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 (29786)	6/4/2008 11:42:58 AM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224704

BO is doing the worst--Israelis & US jews hear a Hamas sympathizer in Obambi's naive words.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (29786)	6/4/2008 11:49:41 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224704

One person's "pandering" is another person's "reaching out."

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (29786)	6/4/2008 12:52:19 PM
From: DizzyG	Respond to of 224704

You better hope this is not true, Kenneth... What’s on the Michelle Obama Rant Tape? Here’s what’s known so far: The Michelle Obama Rant Tape was filmed between June 26th - July 1st 2004 in Chicago, IL at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference at Trinity United Church: specifically the Women’s Event. Michelle Obama appeared as a panelist alongside Mrs. Khadijah Farrakhan and Mrs. James Meeks. Bill Clinton spoke during the Conference, as did Bill Cosby and other speakers, but not at the panel Michelle attended. Michelle Obama spoke at the Women’s Event, but referenced Bill Clinton in her rant — his presence at the conference was the impetus for her raving, it seems. For about 30 minutes, Michelle Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launched into an attack on “whitey”, and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America. Her rant was fueled by the crowd: they reacted strongly to what she said, so she got more passionate and enraged, and that’s when she completely loses it and says things that have made the mouths drop of everyone who’s seen this. The “tape” is a DVD that Trinity United sold on its website, and possibly offered free for download up until March 2008 when Trinity’s site was scrubbed and the DVDs were no longer offered for sale. This outburst happened just one month before the 2004 Democratic Convention, when Barack Obama delivered the keynote address. hillbuzz.blogspot.com Please note that this is NOT from a right-wing blog. You and the O-Man are in real trouble. :) Diz- PS: There is a LOT of discussion about this here too: noquarterusa.net

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (29786)	6/4/2008 12:53:39 PM
From: DizzyG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224704

This commentary is also interesting, Kenneth... AND, what makes it all worse is the fact that Michelle Obama knew full well she was being recorded while launching into this rant. She just didn't care. There can be no excuse that she was tired or didn't know the camera was on, so she was only kidding, or practicing lines for a play she was secretly in -- an evil, venomous, screeching, hateful play. Obama's already thrown his grandmother, Jeremiah Wright, Father Pflegar, and now Trinity United itself under his campaign's bus. But, can he do this with Michelle too? The other people he's recently disowned, distanced himself from, or otherwise disparaged aren't people who would be living in the White House with him if he became President. Michelle Obama, however, would be, and history has shown how much influence spouses have over the person in that Oval Office. If this is who Michelle Obama really is, it's a campaign-ender, because America just won't vote for a candidate whose spouse spouts such hateful garbage, in public, when she knows she's being recorded. Now, that's audacity...of hate, and with uttter disregard for her family, community, and country. hillbuzz.blogspot.com Again, please note that this is NOT from a Right-Wing blog. :) Diz-

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (29786)	6/4/2008 4:34:13 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224704

Obama Flip-Flops on Iran Meeting Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:13 PM Yesterday, Obama said that he would not necessarily meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama underscored his willingness to talk to leaders of countries like Iran that are considered U.S. adversaries but said that does not necessarily mean an audience with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." (Caren Bohan, "Obama Says Won't Guarantee Ahmadinejad A Meeting," Reuters, 5/26/08) "'There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know he's actually in power. He's not the most powerful person in Iran,' Obama told reporters while campaigning in New Mexico." (Caren Bohan, "Obama Says Won't Guarantee Ahmadinejad A Meeting," Reuters, 5/26/08) But in July 2007, Obama said he would meet with the leaders of hostile foreign nations, including Iran: At a July 2007 debate, Obama announced he would personally meet with leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria and other hostile nations "without precondition." Question: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?" Obama: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07) [Editor's Note: Click Here To Watch Obama Say "I Would" Meet Unconditionally With Leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria, And Other Nations.] Obama repeatedly has stood by his position that he would meet with rogue leaders, including Ahmadinejad: In A September 2007 Press Conference, Obama Confirmed That He Would Meet Specifically With Ahmadinejad. Question: "Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President Ahmadinejad ..." Obama: "Uh huh." Question: "Would you still meet with him today?" Obama: "Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious and I've said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don't have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate. And by us listening to the views even of those who we violently disagree with - that sends a signal to the world that we are going to turn the page on the failed diplomacy that the Bush Administration has practiced for so long." (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, New York, NY, 9/24/07) In December 2007, Obama said he was not afraid of "Losing a propaganda war" by reaching out to hostile leaders like Ahmadinejad. Obama: "[I]'ve got to say I'm not afraid of losing a propaganda war to somebody like Ahmadinejad. You know, strong countries and strong presidents speak with their adversaries. I always think back to J.F.K.'s saying that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we shouldn't fear to negotiate. We remain the most powerful nation, by far, on earth. Our military capacity is unequaled. We should not hesitate to go ahead and initiate the kinds of discussions that are required." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/11/07) At a December 2007 debate, Obama said he would talk directly to Iran, even though it would "Not necessarily ... change Ahmadinejad's mind." Obama: "We need to send a strong signal that we are going to talk directly to not just our friends but also to our enemies. And I have to say that when I brought this up early on in this campaign, I was called naive and irresponsible. And yet the point, the reason for that was not necessarily because we're going to change Ahmadinejad's mind. It's because we're going to change the minds of people inside Iran, moderate forces inside Iran, as well as our Muslim allies around the region, that we are willing to listen to them and try to engage in finding ways to resolve conflicts cooperatively." (Sen. Barack Obama, National Public Radio Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Des Moines, IA, 12/4/07) On "Meet The Press" this month, Obama reiterated his position that "We've got to talk directly to Iran." Obama: "I have consistently said that we've got to talk directly to Iran, send them a clear message that they have to stop, not only with their potential funding of militias inside of Iraq, but they also have to stop funding Hamas, they have to stop funding Hezbollah, they've got to stand down on their nuclear weapons. There will be continued consequences for those kinds of actions, but that here are also some carrots and possible benefits if they change behavior. Those kinds of direct talks have not taken place. That's the kind of change in foreign policy that I plan to put in place when I'm President of the United States." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 5/4/08)

