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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (39801)	3/23/1999 3:19:00 AM
From: Johnathan C. Doe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

"Johnathon, please tell me what you mean by "Moral Majority". That's another one of those liberal cliche' words tossed around all the time with no clear definition."; You prove an excellent point about idiots like yourself that toss around the word liberal as if it is some dirty word. You have no idea most likely what the word means and how you have benefitted in your life by the protections that liberalism created that are now assumed to be build into the fabric of our lives as if it all came from nowhere; the protections came from liberals. Take for example the 40 hour work week where you get paid overtime if you go over 40; this is for non-executive payroll. This is all from the liberals. OSHA; before this liberal program, people just died on the job and it was just part of working and it didn't matter if it was just due to negligence on the part of the owner of the business. It wasn't until liberals pushed for owners to act socially responsible and they were forced to since they had no profit incentive to act that way. As for the Moral Majority; that is a phrase that was CREATED by the well-known liberal Jerry Falwell. You really known your stuff. It was the name of an organization he started.

To: greenspirit who wrote (39801)	3/23/1999 6:50:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

Michael, the Moral Majority was an organization founded by Falwell that is now defunct. The authors were prominent within it. The difficulty with Johnathan's point has to do with this: up until the last twenty or thirty years, most Fundamentalists were "separatists", meaning that they thought that they should not be involved with the secular world, because it was inherently corrupting. Issues like abortion goaded them into entering the political arena, but often with a bad conscience for abandoning the tradition of holding aloof. The book under review reflects this ambivalence, and makes too much out of small foibles in order to make a case about the corruption of the political world, and shows too much disillusionment with politics, as if the authors had suddenly discovered that it involves compromise. Therefore, it should not be taken as "gospel"...