Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Romney vote means rich, white San Franciscans canít exercise in their home gyms
Hotair/Sfgate.com ^ | October 30, 2012 | Mary Katharine Ham

Posted on 10/30/2012 7:17:25 PM PDT by chessplayer

Edited on 10/30/2012 8:16:07 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 last
To: danielmryan

Thanks,

If you haven’t read this:

well,

Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline

Book Description
Publication Date: June 1997
In this New York Times bestselling book, Robert H. Bork, our country’s most distinguished conservative scholar, offers a prophetic and unprecedented view of a culture in decline, a nation in such serious moral trouble that its very foundation is crumbling: a nation that slouches not towards the Bethlehem envisioned by the poet Yeats in 1919, but towards Gomorrah.

Slouching Towards Gomorrah is a penetrating, devastatingly insightful exposé of a country in crisis at the end of the millennium, where the rise of modern liberalism, which stresses the dual forces of radical egalitarianism (the equality of outcomes rather than opportunities) and radical individualism (the drastic reduction of limits to personal gratification), has undermined our culture, our intellect, and our morality.

Robert H. Bork sounds a very sobering alarm. We can accept our fate and try to insulate ourselves from the effects of a degenerating culture, or we can choose to halt the beast, to oppose modern liberalism in every arena. In the view of Robert Bork, an understanding of our problem and the will to resist may be our only hope.

It’s a very tough read, but well worth it.

I also just found this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it63-29VrXU

Viewing it now.


61 posted on 10/30/2012 9:41:37 PM PDT by Zeneta (Why are so many people searching for something that has already found us ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta; chessplayer

bump


62 posted on 10/30/2012 10:02:42 PM PDT by TEXOKIE (Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. EdmondBurke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta
Thanks for the recommendations: I'm loading the video right now.
63 posted on 10/30/2012 10:15:22 PM PDT by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: MuttTheHoople
I will say she’s kinda cute for a 60 year old neo-Fascist Regressive.

Cute? Did you actually look above the boob line? Yuck. And the boobs are fake.

64 posted on 10/30/2012 10:38:43 PM PDT by Right Brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta
Sorry, but the "case for censorship" sounds like trying to use all the King's horses and all the King's men to put Humpty Dumpty together again.

There are three dangers in that proposal, for conservatives, that need to be pointed out:

  1. Should censorship for decency gain political traction, the liberals will become more hysterical and more credible. Instead of "the American Taliban" label being rot, it will become dangerously plausible to many. There'll be slippery-slope arguments all over the Internet at a rate faster than you can read them.
  2. What of the liberals, particularly those in the popular arts, who decide to go along with it? How would you like a steady diet of propagandistic knock-offs of Seven Days In May and the "evil businessman of the week" - all of which carry the censor's imprimatur of decency? Like it or not, that's what's likely will happen. The government boys will love it, and the censor will be part of the government. The SPLC and their "domestic terrorist" line shows what happens when the government starts singing the liberals' tune. The liberals go out of their way to be co-operative.
  3. A bureau of censorship is just one more institution to take over, to put the point obliquely.

I suggest thinking of ways that your aim be achieved outside of the government. Otherwise, you'll wind up in the same spot that that retired teacher finds herself in.

65 posted on 10/30/2012 11:14:28 PM PDT by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: danielmryan

Maybe. America used to have laws governing obscenity in all it’s forms until 40 or so years ago, and the country managed to survive.


66 posted on 10/30/2012 11:52:57 PM PDT by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Could be serious. If they cannot exercise, San Francisco may slide into the ocean.


67 posted on 10/31/2012 12:29:17 AM PDT by clearcarbon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amberdawn
Maybe. America used to have laws governing obscenity in all it’s forms until 40 or so years ago, and the country managed to survive.

A point to mull over: Did America have dominant and self-perpetuating cliques in the popular arts who would have a huge score to settle if the law clamped down on them?

It's not that hard to guess what would happen:

  1. A few Andres Serrano types get thrown under the bus.
  2. Public statements from moguls pledge co-operation.
  3. Orders come down from on high to get rid of any obscenities, which would be followed work-to-rule.
  4. And then, grinding the axe. What better way to do so than to re-cast the so-called 'American Taliban' as evil bullies that are brought to heel? Or as the usual stock villains?
Television in the 1970s, pre-1977, had very little obscenity. You'd be wise to ask around about it did have.

Come to think of it, liberal bias in 1960s news wasn't stopped at all by those laws - nor by the Fairness Doctrine, either.

68 posted on 10/31/2012 1:08:56 AM PDT by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Right Brother
Did you actually look above the boob line? No.

And the boobs are fake. Does it matter?

69 posted on 10/31/2012 4:22:32 AM PDT by MuttTheHoople (Pray for Joe Biden- Proverbs 29:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Bump


70 posted on 10/31/2012 4:23:29 AM PDT by lowbridge (Joe Biden: "Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

I said “use.” The GOP sets up such disastrous avenues for ruthless Democrat control in part because it never imagines anyone but itself using those avenues.


71 posted on 10/31/2012 6:32:53 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (cat dog, cat dog, alone in the world is a little cat dog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: danielmryan

Free Speech can be used in the “informal war against filthy words”. It used to be that you could call a pornographer a filth peddler and you didn’t have to worry about the SPLC calling you this-phobic of a that-phobic...

Restore free speech and end “Politikal Korrectness” and make it socially acceptable to call filth filth.


72 posted on 10/31/2012 7:52:14 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
perhaps you should work toward making the levers less powerful

No kidding! I try to make that point to idiot liberals. They brag about "speaking truth to power". Then what do they do? Try to make that power even more powerful. But it goes right over their heads.

73 posted on 10/31/2012 8:00:37 AM PDT by techcor (I hope Obama succeeds, in being a one term president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
The article focuses on some very neurotic San Franciscoans. But what needs to be recognized is that the Left, save only for some of the demagogues, who exploit the "useful idiots," are all compulsion driven--neurotic fantasy seekers. See Compassion Or Compulsion. You will almost never find one, who is able to ground his argument on anything demonstrably true.

This sleepless "hand-wringing," being described, is only one of a vast array of symptoms.

For laughs, ask one of the dear souls to explain why Obama is important to them? You will find only confirmation of my hypothesis.

William Flax

74 posted on 10/31/2012 8:14:33 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
Free Speech can be used in the “informal war against filthy words”. It used to be that you could call a pornographer a filth peddler and you didn’t have to worry about the SPLC calling you this-phobic of a that-phobic...

Good point! Sure it can - and the First Amendment does protect your right to call it as you see it.

When I was writing my warnings above, I actually had the SPLC in the back of my mind. Thankfully, that organization can only smear as of now: it has no legal instruments (that I'm aware of) to punish frankness through the government. But given how they've been acting, they wouldn't hesitate to "advise" any Ministry of Decency.

75 posted on 10/31/2012 9:54:32 AM PDT by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson