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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (285664)	4/26/2006 9:45:48 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1574714

I guess I really wasn't paying that close attention! I just don't see any of that as a national issue, or even my business. Clinton did a GREAT job as President. Eight YEARS of straight peace and prosperity! If he could run again, I'd give him his pick of the hottest slutty interns available, and let him do with them whatever they would allow. Paula Jones earned her nosejob and bodywork as a tool of the right-wingnuts, and has now faded into trailer-trash history. en.wikipedia.org "Jones now claims she was victimized by both Clinton and his Republican opponents. Her legal fund did not cover the attorneys' fees, and Jones' personal life was disrupted during the controversey: she husband during the case, purchased a house after the settlement, and incurred a large tax bill, then posed nude for Penthouse magazine, claiming that she would use the money to pay the tax and fund her two grade-school-aged children's college education. This caused her to be publicly denounced as "trailer-park trash" by Coulter, who said, "I totally believed she was the good Christian girl she made herself out to be.... [N]ow it turns out she's a fraud, at least to the extent of pretending to be an honorable and moral person." Jones attempted to defend herself on Larry King Live, stating, "I haven't been out doing anything and trying to make a lot of money. I haven't been offered a book deal like everybody else in this huge thing has done. Ann Coulter's done books. I haven't seen her call me up and say: 'Paula, would you like for me to help you write a book, a really nice, decent book?' I haven't had any help from anybody whatsoever." Jones subsequently appeared in a boxing match against Tonya Harding in Fox TV's Celebrity Boxing in 2002, where she lost." Jones fought like a girl with a nosejob to protect.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (285664)	4/27/2006 7:29:49 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1574714

America's rags-to-riches dream an illusion: study By Alister Bull Wed Apr 26, 5:13 PM ET America may still think of itself as the land of opportunity, but the chances of living a rags-to-riches life are a lot lower than elsewhere in the world, according to a new study published on Wednesday. The likelihood that a child born into a poor family will make it into the top five percent is just one percent, according to "Understanding Mobility in America," a study by economist Tom Hertz from American University. By contrast, a child born rich had a 22 percent chance of being rich as an adult, he said. "In other words, the chances of getting rich are about 20 times higher if you are born rich than if you are born in a low-income family," he told an audience at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank sponsoring the work. He also found the United States had one of the lowest levels of inter-generational mobility in the wealthy world, on a par with Britain but way behind most of Europe. "Consider a rich and poor family in the United States and a similar pair of families in Denmark, and ask how much of the difference in the parents' incomes would be transmitted, on average, to their grandchildren," Hertz said. "In the United States this would be 22 percent; in Denmark it would be two percent," he said. The research was based on a panel of over 4,000 children, whose parents' income were observed in 1968, and whose income as adults was reviewed again in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999. The survey did not include immigrants, who were not captured in the original data pool. Millions of immigrants work in the U.S, many illegally, earnings much higher salaries than they could get back home. Several other experts invited to review his work endorsed the general findings, although they were reticent about accompanying policy recommendations. "This debunks the myth of America as the land of opportunity, but it doesn't tell us what to do to fix it," said Bhashkar Mazumder, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland who has researched this field. Recent studies have highlighted growing income inequality in the United States, but Americans remain highly optimistic about the odds for economic improvement in their own lifetime. A survey for the New York Times last year found that 80 percent of those polled believed that it was possible to start out poor, work hard and become rich, compared with less than 60 percent back in 1983. This contradiction, implying that while people think they are going to make it, the reality is very different, has been seized by critics of President Bush to pound the White House over tax cuts they say favor the rich. Hertz examined channels transmitting income across generations and identified education as the single largest factor, explaining 30 percent of the income-correlation, in an argument to boost public access to universities. Breaking the survey down by race spotlighted this as the next most powerful force to explain why the poor stay poor. On average, 47 percent of poor families remain poor. But within this, 32 percent of whites stay poor while the figure for blacks is 63 percent. It works the other way as well, with only 3 percent of blacks making it from the bottom quarter of the income ladder to the top quarter, versus 14 percent of whites. "Part of the reason mobility is so low in America is that race still makes a difference in economic life," he said.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (285664)	4/27/2006 11:35:17 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1574714

