alan Keyes profiles type of candidates 'self-serving elites' make sure are elected
Friday, March 09, 2012
wnd.com



As the background of the word suggests, one of the essential characteristics of being “rational” is the capacity to understand one thing in terms of another. This involves seeing things in relation to one another, as when we observe the similarities and differences between them. In more complex rational thought, it involves understanding the connection between one thing and another, as cause and effect, for example, or as effects of the same cause.

Obviously, the words of the Declaration of Independence quoted above assume that people will think rationally as they ponder the actions of government, or as they give due consideration to political speeches and events. Sadly, in the era of flittering sound bites and disjointed MTV videography, people are being conditioned to confine themselves to the moment, to react to the instantaneous impressions that constitute their experience, rather than stepping back, as it were, to analyze its distinct elements so as to recognize the whole they represent. Absent this recognition of the whole, the experience of knowledge abides at the level of feeling and sensory perception, a state of consciousness that appears to be characteristic of animals, but is untrue to the potential of a human being.

The capacity to see the correlations that distinguish one state of affairs from another is what allows human beings to look, as it were, beyond the experience of the moment in order to consider its implications. This is why human beings trapped in a slaughterhouse react to that fact differently than steers. Recognizing their situation for what it is on the whole, they not only feel and react against the pain of the cattle prod; in their minds they see and react against the prospect of fatal harm toward which it drives them, even when that destination is not immediately apparent to their senses. Like Shakespeare’s Macbeth, they are “transported … beyond the ignorant present, and … feel now the future in the instant.” (“Macbeth,” Act I, Scene 5)

We are being conditioned to live “in the ignorant present”; to react to things without considering their inter-relationships. As a result of that conditioning, we may have trouble seeing what it (the conditioning) has to do with politics. It helps to take note of what the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (regarded by many as the progenitor of political science) asserts toward the beginning of his work on politics: “… he that can foresee with his mind is naturally ruler and naturally master, and he that can do these things [only] with his body is subject and naturally a slave.” For a nation “conceived in liberty,” the distinction between master and slave should easily be recognized as fundamental to the conduct of political affairs. This should be especially easy when, in the document that first asserted the nation’s independent existence, its founders observed that recognizing the designing actions of a despotically inclined government is the indicator that obliges people to remember and enforce the purpose of just government.

If Aristotle was right, whatever diminishes our ability to appreciate the implications of present facts, activities and circumstances diminishes the likelihood that we will remain our own masters; and increases the likelihood that we will be mastered by others. Rational foresight is therefore the practical sine qua non for preserving self-government, which is to say, our liberty as a people. This means that when it comes to choosing the people who will represent us in public office, we should ask whether their statements and actions give evidence that they will represent us in this capacity. Have they thought through the implications of ideas, proposals and events in order to forewarn of things that are dangerous to, or inconsistent with the security of our rights, our persons and our belongings? Or are they merely “reactionaries” in the true sense of the term – kicking against the pricks that others manipulate to drive the nation to its destruction?

Today, for example, there is a great furor over Obama’s moves to impose government domination of religion. Who saw the seeds of this imposition that were planted during G.W. Bush’s administration and warned against the abuse Obama planned to make of what sprang from them? Today the once sotto voce advocacy of infanticide is being dressed up as a respectable facet of “bio ethics.”Who foresaw it as the natural consequence of the false assertion of “abortion rights” and linked it to the callous disregard of Terry Schiavo’s unalienable right to life?

In the same context, the equally false notion that the U.S. Constitution forbids the separation of religion from politics is being used by the advocates of infanticide to pervert the logic of human personhood. Denying the equality of all human beings as manifestations of God’s will, they seek to reintroduce the doctrine of inequality among persons (based on their physical development or other qualifications) that was the basis for the invidious distinctions and hideous abuses regularly characteristic of the elitist despotisms that once dominated human political arrangements. Who foresaw that the suppression of the Declaration’s acknowledgment of the Creator’s authority would overthrow the whole doctrine of unalienable rights? Who urged people toward a strategic understanding of right, as the basis for action to uphold the Declaration’s assertion of rights, liberty and justly limited self-government?

America’s self-serving elites are only willing to promote candidates for office (including and especially the presidency) who aid and abet, or else fail to appreciate the design for despotism that has produced the fateful crisis we are in. Such people offer no hope of averting its fatal outcome. Indeed, by their willingness to accept the prevailing leftist paradigm of politics based on selfish materialism (seeking money solutions for a crisis that arises from the destruction of moral understanding and character), they reinforce the deceitful manipulation that aggravates the crisis, practically assuring there will be no escape from its fatal consequences.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125858)3/9/2012 8:32:35 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224744
 
Message 28000392



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125858)3/9/2012 8:33:05 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224744
 



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125858)3/9/2012 8:33:54 AM
From: Hope Praytochange1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224744
 



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125858)3/9/2012 8:34:35 AM
From: Hope Praytochange2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224744
 



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125858)3/9/2012 8:35:24 AM
From: Hope Praytochange1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224744
 



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125858)3/14/2012 1:28:33 PM
From: TimF1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224744
 
<<Yet he kept unemployment under 8%>> He was able to do that because he started with unemployment so low after the Clinton years..

He was president for eight years, and had an overall unemployment rate similar to what Clinton had. Presidents get too much blame and too much credit for the economy, but even if you are going to give them that level of credit and blame you can't reasonably give Clinton credit for an eight year average of decent employment under Bush.

Or if you are going to give such long term credit, then you might have to credit Reagan and Volker for Clinton's decent unemployment history.