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: American Spirit who wrote (18516)	12/2/2007 1:53:14 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224759

She's trying to deceive voters. One of the few times she was truthful, she criticized Bill's NAFTA: >Democrats Dislike NAFTA By Dennis Carter, yahoonews.com December 2, 2007 Democrats yearn for what they consider the bounteous days of Bill Clinton's presidency. So it's a puzzle that on one of his signature achievements -- the North American Free Trade Agreement -- the party's presidential candidates are sprinting away from his record as fast as they can. It's as though Republicans were calling for defense cuts while invoking Ronald Reagan. Even Hillary Clinton can't bring herself to defend the deal her husband pushed through. Asked during a recent debate if she thought it was a mistake, she did everything but deny she'd ever met the man. "All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts," she chortled, in possibly the least believable statement of the 2008 campaign. "That, sort of, is a vague memory." In the end, though, Clinton declared that "NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would." She has plenty of company. Barack Obama is on record as saying he "would not have supported the North American Free Trade Agreement as it was drafted." John Edwards has flogged the treaty like a rented mule, calling it "a complete and total disaster." And Dennis Kucinich thinks all copies of NAFTA should be humanely shredded and used as compost on shade-grown fair trade coffee, or something like that. What did NAFTA ever do to deserve this abuse? Critics claim it destroyed a million jobs. Candidates blame NAFTA for pushing American companies to close plants here and move production south. Edwards and Co. hold fast to the superstition that tariffs and other trade barriers are essential to our prosperity. Reality is that admitting imports makes Americans more prosperous by reducing prices of consumer and capital goods. It also strengthens American companies by forcing them to be more efficient and innovative. So why do so many people, including approximately 100 percent of those who turn up at Democratic debates, hold this and other trade agreements in such contempt? One obvious reason is they want to appeal to labor unions, which generally prefer protectionism. But Gary Hufbauer, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, suspects one reason lies in a different issue: illegal immigration. Some NAFTA supporters thought it might generate enough growth in Mexico to keep Mexican workers at home. When the tide of illegal immigrants grew, it bred resentment here. That reaction partly helps to explain the Democratic retreat. By denouncing NAFTA, the presidential candidates can appeal to Americans alarmed about our porous borders without offending Hispanic voters.

To: American Spirit who wrote (18516)	12/2/2007 1:56:33 PM
From: tonto	Respond to of 224759

LOL, you have no idea how funny you are ... you can't even put together a reasonable argument. Read what you wrote... Every democratic candidate is an honest truth-teller, right down the line. Some feel Hillary fudges the truth but that's just what moderates have to do not to get take right or left positions. Every candidate in both party lies. That is what candidates do to win. These are not exceptional people running, stop promoting the fantasy and start to deal with the facts of life.

To: American Spirit who wrote (18516)	12/2/2007 1:59:41 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224759

What kind of Koolaide are you drinking? Every democratic candidate is an honest truth-teller, right down the line So are you saying that Hillary has never lied?

To: American Spirit who wrote (18516)	12/2/2007 6:13:41 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224759

And the Easter Bunny & Santa Claus are real, right tinkerbell? >Every democratic candidate is an honest truth-teller<

To: American Spirit who wrote (18516)	12/2/2007 6:23:41 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224759

Imus returns tomorrow, you think he'll be talking about his leftie buddies that deserted him? lol

To: American Spirit who wrote (18516)	12/2/2007 9:02:50 PM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 224759

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

To: American Spirit who wrote (18516)	12/2/2007 9:08:11 PM
From: jim-thompson	Respond to of 224759

what about all the lying elitist john forbes kerry did to get his medals??? what kind of discharge did he get after the returned to the states after booging out of Viet-Nam after 4 months and days in country on a 12 month combat tour. 2 1/2 million Viet-Nam vets did their 12 months... scroundel elitist john forbes kerry didn't..... and don't even get me going on the senator who was responsible for the death of Mary Jo..... lying his way out while she was gasping for air.....

To: American Spirit who wrote (18516)	12/2/2007 10:12:38 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224759

For a proven liar like to to comment about anyone's veracity is ridiculous.

To: American Spirit who wrote (18516)	12/2/2007 10:38:07 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 224759

lol Imagine the audacity of the biggest liar and boob on SI commenting on the alleged dishonesty of others... What a joke!

To: American Spirit who wrote (18516)	12/2/2007 11:58:17 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224759

Battered by Poll, Clinton Hits Back By Patrick Healy DES MOINES – Hillary Rodham Clinton’s aides went to bed Saturday night with the bad news from the new Des Moines Register poll on their minds, and they woke up Sunday and quickly pounced on the poll’s new No. 1, Barack Obama, with teeth bared. Clinton aides made three hits on Mr. Obama within just a few hours – on health care, campaign spending, and candor – yet denied that they were acting out of concern about the new Register poll, which showed Mr. Obama in a statistical dead heat with Mrs. Clinton with less than five weeks to go until the Jan. 3 caucuses. Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” with Mr. Obama’s strategist, David Axelrod, and engaged in some warmed-over jousting about the candidates’ health insurance plans (they have been skirmishing for two weeks now about whether the respective plans would cover everyone). Then Mr. Wolfson threw a days-old story in Mr. Axelrod’s face: That the Obama campaign used an Obama political action committee to spread around money in states that hold the first primaries and caucuses. Mr. Wolfson accused the Obama campaign, with the PAC, of “taking in money from lobbyists despite the fact he said he doesn’t take money from lobbyists, taking in money from lobbyists and giving money out to candidates in New Hampshire and Iowa to support his presidential campaign.” “I would call on David – David, will you shut down Senator Obama’s slush fund?” Mr. Wolfson said. Mr. Axelrod said that he did not think there was any money left in the PAC, but did not address head-on whether there was anything wrong with the way the PAC money was used. What Mr. Obama has done – spending a portion of the remaining funds from his winding-down leadership PAC in a way that helps his campaign – appears to stay within the letter but not the spirit of campaign finance rules. Although his actions seem to comply with Federal Election Commission rulings, he has in effect drawn on a second pool of political contributions to make payments that benefit his presidential campaign. Of course, before the campaign officially began all the serious presidential candidates used such political action committees to make similar payments to build good will in pivotal states. Not all, however, continued to tap their political action committees that way through mid-2007. A few hours later, the Clinton campaign accused Mr. Obama of “re-writing history” by saying that he had not been planning for years to run for president like “some of the other candidates.” The campaign included news articles and statements of friends or relatives of Mr. Obama saying that he had been thinking of running for president for at least a decade. Mr. Obama, speaking at a news conference in Des Moines today, shared his view about the Clinton onslaught. “I think that folks from some of the other campaigns are reading the polls and starting to get stressed and issuing a whole range of outlandish accusations,” Mr. Obama said. “Everything that we’ve done is in exact accordance with the law.” David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting