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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (110297)	5/1/2009 12:48:04 PM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 541851

Your post reflects what I noted in the post you replied to pretty clearly. Unless and until that sentiment goes beyond the Bush base and reaches the broader electorate, it's just a noisy venting for the most part. We'll see how it all plays out in the next real elections in 18 months.

To: greenspirit who wrote (110297)	5/1/2009 2:31:29 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541851

Forget whether he or she is qualified, Team Obama will need to find a gay - hispanic -partial birth abortion supporter to fill out the court, instead of locating the most qualified person in America. One of the several interesting things. Michael, about these claims is that the weakest SC appointments in the past two decades have been Rep. Clarence Thomas was clearly a token, lacked even basic qualifications save he was African American and had been favored by Reps. And Sam Alito is only marginally qualified. His ideological commitments gave him the appointment. Compared to Ginsburg and Breyer, there is simply no comparison. So it's not the Dems who have a history of making unqualified appointments. Pretty standard fare: accuse the Dems of your own sins.

To: greenspirit who wrote (110297)	5/1/2009 8:56:06 PM
From: spiral3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541851

Michael, one more thing. 350K dollar government waste for flying an airplane for a photo-shoot We have been led to believe that advertising works no, so how do you figure it was a waste. Against what are you measuring the potential value of images or events such as this. How do you know that this is not a subliminal image or message to the world. Fighter jets over NY Harbor is clearly a provocative image in ways, but we're on it, that's why we have advertising in the first place, no matter if you think it effective or not. What if alerting folks would have made it pointless, what if some kind of data gathering was the purpose. Maybe the reasons behind it are a state secret. If they are and such were made public, the squealing about letting our enemies know what we’re up to would be just as loud. Perhaps you’re just unable to perceive the administration attending to or having any Security concerns. Maybe someone figured it was a way to make money. Maybe it was just a big experiment in the fishbowl, your own or someone else’s. Maybe it’s part of a federal war against state and local government. So how do you know it was a waste. Upon what basis is this idea founded and what is the nature of that foundation. Iow where is the evidence, not asserting it wasn’t a waste, in fact this post itself might be that, just that imo we don’t have the facts, ok at least I certainly don't, to make the determination. No biggie, but it would be nice to see some support for your case. cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com