Immigrant boycott aims to "close" US cities By Dan Whitcomb Pro-immigration activists say a nationwide boycott and marches planned for May 1 will flood Americas's streets with millions of Latinos to demand amnesty for illegal immigrants and shake the ground under Congress as it tackles reform. But while such a massive turnout could make for the largest protests since the civil rights era of the 1960s, not all Latinos, nor their leaders, were comfortable with such militancy -- fearing a backlash in Middle America. "There will be 2 to 3 million people hitting the streets in Los Angeles alone. We're going to close down Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Tucson, Phoenix, Fresno," said Jorge Rodriguez, a union official who helped organize earlier rallies credited with rattling Congress as it debates the issue. Immigration has split Congress, the Republican Party and public opinion. Conservatives want the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants to be classified as felons and a fence built along the Mexican border. Others, including President George W. Bush, want a guest worker program and a path to citizenship. Most agree some reform is needed to stem the flow of poor to the world's biggest economy. "We want full amnesty, full legalization for anybody who is here (illegally)," Rodriguez said. "That is the message that is going to be played out across the country on May 1." Organizers of the May Day marches, which have strong support from big labor and the Roman Catholic church, vow that America's major cities will grind to a halt and its economy will stagger as Latinos walk off their jobs and skip school. Teachers' unions in major cities have said children should not be punished for walking out of class. A spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Unified School District said school principals had been told that they should not try to keep students in class but instead should walk with the children to help keep order. In Chicago, Catholic priests have helped organize protests, sending information to all 375 parishes in the archdiocese. CRITICS CHARGE INTIMIDATION Chicago activists predict that the demonstrations will draw 300,000 people -- compared to the 100,000 who turned out on March 10 to clog downtown streets. Minneapolis-based agribusiness giant Cargill Inc. said it will close seven meatpacking plants so workers can participate. In New York, leaders of the May 1 Coalition said a growing number of businesses had pledged to close and allow their workers to attend a rally in Manhattan's Union Square. But some Latinos have expressed ambivalence about the boycott and marches, saying they could stir up anti-immigrant sentiment amid an incendiary atmosphere surrounding the issue. Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Los Angeles archdiocese, who has emerged as an outspoken champion of immigrant rights -- even calling on priests to defy laws aimed at those who would help illegals -- has lobbied against a walkout. "Personally I believe we can make May 1st a 'win-win' day here in Southern California," Mahony said in a statement. "Go to work, go to school, and then join thousands of us at a major rally afterward." Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the son of a Mexican immigrant who has long fought for immigrant rights, has taken a low profile on the issue. A Villaraigosa spokeswoman said the mayor expects protesters to be "lawful and respectful" and wants children to stay in school. Critics have accused pro-immigrant leaders of stirring up uninformed young Latinos by telling them that their parents were in imminent danger of being deported and accuse them of trying to bully Congress. "It's intimidation," Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman volunteer border patrol group, said of the May 1 events. "It's intimidation when a million people march down main streets in our major cities under the Mexican flag." "It angers the people you are trying to impress," he said. "This will backfire just like the Mexican flag parades backfired." (Additional reporting by Aarthi Sivaraman in Los Angeles, Dan Trotta in New York and Michael Conlon in Chicago)

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (285664)	4/28/2006 5:24:28 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574714

JCP, There was no "sexual harassment lawsuit", or any sexual harrassment. Paula Jones? Maybe you don't agree with the judge that Clinton's sexual dalliances were relevant to that case. But that's no different than any other sexual harassment case where the defendant's dirty laundry is aired for all to see. Cheap shot: en.wikipedia.org The women is trailer trash.....much like Tonya Harding whom she fought in the ring. For the life of me, I don't understand why someone like you falls for all the right's garbage. You're smarter than that.......or you should be.