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: lorne who wrote (64035)	4/29/2009 11:12:10 PM
From: MJ	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224748

Rather than boycott Obama's press conference, I felt it important to watch and listen. Here's my take on what I saw and heard. Obama began with diversionary comments about the flu virus. He made a lot of pablum comments about the swine flu virus-----wash your hands, US prepared in case of epidemic ----50 million batchs of antidotes ready in case of a pandemic in America. There was virtually no substance in his comments in relation to the budget. Yes the flu was a great diversion for Obama. Obama even complimented President Bush several times----quite a departure from the Primary in which Bush could do nothing right. On the subject of torture, waterboarding and whatever, ----Obama denied that torture in any form should be a part of getting information. This is his position. The one quirky thing was Obama's using an analogy to Churchhill in WWII when he, Obama, was ask by a member of the Press about torture---i.e. water boarding. Obama stated that even when England was being bombed constantly in WWII that Churchhill refused to use torture to get information about the bombing and war. Obama stated that Churchill maintained that torture was not in keeping with the morals of the nation of England that by staying with his position Churchill kept the integrity of the people of England in tact. (Paraphrased) I asked the following question------ Could it be that if Churchill had used torture that many lives would have been saved in England, Belgium, Germany and all of the countries worldwide? Could it be that the direction of WWII would have been shorter rather than being prolonged because of Churchill's refusal per Obama to use torture. Could it be that it is better to torture one, two or 6 rather than to have a whole population wiped out because of the refusal by its leader to not torture? Or, to have one's nation repeatedly bombed because of lack of information-----information that could possibly be obtained via some form of torture. Obama's claim is that other ways can be used-----but Obama never mentioned those "other ways". So what does Obama sanction---if not physical torture--------mental torture via drugs, interrogation, threats. Just as Obama claimed to be against torture-----he professed, stated, that he, Obama, believes in abortion-------Obama said straight out that "I am Pro Choice". Such a dichotomy and yet a similarity, Obama would not sanction waterboarding or another form of torture to save a nation; yet, he would sanction the torture of millions of America's children----those unborn sparks of life via abortion. I wonder how Obama can sleep at night knowing that not using torture in any form could result in another 9/11 or greater for America. Or,how can Obama sleep at night knowing that one of those millions of sparks of life that he sanctions killing may be one of his Grandchildren. mj