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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (28910)	5/23/2008 2:14:02 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224724

Joe is nasty, plagiarizes and has compulsively talked to the detriment of US security...otherwise he's fine.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (28910)	5/23/2008 2:20:45 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224724

How many more radicals from BO's past have been exposed today?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (28910)	5/23/2008 2:38:22 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224724

McCain's melanoma is a result of the 5.5yrs he was held outdoors in Vietnam. His medical records will win votes for the former POW: >The 10-year survival rate for that intermediate melanoma is 65 percent, said Dr. Stuart Lessin, director of the melanoma risk- assessment program at Philadelphia's Fox Chase Cancer Center, who was not involved in McCain's care. "He's not cured," Lessin said. Still, the biggest risk of recurrence is in the first few years, so at eight years out, the chances of melanoma returning at that spot and killing him is "in the single digits," he added. "He's pretty much out of the woods." But every bout of cancer increases the risk of another new cancer. Given McCain's fair skin and history of sunburns, mostly from the 5 1/2 years he was held outdoors while in Vietnamese prison camps, he has a 5 percent to 8 percent chance of developing a fifth melanoma, Lessin calculated. Good checkups, however, mean any future melanoma should be caught in time to treat successfully, he said. Early on in the primaries, a number of voters said McCain's age was a problem, but recent surveys suggest it may not be as big an issue. An ABC News-Washington Post poll conducted in April found 70 percent saying McCain's age would not make any difference to their vote. Other recent polls found similar results, with two-thirds or more saying his age doesn't matter.< breitbart.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (28910)	5/23/2008 5:15:51 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224724

Clinton cites Kennedy assassination in primaries SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - Sen. Hillary Clinton referred Friday to the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 Democratic campaign as a reason she should continue to campaign despite increasingly long odds. Clinton was responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race. "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of dropping out. Clinton said she didn't understand why, given this history, some Democrats were calling for her to quit. Her remark about an assassination during a primary campaign drew a quick response from rival Barack Obama's campaign. "Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of dropping out. Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said the senator was only referring to her husband and Kennedy "as historical examples of the nominating process going well into the summer and any reading into it beyond that would be inaccurate and outrageous." In the same editorial board meeting, Clinton said her campaign has had no discussions with Barack Obama's aides about her possibly becoming his vice presidential pick. "It is flatly untrue and it is not anything I'm entertaining. It is nothing I have planned and it is nothing I am prepared to engage in. I am still vigorously campaigning." The Obama campaign also dismissed reports that there were talks going on between the two campaigns about putting Clinton on the ticket. Obama has an almost 200-delegate lead over Clinton and is just 56 delegates short of the number needed to clinch the nomination, making Clinton's goal of catching him more difficult by the day. The primaries end June 3. Clinton spent the day campaigning in South Dakota, which holds one of two June 3 primaries. At stake are 15 delegates. Recent reports suggested she may be discussing ways to end her campaign by being offered the vice presidential slot underneath Obama, but she rejected that and said she suspected the talk was coming from Obama aides. "I would look to the camp of my opponent for the source of these stories," she said. "People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa." Two of those recent reports, however, were attributed by CNN and The New York Times to supporters of Clinton. Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a staunch Clinton supporter, said Friday that she believes that if Obama becomes the nominee he should select Clinton as his running mate. "I think as this race has emerged each one of them has garnered a different constituency and different states, and therefore when you put the two of them together it forms, I believe, the strongest ticket," she told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "Women feel very strongly about Hillary and African-Americans feel very strongly about Barack, and the election results show that, and the young versus old, the higher educated versus the working person. ... All these things are sort of separated out into one or the other so there is a logic in combining the two constituencies." Feinstein is a longtime friend and supporter of Clinton's. So would Clinton accept the vice-presidency? "I think anyone accepts if asked — whatever they say," Feinstein said. Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson is overseeing the early vetting of possible vice presidential running mates for Obama, Democratic officials say. He did the same job for Democratic nominees John Kerry in 2004 and Walter Mondale in 1984. Many of the people Johnson checked for Kerry will be likely candidates for Obama's consideration. Those names included Sen. Clinton, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, anti-war Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Kerry's eventual choice, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. Obama refused to acknowledge Johnson's role when The Associated Press asked the Illinois senator about it Thursday. "I haven't hired him. He's not on retainer. I'm not paying him any money. He is a friend of mine. I know him," Obama said. "I am not commenting on vice presidential matters because I have not won this nomination news.yahoo.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (28910)	5/23/2008 10:43:06 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 224724

Heck yeah, sounds like a good ticket to me. Not as good as Obama-Kucinich, but you can't have everything. Oh gee, how about Obama-Dohrn? Now that'd be great!

