Free Republic

Well, remember Trent Lott's remarks about Strom Thurmond? An innocent comment on an old man's birthday praising his presidential candidacy turned into a firestom of racism that cost Lott his job.

Here, we have Ted Kennedy straight out calling a black a Neanderthal, and the media gives him a free pass because he's a Democrat.

It's interesting. What this really means is that there's nothing you own that the government can't take from you.

They can take your home. They can take your car. They can take your address. Then can take your fingerprints. And now, they can take your DNA.

In America, you don't even own your own DNA.

If we do well in the '04 election, picking up seats in the Senate and House, I question whether even that would be sufficient to put an end to this nonsense.

Even if the Democrats are soundly trounced at the ballot box, they still have their accomplices in the liberal media, who will give them generous dollops of air time to trumpet their latest crank idea.

This type of relationship between government and business invariably creates a two-tiered business environment: an upper tier for businesses with government connections, and a lower one for those without.

Soon, those in the lower tier find that it's impossible to do business without being part of the upper tier. They either find a way into the upper tier, or are eliminated.

All business then becomes concentrated in the upper tier.

Then, this tiering process repeats itself within the upper tier: The upper tier itself contains a lower tier and an upper tier. The upper tier is even more closely connected to government than the lower tier. Soon the lower tier finds it cannot do business without joining the upper tier, so lower-tier businesses again must join the upper tier, or be eliminated.

In this way, businesses are either eliminated, or must move increasingly closer to government, until business and government converge, and business is indistinguishable from government.

So, where does it stop? Will they outlaw:

- hate crimes?
- hate speech?
- hate literature?

Really, it would be simpler to just outlaw hate. Welcome to America, Mr. Orwell.

By the way, I read your profile page. I didn't know there were any liberals on this board, but I'm happy to engage in resonable ( and even tongue-in-cheek ) discussion with you.

Why would Larry Lefty waste his breath on Susie Q when for every Susie there are a hundred Proletarian Qs nearby living on 4 Q-bucks a year who would be far more amenable to Larry's rabble rousing?

Yeah, but an affluent academic leftist like Larry doesn't want to do the dirty work of recruiting those so far beneath his station. It's up to the naive young undergraduates to go into those neighborhoods. ;-)

Be aware that challenging liberal dogma to a leftist professor may jeopardize your grade in the class.

Without having a specific point to refute, it's difficult to make an argument.

However, here's an example showing how leftists think. Note that for this example I will use ficitious currencies and places, simply because using dollars and America would detract from the point of the example.

In a place called Q-land, the currency is called Q-bucks. In Q-land, the following are true:

1. It costs 5 Q-bucks/year to lead a lower middle class lifestyle.

2. It costs 10 Q-bucks/year to lead an average middle class lifestyle.

3. It costs 20 Q-bucks/year or more to lead an upper-class lifestyle.

A citizen of Q-land, called Susie Q, makes 11 Q-bucks per year, all of which go to her overall lifestyle expenditures. From the above 3 points, we can conclude that Susie Q lives slightly better than an average middle class lifestyle. Now, here's a key point: Susie Q is happy living her middle class lifestyle.

A short distance away from Susie Q lives Reggie Rich. He makes 23 Q-bucks per year. Wow! Clearly he can afford an upper-class lifestyle in Q-land, and Reggie in fact lives an upper-class lifestyle. Reggie is also happy living his upper class lifestyle.

So, both Susie and Reggie are happy, until one day a new person moves into the neighborhood: Larry Leftist. Larry Leftist is a hypereducated intellectual, who has never held a real job, instead spending his entire adult life in the sheltered halls of academia.

One day, Larry and Susie meet, and they have the following conversation:

Larry: "Boy, you sure must be angry at Reggie. He's rich."

Susie: "I'm actually pretty happy with my life the way it is, so I'm not angry."

Larry: "Well, you should be! Reggie makes 21 Q-bucks per year. Imagine how much more you could have if you had 5 of Reggie's Q-bucks!"

Susie: "But those Q-bucks belong to Reggie. He earned them!"

Reggie: "By exploiting average Q-landers just like you!"

Susie: "But I don't feel exploited. In fact I get along with Reggie really well and..."

Reggie: "Shut up! When I say you're exploited, you're exploited!"

Susie: "No, I'm not!"

Larry: "Yes, you are! Reggie bought a brand new Q-mobile just last week, and you're stuck with a 1999 Q-dodge! That enrages you!"

Susie: "No, it doesn't. My Q-dodge runs just fine, and it lets me get to work, go shopping, and visit friends. I'm happy with my Q-dodge."

Larry: "Aaargh! I hate happiness! Look, I'm organizing a group of fellow academics and union leaders. We're going to overthrow this corrupt system, and confiscate all the wealth of rich people like Reggie, who exploit working people like you..."

Susie: "But he doesn't exploit..."

Larry: "Yes he does! Shut up!"

Susie: "I won't shut up! In fact, I think you, your fellow academics and union leaders are only seeking political power, and agitating about the distribution of wealth in society is merely a means for you to attract supporters from amongst society's malcontents!"

Larry: "Oh-oh..."

Susie: "I think you go around stirring up resentment to destabilize social systems like ours in Q-land, so that you and your power-lusting cohorts can step in during a moment of crisis and take control of the government!"

Larry: "Err, can we talk about Reggie's Q-mobile some more..."

Yes, and in 1996 Clinton was elected with 49.24% of a 49.1% turnout, for a total of 24.2% of eligible voters.

And in a field with far fewer candidates, I might add.

So, get this. Senator Miller speaks out trying to get a black female judge confirmed, despite Democrat obstructionism.

But, CNN won't touch that aspect of the story at all.

Instead, they publish an attack on him from a liberal black organization, and subtly imply that Zell Miller is a racist.

Is that not blatant distortion of Zell Miller's position and character? How can anyone trust CNN when they twist reality this way?

I asked...

Can you document the requirement for the senate to vote on them?

and you responded by posting an excerpt from article II of the Constitution that authorizes the president to make recess appointments, but nowhere mentions that the senate has to vote on them, regardless of time frame.

I guess I have my answer.

The senate would have to vote on them in one year

Can you document the requirement for the senate to vote on them?

"Why have the Dutch dared to go where others have feared to go?"

Because they've become a nation of death-craving nihilists?

"We'll have our opportunity someday, and we'll make sure there's not another liberal judge. Ever!" Santorum said.

That's laughable. If the Republicans ever tried to block judges the way the Democrats are right now, the liberal media would be all over them.

The leftist press would cover a Republican filibuster of liberal judges just as much as they're ignoring the Democrat filibuster of conservative judges.

"This is going to frighten away domestic and foreign capital."

Well, it will frighten capital away from any ventures that involve Putin's political enemies, at least.

If you think a monopoly is bad, you'll find the Wal-Mart monopsony is worse. A monopsony leads to price deflation just as a monopoly leads to price inflation.

How long until fast food restaurants start posting "English spoken here" signs to attract English-speaking customers, who would otherwise assume only Spanish was spoken by the employees?

And when those signs become ubiquitous, what kind of country will we have? Will English-speaking Americans feel like foreigners in their own country?

Different sets of laws for different ethnic groups is a precursor to a general breakdown of law and order in society.

How can one ethnic group -- english-speaking whites -- rationally obey the law when other ethnic groups flout the law with impunity?

The law must apply equally to all, or there is no law at all.