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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (49714)	7/30/2013 1:00:02 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 85487

It's true. Look at the charges around the country against people who choose not to take part in gay weddings. Look at how Catholic institutions have been pushed out of arranging adoptions. And this stuff is happening usually BEFORE gay marriage is the law in a particular state. There will be more coming.

To: koan who wrote (49714)	7/30/2013 1:00:12 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 85487

Liberalism Makes It Easier to be Bad Good point. Why aren't people calling Weiner a hypocrite? Cause everyone knows being a liberal Democrat means morality isn't important. Written By : Dennis Prager July 30, 2013 There are many liberals who lead thoroughly decent lives. And there are conservatives who do not. But that is not the whole issue. There is something about liberalism that is not nearly as true about conservatism. The further left one goes, the more one finds that the ideology provides moral cover for a life that is not moral. While many people left of center lead fine personal lives, many do not. And left-wing ideals enable a person to do that much more than conservative ideals do. There is an easy way to demonstrate this. If a married — or even unmarried — conservative congressman had texted sexual images of himself to young women he did not even know, he would have been calledsomething Anthony Wiener has not been called — a hypocrite. Why? Because conservatives — secular conservatives, not only religious conservatives — are identified with moral values in the personal sphere, and liberals are not. Liberals rarely called Bill Clinton a hypocrite for his extramarital affair while president. George W. Bush would have been pilloried as such. Simply put, we do not generally judge personal conduct the same when it comes to liberals and conservatives. Both liberals and conservatives know this. As a result, as noted, liberal social positions can provide moral cover for immoral behavior in a way that conservative positions cannot. Though there are many sincere liberals, it is likely that this ability to provide moral cover for a less than moral life is one source of liberalism’s appeal. I first thought about this when I saw how the left-wing students at my graduate school, Columbia University, behaved. Aside from their closing down classes, taking over office buildings, and ransacking professors’ offices, I saw the way in which many of them conducted themselves in their personal lives. Most of them had little sense of personal decency, and lived lives of narcissistic hedonism.Women who were involved with leftist groups have told of how poorly they were treated. And one suspects that they would have been treated far better by conservative, let alone religious, men on campus. My sense was that the radicals’ commitment to “humanity,” to “peace,” and to “love” gave them license to feel good about themselves without having to lead a good life. Their vocal opposition to war and to racism provided them with all the moral self-esteem they wanted. Consider the example of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. He had been expelled from college for paying someone to take his exams. His role in the death of a woman with whom he spent an evening would have sent almost anyone without his family name to prison — or would have at least resulted in prosecution for negligent homicide. And he spent decades using so many women in so public a way that stories about his sex life were routinely told in Washington.Read the 9,000-word 1990 article in GQ by Michael Kelly, who a few years later became the editor of the New Republic. When this unimpressive man started espousing liberal positions, speaking passionately about the downtrodden in society, it recalled the unimpressive students who marched on behalf of civil rights, peace and love. It is quite likely that Ted Kennedy came to believe in the positions that he took. But I also suspect that he found espousing those positions invaluable to his self-image and to his public image: “Look at what a moral man I am after all.” And liberal positions were all that mattered to the left and to the liberal media that largely ignored such lecherous behavior as the “waitress sandwich” he made in a Washington, D.C. restaurant with another prominent liberal, former Senator Chris Dodd. In addition to knowing that liberal positions provide moral cover for immoral personal behavior, liberals know that their immoral behavior will be given more of pass than exactly the same behavior would if done by a conservative. Women’s groups provided Bill Clinton with enormous moral capital because he supported their feminist agenda. One leading feminist famously said she would be happy to get on her knees and pleasure Clinton thanks to his pro-choice position on abortion. Conservative politicians have the same sex drive as liberal politicians, the same marital problems and the same ubiquitous temptations and opportunities. And some will therefore engage in extramarital sex. But every conservative politician knows that should he be caught, his positions on issues not only do not provide moral cover for his conduct, those very positions condemn it. There is no benefit to the conservative sinner in being a conservative. There is great benefit to the liberal sinner in being a liberal. Read more at rightwingnews.com

To: koan who wrote (49714)	7/30/2013 1:49:13 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

The Constitutional Scholar President puts the last nails in the Constitutional liberties we used to have. Be sure and tell the Obama-clowns like SiouxPal. I'm sure they'll be ecstatic! JULY 30, 2013 Acquitted of “Aiding the Enemy," found guilty of several other counts under Espionage Act The Meaning of the Manning Verdict by KATE EPSTEIN Although Manning was not convicted of the harsher “aiding the enemy” charge, which would have introduced a death-eligible charge into the government’s anti-whistleblower toolbox, he was convicted of several other lesser counts. He probably will not receive a life sentence, but still faces potentially decades or more in prison. His sentencing is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. ET tomorrow (Wednesday) morning, and if he receives the maximum sentence on all counts he will face over 100 years. The acquittal on the “aiding the enemy” charge is undoubtedly a small victory, but Manning’s case will still serve as a deterrent to those who might shine light on America’s dirty secrets. He was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, waiting over three years to appear in court. He was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, held first in Kuwait and then for eleven months in solitary confinement in a 6 x 12 foot windowless cell at Quantico. During that time he was often deprived of clothing and not allowed to sleep or lie down during certain hours. If you haven’t already seen it, watch the Collateral Murder video here. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded. Before Manning anonymously shared the video with Wikileaks in 2010, Reuters had been unsuccessfully trying to obtain it through the Freedom of Information Act since the time of the attack. Manning’s so-called crimes consist of leaking the Collateral Murder video, the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, which betrayed more war crimes and the extent of America’s quagmires in the Middle East, and the embarrassing diplomatic cables that demonstrated the low-level corruption, bullying, and hypocrisy of modern diplomacy. Professor Yochai Benkler has written, “The implications of Manning’s case go well beyond Wikileaks, to the very heart of accountability journalism in a networked age.” [W]e have to look at ourselves in the mirror of this case and ask: Are we the America of Japanese Internment and Joseph McCarthy, or are we the America of Ida Tarbell and the Pentagon Papers? What kind of country makes communicating with the press for publication to the American public a death-eligible offense? What a coup for Al Qaeda, to have maimed our constitutional spirit to the point where we might become that nation. *Kate Epstein* is a lawyer and activist who manages the blog The Lone Pamphleteer. She can be reached at katepstein@gmail.com.