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 (156027)5/15/2013 12:22:09 PM
From: longnshort4 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224757
 

Axelrod said obama didn't know what was going on because the gov is too big.

that doesn't mean the left want to make gov smaller what they will call for is two presidents, two white houses and continue to grow gov until we need 3 presidents



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (156027)5/15/2013 1:54:44 PM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224757
 
Time to clean out those plugged ears Ken!



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (156027)5/15/2013 2:33:46 PM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224757
 
If a democrat president loses Jon Stewart, can he hope to hang on to other liberals?

Jump ship Ken...while you have time



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (156027)5/15/2013 6:14:23 PM
From: jlallen3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224757
 
You are allowed to post here, are you not?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (156027)5/15/2013 7:04:34 PM
From: Wayners8 Recommendations  Respond to of 224757
 
Since the Left is all lies including you, It's clear to me that you benefit from lies and deception and theft and crime.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (156027)5/16/2013 8:04:46 AM
From: chartseer1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224757
 
It takes one to know one.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (156027)5/16/2013 8:04:58 AM
From: chartseer  Respond to of 224757
 
What are the latest polls results? You haven't posted them in a while?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (156027)5/16/2013 1:07:59 PM
From: longnshort3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224757
 
Husband Of IRS Official In Charge Of Unit Targeting Conservatives Has Strong Ties To The Obama Regime, Worked on His Re-Election Campaign…


I’m guessing Lois Lerner will be the next person thrown under the Obama Express.

Via Daily Caller:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official who apologized for targeting conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny is married to an attorney whose firm hosted a voter registration organizing event for the 2012 Obama re-election campaign, praised President Obama’s policy work, and had one of its partners appointed by Obama to a key ambassadorship.

IRS Exempt Organizations Division director Lois G. Lerner, who has been described as “apolitical” in mainstream press coverage of the IRS scandal, is married to tax attorney Michael R. Miles, a partner at the law firm Sutherland Asbill & Brennan. The firm is based in Atlanta but has a number of offices including in Washington, D.C., where Miles works.

The 400-attorney firm hosted an organizing meeting at its Atlanta office for people interested in helping with voter registration for the Obama re-election campaign.

This is not the first of Lerner’s connections to the president to surface. Earlier this week The Daily Caller reported that Lerner personally signed the tax-exemption approval for a shady charity run by Obama’s half-brother, after an inexplicably brief one-month application process.

Keep reading…




To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (156027)5/16/2013 2:06:35 PM
From: longnshort2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224757
 
SCIENCE: Men who are physically strong are more likely to have right wing political views
  • Weaker men more likely to support welfare state and wealth redistribution Link may reflect psychological traits that evolved in our ancestors Strength was a proxy for ability to defend or acquire resources There is no link between women's physical strength and political views
  • By Emma Innes

    PUBLISHED: 05:21 EST, 16 May 2013 | UPDATED: 10:22 EST, 16 May 2013

    Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing political stance, while weaker men are inclined to support the welfare state, according to a new study.

    Researchers discovered political motivations may have evolutionary links to physical strength.

    Men's upper-body strength predicts their political opinions on economic redistribution, according to the research.
    Men who are physically strong - like Arnold Schwarzenegger - are more likely to take a right wing political stance

    The principal investigators - psychological scientists Michael Bang Petersen, of Aarhus University in Denmark, and Daniel Sznycer, of the University of California in the U.S., believe that the link may reflect psychological traits that evolved in response to our early ancestral environments and continue to influence behaviour today.

    Professor Petersen said: ‘While many think of politics as a modern phenomenon, it has - in a sense - always been with our species.’

    In the days of our early ancestors, decisions about the distribution of resources were not made in courthouses or legislative offices, but through shows of strength.

    With this in mind, Professor Petersen and Professor Sznycer hypothesised that upper-body strength - a proxy for the ability to physically defend or acquire resources - would predict men's opinions about the redistribution of wealth.

    The researchers collected data on bicep size, socio-economic status, and support for economic redistribution from hundreds of people in the United States, Argentina and Denmark.

    In line with their hypotheses, the data revealed that wealthy men with high upper-body strength were less likely to support redistribution, while less wealthy men of the same strength were more likely to support it.

    Men with less upper body strength are more likely to support the welfare state - like Labour leader Ed Miliband

    Professor Petersen said: ‘Despite the fact that the United States, Denmark and Argentina have very different welfare systems, we still see that - at the psychological level - individuals reason about welfare redistribution in the same way.

    ‘In all three countries, physically strong males consistently pursue the self-interested position on redistribution.’

    Men with low upper-body strength, on the other hand, were less likely to support their own self-interest.

    Wealthy men of this group showed less resistance to redistribution, while poor men showed less support.

    Professor Petersen said: ‘Our results demonstrate that physically weak males are more reluctant than physically strong males to assert their self-interest - just as if disputes over national policies were a matter of direct physical confrontation among small numbers of individuals, rather than abstract electoral dynamics among millions.’

    However, the researchers found no link between upper-body strength and redistribution opinions among women.

