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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lazarre who wrote (17274)	7/22/1998 10:06:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Lincoln Savings, Mainland Savings, Sunrise Savings, First South, FSB, etc. etc. etc. I believe George's son was cleared. Silverado was a case of greed and stupidity but not evil. The aforementioned Bank failures all championed by Democrat protectors were allowed to bleed until the ultimate cure was much costlier. JLA

To: lazarre who wrote (17274)	7/22/1998 10:28:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

WHY LIBERALISM IS SO DANGEROUS USA Journal Online 7-22-98 Jon Dougherty WHY LIBERALISM IS DANGEROUS JULY 22 - Here are a couple of the most recent examples demonstrating why modern-day liberalism is so blessed dangerous. In the latest blow to political correctness, a federal judge ruled on Monday that the so-called "data" the Environmental Protection Agency used to alter public opinion against the `dangers of second hand tobacco smoke' was erroneous. That data, you will remember, was used by all sorts of PC nannies, Leftist/Socialist political action groups, the mainstream media and cowardly congressmen to enact all sorts of restrictive legislation against smokers and smoking in general. Already the defenders of the big government status quo have proclaimed this federal judge some sort of ignoramus - a caveman throwback from the days when, well, when that awful concept known as truth really mattered. The PC cops will have none of it because they have made up their minds that facts will be darned - and no matter if the data is erroneous - there will be no widespread repeal of the federal government's attack on smoking and big tobacco. In another example, a few weeks ago a large contingent of California's public school teachers collectively pledged to defy the newly-passed ban on bilingual education. These socialist agents of change - "for the children" - have decided that the voters are nothing more than cavemen throwbacks from the days when, well, when that awful concept known as truth really mattered. Even though the facts thoroughly prove that so-called `bilingual education' is a loser, is too expensive, and flat doesn't work, they have vowed to continue teaching that way no matter what the voters [and a federal judge] has to say. That's because facts be darned, they know what is best, don't you see [yet almost every one of them has someone else to blame for the sorry state of our children's education]. Contrast this arrogance with the silence from these same quarters in cases of political correctness that have the support of the misguided. When the same state of California passed initiatives banning taxpayer funding for illegal immigrants, there was no outcry from the PC socialists nor any attempt to "defy" voters or federal judges. And yet the line item expenses for the state regarding the care of illegal immigrants continues to escalate beyond control. When dozens of states - along with the federal government - traipse across the Second Amendment and pass unconstitutional gun bans which effective forbid people from defending themselves, not a whimper or a whine is heard from the PC socialists. This despite the escalating crime and violence in some of the most "gun safe" cities. When President Clinton calls refunding the federal government's budget surplus to taxpayers from whence it came, he's called `compassionate' and full of `vision'. Well, he's full of something alright. What's the difference? Mindless hypocrisy, that's what. Liberals habitually think and act with their hearts, while conservatives [most of whom have hearts, by the way] take a much more analytical and fact-based approach to things. Consider that when conservative activists protest against the loss of their wealth, the illegal taking of their property and rights, or when conservatives "vow" civil disobedience [which never happens, by the way] over laws they do not agree with, they are labeled as "anti-government extremists" and a "danger to society." This despite the fact that no so-called right wing group [I'm not talking individuals here] has ever been associated with extreme acts of violence on American soil, no matter what those losers from the Southern Poverty Law Center tell you [their data is so provably skewed you'd have to be dead not to see the obvious discrepancies]. However, radical Leftist environmentalist groups have torched and vandalized the corporate offices of companies they say have violated "the sanctity of the earth." They have destroyed the property of terrorized farmers and ranchers because they believe Americans who work the land for a living have "no inherent right to do so." And these same Leftist maniacs [along with their socialist brethren in the media] have so poisoned the process of debate that anytime someone even breathes a word of dissent to their ideals, they are viciously attacked, smeared, threatened, and silenced. How's that from the side which claims to have cornered the market on "compassion?" But compassion to a liberal is, of course, whatever a liberal says it is. What other differences are there? Perhaps the biggest is that those on the Right seek to reestablish the principles of government which this nation was founded upon - even for the constitutionally ignorant. Some of those principles emphasize personal responsibility - a concept so foreign to liberals most can't even define it for you. Liberals so believe in big government nannyism that the concept of constitutionalism never enters their minds. So who's `anti-government' here? If there is a threat to the survival of this nation, it is not coming from so-called right wing, anti-government extremism. It is being destroyed from within by a stifling liberalism, which demonizes reason, common sense, and an individual's zeal for independence from big government. That concept has always been historically more dangerous to a nation. Just ask the ancient Romans. *** c1998 Covenant Syndicate and USA Journal Online. freerepublic.com