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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (431236)	10/30/2008 11:01:03 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572561

It cracks me up.....inoys thinks we're afraid of her because she's a potential powerhouse. Personally, I'm afraid of her because she's too much like GW Bush. Let me tell you something, BOY, from having been around a little longer than you. When a politician is attacked as brutally, unfairly, and with such malice as she has been, it is because the attackers are scared shitless. And you SHOULD be afraid of her politics as well as her policy. She can come back as a very strong candidate. That's right.....they are scared shitless but not because she's a powerhouse but because she turns on the extremists in the Republican party and because she has many of the same characteristics of a GW Bush. The good news is the nation has had, unlike with Bush, some forewarning. And that allows for a firewall to be put around her to minimize her impact. I hoping we can limit her to a congressperson in the House....at the very most.......governor of Alaska at the least. We chose the wrong candidate this year, and this loss is a result of it. But Obama cannot hide his record for the next four years the way he has over the last 22 months. It will be out there for everyone to see. Dude, you chose the wrong candidate......I chose the right one. I'd wager we see a Huckabee/Palin ticket next time around, and if Obama does what I think he will in office, I believe he'll get creamed. It is, though, going to be a long four years. It will be eight long years........remember to bookmark this post.

To: i-node who wrote (431236)	10/30/2008 11:04:26 AM
From: Road Walker	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1572561

Let me tell you something, BOY Sounding like a cranky old fart like your candidate...

To: i-node who wrote (431236)	10/30/2008 11:05:33 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572561

"We chose the wrong candidate this year" Actually, in watching the debates, I thought you choose the best of out of a bad bunch.

To: i-node who wrote (431236)	10/30/2008 12:59:59 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572561

Like I said in a previous post, some of the most important members of the GOP don't agree with your take on Pallin. Something you all need to work out. Call Him John the Careless By George F. Will Thursday, October 30, 2008; Page A23 From the invasion of Iraq to the selection of Sarah Palin, carelessness has characterized recent episodes of faux conservatism. Tuesday's probable repudiation of the Republican Party will punish characteristics displayed in the campaign's closing days. Some polls show that Palin has become an even heavier weight in John McCain's saddle than his association with George W. Bush. Did McCain, who seems to think that Palin's never having attended a "Georgetown cocktail party" is sufficient qualification for the vice presidency, lift an eyebrow when she said that vice presidents "are in charge of the United States Senate"? She may have been tailoring her narrative to her audience of third-graders, who do not know that vice presidents have no constitutional function in the Senate other than to cast tie-breaking votes. But does she know that when Lyndon Johnson, transformed by the 1960 election from Senate majority leader into vice president, ventured to the Capitol to attend the Democratic senators' weekly policy luncheon, the new majority leader, Montana's Mike Mansfield, supported by his caucus, barred him because his presence would be a derogation of the Senate's autonomy? Perhaps Palin's confusion about the office for which she is auditioning comes from listening to its current occupant. Dick Cheney, the foremost practitioner of this administration's constitutional carelessness in aggrandizing executive power, regularly attends the Senate Republicans' Tuesday luncheons. He has said jocularly that he is "a product" of the Senate, which pays his salary, and that he has no "official duties" in the executive branch. His situational constitutionalism has, however, led him to assert, when claiming exemption from a particular executive order, that he is a member of the legislative branch and, when seeking to shield certain of his deliberations from legislative inquiry, to say that he is a member of the executive branch. Palin may be an inveterate simplifier; McCain has a history of reducing controversies to cartoons. A Republican financial expert recalls attending a dinner with McCain for the purpose of discussing with him domestic and international financial complexities that clearly did not fascinate the senator. As the dinner ended, McCain's question for his briefer was: "So, who is the villain?" McCain revived a familiar villain -- "huge amounts" of political money -- when Barack Obama announced that he had received contributions of $150 million in September. "The dam is broken," said McCain, whose constitutional carelessness involves wanting to multiply impediments to people who want to participate in politics by contributing to candidates -- people such as the 632,000 first-time givers to Obama in September. Why is it virtuous to erect a dam of laws to impede the flow of contributions by which citizens exercise their First Amendment right to political expression? "We're now going to see," McCain warned, "huge amounts of money coming into political campaigns, and we know history tells us that always leads to scandal." The supposedly inevitable scandal, which supposedly justifies preemptive government restrictions on Americans' freedom to fund the dissemination of political ideas they favor, presumably is that Obama will be pressured to give favors to his September givers. The contributions by the new givers that month averaged $86. One excellent result of this election cycle is that public financing of presidential campaigns now seems sillier than ever. The public has always disliked it: Voluntary and cost-free participation, using the check-off on the income tax form, peaked at 28.7 percent in 1980 and has sagged to 9.2 percent. The Post, which is melancholy about the system's parlous condition, says there were three reasons for creating public financing: to free candidates from the demands of fundraising, to level the playing field and "to limit the amount of money pouring into presidential campaigns." The first reason is decreasingly persuasive because fundraising is increasingly easy because of new technologies such as the Internet. The second reason is, the Supreme Court says, constitutionally impermissible. Government may not mandate equality of resources among political competitors who earn different levels of voluntary support. As for the third reason -- "huge amounts" (McCain) of money "pouring into" (The Post) presidential politics -- well: The Center for Responsive Politics calculates that, by Election Day, $2.4 billion will have been spent on presidential campaigns in the two-year election cycle that began in January 2007, and an additional $2.9 billion will have been spent on 435 House and 35 Senate contests. This $5.3 billion is a billion less than Americans will spend this year on potato chips. washingtonpost.com