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 (56397)	12/3/2008 3:54:32 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224724

Congressman Rangel's Letter To the Editor: The recent inflammatory articles by David Kocieniewski attempting to link my position on retroactive tax legislation affecting United States companies that incorporate abroad (inverted companies) to support for the Rangel Center at C.C.N.Y. echoed in your recent editorial, reflect willful blindness to the history of that legislation and a fundamental ignorance of the legislative process that produced it. Moreover, your editorial board is now criticizing me for opposing a 2007 Senate bill that The New York Times itself strenuously opposed. In fact, The Times roundly praised my efforts to defeat that very same bill by working on separate, targeted, bipartisan legislation in the House. Contrary to The Times’s reporting, I played no role in preserving a tax break for Nabors Industries. 1 The tax loophole that benefited companies moving offshore was closed in 2004. The effective date of this legislation was determined by the then-Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, Republican of California, and Senators Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana. I did not participate in those negotiations. 2 In 2007, although the legislation had been on the books — and the effective date fixed — for three years, Senators Grassley and Baucus sought to reach back five years to establish an earlier effective date. This and other retroactive provisions were included in a larger Senate tax bill that many, including the editorial page of The New York Times, found to be highly objectionable. I opposed that bill because it created tax breaks for big business at the expense of small businesses and middle-class Americans. I began working on a separate, bipartisan bill in the House that would provide tax relief for small businesses. Consistent with my longstanding views and the desires of the Ways and Means Committee ranking member, Jim McCrery, Republican of Louisiana, this bipartisan House bill included no retroactive provisions. This bipartisan legislation was developed and introduced before any alleged contact 3, however brief, with the Nabors lobbyist. At no time was the issue of offshore inversion raised in the development of this legislation. Indeed, that issue never came before the Ways and Means Committee during my tenure as chairman in the spring of 2007. The House passed the small-business tax bill with an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 360 to 45. The article’s assertion that I “defended” the loophole in order to benefit Nabors Industries is patently false. The Senate Finance Committee staff dropped this and other controversial tax increases before any negotiations took place between me and the Finance Committee chairman, Max Baucus, on the final bill. 4 The issue was never raised again. Not only has my position against retroactive tax law changes been consistent, but let me be clear, I have actively pursued legislation to crack down on loopholes benefiting inverted companies, like Nabors. I helped my colleague Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas, author H.R. 3160, which would prohibit companies from taking advantage of tax treaties to avoid a 30 percent withholding tax in the United States. This provision passed the House on Aug. 2, 2007, but has not yet passed the Senate. Nabors would pay more taxes under this bill. 5 My support for this bill demonstrates that my prior opposition to a retroactive increase in taxes 6 is a consistent 7, principled stance that has nothing to do with the Nabors Industries. It is absurd to suggest there was ever a change in my position in connection with a pledged donation to C.C.N.Y. I should note that I made available to the reporter a longstanding Congressional tax policy expert who confirmed from experience that my position on this issue of tax policy has been consistent. The reporter chose to omit this statement. 8 Eugene M. Isenberg, the chief executive of Nabors Industries, and I share nothing more than a passion for helping America’s youth build a brighter future and the understanding that a good education can open doors for boys and girls — this is the established goal of the Rangel Center at C.C.N.Y. This passion is also shared by the distinguished Robert M. Morgenthau, Manhattan’s district attorney, who introduced us. 9 For this reporter to imply otherwise — and repeatedly ignore facts to promote his agenda — is irresponsible and should not be tolerated by any paper, especially The New York Times. Charles B. Rangel Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means Nov. 26, 2008

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (56397)	12/4/2008 7:36:22 AM
From: lorne	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224724

