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 (59823)	2/20/2009 3:34:38 PM
From: Bill	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

Kenny, check your facts. Reagan beat Carter in 1980, not 1984. (Anyone with only half a brain would know I was right without even looking it up.)

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (59823)	2/20/2009 3:50:02 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

United States presidential election, 1980 Electoral vote Ronald Reagan 489 Jimmy Carter 49 en.wikipedia.org Of course in '84 it was even more lopsided 525 to 13 en.wikipedia.org At least you didn't accuse him of lying when he was right, but you where wrong not him. The only worthwhile point in your post was that its not a good idea to accuse someone of being a liar when the only evidence you have about it is that their wrong (or perhaps just you think they are wrong).

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (59823)	2/20/2009 8:51:35 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

February 18, 2009 Putin warns US to eschew socialism Clarice Feldman americanthinker.com What is the world coming to? Pat Dollard links to Peter Goodman's report the Russian leader warned the US against adopting socialism because it doesn't work: Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”. “In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”[Snip.] Sounding more like Barry Goldwater than the former head of the KGB, Putin said, “Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors, and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.” Putin also echoed the words of conservative maverick Ron Paul when he said, “we must assess the real situation and write off all hopeless debts and ‘bad’ assets. True, this will be an extremely painful and unpleasant process. Far from everyone can accept such measures, fearing for their capitalization, bonuses, or reputation. However, we would ‘conserve’ and prolong the crisis, unless we clean up our balance sheets.”

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (59823)	2/21/2009 1:22:28 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224749

By DOUGLAS BELKIN and NAFTALI BENDAVID CHICAGO -- A week after Republicans accused Sen. Roland Burris of lying under oath, Hussein Barack Obama's spokesman delivered an ominous warning to him and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn added to calls for his resignation. "I don't think it's in the public interest or the common good to have a U.S. Senator who has to spend an undue amount of time going over and over matters with respect to how he obtained the office," Mr. Quinn told reporters Friday morning. "I would ask my good friend Senator Roland Burris to put the interest of the people of the Land of Lincoln first and foremost, ahead of his own, and step aside and resign from his office." Mr. Quinn said that if Mr. Burris stepped down, he would appoint an interim senator and ask the legislature to pass a bill requiring special elections for this and any similar future openings.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (59823)	2/21/2009 12:55:55 PM
From: lorne	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224749

ken...ya see...even obama knows that Bush is correct, must make you feel good to see obama following Bush lead. LOL Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners By NEDRA PICKLER and MATT APUZZO google.com WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights. In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys. "The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better." The Supreme Court last summer gave al-Qaida and Taliban suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention. With about 600 detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and thousands more held in Iraq, courts are grappling with whether they, too, can sue to be released. Three months after the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo Bay, four Afghan citizens being detained at Bagram tried to challenge their detentions in U.S. District Court in Washington. Court filings alleged that the U.S. military had held them without charges, repeatedly interrogating them without any means to contact an attorney. Their petition was filed by relatives on their behalf since they had no way of getting access to the legal system. The military has determined that all the detainees at Bagram are "enemy combatants." The Bush administration said in a response to the petition last year that the enemy combatant status of the Bagram detainees is reviewed every six months, taking into consideration classified intelligence and testimony from those involved in their capture and interrogation. After Barack Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself. "They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees. The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of a military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security. The government also said if the Bagram detainees got access to the courts, it would allow all foreigners captured by the United States in conflicts worldwide to do the same. It's not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets. The same day, however, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold dismissal of a suit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations that tortured them. Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument.