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 (481112)	5/15/2009 4:47:02 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574320

>> If waterboarding is so effective, why should it take more than one? If waterboarding is NOT effective, why has Obama refused to release the details of the American lives that were saved by it? Why did Obama take the position that "it may be effective but there must be another way"? Why are they hiding the facts as to the effectiveness while releasing the more damaging material? Seriously, you need to start reading Google News or at least this thread. The courts won't allow the documents to be released because of the pending litigation. Obama has nothing to do with it at this point.

To: i-node who wrote (481112)	5/15/2009 4:57:29 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574320

So much for the liberal media. WHERE ARE JIM WRIGHT AND TOM FOLEY?.... One of the big political stories of the day, apparently, is Newt Gingrich's blind-rage attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. I mentioed it earlier, in large part because a) I find it hilarious that Republicans have let a disgraced former Speaker become one of their leading attack dogs; b) his argument was incoherent, but common among Republicans; and c) Newt seems to be getting nuttier as time goes on. Nevertheless, Gingrich's tantrum is being treated as one of the day's most important political stories by major outlets. Atrios asks the right question: [Y]ou know, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has precisely zero power but his every pronouncement is treated as Incredibly Important News. Any journalists want to explain why? I suspect it's not because they think it's hilarious that Republicans have let a disgraced former Speaker become one of their leading attack dogs and because Newt seems to be getting nuttier as time goes on. Let me put this a slightly different way. Remember Jim Wright? He was a Texas Democrat who served as the House Speaker for about a year and a half in the late 1980s. Remember Tom Foley? He was a Washington state Democrat who served as the House Speaker for about six years, following Wright. When was the last time you heard either of them throw a partisan temper tantrum, lashing out wildly at Republican officials? If, every other day or so, Wright and/or Foley popped up in D.C. to take cheap shots at GOP leaders, would it be treated, each and every time, as a huge political story by establishment reporters? More to the point, when was the last time major news outlets asked Wright and/or Foley to appear on major news programs, giving them a platform to launch attacks at their political rivals? Newt Gingrich left office more than a decade ago as a national embarrassment. He is one of the nation's least liked and least respected political figures. And as a practical matter, he is just as relevant to the current political landscape as Jim Wright and Tom Foley. (Wright fell victim to an ethics scandal, but then again, so did Gingrich.) In fairness, Gingrich maintains slightly more importance, by virtue of the fact that his shrinking political party keeps turning to him for advice, as compared to Wright and Foley, who Dems tend to ignore. But that's not much of an excuse -- just because Republicans on the Hill are foolish enough to take Gingrich's tirades seriously doesn't mean political reporters should do the same. washingtonmonthly.com