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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (64389)	2/26/2008 4:18:13 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Heh! Heh! Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) is insane. Clinton fall all the media’s fault By feedback@qando.net (McQ) QandO Of course we knew it couldn’t be the fault of Hillary or Bill or their well-oiled campaign machine, didn’t we? Ed Rendell tells us how that all works: <<< Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) said Monday that the media’s pro-Obama (or anti-Clinton) bias explains in part why Barack Obama is portrayed as running away with the Democratic presidential nomination (instead of being locked in a close fight with Hillary Rodham Clinton). "The media does not like the Clintons for whatever reason," Rendell, a Clinton supporter, said in an interview with The Fix. "Maybe some of it’s [the Clintons’] fault, but the media does not like the Clintons." Rendell insisted that the "media has relished this fall with glee that I have never seen in any other candidate in the thirty years I have been in the business." As a result, "Right now the senator can do no wrong," Rendell said of Obama. >>> Ummm. Of course there have been no self-inflicted wounds within the Clinton camp, miscalculations or stumbles by the candidate (licenses for illegals anyone?) or a husband who lost his cool and shot off his mouth in South Carolina, right? And the Clintons have never tried to control the media, constantly complained to media organizations, gotten stories spiked (GQ?) or threatened to deny them access if they didn’t fall in line, have they? Nah. It’s the media’s fault that Hillary Clinton can’t connect with enough voters to win and apparently has managed, or mismanaged, a campaign that everyone was sure would lead to her coronation instead of her defeat. Sour grapes. Very sour grapes. qando.net

To: Sully- who wrote (64389)	2/26/2008 4:26:25 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Pelosi: Bush’s “$10 Trillion” War Will Never End In Domestic Issues, Politics, War On Terror, Asshats, The Loony Left, Military Say Anything blog Does anyone really take this woman seriously when she says ludicrous things like this? <<< Washington (AP) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says a recent Pentagon projection shows the troop buildup in Iraq is not temporary. A senior general says that when the buildup ends in July, there will be about 8,000 more troops in Iraq than when the surge began. There currently are about 158,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Lieutenant General Carter Ham says that’s likely to drop to about 140,000. It’s the first time the Pentagon has publicly speculated on the number of troops who will remain in Iraq. Ham stresses that the troop level is tied to the security situation in Iraq. Pelosi argues that Americans are demanding “a new direction in Iraq.” She says Americans are rejecting a quote “10-year, trillion-dollar war in Iraq.” >>> First, it’s worth noting that nobody wants the war in Iraq to go on forever. The left, in its never ending quest to cast the war in Iraq in shadows of hopelessness, would like people to think that Republicans do want an endless war but that’s just politics. We all want our troops to come home. It’s just that some of us want them to come home victorious. Second, it’s also worth noting that the vast majority of troops who will remain in Iraq over and above the number who were there pre-surge will be support troops. Administrators. Logistics officers. Support staff. Obviously, these not being combat troops, the number of soldiers in actual harm’s way will probably be about equal to pre-surge numbers. Not that partisans like Pelosi care much for details like this. And, finally, as for that “$10 trillion war” nonsense, let’s keep in mind that our entire federal budget - including all the money spent on roads, bridges, pork projects and entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - “only” totaled $2.7 trillion in 2007. Let’s also keep in mind that in a single year we, as a nation, budget more for social entitlements than the entire world does on military and war. The entire world. Global military and war spending was $1.12 trillion in 2005. America’s entitlement spending that same year was about $1.32 billion. In order for Iraq to cost us $10 trillion we’d have to spend as much as the entire world spends on wars and military for the most part of a decade. Pelosi’s $10 trillion number is, to put it bluntly, just plain stupid. feeds.feedburner.com