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: jlallen who wrote (359996)	11/24/2007 12:31:45 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576751

You're not fit to carry Petraeus bags....and that pig Parson is the lowest form of scum. There is no one lower than you......after all, you voted for Bush twice!

To: jlallen who wrote (359996)	11/24/2007 12:39:21 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1576751

Paul says he won’t support GOP nominee Posted November 24th, 2007 at 11:10 am Last month, during a Republican debate, Ron Paul was asked whether he promised to support the GOP nominee next year, no matter who emerges from the primary process. “Not right now I don’t,” Paul said, “not unless they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home.” Apparently, in the ensuing weeks, “not right now” has become “no.” Paul called his Republican presidential rivals, including frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, “neo-conservatives” whom he couldn’t support in the general election should his own bid fail. “They think we’re supposed to spread our goodness through force,” Paul said. For example, none will pledge not to wage war on Iran, he said. “How could I support something like that?” Apparently, he can’t. But it means that of the top seven candidates in the Republican field, Paul is the only one who isn’t prepared to support the party’s eventual nominee. It’s not the kind of thing that will go over well within the party, but then again, Paul’s interest in the Republican Party appears nominal — it’s a venue for him to advance his ideas and agenda, not necessarily an opportunity for him to lead the party. It’s interesting to note the contrast between Paul’s comments and John Edwards’. A couple of weeks ago, Edwards hedged when asked if he would support the eventual Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. When he initially hesitated, it caused a minor stir in Democratic circles — how can Edwards expect to be the party’s nominee if he’s not willing to commit to honoring the party’s nominating process? No one seems to be saying that about Paul, in large part because no one seems to consider Paul part of the Republican mainstream.

To: jlallen who wrote (359996)	11/24/2007 3:08:22 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1576751

20,000 vets' brain injuries not listed in Pentagon tally By Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY At least 20,000 U.S. troops who were not classified as wounded during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have been found with signs of brain injuries, according to military and veterans records compiled by USA TODAY. The data, provided by the Army, Navy and Department of Veterans Affairs, show that about five times as many troops sustained brain trauma as the 4,471 officially listed by the Pentagon through Sept. 30. These cases also are not reflected in the Pentagon's official tally of wounded, which stands at 30,327. HIDDEN WOUNDS: Marine didn't recognize signs of brain injury The number of brain-injury cases were tabulated from records kept by the VA and four military bases that house units that have served multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. One base released its count of brain injuries at a medical conference. The others provided their records at the request of USA TODAY, in some cases only after a Freedom of Information Act filing was submitted. FIND MORE STORIES IN: Iraq \| Afghanistan \| Army \| Pentagon \| Marine Corps \| Department of Veterans Affairs \| Lt. Col \| Wounds USA TODAY ARCHIVES: Brain injuries from war worse than thought The data came from: • Landstuhl Army Regional Medical Center in Germany, where troops evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan for injury, illness or wounds are brought before going home. Since May 2006, more than 2,300 soldiers screened positive for brain injury, hospital spokeswoman Marie Shaw says. • Fort Hood, Texas, home of the 4th Infantry Division, which returned from a second Iraq combat tour late last year. At least 2,700 soldiers suffered a combat brain injury, Lt. Col. Steve Stover says. • Fort Carson, Colo., where more than 2,100 soldiers screened were found to have suffered a brain injury, according to remarks by Army Col. Heidi Terrio before a brain injury association seminar. • Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, where 1,737 Marines were found to have suffered a brain injury, according to Navy Cmdr. Martin Holland, a neurosurgeon with the Naval Medical Center San Diego. • VA hospitals, where Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have been screened for combat brain injuries since April. The VA found about 20% of 61,285 surveyed — or 11,804 veterans — with signs of brain injury, spokeswoman Alison Aikele says. VA doctors say more evaluation is necessary before a true diagnosis of brain injury can be confirmed in all these cases, Aikele says. Soldiers and Marines whose wounds were discovered after they left Iraq are not added to the official casualty list, says Army Col. Robert Labutta, a neurologist and brain injury consultant for the Pentagon. "We are working to do a better job of reflecting accurate data in the official casualty table," Labutta says. Most of the new cases involve mild or moderate brain injuries, commonly from exposure to blasts. More than 150,000 troops may have suffered head injuries in combat, says Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., founder of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force. "I am wary that the number of brain-injured troops far exceeds the total number reported injured," he says. About 1.5 million troops have served in Iraq, where traumatic brain injury can occur despite heavy body armor worn by troops. usatoday.com