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (29786)	6/4/2008 5:33:25 PM
From: tonto	Respond to of 224704

You tell us...and why you are at it, stop avoiding posting the Obama resume...lolol...even you are embarrassed by his resume.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (29786)	6/4/2008 6:42:32 PM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 224704

State's rejection of ed grant prompts question: what's going wrong? By Don Brunell \| May 28, 2008 In the wake of an earlier column about our state rejecting a $13.2 million education grant, people are asking, “What is going wrong in Washington?” Why was Washington the only state of seven to reject funding to improve math and science learning for public school students in advanced placement programs? Our state’s teachers union, the Washington Education Association (WEA), killed the grant because it included merit pay for teachers. But other heavily unionized states accepted the grant. What went wrong in Washington? pnwlocalnews.com The students who would have benefited from this money are those who will fill the engineering, technology and advanced science jobs in the United States to help us compete with the rest of the world. It is so important that Bill and Melinda Gates and Michael and Susan Dell each donated $15 million to the program, and Exxon-Mobil contributed a whopping $100 million. But our state missed a golden opportunity by rejecting the money. Our elected officials want to grow the aerospace, software, biotech and technology industries in Washington, but companies like Boeing, Microsoft, Amgen and Schweitzer Engineering Labs can’t find skilled people to fill positions. It also was a big setback for emerging technology leaders like Scott Keeney, CEO of Vancouver’s nLight Photonics, when the National Math & Science Initiative (NMSI), announced that it ended Washington’s grant because the WEA refused to budge on the issue of merit pay for teachers. The NMSI program pays teachers directly, but the WEA insisted that all the money be collectively bargained. Keeney spearheaded the Clark County MAP (Mentoring Advanced Placement) program and the NMSI grant would have been a logical extension for high tech professionals who volunteer to tutor students in advanced math and science. Heavily unionized states like Massachusetts and Connecticut embraced the six-year grants. But Washington’s teachers union wouldn’t budge. How did Connecticut get the teachers union to go along with the NMSI grant? First, a strong coalition of business, teachers, government and education leaders pulled together to secure and implement the grant under a program called Project Opening Doors. Second, they hired Dr. J. A. Camille Vautour, a long-time school superintendent, to ramrod the project. Vautour approached ten school districts in Connecticut and got nine of them to embrace the program. Vautour bypassed state teachers union officials and put it to local teachers and school districts this way: “We have an opportunity to help our students, and the NMSI grant is non-negotiable. They set the terms, not us, and if we are going to improve our math and science programs, we need to embrace the grant.” The savvy superintendent took the issue of merit pay off the table. He pointed out that only 22 percent of the money would go to teachers in pay for performance while the other 78 percent went to teacher training and tutoring. Finally, he sold them on the idea that if students were successful on advanced placement tests in math and science, it would attract additional money from NMSI and the state. The rest is history, and on Sept. 6, 2007, Gov. M. Jodi Rell (R) accepted a $13.2 million NMSI grant. So, why all the fuss over a $13.2 million grant? Isn’t that pocket change when it comes to education spending in our state? True, but it is the signal it sends. Consider a couple of key facts: • About a third of high school math students and two-thirds of those enrolled in physical science have teachers who did not major in the subject in college or are not certified to teach it. • Only 29 percent of American 4th grade students, a third of 8th grade students, and barely 18 percent of 12th grade students perform at or above the proficient level in science. • In China, virtually all high school students study calculus; in the United States, 13 percent study calculus. So, when you look at the facts, you really have to wonder: What is going wrong in Washington? Don Brunell is president of the Association of Washington Business.