Baghdad Scuttlebutt: Pssst! Obama's a Shi'ite By Bobby Ghosh / Baghdad Tuesday, time.com Dec. 02, 2008 When he learns that I live in New York, Ridha Mohammed leans toward me and lowers his voice to a conspiratory whisper. "I will tell you a secret that the Americans don't know," he says. "Their next President is a Shi'ite." It's not just right-wing kooks in Middle America who believe Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim: conspiracy theorists across the Middle East have embraced the idea with the same fervor they bring to other bizarre notions. I am not a bit surprised when, later in the conversation, Mohammed assures me that Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and that Saudi Arabia had agreed to bail out the U.S. economy in exchange for an American invasion of Iran. A Pew opinion poll a month ahead of the Nov. 4 election showed that 12% of Americans still thought Obama was a Muslim. There are no reliable statistics on how many in the Middle East believe that, but there's some anecdotal evidence that the notion is especially popular among poor, undereducated Shi'ites in Iran and Iraq. Ridha Mohammed is an exception, however: he trained as an engineer at Baghdad University and owns a flourishing plumbing business. He lives just outside Sadr City, Baghdad's giant Shi'ite slum, where preachers at several mosques routinely assure their congregants that Obama is a fellow sectarian. "When Obama won," says Mohammed, "it was a big day in Sadr City. Many people felt, Now we have a brother in the White House." (Sadr City — estimated pop. 2 million — is a bastion of anti-Americanism, where the radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia, the Mahdi Army, hold sway. Few Americans would dare visit the neighborhood without a massive military escort.) The notion that Obama is a Shi'ite may be traced to Iran. In the run-up to the U.S. presidential election, state-run papers published articles claiming that the Democratic nominee's paternal ancestors had hailed from southwestern Iran. In reality, of course, Obama's father and his ancestors came from Kenya, where Shi'a Islam is rare. Most Kenyan Muslims are Sunnis and leaven their faith with pre-Islamic African traditions and beliefs. Obama himself has said he has no idea if his paternal grandfather (who converted from Christianity) was Sunni or Shi'ite. Undeterred, some Shi'ite scholars trawled through ancient texts to find proof and came up with increasingly far-fetched theories linking the rise of Obama to important Shi'ite figures like the Imam Ali. Some pointed to a prophecy sometimes attributed to Ali that the arrival of the Mahdi — a messiah-like figure who, Shi'ites believe, will ultimately defeat evil — will be presaged by the appearance of a messenger, a tall black man who will rule the West. Others read meaning into Obama's name. In Persian, O-ba-ma means "He's with us," and Barack Hussein can loosely be translated as "blessings of Hussein," an allusion to Ali's son, another imam revered by the Shi'ites. Obama's strenuous denials made no difference to these theorists: they simply reasoned that he must be practicing al-Taqqiya, or dissimulation; Shi'ite jurists say believers may conceal their faith from infidels in order to protect themselves from harm. By Election Day, these theories had become so commonplace that a prominent Shi'ite scholar based in Dubai felt compelled to issue a statement rejecting them. It made little difference. Vali Nasr, a Tufts University professor and expert on Shi'ite history, understands why the theories are popular with some Shi'ites. Since they have historically been viewed as inferior to the dominant Sunnis, he says, Shi'ites are eager to claim ownership of "anything or anyone that can show them to be superior." Since Obama is widely popular among Muslims, "assuming that he is Shi'ite and also the most powerful man in the world gives the Shi'ites pride and confidence," Nasr adds. Back in Sadr City, one community leader laughed off the Obama-as-Shi'ite theory but acknowledged it was popular. He suggested it might work in the U.S.'s favor. "The fools who believe this kind of thing, once their fellow Shi'ite is President, they will become less hostile to America," he said. Me, I sense the birth of a whole new conspiracy theory!

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (56397)	12/4/2008 11:31:33 AM
From: Ann Corrigan	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224724

Franken--How is He Doing?<g> Posted by Erick Erickson, redstate.com Thursday, December 4th Hahahahaha. This is way too funny. Elections officials in Minnesota’s largest city today discovered that one precinct came up 133 ballots short of election day totals, resulting in a net loss for Democratic challenger Al Franken of 36 votes. The development wipes away what had been a boon for Franken in his bid to overtake Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, after Ramsey County officials found an additional 37 votes for Franken from a Maplewood precinct on Tuesday. Mind you, Franken has been telling everyone he was in the lead. Not quite so now. Karma.