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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (3212)	7/7/2006 1:04:57 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224666

As it is Teddy steers himself in a Weiser direction. And any other beer.

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (3212)	7/7/2006 1:11:52 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224666

The only radicals are on the far right and they're running congress. Those idiots who think flag-burning is the most important issue. Even though no one ever burns a flag and you can't hurt the flag no matter what you do because it will always fly high. There are almost no far lefties remaining, just a few Kucinich types without much power, who incidently were right about Iraq as it turns out. The biggest complaint I hear from democrats is that Dems in congress supported Bush's misguided war and reckless tax cuts for the rich too much. Bush Lite them call them. That's correct. John Kerry for instance now admits it was a huge error ever believing a word Bush-Cheney said on Iraq. And these tax cuts are like a timebomb. Along with the rightwing's huge pork barrel spending spree, the tax cuts to the rich are helping to produce 7 trillion in new deficits. That's outrageous and is already harming us as a nation.

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (3212)	7/8/2006 5:19:39 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 224666

Bush Caught Lying Again (claimed he didn't disband Bin Laden hunting operation, bu8t he did more than a year ago) rawstory.com Is there no end this this man's dishonesty? And why did he give up the hunt for Bin Laden? Any rightwingers want to try and answer that?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (3212)	7/10/2006 4:47:59 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224666

There could be an additional, unspoken reason behind Sen. Hillary Clinton’s recent declaration that she won’t support Sen. Joe Lieberman if he loses the Democratic primary in Connecticut – payback. Lieberman, as Hillary well recalls, took her husband Bill to task over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As NewsMax reported last week, Clinton said she would support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in the August 8 primary, even though Lieberman has announced that he plans to run as an independent if he loses. "I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters,” Hillary said. But columnist Margaret Carlson, writing for Bloomberg.com, points out: "You can also interpret Clinton’s swipe at Lieberman as an act of lingering resentment against the man who scolded her husband during impeachment proceedings shortly after his admission in August 1998 that he had been lying to the country for seven months. "Lieberman took to the Senate floor to slam Clinton ‘for having extramarital relations with an employee half his age . . . in the vicinity of the Oval Office. Such behavior is not just inappropriate. It is immoral.’” Carlson then opines: "Revenge isn’t an admirable emotion but at least it’s evidence of some emotion from a woman who showed none during one of the most public cases of philandering ever . . . She may have been finally getting back at the Democrat who didn’t stand by her man.” Carlson is a long time Clinton supporter and Time magazine contributor. Lieberman is facing a strong primary challenge from millionaire businessman Ned Lamont, and many Connecticut Democrats are unhappy about the senator’s support for the Iraq war. newsmax.com