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.

Pastimes : Impeachment=" Insult to all Voters" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (2014)	2/16/1999 9:06:00 PM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2390

Stalin is on the left and Hitler is on the right. We need to stay in between those guys!!!!The extreme in either party is downright dangerous!

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (2014)	2/16/1999 9:56:00 PM
From: nuke44	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

I have to differ with you on radicals and the liberal agenda, but I'll save that for later. I stand by my statement defining the difference between conservative and liberal in relation to their outlook on crime and criminals. Admittedly it doesn't include everyone that consider themselves as liberals or conservatives, but I believe it's valid. One of the widest schisms between liberal and conservative ideologies is the tenet(s) of individual responsibility vs the responsibility of society to the individual. This covers the gamut of societal interactions, from whether the individual is solely responsible for their own financial status through their own individual achievement or if society (vis a vis the state) is responsible to the individual to the extent that the individual should be provided for by the rest of society, their failure to contribute to the rest of society notwithstanding. It includes the thorny issue of how much right does the state have to "redistribute wealth" from the "haves'' to the "have nots". It includes"It takes a village to raise a child" vs parents being totally responsible for the raising of their children. It includes, as I said earlier whether criminals are fully responsible for their own actions or whether they are "victims of society". I'm firmly entrenched in the camp of Individual responsibility. To me one of the darkest aspects of Bill and Hillary's "It takes a village", socialized medicine, income redistribution, "don't worry about it, we'll be responsible for you", homogenization of the masses is that it is the antithesis of individual freedom. Sure, everyone might have a roof over their head and something to eat, but they won't be able to choose where that roof is or what's on the table. At the same time, I do believe that society does have a reciprocal responsibility to the individual. "Reciprocal" being the key word here. If you don't give you shouldn't expect to get. If you are honestly unable to work, unable to contribute through legitimate, non self-inflicted disabilities then society should take that into account and provide for your care and allow you to strive for personal development. I also believe that an individual can abdicate their rights to expect anything from society by their own criminal actions. I believe that if their crime is serious enough, i.e. murder, rape, child assault, etc. that they have by their own actions abdicated their right to live. I don't believe anyone should be able to say "oops, I made a mistake. I'm sorry" or "It's not my fault. Society made me do it". This lack of personal accountability is endemic and has made a mockery of our judicial system. (Don't even get me started on lack of personal accountability in the Clinton White House.) I can't close without commenting on your remark "it's been a long time since liberals let the radicals dictate their agenda". I'm trying to phrase this so I don't alienate you completely before you read it, but never in this history of this country has a more radical politician held power than William Jefferson Clinton and his political associate Hillary. They couldn't be more radical if they were beheading their political foes on the White House lawn and festooning the lampposts on Pennsylvania Avenue with their corpses. Without getting into Clinton's emasculation of the U.S. military and his collaborations with traditional foes, his attempts to void the Constitution via executive orders are as drastic as any changes ever attempted in the political structure of the U.S., to include the attempted secession of the Confederacy and the ensuing Civil War. I urge you to at least read his Executive Orders 13083 and 13107. They, for all intents and purposes, will negate the 9th and 10th amendments if allowed to stand. They grant sweeping powers to the federal government, primarily the Executive Branch, that are specifically forbidden it by the Bill of Rights. Clinton will sit there and look us straight in the face and tell us "Aw shucks, these darn little E.O.'s don't mean much of nothing. Don't worry about it. I feel your pain" with the same aplomb that he told us that blow jobs aren't sex. Combine that with his almost covert promotion of a bill repeal the 22nd amendment (Limiting the Presidency to two terms) and that's just about as damn radical as I care to see in my lifetime. When I think about the drastic changes that Bill/Hill want to perpetrate on this country combined with the fact that they appear above all accountability, individual or otherwise, I keep picturing them in a scene from Doesteovsky's "The Grand Inquisitor", rubbing their hands in anticipation. ...."In the end they will throw their freedom at our feet, saying 'make us your slaves, but feed us'."