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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (96129)	4/24/2007 9:30:50 AM
From: jim-thompson	Respond to of 173976

Democraps are horrified at this proposal that someone passed on to me. Like a lot of folks in this state and others, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck. I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (96129)	4/24/2007 10:10:17 AM
From: 10K a day	Respond to of 173976

I think it's great.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (96129)	4/24/2007 10:30:57 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 173976

The MSM was going along with the Democratic leadership, who knew all the intel going back to the Clinton era and believed it and who additionally were afraid to be antiwar before an election so soon after 911. The New York Times and Washington Post and others went all out and raised no doubts about Bush and Cheney's claims of WMDs. Because the Clinton administration raised no doubts about their own claims of WMDs. What were they to do, call the Clinton administration a pack of liars?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (96129)	4/24/2007 12:24:36 PM
From: JeffA	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 173976

Here ya go kenny. Proof Dems do NOT support our soldiers. Bush Won't Accept Iraq War Timetable Apr 24 11:25 AM US/Eastern By ANNE FLAHERTY Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, standing firmly against a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, said Tuesday that he will veto the latest war spending bill approved by Congress. "I'm disappointed that the Democratic leadership has chosen this course," Bush said. "They chose to make a political statement," he said. "That's their right but it is wrong for our troops and it's wrong for our country. To accept the bill proposed by the Democratic leadership would be to accept a policy that directly contradicts the judgment of our military commanders." House and Senate Democratic appropriators agreed Monday on a $124 billion bill that would fund the Iraq war but order troops to begin leaving by Oct. 1 with the goal of completing the pullout six months later. Democrats would need a two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (96129)	4/25/2007 1:04:58 PM
From: DizzyG	Respond to of 173976

Moderate Muslims Speak Out, But Not on PBS By Kevin Mooney CNSNews.com Staff Writer April 25, 2007 (CNSNews.com) - Islamists are working to build "parallel societies" with the aim of imposing strict Islamic law in parts of the West, according to a documentary the Public Broadcasting System has chosen not to air. "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center" highlights the work of moderate Muslims who oppose the Islamist agenda and are willing to speak out. PBS officials decided against airing the film, which PBS's Robert MacNeil told the Diane Rehm Show earlier this month was "one-sided" and "alarmist." Some of the key Muslim figures featured in the documentary believe PBS is practicing censorship and doing a disservice to the American public. The film, which was supposed to be part of a PBS series, cost taxpayers more than $600,000. Danish lawmaker Naser Khader has been at the center of debate in his own country over the practice of Islamic law (shari'a). An imam has sought to impose shari'a outside the framework of Danish law, the film contends. Khader, a Muslim originally from Syria, has argued against the move. "For such opinions, he has aroused the wrath of those who want Islamic parallel societies within Denmark," says the film's voiceover. Khader discusses some of the menacing messages he has received, including threats such as, "We will kill you," "We will make your life a hell," and "If you participate in democracy you are a traitor." Radicals who oppose the parliamentarian's views often "turn his election speeches into chaos," the documentary states. "It reminds me of what happened to Germany in the 1930s," Khader says in the film. Zuhdi Jasser, president of Islamic Forum for Democracy, also is featured in the film. He told Cybercast News Service that the mainstream media and public television officials are responsible for the unbalanced coverage of America's Muslim community. He also said there is a concerted effort by well-organized, well-financed Islamist organizations to silence moderate voices. Jasser and other participants on Tuesday named the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) as among those groups. One of the film's co-producers, Alex Alexiev of the Center for Security Policy, called CAIR "as radical as they come." CAIR describes itself as a civil rights group, but has stoked controversy over its tactics, some of its sources of funding, and involvement in terrorism of some of its officials. Attempts to get CAIR's reaction Monday and Tuesday were unsuccessful. "Those of us who try to raise debates are not responded to [with] scripture, or in an intellectual way," Jasser said. "We are instead responded to with ridicule and told we are false Muslims." Jasser said PBS and other media outlets spend too much time "excusing the other side" and giving credence to organizations with radical ties. "The definition of censorship is when the government or some other entity decides for us what is alarmist and what isn't," he said. As a long-term goal, Jasser said he hopes to create "non-political organizations" separate from mosques, which operate as think tanks and create "new bodies of literature and a new body of thought." "I'm not against shari'a personally. I'm against the mixture of shari'a with government," he said. "Shari'a is my family law but it needs to be consistent with the greater law of society, which is based on the natural law." Rep. Jim Walsh (R-N.Y.) is among those who have criticized the PBS decision to drop the film. He thinks it should be shown. Having seen the film, he said he found it to be quite compelling. Walsh said he could not see that the film was in any way unfinished. PBS spokesman Joe Deplasco told Cybercast News Service the film was unfinished and could not be shown. He said films that did not make the cut for the PBS series may still be considered for airing later as "stand alone" pieces. cnsnews.com