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 : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pompsander who wrote (21263)	8/20/2008 3:37:35 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 25737

That was off base too....makes no difference what side does it.... J.

To: pompsander who wrote (21263)	8/20/2008 8:47:02 PM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 25737

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS TRYING TO HAVE THIS VIDEO PULLED IMMEDIATELY. PLEASE CLICK THE LINK This is a 51-second video of Obama telling us what he will do to the military...watch it before this is removed off the web site. Pass it on... you can view the speech in it's entirety by following directions on the video comments macsmind.com

To: pompsander who wrote (21263)	8/21/2008 10:02:14 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25737

Constitutional Scholar Obama Questions Legality of Slavery Ban This week, Barack Obama's challenge is to select a running mate who's young, hip, and whose accomplishments in life don't overshadow Obama's. Allow me to suggest Kevin Federline. The only thing we can be sure of is that Obama will choose someone who is the polar opposite of all his advisers until now. In other words, it will be a very, very white male who was probably proud of his country even before being chosen as Obama's running mate. Obama's got a lot of ground to make up following that performance last weekend at the Saddleback presidential forum with pastor Rick Warren. After seeing Obama defend infanticide with the glib excuse that the question of when life begins is above his "pay-grade," Rev. Jeremiah Wright announced that although he's known Obama for 30 years, he only recently became aware of how extreme the senator's viewpoints were. Wright, after all, has his reputation to consider. Network heads responded by dashing off an urgent memo: During the main presidential debates this fall, ask NO questions about abortion, ethics or evil! Morality isn't the Democrats' forte. Obama's defenders spin his abominable performance in the Saddleback forum by saying he's just too smart to give a straight answer. As Rick Warren charitably described Obama's debate performance: "He likes to nuance things ... He's a constitutional attorney." The constitutional lawyer "does nuance," as Bill Maher said on "Larry King Live," "and you saw how well that goes over with the Rick Warren people." If that's Obama's excuse, he ought to know a few basics about the Constitution. Did the big constitutional lawyer whose "nuance" is too sophisticated for Rick Warren's audience see the letter his wife sent out on his behalf in 2004? Michelle Obama denounced a federal law banning partial-birth abortion, writing that "this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional." Clearly! The Supreme Court later found the law not "unconstitutional," but "constitutional" -- which I believe may have been the precise moment when Michelle Obama realized just how ashamed she had always been of her country. But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not "because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution." I don't care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn't need an amendment, no? Say, you know what else was "historically" not defined in the Constitution? Slavery. The words "slavery" and "slave" do not appear once in the original Constitution. The framers correctly thought it would sully the freedom-enshrining document to acknowledge the repellent practice. (Much like abortion!) But in 1865, the 13th Amendment banned slavery throughout the land, in the first constitutional phrase ever to mention "slavery": "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." On Obama's "historical" argument, they shouldn't have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution "historically" had not mentioned slavery. Do we know for a fact Barack Obama has read the Constitution? Obama's Facebook profile: "I'm pro-infanticide, I love sunsets, and I don't get the 13th Amendment!" This is the guy who thinks he can condescend to Clarence Thomas? Asked at the Saddleback forum which Supreme Court justice Obama would not have nominated, Obama said ... the black one! In Obama's defense, he said he thought Thomas wasn't experienced enough "at the time." So I guess Obama thinks Thomas should have to "wait his turn." By contrast, Obama has experience pouring out of those big ears of his. Asked last year by Robin Roberts on ABC's "Good Morning America" about his lack of experience in foreign policy, Obama took umbrage. Swelling up his puny little chest, Obama said: "Well, actually, my experience in foreign policy is probably more diverse than most others in the field. I'm somebody who has actually lived overseas, somebody who has studied overseas. I majored in international relations." He actually cited his undergraduate major as a qualification to be president. But on Saturday night, Obama said he didn't think Clarence Thomas was a "strong enough jurist or legal thinker" to be put on the Supreme Court. I bet Thomas has heard of the 13th Amendment! townhall.com

To: pompsander who wrote (21263)	8/21/2008 10:40:41 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

US & Iraq Agreeing to Withdrawal Timelines Rice says US-Iraq coming together on timetables By MATTHEW LEE and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA – 43 minutes ago ap.google.com BAGHDAD (AP) — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the United States and Iraq have agreed to a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the battle-scarred country. Appearing with her Iraqi counterpart, Hoshyar Zebari (HOH'-shayr zuh-BAH'-ree), Rice acknowledged at their joint news conference Thursday that the two parties have not yet finalized the deal. She said it close at hand, however. Rice called her talks with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "very good and fruitful" and said an agreement is near that would "solidify the significant gains" in security in Iraq over the last year. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. BAGHDAD (AP) — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pressed Iraqi leaders Thursday to agree quickly to a U.S.-Iraq security deal that outlines the withdrawal of American troops, including a pull-out from cities by next June 30. Flying into Baghdad on an unannounced trip, Rice said the two sides were nearing an agreement after months of painstaking negotiations but stressed there were still unresolved issues, including when U.S. soldiers will leave and what their operations will consist of until then. "The negotiators have taken this very, very far," she told reporters aboard her plane. "But there is no reason to believe that there is an agreement yet." "There are still issues concerning exactly how our forces operate," Rice said, adding that "the agreement rests on aspirational timelines." Her comments dampened speculation that agreement might be reached while she is in Baghdad on a several-hour visit, her first to Iraq since March, after U.S. and Iraqi officials said Wednesday that a draft document was done and awaiting approval from political leaders. Rice said it was "very premature" to conclude the agreement had been finalized. The United States had hoped to seal the deal, which will replace the U.N. mandate for international forces in Iraq that expires Dec. 31, by the end of last month. Rice declined to talk about specific gaps, but U.S. officials said more work is needed to reach agreements on a timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals, immunity for U.S. troops and the handling of Iraqi prisoners. One senior official said Rice would be pushing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki hard to accept. "Ultimately the prime minister has to make the call on moving forward," Rice said. She described her visit as "a chance for me to meet with the prime minister and see what we can do from Washington to get to closure." One official close to al-Maliki said Wednesday that he objected to parts of the text, including the immunity provision. Another Iraqi official said al-Maliki had gone through the text personally and made notes with objections to some undisclosed points. A senior aide to al-Maliki said Thursday that Rice's meeting with the prime minister had led to "some progress" in resolving the remaining sticking points. On the issue of the withdrawal of the last of the U.S. troops, the aide said a broad compromise formula had been worked out. As a principle, the U.S. has agreed to a withdrawal, "but the number of U.S. troops" will be determined "according to the needs of Iraq." The Iraqi officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. Iraqi and American officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday that negotiators had completed a draft agreement that extends the legal basis for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq beyond the end of this year, while calling for them to move out of Iraqi cities as soon as June 30. A senior U.S. military official in Washington said the deal is acceptable to the U.S. side, subject to formal approval by President Bush. It also requires approval by Iraqi leaders, and some members of Iraq's Cabinet oppose some provisions. Also completed is a companion draft document, known as a strategic framework agreement, spelling out in broad terms the political, security and economic relationships between Iraq and the United States, the senior military official said. The official discussed the draft accords on condition that he not be identified by name because the deals have not been publicly announced and are not final. In addition to spelling out that U.S. troops would move out of Iraqi cities by next summer, the Iraqi government has pushed for a specific date — most likely the end of 2011 — by which all U.S. forces would depart the country. In the meantime, the U.S. troops would be positioned on bases in other parts of the country to make them less visible while still being able to assist Iraqi forces as needed. There are now about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. U.S. officials have resisted committing firmly to a specific date for a final pullout, insisting that it would be wiser to set a target linked to the attainment of certain agreed-upon goals. These goals would reflect not only security improvements but also progress on the political and economic fronts. It was not clear Wednesday how that has been settled in the draft security accord, which the two governments are referring to as a memorandum of understanding. The draft agreement must be approved by the Iraqi parliament, which is in recess until early next month. Late Wednesday a second senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the two sides have come up with a draft agreement that addresses the issue of the timing of future U.S. troop withdrawals, but the official would not say whether the two sides had agreed on 2011 for a final pullout. The official suggested there would be a series of timelines set, linked to conditions on the ground, and that the draft worked out by the negotiators required more talks at higher levels of the two governments. An Iraqi official who was involved in the protracted negotiations said a compromise had been worked out on the contentious issue of whether to provide U.S. troops immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law, but he did not give details. In Washington, the senior military official said the draft agreement reflects the U.S. position that the United States must retain exclusive legal jurisdiction over its troops in Iraq. Associated Press writers Qassim Abdul-Zahrar in Baghdad and Robert Burns in Washington contributed to this report.