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: combjelly who wrote (460455)	3/2/2009 6:37:24 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574054

This is pathetic....Part I: Michael Steele vs. Rush Limbaugh, steel cage match 5:14 pm March 2, 2009, by Jay Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, rejecting an observation that Rush Limbaugh had become the de factor leader of the Republican Party and insisting that he, Steele, led the party: “He’s an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is just entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary. Yes, it’s ugly.” To which Limbaugh responds (in only a portion of of his rant): “I’m not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don’t want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I’m in charge of the Republican Party in a sad-sack state that it’s in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it’s in, I would quit. I might get out the hari-kari knife… When you send those fundraising requests out, Mr. Steele, make sure you say, we — we — we want Obama to succeed. So people understand your compassion. Republicans, conservatives are sick and tired of being talked down to, sick and tired of being lectured to. And until you show some understanding and respect for who they are, you’re going to have a tough time rebuilding your party.” blogs.ajc.com

To: combjelly who wrote (460455)	3/2/2009 6:38:55 PM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574054

This is pathetic.....Part II: Steele to Rush: I'm sorry By MIKE ALLEN \| 3/2/09 5:58 PM EST Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.” “My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.” The dust-up comes at a time when top Democrats are trying to make Limbaugh the face of the Republican Party, in part by using ads funded by labor. Americans United for Change sent a fund-raising e-mail Monday that begins: “The Republican Party has turned into the Rush Limbaugh Party.” Steele told CNN host D.L. Hughley in an interview aired Saturday night: “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary — yes, it's ugly.” Steele, who won a hard-fought chairman's race on Jan. 30, told Politico he telephoned Limbaugh after his show on Monday afternoon and hoped that they would connect soon. “I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not." “I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh,” Steele added. “No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.” On Monday’s show, Limbaugh reacted both to the comment and to the assertion on CBS’s “Face the Nation” by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that the radio host is “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.” Limbaugh said: “I'm not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don't want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in the sad-sack state that it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it's in, I would quit. I might get out the hari-kari knife because I would have presided over a failure that is embarrassing to the Republicans and conservatives who have supported it and invested in it all these years.” On the RushLimbaugh.com home page, the transcript is labeled: “A Few Words for Michael Steele.” In the interview with Politico, Steele called Limbaugh “a very valuable conservative voice for our party.” “He brings a very important message to the American people to wake up and pay attention to what the administration is doing," Steele said. "Number two, there are those out there who want to look at what he’s saying as incendiary and divisive and ugly. That’s what I was trying to say. It didn’t come out that way. … He does what he does best, which is provoke: He provokes thought, he provokes the left. And they’re clearly the ones who are most excited about him.” Asked if he planned to apologize, Steele said: “I wasn’t trying to offend anybody. So, yeah, if he’s offended, I’d say: Look, I’m not in the business of hurting people’s feelings here. … My job is to try to bring us all together.” politico.com

To: combjelly who wrote (460455)	3/2/2009 9:43:32 PM
From: jlallen	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574054

. And it was under Bush that most of the weakening in standards occurred. Along with reducing requirements for CRA. A fact this guy tries to ignore. He ignores it because its BS. J.

To: combjelly who wrote (460455)	3/6/2009 6:45:05 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574054

Politicians have pushed home ownership for decades. Its not just the CRA, the CRA is just one, somewhat important, piece of the puzzle, there are a lot of others, even if your only considering government pushing of home ownership. His goal wasn't necessarily to put poor people in houses, his goal was to privatize SS and the "ownership society" was the vehicle. His goal was not to do anything that could reasonably be called privatizing social security. The only way to privatize social security is not to have it, privatizing it would be people saving money themselves, not a government program. In any case its not exactly very relevant to the housing situation, or the current recession. And it was under Bush that most of the weakening in standards occurred. To use your own words "Lots of handwaving. Not much in the way of facts and figures."