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 : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (5515)	5/6/2006 10:41:03 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

I see. Of course you are dead wrong. Just as wrong in fact, as you are about the NY Slimes & the MSM. Why not just admit they are over the top liberally biased & quit playing silly games.

To: michael97123 who wrote (5515)	5/6/2006 12:13:55 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 14758

The NY Slimes has no worries they will ever be accused of a pro-American or pro-military stance. NYT Leaps to Zarqawi's Defense In Media Bias Little Green Footballs The New York Times leaps to defend the dignity and praise the terrorist abilities of Al Qaeda head-chopper Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: <<< Not All See Video Mockery of Zarqawi as Good Strategy. An effort by the American military to discredit the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by showing video outtakes of him fumbling with a machine gun — suggesting that he lacks real fighting skill — was questioned yesterday by retired and active American military officers. The video clips, released on Thursday to news organizations in Baghdad, show the terrorist leader confused about how to handle an M-249 squad automatic weapon, known as an S.A.W., which is part of the American inventory of infantry weapons. The American military, which said it captured the videotapes in a recent raid, released selected outtakes in an effort to undermine Mr. Zarqawi’s image as leader of the Council of Holy Warriors, formerly Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and suggested that his fighting talents and experience were less than his propaganda portrays. But several veterans of wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, as well as active-duty officers, said in telephone interviews yesterday that the clips of Mr. Zarqawi’s supposed martial incompetence were unconvincing. The weapon in question is complicated to master, and American soldiers and marines undergo many days of training to achieve the most basic competence with it. Moreover, the weapon in Mr. Zarqawi’s hands was an older variant, which makes its malfunctioning unsurprising. The veterans said Mr. Zarqawi, who had spent his years as a terrorist surrounded by simpler weapons of Soviet design, could hardly have been expected to know how to handle it. >>> (Hat tip: Occasional Reader.) littlegreenfootballs.com nytimes.com

To: michael97123 who wrote (5515)	5/6/2006 12:24:32 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14758

Mike, perhaps you can explain this blatant double standard by the MSM & how it has no bearing whatsoever on their overt liberal bias. You will hear people say that he is addicted, he has a serious health problem, he deserves to be praised for his forthrightness today, and we should leave him alone. And many of these commentators will be the same people who were giddy in their ceaseless attacks on Rush. Patrick Kennedy & Double Standards Mark Levin And Another Thing . . . I don't wish anyone ill, except our nation's enemies. It's a good thing that Patrick Kennedy is going back into rehab. But I am very angry. For nearly three years we witnessed the persecution of Rush Limbaugh, who became addicted to painkillers resulting from back and neck problems. We witnessed leaks by prosecutors who spread lies about him being involved in money laundering, drug rings, and doctor shopping. But the media happily repeated them. Some mocked him. Rush got help. He has been clean for years. And in most cases, when someone becomes addicted to prescription drugs for the first time, the matter is eventually dropped. Most jurisdictions have set up drug courts for this very purpose. But that didn't stop the state prosecutor in Palm Beach County from spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars pursuing Rush. Early on, prosecutors claimed they had evidence of over ten felonies. They demanded that Rush plead guilty to some felony—any felony. He refused, always insisting on his innocence. So, they leaked more lies to the media, hoping to intimidate him. They seized his medical records. They gave his medical records to the media. The media took those records and turned them into graphics for television. Reporters and commentators were studying his prescriptions, discussing both the kinds and amount of medicine he had taken. They were beside themselves with glee. Newsweek, AP and the Palm Beach Post, Rush's local paper, were especially vicious, serving as lap-dogs for the prosecutors. In court, Rush fought these people every step of the way—all the way to the Florida Supreme Court. He spent millions of dollars defending himself—despite the fact that he had been a first-time abuser, went to rehab, and was clean. And then last October, the lead prosecutor sauntered into court and in response to questioning told the judge—we have no evidence that Rush Limbaugh has committed any crime! None. So, I am very angry. You will hear commentator after commentator speaking sympathetically about Patrick Kennedy and his addiction to painkillers. You will hear people say that he is addicted, he has a serious health problem, he deserves to be praised for his forthrightness today, and we should leave him alone. And many of these commentators will be the same people who were giddy in their ceaseless attacks on Rush. I am angry at the double standard, where liberals are regularly treated one way and conservatives another. I am also glad Patrick Kennedy won't be abused as Rush was. But you can be sure that the next conservative with a problem won't be treated like Kennedy. But there are some aspects to the Kennedy matter that require answers. If Patrick Kennedy, who is not a first offender, is addicted to painkillers, from where did he get them? And there are news reports that he had been drinking earlier at a Capitol Hill bar and alcohol was later smelled on his breath. So, why was the officer on the scene prevented by more senior police officers from performing a routine sobriety test? I truly wish Patrick Kennedy well. But you bet I'm angry. levin.nationalreview.com

To: michael97123 who wrote (5515)	5/6/2006 2:43:08 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 14758

Any Bush Critic Is A Good Bush Critic Posted by John Power Line Ray McGovern is the former CIA employee who heckled Don Rumsfeld in Atlanta last week. This led to his being hailed as a "truth-teller" by the mainstream media. Gateway Pundit was all over the case, pointing out that McGovern has a long record as a far-left nutjob. Now Tom Joscelyn has written us to say: <<< The media has lionized this guy already, despite a long record of nutty beliefs and statements. I was watching CNN tonight (while at the gym) and they did a thoroughly dishonest segment in which they tried to paint Gateway Pundit and other right-wing blogs as just out to vilify McGovern because he went after Rumsfeld. There was no mention of his nutty comments. The segment was so completely disingenuous it was ridiculous. But, the same thing is going on all throughout the press. Anyway, this is the media at its worst...it would take them five seconds to figure out that McGovern is a moonbat. >>> Tom cites chapter and verse in the post linked to below. McGovern is Cindy Sheehan with a beard, with the same distressing tendency to start babbling about Israel at the wrong moment. He's worse, actually: unlike Sheehan, McGovern has endorsed the idea that the Bush administration knew in advance about the September 11 attacks but "deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen." This is the man CNN says was "speaking truth to power" when he heckled Rumsfeld, and whom Andrew Sullivan--whose standards are getting lower all the time--described as "not some crazed lefty." It's scary to consider what it would take for a lefty to be cnsidered "crazed" by either Andrew or CNN. SCOTT adds: George Gooding -- Seixon -- has more in "Secretary of defense." seixon.com powerlineblog.com gatewaypundit.blogspot.com thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com

To: michael97123 who wrote (5515)	5/6/2006 3:04:37 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

So Mike, can you explain to me how the NY Slimes continues to intentionally mislead the American public about the NSA surveillance of international calls by terrorists by continuing to falsely call it a "domestic surveillance program"? Isn't it bad enough that they harmed our national security by illegally leaking the story in the first place? The Briar Patch, Please! Power Line The White House says that General Michael Hayden is the leading choice to replace Porter Goss at the CIA. That's great; Hayden comes out of the NSA and is an eloquent and effective advocate of the NSA's terrorist surveillance program. The New York Times warns President Bush that Hayden's nomination would cause controversy: <<< Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who senior administration officials said Friday was the likely choice of President Bush to head the Central Intelligence Agency, has a stellar résumé for a spy and has long been admired at the White House and on Capitol Hill. But General Hayden, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, would also face serious questions about the controversy over the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program, which he oversaw and has vigorously defended. His Senate nomination hearing, if he is chosen to succeed Director Porter J. Goss, is likely to reignite debate over what civil libertarians say is the program's violation of Americans' privacy. >>> The Times gives us a preview of the debate by quoting a critic of the NSA program: <<< Marc D. Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, said the nomination would be strongly opposed by civil libertarians. "We have to confront the chilling prospect that the incoming head of the C.I.A. believes it's permissible to conduct warrantless surveillance on the American public," Mr. Rotenberg said Friday night. >>> What's really chilling is that the federal courts believe the same thing, having approved at least two dozen categories of warrantless surveillance of the American public, including warrantless spying used to gain foreign intelligence. To all of this I say: great! Hardly anything would give the Republican faithful a bigger boost than the spectacle of Senate Democrats attacking an Air Force general for trying to protect America against terrorism. Please, Democrats, please don't deny us this opportunity. And could we possibly schedule the hearing closer to November? powerlineblog.com nytimes.com