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 (447447)	1/14/2009 10:22:29 AM
From: Alighieri	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576663

It is beside the point, which was the confusion over reality and fiction. Tina Fey is not a journalist and parody is not news. Palin is every bit as qualified to be president as Obama is. Which is "not all that". Maybe...i do know that obama would know better than to claim foreign policy experience by way of geographical references. The differences are many, but a striking one is that this woman is an insecure bullshitter who replaces "i don't know" with snake oil salesmanship. Al

To: i-node who wrote (447447)	1/14/2009 10:30:12 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1576663

Palin is every bit as qualified to be president as Obama is. No. He was elected. She wasn't.

To: i-node who wrote (447447)	1/14/2009 11:30:35 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576663

Why did I believe anyone in your precious Bush's administration knew what the hell they were doing. Paulson fukked us......big time.....and it makes me sick. As for Palin, she is a flaming clown.....deal with it! Unfairly Rewarding Greedy Bankers, and Why It Works By Steven Pearlstein Wednesday, January 14, 2009; Page D01 There's been a lot of grousing lately about the Treasury's $700 billion bailout program, which, according to its many critics, has accomplished nothing other than line the pockets of undeserving bankers and their shareholders. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how it's possible to rescue the banking system without rescuing banks. That's not because anyone thought banks or bankers were particularly deserving of public charity or even sympathy -- clearly they weren't. But by last summer, with investors, lenders and depositors running for the exits, there was a genuine fear that the banking system could collapse and bring the whole global economy down with it. To prevent that outcome, the Treasury asked for $700 billion that it could use not only to mount rescues of individual institutions, but also to try to get ahead of the crisis by taking proactive steps to shore up the financial system. Sure, you can question how the money was used -- many of us have -- but you can't quarrel with the fact that a financial meltdown has been avoided as a direct result of the government's extraordinary interventions. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are providing much-needed support to a mortgage market that would be shuttered without them. The orderly wind-down of AIG's book of credit-default swaps prevented the collapse of an enormous financial house of cards. Citigroup was prevented from becoming the next Lehman Brothers, while the balance sheets of the other big banks have been fortified with additional capital in expectation of further significant write-offs. Who has benefited from all this? Every investor, every household and every business in the United States. You may not like the fact that, as a result of these actions, overpaid bankers were allowed to hang on to their jobs or preserve the value of their stock holdings. And you may be unhappy that the financial system remains in such fragile shape that it is still hard for some people and businesses to get loans they think they deserve. But let me assure you that things would have been a whole lot worse if these actions had not been taken. One of the more specious criticisms is that the government "gave" $250 million to big banks that are now just "sitting" on the money or using it to feather their own nests. First off, we didn't "give" money to anyone. We invested money in banks in exchange for preferred stock, which is now earning a 5 percent annual dividend. Unless the banks go under, taxpayers will eventually get that money back, along with a modest profit. read more........... washingtonpost.com

To: i-node who wrote (447447)	1/14/2009 12:05:51 PM
From: Alighieri	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576663

Mike Huckabee On Sarah Palin: Katie Couric Was "Extraordinarily Gentle" With Her Unlike John McCain's daughter Meghan, former GOP Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee doesn't have a policy against talking about Sarah Palin. In an interview with A.J. Jacobs from Esquire released Tuesday, Huckabee refused to join Palin's cabal against Katie Couric, saying the anchor was "extraordinarily gentle, even helpful" to the candidate. Read the excerpt on Palin below from the article. I ask him if she was treated fairly by the media. "There were a lot of unfair things. Sexist things that would never have been asked of a male candidate." He pauses. "Now I must say I did not think that either the Charlie Gibson interview or the Katie Couric interviews were unfair. In fact, if anything, Katie Couric was extraordinarily gentle, even helpful. [Palin] just...I don't know what happened. I can't explain it. It was not a good interview. I'm being charitable." He pauses. "I think it was overpreparation. She'd been hammered by McCain's aides, 'Say this, don't say that.' " Huckabee has met Palin a few times and talked to her backstage at the Republican National Convention. "Did you give her any advice?" "I didn't figure that she was shopping for my advice." "But she sure was shopping." "Yeah," chuckles Huckabee. Then stays quiet. I set him up for an easy spike, but he holds his tongue.