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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (10833)	2/3/2006 7:49:08 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541777

Wow, that seems rather cynical to me. Sure the Heritage foundation has its biases but so do other sources, . . . Ideological rigidity is definitely not bias. The Heritage folk are true believers. My point is that the degree of salt one takes with such statements is much larger with theirs. That's all.

To: TimF who wrote (10833)	2/4/2006 9:35:32 AM
From: Suma	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541777

Just a point on "sources". I trust them ... all until they lie. The book by David Brock who worked for years for the American Spectator reveals that publication constantly lied. The first lie that he promoted as a writer was the tarnishing of the reputation of Anita Hill when Thomas was running for the SC. They knowingly falsified charges against her but it was more important to them to have Thomas on the court.(later he admitted that he in fact had sexually harassed Hill) The second was that which alleged that the State Troopers were procurers for Clinton.. They even knew that those troopers were paid to make those accusations but they persisted in promulgating the story... Brock later left the AS in disgust and recanted all that he had done in his book. To me these revelations preclude me from ever trusting the AS and what it publishes..

To: TimF who wrote (10833)	2/5/2006 9:11:38 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 541777

Here's a source that may be more acceptable to some. Google shows several news outlets using this same language. "How they Voted Thomas Voting Reports Tucson, Arizona \| Published: 02.05.2006 Here's how Arizona members of Congress were recorded on major roll-call votes last week. DEFICIT REDUCTION The House voted 216-214 on Wednesday to send President Bush the conference report on a Republican bill (S 1932) to slow spending growth by $39.4 billion over the next five years. The bill achieves its savings mainly by curbing entitlement spending for social programs and through revenue increases. About $6.4 billion of the entitlement cuts would come from Medicare, $4.8 billion from Medicaid, $3 billion from child-support collection and $2.7 billion from farm programs. Cuts and increases in student loan programs would yield net savings of $11.9 billion. The bill would raise $7.4 billion by auctioning off spectrum freed up by the emergence of digital TV, and $3.6 billion-plus by raising company premiums for federal pension insurance, among other revenue measures. " <snip--what follows is the voting record> azstarnet.com