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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Palau who wrote (745346)	7/14/2006 8:12:43 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769669

New York Times: Better Dead Than Read by Ann Coulter Posted Jul 12, 2006 When I told a New York Observer reporter that my only regret was that Timothy McVeigh didn't hit the New York Times building, I knew many would agree with me -- but I didn't expect that to include the New York Times. And yet, the Times is doing everything in its power to help the terrorists launch another attack on New York City. Get Yours FREE! As with forced school busing, liberals seem to believe that the consequences of their insane ideas can be confined to the outer boroughs. Last year, the Times revealed a top secret program tracking phone calls connected to numbers found in Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's cell phone. How much more probable cause do you need, folks? Shall we do this as a diagram? How about in the form of an SAT question -- or is that a touchy subject for the publisher of the Times? "9/11 architect Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is to terrorist attacks as ..."? Their reaction to al-Zarqawi's death was to lower the U.S. flag at the Times building to half-staff. (Ha ha -- just kidding! Everybody knows there aren't any American flags at the New York Times.) And most recently, ignoring the pleas of the administration, 9/11 commissioners and even certifiable liberal Rep. Jack Murtha, the Times revealed another top secret program that had allowed the Treasury Department to track terrorists' financial transactions. We're in a battle for our survival and we don't even know who the enemy is. As liberals are constantly reminding us, Islam is a "Religion of Peace." One very promising method of distinguishing the "Religion of Peace" Muslims from the "Slit Their Throats" Muslims is by following the al Qaeda money trail. But now we've lost that ability -- thanks to the New York Times. People have gotten so inured to ridiculous behavior on the left that they are no longer capable of appropriate outrage when something truly treasonous happens. It is rather like the rape accusation against Bill Clinton losing its impact because of the steady stream of perjury, obstruction of justice, treason, adultery and general sociopathic behavior coming from that administration. This is a phenomenon known in the self-help community as "Clinton fatigue" (not to be confused with the lower back pain associated with excessive sexual activity known as "Clinton back"). In December 1972, Ronald Reagan called President Richard Nixon after watching Walter Cronkite's coverage of the Vietnam War on "CBS News," telling Nixon that "under World War II circumstances, the network would have been charged with treason." No treason charges were brought, but we still have to hear liberals carrying on about Nixon's monstrous persecution of the press -- which was so ungrateful of him, considering how nicely the press treated him. Today, Times editors and columnists are doing what liberals always do when they're caught red-handed committing treason: They scream that they're being "intimidated" before hurling more invective. This is getting to be like listening to the Soviet Union complaining about the intimidation coming from Finland. Liberals are always play-acting that they are under some monstrous attack from the right wing as they insouciantly place all Americans in danger. Their default position is umbrage, bordering on high dudgeon. We've had to listen to them whine for 50 years about the brute Joe McCarthy, whose name liberals blackened while sheltering Soviet spies. In 1985, Times columnist Anthony Lewis accused the Reagan administration of trying to "intimidate the press." Channeling Anthony Lewis this week, Frank Rich claims the Bush administration has "manufactured and milked this controversy to reboot its intimidation of the press, hoping journalists will pull punches in an election year." Rich's evidence of the brutal crackdown on the press was the statement of San Francisco radio host Melanie Morgan -- who, by the way, is part of the press -- proposing the gas chamber for the editor of the Times if he were found guilty of treason, which happens to be the punishment prescribed by law. (Once again Frank Rich finds himself in over his head when not writing about gay cowboy movies.) I prefer a firing squad, but I'm open to a debate on the method of execution. A conviction for treason would be assured under any sensible legal system. But however many Americans agree with Reagan on prosecuting treason, we can't even get President Bush to stop building up the liberal media by appearing on their low-rated TV shows -- in the process, dissing TV hosts who support him and command much larger TV audiences. American consumers keep driving CNN's ratings down, and then Bush drives them back up again. So I wouldn't count on any treason charges emanating from this administration. This is how Bush "intimidates" the press? The level of intimidation I had in mind is more along the lines of how President Dwight D. Eisenhower "intimidated" Julius and Ethel Rosenberg at 8 in the morning, June 19, 1953. Sign up to receive Ann Coulter's weekly column by e-mail:

To: Mr. Palau who wrote (745346)	7/14/2006 8:48:49 PM
From: willcousa	Respond to of 769669

If that is your reaction they must not have taught logic in your schools and certainly not stat.

To: Mr. Palau who wrote (745346)	7/14/2006 9:29:51 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

Demorats Use Dead Americans as Campaign Props by Michael Reagan Posted Jul 14, 2006 Just when you think that the national Democrats can sink no lower, they reach down into the mud and mire in their bag of political tricks and come up with a new and slimier example of their utter shamelessness. Not content with merely undermining the valiant efforts of our servicemen and women risking and sometimes losing their lives fighting international terrorism around the world, the Democrats have now produced a video commercial exploiting the deaths of American soldiers and Marines in order to raise money and win votes. Their new fundraising video shows some 12 flag-draped coffins of dead American servicemen inside a cargo plane. This shocking scene is followed by an image of a soldier staring at a helmet propped up by a machine gun that is stuck in the ground, obviously marking the spot where an American died defending his country against a vicious enemy. The disgusting commercial goes on to show pictures of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, successive photos of President Bush (who “obviously” caused the hurricane), a mug shot of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R.-Tex.), disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Vice President Cheney. Apparently there never was a hurricane before Katrina -- it was America’s first. Elect Democrats, the ad suggests, and there will be no more hurricanes, no more dead American servicemen, and no more lobbyists (except for former Sen. Tom Daschle and his wife) -- if only the American people can be fooled into voting for Democrats in the fall elections, or coughing up money to pay for more slimy commercials exploiting our dead. What the ad should say is: Elect Democrats and there will be no more America -- the whole nation will be transformed into scandal-ridden, bankrupt New Jersey. Rep. Tom Reynolds (R.-N.Y.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), says the Democrats are trying to "blatantly exploit the sacrifices made by the men and women of our Armed Forces" for political purposes. “Regardless of what your views on the war may be, this crosses the line," he said in a statement released by the NRCC, adding that Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel “owes our troops, their families, and the families of the fallen an apology." Contrast this with my Dad Ronald Reagan’ s campaign slogans about “Morning in America,” that drew a bright picture of the shining city on the hill, a nation filled with good, decent hardworking people whose promise is still being fulfilled. The Democrat version is more “like nightmare in America” -- an imaginary and dismal picture of a nation that is in fact enjoying the strongest economy on the face of the earth. Americans voted overwhelmingly for my Dad because he made us feel good about America. Why would anyone vote for Democrats who insist on painting a dismal, sordid picture of an America in decline? Where is the media outrage over this sordid money-grubbing commercial? According to the Media Research Council, the liberal media only get upset when Republicans use ads to cite the war on terrorism. When a campaign ad for the re-election of President Bush in 2004 showed images of the 9/11 attacks on America, the media were then quite outraged. Said ABC’s Charles Gibson: “The President, as you probably know, used scenes from Ground Zero in his first campaign ads that were broadcast. That ignited a debate about whether it’s appropriate to use such images in an election campaign." Tom Brokaw said: "The President today also shrugged off critics who’ve complained that he’s politicizing the September 11th attacks. … The Bush campaign is using an image of the World Trade Center in another television ad. And NBC's Ann Curry said: "More fallout expected today from President Bush's re-election ads that feature images from 9/11. Family members of some of the victims of the World Trade Center attacks say they will protest the President's attendance at a groundbreaking ceremony for a 9/11 memorial on New York's Long Island.” Asked the MRC: “Should we expect the same outrage from the press concerning this campaign video by Congressional Democrats, or are such images only verboten when used by a politician the press despises?” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.