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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (23545)	10/21/2007 7:11:45 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 71588

It can be funny :)

To: sandintoes who wrote (23545)	10/21/2007 7:23:14 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71588

Beware of an Arnold Dressed as a Rudy By Frank Pastore Sunday, October 21, 2007 Send an email to Frank Pastore Email It Print It Take Action Read Article & Comments (165) Trackbacks Post Your Comments I, a conservative Christian, am partly responsible for passing one of the most pro-gay agendas in American history. Starting January 1, 2008, California will implement SB-777, a bill that goes far beyond the old standard of public schools not being able to do anything that would “reflect adversely” on homosexuality. Now, the new standard is you can’t do anything that would show either a “discriminatory bias” against homosexuality or anything that would favor heterosexuality. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger addresses the United Nations High-level Event on Climate Change at the United Nations General Assembly, in New York, September 24, 2007. REUTERS/Chip East (UNITED STATES) Related Media: VIDEO: Blair and CA Gov. Talk Environment VIDEO: Schwarzenegger Tours Lake Tahoe Damage VIDEO: Schwarzenegger: Emergency After Highway Collapse Let me put this in simple terms. Textbooks that now refer to “mother and father” or “mom and dad” or “King and Queen” will soon have to also include—with equal emphasis—“mom and mom,” “dad and dad” and “king and king.” There shall be no preference of any kind shown to heterosexuality. Kids, K-12, will learn that every form of family is just as “normal” as every other form. The textbooks that comply will no longer elevate as the ideal that children have both a loving mom and a loving dad, all they’ll need is “a nurturing caregiver”—or maybe a village. They’ll be taught “male” and “female” are mere social constructs that have nothing to do with sexuality or “plumbing.” Increasingly, children will be encouraged to explore their own “gender,” which means they’ll be encouraged to experiment with all forms of sexuality since nothing is “abnormal.” We’ll throw them condoms, pass out Plan B in the health center, and even put 6th grade middle school girls on the pill to ensure that we make sex “safe.” And when some get pregnant, and others get the inevitable diseases, we’ll just take them for an abortion or for treatments under HillaryCare—all during school hours, and all without their parents having a clue. All this will happen because I—like millions of other conservative Christians in California—voted for Arnold. I voted for the Republican Arnold in order to avoid the Democrat Bustamante—but ended up getting quite of bit of Bustamante anyway. I’m not mad at Arnold, really. He told us who he was and what he believed in, and we were just glad we could vote for a candidate that had a real shot at “winning,” who could “stop Bustamante.” Sound familiar? Now we’re told again that we have to vote for a candidate that can “win,” because we have to “stop Hillary.” Consider this. How many people do you know who still proudly call themselves “Republicans?” I know of increasingly few. There was a time when I was so proud of being part of the GOP. That was before all the scandals, the earmarks and the spending of “Compassionate Conservatism,” before the massive Prescription Drug Benefit and McCain-Feingold, the failure of Social Security reform, the poor communication that still continues regarding the War on Terror, the amnesty of Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the Harriet Miers Moment. I could go on. It’s like we’ve been watching “How to Destroy a Great Party in Two Administrations.” continued... townhall.com

To: sandintoes who wrote (23545)	10/21/2007 7:47:44 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Clinton Rejects Front-Runner Label Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:26 PM Article Font Size DES MOINES, Iowa -- Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday rejected the front-runner label, but acknowledged increasing fire from rivals in both parties _ which she said she will largely ignore. "I'm well aware that my opponents on both sides are paying a lot more attention to me," Clinton said. "I'm reminded by some of my friends that when you get to be my age, having so many men paying attention to you is kind of flattering." Clinton, who's about to turn 60, met with reporters after a campaign event in Des Moines. Most national polls have shown Clinton atop the field of Democratic contenders, and recent surveys have shown her gaining ground in Iowa. She also has a financial edge over all the other candidates. She was asked if she is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. "I consider myself someone who is working as hard as I can every day to earn the support of Iowans and that's what I'm going to continue to do," Clinton said. "I'm well aware that no one has voted, that no one has caucused." Clinton said many voters remain unconvinced. "I'm not taking anything for granted," she said. "We've got a long way to go before that happens." She rejected criticism from rivals like Barack Obama and John Edwards, who charge she's too closely tied to Washington to bring about real change. She said she won't allow that criticism to knock her off message. "I'm going to continue to attack the problems of America," Clinton said. "I'm going to focus on what I would do as president." Clinton is calling her latest tour "Organizing for Change" to underscore her argument that a fundamental shift in the nation's direction is needed and she's best equipped to bring it. On the stump, Clinton focused on her package to help students pay for college. She called for doubling the tax credit for college costs and increasing Pell Grants, which help middle-class students afford college. "College costs have gone up 35 percent in the last five years," Clinton said. "I think we've got to ask a lot of hard questions here." She said the issue is central to helping the struggling middle class. "Jobs, health care, education, those are the pillars of the middle class and they are also the pillars of my campaign," she said. She said the Bush administration has had a concrete impact on middle-class families. "The average American family has lost $1,000 in income over the last six years," Clinton said. At a later event in Storm Lake, she referred to the presidency of her husband, Bill. "When my husband left office, we had a balanced budget and surplus and I thought that was the right thing to do for America," she said. "We've got to get back to fiscal responsibility." Clinton drew some of her loudest cheers when she reminded the audience that she could be the nation's first female president. She said women in their 90s had approached her at campaign events and told her, "I was born before women could vote, but I'm going to live to see a woman president." newsmax.com

To: sandintoes who wrote (23545)	10/21/2007 7:49:17 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Writer Paglia: Hillary Can't Win Friday, October 19, 2007 11:01 AM By: Newsmax Staff Article Font Size Firebrand writer Camille Paglia says Hillary Clinton “has no vision” and can’t win the general election against any of the leading Republican presidential candidates. In an interview with Canada’s Globe and Mail, Paglia – who came into the public eye in the early 1990s with her denunciation of “political correctness” – declared: “I don't know where people are getting the idea that the Democrats are a shoo-in. I don't see them gaining the White House unless there's a third-party spin-off, like Ross Perot. “I listen to conservative talk radio, because the callers really do give one a sense of where popular sentiment is at the moment. And I just don't see how any of the Democratic candidates is going to be able to present the national-security credentials that will be crucial in this election. “The Republicans have [Mitt] Romney, [Rudy] Giuliani, [Fred] Thompson, even [Mike] Huckabee - a series of candidates who would be way more credible than Hillary, if only because of the projection of strength they give.” Paglia even doubts that Clinton will get the Democratic nomination. “She has a powerful machine,” the author of “Sexual Personae” told the Globe and Mail. “But many, many other candidates will be draining off support … The Democrats around me don’t want to go backward into the Clinton years.” Not only does Paglia – who now teaches at Philadelphia’s University of the Arts – believe that Hillary can’t win, she also asserts that Clinton shouldn’t win. “There's an over-clever, over-conceptualized political personality there who has trouble being an ordinary person. “For someone with so much international exposure, she's not great on the stage. She's well prepared with her sound bites. But when she has to play outside her sphere of preparation, she seems taken by surprise… “She's essentially a policy wonk. She has no vision. “Then there's the sense of her espousing feminist ideals on the one hand, but also tolerating gross exploitation and insult from her womanizing husband.” newsmax.com