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 (67301)	6/22/2009 3:59:58 PM
From: JakeStraw	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224755

Well, I'm not one of the "right wing crazies" and you do make a fool out of yourself quite often. If you can't realize how transparent your partisan agenda is then that alone says it all.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (67301)	6/22/2009 4:02:37 PM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224755

LOL You wish Kenneth. You simply aren't level headed and therefore you cannot determine what other things might be level. You are a lost old man parroting an evil leader. A leader who wasn't elected for qualifications, but to be a "first, a historic, a guy with a cool name, a black guy...etc etc etc You are truly lost. Younger people have the excuse of being inexperienced and stupid. You have no excuse.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (67301)	6/22/2009 4:10:29 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224755

By MATTHEW ROSENBERG in Peshawar, Pakistan, and YOCHI J. DREAZEN and SIOBHAN GORMAN in Washington Mullah Omar, supreme leader of the Taliban, is reasserting direct control over the militant group's loose-knit insurgency in Afghanistan, ordering attacks and shuffling field commanders in preparation for the arrival of thousands of additional U.S. troops, according to U.S. officials and insurgents in Afghanistan. Until recently, the ground-level conduct of the Taliban's war against the U.S.-led coalition has been left to local commanders acting on their own. Mr. Omar, who heads a Taliban leadership council called the Quetta "shura" -- named after the city in southeast Pakistan where it is believed to be based -- has typically focused on choosing Taliban leaders and funneling money, religious guidance and strategic advice to fighters. But since the start of the year, through his direct lieutenants, Mr. Omar has ordered a spate of suicide bombings and assassinations in southern and eastern Afghanistan that presage a bloody phase to come in the Afghan war, according to U.S. officials and Afghan insurgents.One target was Ahmed Wali Karzai, the younger brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who survived a gun and rocket attack on his motorcade in eastern Afghanistan on May 18. Qari Sayed Ahmad, a moderate cleric, was gunned down outside his home in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in April. The Taliban took credit for the attack, and a midlevel Taliban commander in southern Afghanistan said in a telephone interview that the assassination was carried out on orders from one of Mr. Omar's lieutenants. In another unusual attack in mid-May, nearly a dozen suicide bombers struck targets in the provincial capital of Khost in eastern Afghanistan, leaving at least 12 dead, not including the bombers. U.S. officials say the attack was ordered by the Quetta shura. On Sunday, a rocket attack on the U.S.'s Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan killed two soldiers and wounded six other Americans, including two civilians, the military said. No one claimed credit for the attack. "This is Quetta's answer to Obama's surge," said a senior member of a militant network led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an independent Afghan warlord who fights alongside the Taliban. He was referring to plans by the administration of President Barack Obama to send an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan over the next few months. The Quetta "are not ready to lay down their weapons," he said in an interview in the Pakistani city of Peshawar.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (67301)	6/22/2009 8:33:22 PM
From: lorne	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224755

ken..Thought at some point you said you were a history buff so I think you will enjoy this. Drenched in blood of slavery June 21, 2009 © 2009 Roger Hedgecock wnd.com The U.S. Senate voted unanimously last week to adopt a resolution apologizing for slavery. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, lead sponsor of the resolution, said, "You wonder why we didn't do it 100 years ago. It is important to have a collective response to a collective injustice." Only after decades of public education ignoring and distorting U.S. history can such a huge lie be said with a straight face. Senator, you didn't do it 100 years ago because 100 years ago you Democrats were enforcing Jim Crow segregation laws, poll taxes to keep blacks from voting, and riding around in sheets and pointy hats just in case blacks didn't get the message. You say "It's important to have a collective response" because you want to bury the origins, purposes, and historical practices of your own party. The worst part is, Republicans in the Senate let you get away with it. Principled Republicans knowing their history would have authored a resolution reciting the facts that the Republican Party was formed, among other reasons, to oppose slavery and that the Republican Party and its first President Abraham Lincoln responded to Southern, Democrat-led secession with a successful war that preserved the union and freed the slaves. After Lincoln's assassination (by a Democrat), the Republican-led Congress (over the objections of the Democratic Party minority) amended the Constitution to confirm the liberation of the slaves (13th Amendment: slavery abolished), and the 14th Amendment (freed slaves are citizens equal to all citizens) and the 15th Amendment (right to vote guaranteed to freed slaves). Southern Democrats spent the next 100 years trying to keep freed slaves down with segregation laws, poll taxes to deny the right to vote, and lynching to enforce the social order. The KKK was formed by a Democrat; no Republican has ever been a member of the KKK. This is the heritage of the Democratic Party. In fact, the Democratic Party was formed in the first place to defend and expand slavery. In 1840, the very first national nominating convention of the Democratic Party adopted a platform which read in part: Resolved, That Congress has no power ... to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states ... that all efforts by abolitionists ... made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery ... are calculated ... to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union. Got that, Sen. Harkin? Your party was born defending slavery as necessary for the happiness of the people and threatening secession and war if slavery were challenged. The same party platform language was used in 1844, 1848, 1852 and 1856. In 1860, the Democrat commitment to slavery took a harsher tone. The Fugitive Slave Law was passed by Congress in 1850. This monstrous law provided that, since slaves were the personal property of their masters, runaway slaves must be returned to their owners. The law required all law enforcement officers to assist in the recapture of runaway slaves or risk a fine of $1,000 (about $100,000 in today's dollars)! The Republican Party was formed in the 1850s in part as a political reaction to this unjust law. In their national convention of 1860, Democrats harshly responded to certain Northern (Republican) states that were passing state laws to evade the Fugitive Slave Law by adopting a plank in the Democratic Party Platform which read: Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect. Senator, your Democratic Party has much to be apologetic about on the slavery issue. During the civil war, the Southern Democrats led the Confederacy out of the Union; Northern Democrats formed a separate party which opposed the war. The 1864 (Northern) Democratic Party platform adopted a "peace" plank which read in part: ... after four years of failure to restore the union by the experiment of war ... justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand ... a cessation of hostilities ... to the end that ... peace may be restored ... Here is the origin of today's Democratic Party "Peace at any Price, Better Red than Dead, Why Can't we all just get Along" foreign policy. The war was started by Democrat secessionists, and just as President Lincoln was on the verge of victory, the Northern Democrats wanted to save the South and slavery with "peace talks"! Voters knew better in 1864 and re-elected Lincoln. But the Democrats weren't through. In 1868, Sen. Harkin's party condemned the Republican Party in its party platform as the "Radical Party," and condemned Reconstruction in these unforgettable words: Instead of restoring the Union, it (the Radical Party) has dissolved it, and subjected ten states (the former Confederate states) ... to military despotism and negro supremacy. And, senator, don't tell me this is all ancient history in a lame attempt to evade the true origins of your party. As recently as 1964, when the Senate debated the Civil Rights Act, Southern Democrats (including Al Gore's father) voted no. While Northern Democrats voted yes, their votes were not enough. The deciding votes to pass this landmark bill were provided by Sen. Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., and the Republicans. Republicans should be proud of their heritage of liberation of the slaves and civil rights voting record. It's Harkin and the Democrats who should apologize and pay reparations.