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 (48203)	9/22/2008 5:08:45 PM
From: DizzyG	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

It's sad Kenneth that you and the DNC welcome misery for this country... Even more pathetic is that you are leading the parade. This will be your undoing. Diz-

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (48203)	9/22/2008 5:12:43 PM
From: DizzyG	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

Will Democrats Ever Recover From Obama? By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN \| Posted Wednesday, September 17, 2008 4:30 PM PT The Democrats have spent a year demonstrating yet again why they are unfit to lead the nation — and perhaps unfit any longer to be a major political party. A year ago, they were the default option and seemed to have the '08 election in the bag. All they had to do was step up and act responsibly. Then along came Barack Obama starring in a self-produced one-act drama about a fictional hero named Barack Obama. The New York Times and Washington Post swooned. They rushed out rave reviews and embellished the script with additional exaggerations of their own. So did CNN and the networks. Soon, the high-octane prospect of a left-wing charismatic with bonus points for race and a claim to historic significance became irresistible. Before the rank and file caught on to the media hustle, Barack Obama walked off with the nomination and ownership of the Democratic Party. Now the Democrats are compounding the fraud by foisting him off on the voters. The Barack Obama they are peddling is a media-created virtual person endowed by his creators with characteristics that do not represent the real Barack Obama. Millions of people are being duped. The fictional Barack Obama may win the election in November, but if he does, it will be the real Barack Obama who will occupy the White House and exercise nearly untrammeled power over the lives and livelihoods of 300 million Americans. Therein lies the enormity of the trick the Democrats are playing on the American people. Why should Americans of African heritage invest their hopes, dreams and identities in a Chicago pol with an unsavory past replete with radicals, racketeers and racists, a borderline Marxist agenda and a doubtful attitude toward America — and with whom they have nothing in common other than skin color? How many Reagan Democrats want a left-wing collectivist in the White House, especially one who has no respect for them and their values? Even "liberals" do not actually like to pay high taxes or want the economic pie to be made smaller. And nobody looks forward to a more authoritarian government. Who, for example, wants a government bureaucrat telling them which doctors to use, what medical care they can receive and when? How do the real people of America, those who do the work, raise the families, pay the taxes, defend the nation and make America the truly exceptional place that it is, feel about an arrogant young man whose self-esteem is so much greater than his accomplishments? Do they want a president who has seldom held a real job, never run a business or done much of anything other than promote himself? And what about the young idealists preparing to cast their first votes? Do they really intend to vote for an illusion? Do any Americans want a president who regards himself as a citizen of the world and may have mixed loyalties? The potential downside consequences of an Obama presidency are enormous. And on the upside, what is to be gained? The frisson of having voted to elect an African-American president? A last-minute slap at President Bush, who will be out of office in January anyway? A pointless protest against a war that is now being won and will soon be over? Does anyone seriously think that Barack Obama will do better than John McCain in keeping America safe and prosperous? Surely not. Risking a lot to gain nothing is a very bad bet — potentially even fatal — but that is exactly what the Democrats and the media are asking voters to do. Democrats have for decades been short on both ideas and credible candidates. But they are great pretenders and, with the aid of the dominant media, have in the past often been successful in wrapping the banner of Roosevelt and Kennedy around some extraordinarily frail stand-ins. Padding a resume is one thing — exaggeration is, after all, a part of politics — but it is quite another thing to paper over discomfiting parts of a candidate's resume and condemn those who ask or wonder why. The Democrats are insulting people's intelligence and making a mockery of the electoral process by asking them to vote for a figment of the media's imagination. Christian, an attorney, was a deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Ford administration. ibdeditorials.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (48203)	9/22/2008 5:49:48 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

A Depression would make you giddy, wouldn't it?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (48203)	9/24/2008 10:06:12 AM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224729

Kill the bill: car loans added(phone # below)--will voters again crash congress' phone network: Kill the bailout: Phones ringing off the hook; student loans, car debt added to proposal By Michelle Malkin • September 23, 2008 We don’t have to have this trillion-dollar bailout shoved down our throats. You can make a difference. Phones are ringing off the hook. Peter Viles at L.A.Land: A key quote in this morning’s Senate hearing about the Paulson bailout is worth repeating. This comes from Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat: “Like my colleagues, my phones have been ringing off the hook. The sentiment from Ohioans about this proposal is universally negative.” Not “overwhelmingly negative.” Not “deeply suspicious.” Not “extremely upset.” Universally negative. I’ll state the obvious: Members of Congress aren’t generally in the habit of passing historic and spectacularly unpopular legislation five weeks before election day. Make your voice heard now. Every second counts: 202-224-3121. * Quotable: “‘Just because God created the world in seven days doesn’t mean we have to pass this bill in seven days,’ said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.” Or at all. Update: Student loans, car loans, and credit card debt have been snuck into the bailout proposal No. No No. Hellllllll, no. In the dark of night over the weekend when most people were snoozing, the Treasury dramatically expanded its bailout plan to include buying student loans, car loans, credit card debt and any other “troubled” assets held by banks. The changes, which were included in draft language that also opened the bailout program to foreign banks with extensive loan operations in the United States, potentially added tens of billions of dollars to the cost of the program. Although it was a major addition to what was already the nation’s largest-ever bailout, it did not become part of the debate between Democrats and the Treasury over details of the program. A Monday counterproposal by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd included such consumer loans as well as mortgages, just as the Treasury’s draft did Saturday night. “The costs of the bailout will be significantly higher than originally considered or acknowledged,” said Joshua Rosner, managing director of Graham Fisher & Co., who charged that the Treasury and Federal Reserve have not been “forthright” about the ultimate cost to the public. The plan gives Treasury the discretion to buy the non-mortgage loans and securities in consultation with the Fed. Conservatives cited the move as a sign that the massive plan to take over bad mortgage debt already is opening the door to further government bailouts. * Get your GOP senator off the fence: Many members of the U.S. Senate blasted the Bush administration’s Wall Street bailout plan Tuesday, but no senator has come forward so far with an explicit pledge to kill the $700 billion proposal. The rules of the Senate, unlike the House , give individual lawmakers substantial power to delay or halt legislation, but three Senate aides said there were no clear signs yet of that power being exercised. As the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on the plan put forward by the Treasury Department, aides said much would depend on Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the committee’s top Republican, who was sharply critical at the hearing. The outlook for Treasury’s plan would dim greatly if Shelby were to move to block the bill that is expected to emerge soon from congressional debate over the plan, the aides said. The Democrat-controlled Congress and the Republican Bush administration are in negotiations over specifics of the bailout bill, with the House aiming to get legislation to a floor vote possibly Friday… …Other senators, including Republicans Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Jim DeMint of South Carolina, have expressed strong concerns.