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 (44607)	9/4/2008 5:39:56 PM
From: DizzyG	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224718

Just so we're clear September 04, 2008 By Matthew May When conservatives and others question the absence of any executive experience of Barack Obama and why it is that a man who has spent just over a hundred days as a United States Senator is so close to the presidency, we are to conclude those doubters are racists. When media and Obama aides point out that Sarah Palin was a mayor of a town with a population below 10,000 and has only been a governor and commander-in-chief of the Alaskan National Guard for two years, we are to accept that she is not even close to being prepared to sit a heartbeat away from the presidency. When the National Enquirer breaks a story about a former vice-presidential nominee and presidential candidate and, until just a few weeks ago, viable possibility for a Cabinet post - a man whose endorsement of Barack Obama literally stopped the presses and caused networks to break in to regular coverage - regarding an affair and love child, we are to ignore its sleazy, tabloid nature. When the cover of a celebrity gossip rag owned by a monomaniacal Obama donor screams that Sarah Palin is engaging in some sort of bizarre cover-up about sex and pregnancies, it is to be taken with the utmost seriousness. When John Kerry salutes the 2004 Democratic National Convention and declares that he is "reporting for duty," we are to fondly hark back to his selfless service to country and brave stand against the murderous implementers of the military-industrial complex. When the 2008 Democratic National Convention parades retired military figures supporting Obama, we are to be impressed with their considered judgment. When during the 2008 Republican National Convention President George W. Bush speaks fondly of John McCain, and Fred Thompson delivers an introductory address on behalf of John McCain and invokes the latter's selfless service to country and brave stand against his barbaric captors, we are to nod in troubled agreement when Keith Olbermann describes this critically as "militaristic" When we learn that Sarah Palin chose to bring a baby with Down's Syndrome to term and that the governor's teenage daughter is pregnant and will bring that child to term and marry the boy who impregnated her, we are to cluck that this family's priorities are troubling. We are to say the governor is derelict in continuing to work and in not quietly and quickly hustling her daughter off to an abortion mill. When we learn that one of the few times Barack Obama votes other than present he votes in favor of infanticide and refusing to recognize abortion survivors as persons, we are to laud him for fighting for "reproductive justice," and ignore the brutality of his position. We are to nod knowingly when he speaks of a baby as punishment for a mistake. When John McCain becomes the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, we are to make jokes about his age and point out that he has been in the Senate since the 1980s, a symbol of entrenched power in Washington. When Joe Biden, who has been in the Senate since 1972, is announced as Barack Obama's running mate, we are to applaud Biden's so-called experience in foreign policy while ignoring the Obama campaign theme of "Change." When we learn how Sarah Palin has truly fought corruption in government, we are to again scoff that it's just Alaska and there is nothing up there but Eskimos and moose. When we learn that Barack Obama's political career was launched in the living room of unrepentant terrorists, that he has attained every political position he has gained through the cesspool that is the Daley Machine, patronized and drew inspiration from an anti-Semite, anti-white "pastor," we are to ignore it and channel all of our white guilt about being such horrible racists into membership in a messianic cult of personality. When a journalist and scholar has to appeal to the public to open files regarding Barack Obama's experience with the Chicago Annenberg Project housed at a public university, we are to not only avert our eyes at the rest of the media's lack of outrage but we are to parrot talking points from the Obama campaign in attempt to harangue a radio station to force that journalist off the air. When Jimmy Carter calls Barack Obama a "black boy," we are to remember that Jimmy Carter is a humanitarian and peacemaker. When Hillary Clinton was running for president, we were to applaud the immense progress of women in politics and cheer every crack she made in the glass ceiling. When Sarah Palin is nominated to be the vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, we are to suddenly transform into misogynists. When members of the media are seen cheering Barack Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention, we are to remember how inspiring a figure Obama truly is, and that he has the imprimatur of the Kennedy family and remember that everyone in America loves the princes of Hyannis Port. When members of the media ask delegates to the Republican National Convention how anyone should take seriously Sarah Palin's experience when compared to Obama's, we are to applaud such hard-hitting, objective journalism. When a citizen votes for John McCain in November he will be a racist. When a citizen votes for Barack Obama in November he is tolerant and will not be at all a sexist or ageist. Are you not glad we cleared that up? americanthinker.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (44607)	9/4/2008 6:24:05 PM
From: DizzyG	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224718

I can see why you are so scared, Kenneth. :) "We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco." Sarah Palin "...in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening." Sarah Palin Your boy is going down. :) LOL! Diz-

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (44607)	9/4/2008 6:34:24 PM
From: DizzyG	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224718

