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: i-node who wrote (520986)	11/9/2012 1:19:42 AM
From: ManyMoose	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793623

The commentary at the end of the article was more revealing than the article.

To: i-node who wrote (520986)	11/9/2012 1:49:35 AM
From: LindyBill	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793623

Re: Your article. The article is a jewel. Here are some of the rubies and diamonds. the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did Imagine two restaurants side by side. One sells its customers fine cuisine at a reasonable price, and the other offers a free buffet, all-you-can-eat as long as supplies last. Few – including me – could resist the attraction of the free food. Now imagine that the second restaurant stays in business because the first restaurant is forced to provide it with the food for the free buffet, and we have the current economy, until, at least, the first restaurant decides to go out of business. (Then, the government takes over the provision of free food to its patrons.) For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel. They voted to secure Obama’s future at America’s expense and at Israel’s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline Read more: cross-currents.com Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

To: i-node who wrote (520986)	11/9/2012 3:01:14 AM
From: goldworldnet	8 Recommendations Respond to of 793623

I'm a little curious as to what others think of it Although stunned and disheartened by the election, nothing is gained by allowing the loss or any loss to overcome us. So with that in mind, I will look ahead and give the world of tomorrow my best. Josh * * *

To: i-node who wrote (520986)	11/9/2012 3:31:03 AM
From: unclewest	8 Recommendations Respond to of 793623

I am neither endorsing nor dissing this article by posting it. I'm a little curious as to what others think of it if anyone cares to comment. A Rabbi describes and explains our dilemma. cross-currents.com My view - The Rabbi does an excellent job of explaining our social dilemma and the persistent and devastating drag it presents to our society. He missed a key point, when he wrote, "The most powerful empires in history all crumbled – from the Greeks and the Romans to the British and the Soviets. None of the collapses were easily foreseen, and yet they were predictable in retrospect." He is right, but did not explain that a severe weakening of each of their Armed Forces ability to defend the homeland was a precursor to their governments' collapse. Whether strong or weak, as the United States Military goes, so goes America. It is incumbent on, and personally advantageous for every freedom-loving American to support our military at every opportunity. uw

To: i-node who wrote (520986)	11/19/2012 12:40:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793623

I don't like the title much. IMO there is no American empire, or if there is its rather insignificant (mostly Pacific Islands). Being involved in wars and/or nation building overseas is not enough to make an empire. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle If Romney ran a better campaign or the party fielded a strong candidate, if Sandy didn't happen, and esp. if the economy was worse, and perhaps if Todd Akin had not become the Republican candidate or if he kept his mouth shut about rape, then Romney very likely would have won. OTOH the author still has a bit of a point. Things that negatively affect a candidate's chances are going to happen. So you can't simply blame them. Part of it has to be on the candidate or the campaign (which he seems to mostly reject as an explanations), or on the ideas and political coalition behind the party (which is his explanation). I think he dismisses the first two a bit too easily, but it seems there has been at least a bit of a turn away from support of free enterprise and private imitative, towards more support for crony capitalism (The bailout of GM and Chrysler was fairly popular at least to the extent of many people thinking "we had to do it"), and big government spending programs. Ronald Reagan himself could not win an election in today’s America. I don't think that's an accurate statement. Romney only lost by about 50 or 51 percent to 48 percent. the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is dumb – ignorant, and uninformed. I think the average voter is "rationally ignorant". The odds of their vote deciding the election are probably about the same or less then the odds of them being hit by lighting on the way to vote. Voting to an extent is a way to cheer for your party, ideological, or identity politics team. are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich. Obama could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules” – without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending. Obama could get away with it because he knew he was talking to dunces waving signs and squealing at any sight of him. That's largely true. But I think the author reads too much in to one election. Yes there is a lot of ignorance among voters (maybe even more among non-voters, but they aren't that relevant to the points he raises), but the idea that the electorate has decisively and perhaps permanently rejected economic freedom and fiscal sanity (or the Republicans, which is a different point, their politicians sometimes don't support economic freedom and fiscal sanity, and even when they do the part can be rejected for other reasons), is overblown considering that the election was close (less so in the electoral vote total, but that speaks more to the Dems strong ground game in the battleground states, then a sweeping endorsement of Obama or rejection of Republicans, also those states where also close).