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (28910)	5/24/2008 11:57:10 AM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 224724

Message 24618608

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (28910)	5/29/2008 10:34:50 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224724

The Fruit of the Kennedy-Khrushchev Meetings-- The Berlin Wall I wish Obama wasn't so stupid when it comes to history. He holds the Kennedy-Kruschev summit up as an example of successful diplomacy. It led to the Berlin wall, the Cuban missile crisis and arguably Viet Nam. Kennedy said VN was the only place the Communists were challenging the West on the ground and he felt he needed to confront them there. The Fruit of the Vienna Summit-- The fruit of weak foreign policy Barack Obama insists that the Kennedy-Khrushchev meetings were a success but, he forgets who won. John F. Kennedy met with Nikita Khrushchev on June 4, 1961. 39 days later, on August 13, 1961, the Soviet Union constructed the Berlin Wall. When finished the Berlin Wall was approximately 155km (97 miles) in length around the circumference of former West Berlin. It became the site of over 900 shootings, causing 239 deaths and another 200 injuries. Barack Obama cited John F. Kennedy's 1961 Vienna Summit with Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev as a triumph of American diplomacy in defending his proposed policy of meeting with the world's worst dictators without preconditions. Not only is Barack Obama wrong about appeasing dictators today, but as Scott Johnson reported in The Weekly Standard, Obama is wrong about the success of appeasement back in 1961, as well: In Portland on May 18, Obama cited John F. Kennedy's 1961 summit with Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna among the series of negotiations that led to America's triumph over the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The Vienna summit, however, disproves Obama's assertion regarding the unvarying value of meetings between enemy heads of state about as decisively as any historical episode can refute a thesis. In addition to poor judgment, Obama has demonstrated that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Kennedy first addressed the subject of a possible summit with the Soviet Union in the second Kennedy-Nixon debate. Unlike Obama, Kennedy expressly rejected a summit without preconditions. Indeed, Kennedy expressed his agreement with Nixon that he "would not meet Mr. Khrushchev unless there were some agreements at the secondary level--foreign ministers or ambassadors--which would indicate that the meeting would have some hope of success, or a useful exchange of ideas." In the third debate, Kennedy suggested that the strengthening of American conventional and nuclear forces should precede any summit. Once in office, Kennedy more or less discarded his previously expressed conditions for a summit. In a letter written in February and secretly delivered to Khrushchev in March 1961, Kennedy expressed his willingness to meet Khrushchev "before too long" for an informal exchange of views. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy sensed that discussions without an agenda or prior agreement might be disadvantageous to the United States. He let the matter drop, but Khrushchev accepted the invitation on May 4. The meeting was to occur in Vienna late that spring... The parties reached no agreement on any set agenda or proposals prior to their meeting in Vienna on June 3 and 4. The meetings were therefore confined to the informal exchange of views referred to in Kennedy's February letter. By all accounts, including Kennedy's own, the meetings were a disaster. Khrushchev berated, belittled, and bullied Kennedy on subjects ranging from Communist ideology to the balance of power between the Soviet and Western blocs, to Laos, to "wars of national liberation," to nuclear testing. He threw down the gauntlet on Berlin in particular, all but threatening war. Scott Johnson concludes: ...What harm can possibly come of a meeting between enemies? There are many, like Obama, who say that no harm can come from talking. To paraphrase JFK's June 1963 Berlin speech, let them come to study the Vienna conference. 39 days after the Vienna Meetings the Soviet Union erected the Berlin Wall. Obama must have missed this. Hat Tip Thanos and the Baron posted by Gateway Pundit gatewaypundit.blogspot.com