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: Peter Dierks who wrote (13731)	8/22/2007 10:48:29 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 224718

Bush was 100% wrong and dishonest about Vietnam-Iraq today. We should have pulled out of both places years earlier than we did, and gained nothing by staying except stupendous cost and hundreds of thousands of dead bodies. Yet when we did pull out, in 1972, the South Vietnamese did not fall for four long years. There was no genocide as Bush falsely implies. And the Cambodian massacres had nothing to do with us leaving. They were happening before we left. And we had a big influence on making them happen in the first place. Bush has made a huge error. Maybe 5% of this country actually believes Vietnam was a worthy war and should have been extended, and those people are easy to nail in any debate because they have no real evidence to back up their false argument. Hiustory has proven Vietnam and Iraq are the two worst blunders in US history and sooner we get out the better. But Bush is in extreme denial and will say anything to mislead the public. He loves his quagmire and doesn't want to give it up, maybe for the oil money only. That may be the only reason he invaded in the first place. While doubling the price we pay at the pump, and they did double it intentionally those Bushie thieves.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (13731)	8/23/2007 6:13:08 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224718

Liberal academia donates increased student tuition to Democrats >Academia has '08 cash clout Education field donating more in presidential race By Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Staff \| August 23, 2007 Professors and others in the education field have given more to federal candidates running in 2008 than those who work in the oil, pharmaceutical, and computer industries -- a sign of how academia has become a much bigger player in the political cash sweepstakes. Of the more than $7 million that academics donated in the first half of this year, more than $4.1 million went to presidential campaigns, particularly Barack Obama's, according to a study released this month by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The Illinois senator brought in almost $1.5 million, while Hillary Clinton received nearly $940,000. Republican Mitt Romney was in third place, with about $448,000, but overall, three-quarters of contributions went to Democrats. Donors from Harvard University top the list, with nearly $280,000 in contributions from individuals in the first half of the year. More than 80 percent of the donations went to Democrats, and about 40 percent to Obama. Law school luminaries Laurence Tribe, Charles Ogletree, and Lani Guinier have each lavished the maximum primary donation of $2,300 on Obama, while their colleague Alan Dershowitz gave $1,000 to Clinton.<