Foreign-Policy “Experience” Sharing second thoughts on the talking points over experience. By Thomas Sowell Now that the Democrats have recovered from the shock of Governor Sarah Palin’s nomination as the Republican’s candidate for vice president, they have suddenly discovered that her lack of experience in general — and foreign-policy experience in particular — is a terrible danger in someone just a heartbeat away from being President of the United States. For those who are satisfied with talking points, there is no need to go any further. But, for those who still consider substance relevant, this is an incredible argument coming from those whose presidential candidate has even less experience in public office than Sarah Palin, and none in foreign policy. Moreover, if Senator Barack Obama is elected, he will not be a heartbeat away from the presidency, his would be the heartbeat of the president — and he would be the one making foreign policy. But the big talking point is that the Democrats’ vice-presidential nominee, Senator Joe Biden, has years of foreign policy experience as a member, and now chairman, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That all depends on what the definition of “experience” is. Before getting into that, however, a plain fact should be noted: No governor ever had foreign-policy experience before becoming president — not Ronald Reagan, not Franklin D. Roosevelt, nor any other governor. It is hard to know how many people could possibly have had foreign-policy experience before reaching the White House besides a Secretary of State or a Secretary of Defense. The last Secretary of War (the old title of Secretaries of Defense) to later become President of the United States was William Howard Taft, a hundred years ago. The last Secretary of State to become President of the United States was James Buchanan, a century and a half ago. The first President Bush had been head of the C.I.A., which certainly gave him a lot of knowledge of what was happening around the world, though still not experience in making the country’s foreign policy. Senator Joe Biden’s years of service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is even further removed from foreign-policy experience. He has had a front-row seat as an observer of foreign policy. But Senator Biden has never had any real experience of making foreign policy and taking the consequences of the results. The difference between being a spectator and being a participant, with responsibility for the consequences of what you say and do, is fundamental. You can read books about crime or attend lectures by criminologists, but you have no real experience or expertise about crime unless you have been a criminal or a policeman. Although I served in the Marine Corps, I have no military experience in any meaningful sense. The closest I ever came to combat was being assigned to photograph the maneuvers of the Second Marine Division at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. That was photographic experience, not military experience. If someone gave me a policy-making job in the Pentagon, I wouldn’t have a clue. The fact that Senator Joe Biden has for years listened to all sorts of people testify on all sorts of foreign-policy issues tells us nothing about how well he understood the issues. Out of the four presidential and vice-presidential candidates this year, only Governor Palin has had to make executive decisions and live with the consequences. As for Senator Obama, his various pronouncements on foreign policy have been as immature as they have been presumptuous. He talked publicly about taking military action against Pakistan, one of our few Islamic allies and a nation with nuclear weapons. Barack Obama’s first response to the Russian invasion of Georgia was to urge “all sides” to negotiate a cease-fire and take their issues to the United Nations. That is standard liberal talk, which even Obama had second thoughts about, after Senator John McCain gave a more grown-up response. We should all have second thoughts about what is, and is not, foreign-policy “experience.” — Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. article.nationalreview.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (44607)	9/4/2008 6:54:24 PM
From: Ruffian	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224718

Obama: Surge Succeeded Beyond ‘Wildest Dreams’ by FOXNews.com Thursday, September 4, 2008 Thursday: Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, sits for an interview with FOX News' Bill O'Reilly. The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.” As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi people. “I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” Watch Barack Obama’s interview with Bill O’Reilly at 8 p.m. ET Thursday on FOX News Channel. Click here for a preview. However, he added, the country has not had enough “political reconciliation” and Iraqis still have not taken responsibility for their country. Speaking on other national security matters, Obama said he would not take military action off the table in dealing with Iran, but diplomacy and sanctions can’t be overlooked. The Islamic republic is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, he said. “It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon, it would be a game changer,” Obama said. “It’s sufficient to say I would not take military action off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and the United States’ interests.” But Obama also warned against the current U.S. administration lumping radical Islamic groups together. “They have fueled a whole host of terrorist organizations,” Obama said of Iran, but “we have to have the ability to distinguish between groups. … They may not all be part and parcel of the same ideology.” Obama sat down with O’Reilly in York, Pa., after holding a discussion on the economy with voters nearby. The Illinois senator has been campaigning in battleground states since accepting the Democratic presidential nomination last Thursday at his party’s convention in Denver. Obama said he “absolutely” believes the United States is fighting a War on Terror, with the enemy being, “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam.” He repeated his campaign’s foreign policy position that Afghanistan must become the “central front” in the War on Terror. Obama was first asked to come on “The O’Reilly Factor” in early 2007. The interview will air in three more parts after Thursday, from Monday through Wednesday next week