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: Road Walker who wrote (335415)	4/26/2007 10:17:49 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577917

Nuts in the Crosshairs by Ann Coulter (More by this author) Thanks to Westi for this link. Message 23493908 Posted: 04/25/2007 For cranky right-wingers who think politicians don't listen to them, this week I give you elected Democrats running like scared schoolgirls from the media's demand that they enact new gun control laws in response to the Virginia Tech shooting. Instead, Democrats are promoting a mental health exception to the right to bear arms. We've banned mass murder and that hasn't seemed to work. So now we're going to ban mass murderers. Yes, that will do the trick! This is a feel-good measure that is both wildly under-inclusive (the vast majority of nutcases receive no formal court adjudication of their nuttiness) and wildly over-inclusive (the vast majority of nuts don't kill people.) The worst thing most nuts do is irritate everybody else by driving their electric cars on the highway. As lovely as it would be, we cannot identify mass murderers before they have broken any law, and mass murder is often the first serious crime they commit. No one can be locked up permanently for being potentially dangerous. Even stalking laws can put away a person known to be dangerous for only a few years -- at best -- which is generally not worth spending a day sitting in court, facing your stalker, and then waiting a month for the court order. So on one hand, the mental health exception is a feel-good measure that would be largely pointless. But on the other hand, it's no skin off my back. Liberals go to therapy. Conservatives go to church. And I think we'd all sleep better knowing that David Brock could not buy a gun. In fact, I think we should expand the mental illness exception to cover First Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights. I note that before mass murder, the only harassment the Virginia Tech killer was guilty of involved speech: creepy e-mails, creepy short stories, creepy phone calls. Stalkers, too, engage in frightening speech -- but that is protected. Revealing a stalking victim's address is "speech" but is little different from being the one to pull the trigger. This small measure would have taken Dan "What's the Frequency, Kenneth" Rather off the airwaves years ago, preventing him from presenting doctored National Guard documents to the American people to try to throw a presidential election. A mental illness bar would deal a quick blow to Air America and both its remaining listeners. It would also free up about 90% of the Internet. And it would end the public lunacy of Jim Wallis, the Democrats' Christian. Wallis' first remark on the massacre at Virginia Tech last week was to hail the remarkable "diversity" of the victims. True, Cho murdered 32 people in cold blood. But at least he achieved diversity! Anyone who thinks a single-minded fixation on diversity must be the ultimate goal of every human endeavor, including mass murder, is not the sort of person who should be able to buy a gun or to publish his daft ruminations in public forums. But just to get this straight: Democrats are saying we should be able to jail "strange" or "angry" people, but we can't deplane imams who demand extra-length seatbelts after boarding? Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed the public expressions of shame and contrition from the Korean-American community after the Virginia Tech shooting? Of course, no one blames this exemplary community for the actions of one nut. The Koreans are manifestly law-abiding and decent -- nipping at the heels of Italians as the greatest Americans and tied for second with the Cubans. Indeed, I believe this marks the first time a Korean has killed anyone in the United States, not involving an automobile. Nonetheless, Korean congregations, community groups and the family members themselves are issuing statements of sorrow. Not "pleas for tolerance." But sorrow. Remorse. Remember those? They were big back in the day. If the Koreans can do it, why can't the Muslims? What explains the lack of a Muslim guilt impulse -- so normal, as seen in the case of the saddened Koreans -- after dozens of terrorist attacks on Americans? How about a Muslim exception to the Second Amendment? That would have prevented the Virginia snipers from killing 10 people within three weeks in 2002. But most important: It would help us achieve "diversity" in our gun law prohibitions. humanevents.com

To: Road Walker who wrote (335415)	4/26/2007 1:31:11 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577917

The results were chilling. Children in the states with the highest rates of gun ownership were 16 times as likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound, nearly seven times as likely to commit suicide with a gun, and more than three times as likely to be murdered with a firearm. And the NRA very effectively hides these statistics, making it seem that owning guns is a good thing. What evil grips this country? Only a lunatic could seriously believe that more guns in more homes is good for America’s children Yet, the NRA tells us VA Tech would not have happened had there been more students with guns. Again, I ask.....what evil grips this nation?

To: Road Walker who wrote (335415)	4/26/2007 1:40:01 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1577917

Obama hits Bush on foreign policies _____________________________________________________________ By Mike Dorning Chicago Tribune national correspondent April 24, 2007 Sen. Barack Obama accused President Bush on Monday of weakening America's global leadership with a "squandered" response to terrorism as the Democratic presidential candidate committed himself to repair relations with allies and the nation's standing around the world. The Illinois senator pledged to double U.S. foreign aid if elected president, arguing that improvements in stability and living conditions in poor nations would reduce the appeal of terrorism abroad and bolster security at home. Delivering his presidential campaign's first major address on foreign policy to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Obama said the U.S. must resist the temptation to turn to isolationism in response to the losses the nation has suffered in Iraq. And he declared, "The American moment is here. "America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America. We must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission." Obama presented the challenges of terrorism, nuclear weapons and global warming as an opportunity to enhance America's influence over the world by emphasizing moral leadership, strengthened alliances and a vigorous U.S. engagement around the globe. His address provided a withering critique of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as "based on old ideologies and outdated strategies." He said the Bush administration's uneasy relations with allies and the scandals over mistreatment of prisoners have done long-term damage to the nation's ability to counter the terrorist threat. "The president may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open. And it's time to fill that role once more," Obama said. GOP rejects criticism Responding to the criticism of Bush, Chris Taylor, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Voters want a leader, not someone who continues to throw around criticism and empty rhetoric." Obama offered a spirited defense of the value of strong ties with foreign allies and international institutions such as the United Nations, arguing they magnify American power more than they constrain it. He also said the U.S. should counter the challenge of Islamist terrorism with a greater emphasis on winning the support of the public in developing nations. That vision echoes the foreign policy ideas of Democratic presidents who helped shape the U.S. response to the Soviet challenge during the Cold War. Harry Truman constructed an alliance system that included NATO to contain the Soviet Union. The Truman administration's Marshall Plan provided aid to post-World War II Europe to blunt Soviet influence and John Kennedy expanded U.S. aid to the developing world to compete against communist influence there. Obama added a subtle but clear suggestion that his own life story as the son of an African immigrant who had spent part of his childhood in the developing Islamic nation of Indonesia would give him added credibility as a messenger to the global public. "It's time we had a president ... who can speak directly to the world, and send a message to all those men and women beyond our shores who long for lives of dignity and security that says 'You matter to us. Your future is our future,'" Obama said. More soldiers, Marines urged Still, Obama offered assurance that he would not shrink from using military force to protect the United States. He also called for an expansion of U.S. ground forces, pledging an enlargement of the Army by 60,000 and the Marines by 27,000. Obama repeated his support for a withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops in Iraq by March 31, 2008, leaving a limited number of American troops there to fight terrorist groups. He said he would double current foreign aid spending to $50 billion by 2012. "A relatively small investment in these fragile states up front can be one of the most effective ways to prevent the terror and strife that is far more costly," Obama said. He called for the U.S. to "lead by example" to combat global warming by capping and reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. Obama said he would emphasize diplomatic measures and economic sanctions but use military force "if necessary" to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear program. chicagotribune.com