    Professor Petersen argued that this is likely due to the fact that, over the course of evolutionary history, women had less to gain, and also more to lose, from engaging in direct physical aggression.

    He said, together, the results indicate that an evolutionary perspective may help to illuminate political motivations, at least those of men.

    Professor Petersen added: ‘Many previous studies have shown that people's political views cannot be predicted by standard economic models.

    ‘This is among the first studies to show that political views may be rational in another sense, in that they're designed by natural selection to function in the conditions recurrent over human evolutionary history.’

    The findings were published in the journal Psychological Science.



    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2325414/Men-physically-strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html#ixzz2TTmymujh
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



    To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (156027)5/17/2013 11:20:49 AM
    From: TideGlider4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224757
     
    Just a Crook? Pentagon Papers Lawyer Thinks Obama Is Worse Than Nixon
    By Michael H. Miller 5/14 11:16am

    Share this:


    James Goodale. (Photo By Don MacLeod)

    James C. Goodale, the so-called “father of reporters’ privilege” and the author of a new book called Fighting for the Press (CUNY Journalism Press, 255 pp., $20), was in his office at the Debevoise & Plimpton law firm, where he’s a partner, comparing Barack Obama to Richard M. Nixon.

    “Nixon and Agnew were like listening to a Fox News program all day long, every day,” he said. “In their eyes, the Eastern establishment press were against them and they were against it and they were going to destroy it as best they can.” But, he said, “Obama has all these things that he’s done to the press on national security matters that Nixon never did.”

    Mr. Goodale, 79, was the general counsel of The New York Times during the 1971 Pentagon Papers case, when President Nixon ordered the old grey lady to cease publication of excerpts from a 7,000-page document, which detailed America’s involvement in Vietnam over the course of three decades. The Times published the first excerpt on June 13, 1971. By June 26, the case had reached the Supreme Court. Over the course of a few days, the justices ruled in a 6-3 decision that the U.S. government could not censor the Times. Nixon then convened a grand jury to indict the Times for conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act—”which really doesn’t mean anything,” Mr. Goodale said, rubbing his forehead in distress—but the case quickly fell apart. Fighting for the Press reads like a political thriller, with Nixon providing some dark comic relief. The guy was not exactly subtle: “As far as the Times is concerned,” he said to John Mitchell, the U.S. Attorney General, “hell they’re our enemies.”

    Now, the man who successfully fought Nixon says President Obama has an even more troubling record. He has indicted six leakers to Nixon’s one, and just this week came word that federal investigators had seized two months of AP phone records without notice. Mr. Goodale believes that a grand jury has secretly indicted Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks and the publisher of the Afghan War Logs, one of the more substantial leaks since the Pentagon Papers. The father of reporter’s privilege is doing everything in his power to make sure the case does not go forward.

    “We’re going in a circle,” Mr. Goodale said. “When I talk to journalists about Assange—Jesus. They really don’t like him. They say, ‘He’s not one of us. We don’t care what happens to him.’ So I’m saying, ‘Wake up!’ If the government goes after him and gets him, that’s bad for everybody down the line. I’m way out on a limb in this book because it’s three years after the grand jury was convened and it hasn’t done anything. But I am quite confident the grand jury is alive. And I am confident that it has indicted Assange in secret. In any event, until the government tells us it’s gone away, I feel like we have to speak out against it. This will set a standard. And I can’t seem to get through.”

    The life of a First Amendment lawyer, and a general ally to journalists, is far different now than it was in 1971, when Mr. Goodale was still a young man. He’s very much a holdover from a different era. For one thing, the days are long gone when a person simply read one reputable morning newspaper and then went on with the rest of their day. The proliferation of writing on the Internet has both increased the amount of libel that is published and desensitized the public to it, Mr. Goodale says.

    “Privacy was something that everyone worried about, that they thought would blow up in their face,” he said. “We have a generational change with respect to privacy. The new generation really doesn’t value privacy in the same way as the preceding generation. There was no Paris Hilton in the print days. Can you imagine The Observer printing a picture of Paris Hilton fornicating?”

    (No comment here from the Transom, other than to say that Mr. Goodale raised his eyebrows in utter disbelief.)

    When he represented the Times, the paper of record was in danger of going bankrupt. He helped found The New York Observer, offering a cautionary voice about its economic viability. He was George Plimpton’s personal attorney when The Paris Review, by his account, “was four people around a desk in a basement that was dank and mushrooms were growing in it.”

    It was a decidedly fancier scene when the Review threw Mr. Goodale a party at their new offices in Chelsea last Wednesday. Lorin Stein, the Review‘s editor, praised Mr. Goodale’s “irascible eye.” Mr. Goodale offered a firsthand glimpse at it

    “I wanted to reach a conclusion that would inform President Obama with respect to his actions on the relationship of national security to the press,” he told the room, a mix of old lawyers and young writers. “He’s not been very good on it. But the idea was the national security claims do not hold up in the long run and the First Amendment protects journalists.” He paused. “So don’t get involved in that mess!”