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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (128221)	11/30/2012 1:44:05 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

A Liberal Moment What’s going on here, demography and democracy seem to be saying at the same time, is the advance of progressive political ideas by a majority that spurns an obvious label. Liberals have long been a distinct minority; liberalism, in its better forms, has been triumphant at key times since the founding of the Republic. [...] For at least a generation’s time, liberals in this country have been afraid to call themselves liberal. Was it the excesses of their creed, from race-based preferential programs that went on far too long to crude speech censorship by the politically correct and humorless (one and the same) that soiled the brand? In blindly embracing, say, the teachers’ union in the face of overwhelming evidence that public education needs a jolt or in never questioning the efficacy of government programs, the left earned its years in exile. [...]Which brings us to the fascinating self-portrait of the United States at the start of the second half of the Obama era. A tenuous center-left majority wants to restore some equality to the outsize imbalance between the very rich and the rest of us. If a tenuous president can lead that coalition, without overreaching, he might be remembered among the greats. In its simplest form, this will involve raising taxes at the high end and reforming entitlements enough to ensure their continued success and sustainability. Much of that, an accountant could do. But it takes a gifted politician for the heavier lifting. That leader will have to make his still-fledgling health care act work and earn his premature Nobel Peace Prize on an issue like climate change. In the process, he could restore the good name to traditional liberalism. opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

To: RetiredNow who wrote (128221)	11/30/2012 2:01:09 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 149317

"What Socialists do is give the heroin addict more heroin, which ultimately kills him." Lo que no mata, engorda. What doesn't kill you makes you fat. Maybe we need more free heroin, or maybe socialists are guilty of giving Ripple, which does kill, to alcoholic wharf rats. = Like most opioids, unadulterated heroin does not cause many long-term complications other than dependence and constipation. [36] Prescription for addicts Main article: Heroin assisted treatment The UK Department of Health's Rolleston Committee Report[22] in 1926 established the British approach to diacetylmorphine prescription to users, which was maintained for the next 40 years: dealers were prosecuted, but doctors could prescribe diacetylmorphine to users when withdrawing from it would cause harm or severe distress to the patient. This "policing and prescribing" policy effectively controlled the perceived diacetylmorphine problem in the UK until 1959 when the number of diacetylmorphine addicts doubled every 16 months during a period of ten years, 1959–1968.[23] In 1964 the Brain Committee recommended that only selected approved doctors working at approved specialised centres be allowed to prescribe diacetylmorphine and benzoylmethylecgonine (cocaine) to users. The law was made more restrictive in 1968. Beginning in the 1970s, the emphasis shifted to abstinence and the use of methadone, until now only a small number of users in the UK are prescribed diacetylmorphine.[24] In 1994 Switzerland began a trial diacetylmorphine maintenance program for users that had failed multiple withdrawal programs. The aim of this program is to maintain the health of the user to avoid medical problems stemming from the illicit use of diacetylmorphine. Reducing drug-related crime and preventing overdoses were two other goals. The first trial in 1994 involved 340 users, although enrollment was later expanded to 1000 based on the apparent success of the program. Participants are allowed to inject diacetylmorphine in specially designed pharmacies for 15 Swiss francs per day.[25] A national referendum in November 2008 showed 68% of voters supported the plan,[26] introducing diacetylmorphine prescription into federal law. The trials before were based on time-limited executive ordinances. The success of the Swiss trials led German, Dutch,[27] and Canadian[28] cities to try out their own diacetylmorphine prescription programs.[29] Some Australian cities (such as Sydney) have instituted legal diacetylmorphine supervised injecting centers, in line with other wider harm minimization programs. Since January 2009 Denmark has prescribed diacetylmorphine to a few addicts that have tried methadone and subutex without success.[30] Beginning in February 2010, addicts in Copenhagen and Odense will be eligible to receive free diacetylmorphine. Later in 2010 other cities including Århus and Esbjerg will join the scheme. In total, around 230 addicts will be able to receive free diacetylmorphine.[31] However, Danish addicts will only be able to inject heroin according to the policy set by Danish National Board of Health.[32] Of the estimated 1500 drug users who do not benefit from the current oral substitution treatment, approximately 900 will not be in the target group for treatment with injectable diacetylmorphine, either because of "massive multiple drug abuse of non-opioids" or "not wanting treatment with injectable diacetylmorphine".[33] In July 2009, the German Bundestag passed a law allowing diacetylmorphine prescription as a standard treatment for addicts; while diacetylmorphine prescription was started in 2002, it was only authorized as a large-scale trial.[34 en.wikipedia.org

To: RetiredNow who wrote (128221)	11/30/2012 2:40:19 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

I have read my history and the studies and what you say is pure nonsense. In fact I have advanced degrees in social science and worked in the field. Right wingers said the same thing to me about raising my children. I gave them everything, raised them very gently, had few rules and sure as hell did not invoke tough love. Tough lover is for loser parents. And my kids thank me all the time for being gentle and generous and say most of their friends had contentious relationships with their parents. I never once had to tell either to do their homework. I never even thought about hitting them and they were NEVER afraid of me. Both went to fine universities and got advanced degrees and both have wonderful mates, kids and fine lives; and a million friends, wonderful personalities and people love them By your theory they would both be spoiled brats. But they aren't. They are stong because I did not beat them down and always boosted their egos. We need to help the poor not invoke tough love. Good lord you are jaded. Tough love my ass-lol! <<It's not a lack of empathy, but rather short term love versus long term love. What Socialists do is give the heroin addict more heroin, which ultimately kills him. They say, he's really begging for it, so I love him and will give it to him. Long term love a lot of times is tough love. A Libertarian recognizes the root cause is that the heroin is killing the drug addict and refuses to participate and will not enable the drug addicts self-destructive behavior. Very similarly, Socialists want to intervene in every aspect of people's lives, because Socialists are like the well-meaning grandmother who wants to control everyone in the family, because she believes she knows better what's good for them. This is why Socialism always in the end leads to Totalitarianism. It always starts with well-meaning people imposing their will on others and it always ends in Totalitarian control over others.