SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Alan Smithee who wrote (67837)7/3/2009 3:52:27 PM
From: TideGlider1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224750
 
She has always been outspoken and old enough not to fear the administration. She obviously felt used and was made to feel like an idiot while Gibbs laughed and lied and the Obamaites controlled everything.

I can understand how frustrated they are. The man beside her looked pissed but was biting his tongue because they know real questions just upset Obama and his people.

I hate being patronized and I am sure they have had enough.



To: Alan Smithee who wrote (67837)7/3/2009 4:01:09 PM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224750
 
Democrat Utopia Nothing More Than a Fantasy
by Tim Slagle

Cap and Trade, the biggest tax increase in American History, sailed through Congress without anybody even bothering to read it. What will prove to be perhaps the biggest historical change to the American way of life seemed nothing more than a Congressional mouse click, the Terms of Service Agreement on a new software installation. What is it about Democrats that they have such trust in other Democrats?

There was no debate, no discussion; in fact the bill wasn’t even finished when they started voting on it. Yet they all knew they would like everything in the bill, and rushed the vote. I’m somewhat envious of the common goal they all seem to share, but I’m also suspicious of why nobody bothered to read it. Granted it was fifteen hundred pages, Fourth of July recess, and the deposit on the Martha’s Vineyard cottage wasn’t refundable.

I think there is also something else at work here: Democrats tend to have more faith in the system than they have in the individual. When President Reagan tried to close the Department of Education, he was considered to be against education. It’s not just spin, Democrats really think that way. They feel it’s important to keep the Department of Education, because without it, there will be no education. Without the Department of Health, we would all be sick; without the Department of Commerce, the economy would fold. Ditto for the FDA, the FCC, FAA, and the rest of the alphabet soup.

I’ve been a fan of Rush Limbaugh for quite some time; he is an incredible source for information and salient points. Unfortunately, I can’t repeat anything I hear in front of Democrats, because once you do, your point is considered moot. It doesn’t matter if the statistic you quote comes from the Congressional Budget Office or the United Nations, if you say you’ve heard it on Rush Limbaugh, your point is dismissed, and the conversation is over. (Not only don’t Democrats want to listen to Rush, they don’t want to listen to anyone who admits to listening to Rush.) Yet, these same people claim to know everything about Rush. How is that possible?

Democrats don’t have to listen to Rush, (or Fox News either) because there are other people charged with that task. Organizations like Media Matters do all the dirty work then translate it for all the Lefties. So they never have to soil their mind by exposing it to a contrary opinions, or risk being converted to Conservatism. (For some reason, people on the Left believe they are incredibly susceptible to brainwashing, so they feel it is better not to listen to anything contrary.)

I assume the same thing happened with the energy bill. Like the trust they put on Media Matters to tell the truth about Rush, there are people in the Party they trust to read the bill. Since it had the Waxman-Markey brand on the label, Democrats knew there was nothing but good old-fashioned Marxism inside.

There is nothing more secure to Democrats than a big bureaucracy–it makes them feel safe. Perhaps that’s why so many of them linger on in colleges longer than the average American. Inefficient bureaucracies and musty old buildings with union swept halls are warm fuzzy places for them. These people are the kind that like being looked after–it is the natural state of the Left.

They want to live under a huge bureaucracy that will direct their life, from the time they are born into a government hospital through their time in government schools, then punch the clock at a government job until a government appointed doctor gives them an assisted suicide. A Democrat Utopia would be like a human zoo where the lions are kept separate from the zebras, every one is fed, and the doctor comes round once a year. Just keep re-electing Democrats who will insure the air is clean, your food is safe, your retirement is secure, and the tithe is paid.

That’s a big one. When you decide to become a Democrat, the need for you to ever contribute to charity is completely eliminated. Every election cycle Democrat candidates are exposed for being skinflints when the 1040s are released. There is always a ridiculously small number on the lines of where charitable deductions are listed. The contribution is always so small you would think it was an accident, like they thought their $100 donation to the Breast Foundation was a subscription to a porn site.

In actuality, I think they believe that membership in the Democrat Party is their donation to charity. The Party is their Church and the leaders are their clerics. Why should Al Gore give more than a couple hundred bucks to charitable causes when he has made his life work saving the earth from prosperity? (That could explain why so many of Obama’s appointees didn’t feel the need to pay taxes–churches are tax-exempt.)

Never mind that Gore’s “charitable’” works have netted him billions. That’s just a bonus, and as most people like Gore will tell you, the nature of his job requires certain amenities. The Pope doesn’t fly coach either.

I’ve yet to meet a public “servant” that didn’t whine about being underpaid and brag about how much more they could make in the private sector. Personally, I think it is the duty of Americans to help out these dedicated “servants” by removing them of their obligation and set them free to find their fortune.

If you don’t want to read your assignments, it’s time to get a job. We need to make Democrats learn responsibility. Call it “tough love.” We need to lock the Democrats out of Government, the same way that a parent might eventually need to change the locks on the house while a 30-year-old child is at the Arcade. We need to tear down their posters, throw away the bongs, and put their X-boxes out on the back porch. Let’s turn the basement into an exercise room.

Our next opportunity is coming in 2010.

bighollywood.breitbart.com



To: Alan Smithee who wrote (67837)7/3/2009 4:58:10 PM
From: lorne  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224750
 
Donors Find a Home in Obama's Ambassador Corps
By JONATHAN WEISMAN and YUKA HAYASHI
JULY 3, 2009
online.wsj.com

The U.S. Embassy in Tokyo has seen its share of luminaries in the ambassador's suite. Former Vice President Walter Mondale, former Senate Majority Leaders Mike Mansfield and Howard Baker and former House Speaker Tom Foley are among those who have brokered relations with a complex and critical ally in a region bristling with military and trade tensions.

President Barack Obama's pick for the post is from a different mold: John Roos, a San Francisco Bay area lawyer, was the president's chief Silicon Valley fundraiser and contributions "bundler." He has no diplomatic experience.

Mr. Obama's choice of Mr. Roos, along with other political boosters -- from former investment banker Louis B. Susman, known as the "vacuum cleaner" for his fundraising prowess, to Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney -- has raised eyebrows among some who thought the president would extend his mantra of change to the diplomatic corps.

"We're not only insulting nations [that] we're appointing these bundlers to, we're risking U.S. diplomatic efforts in these key countries," said Craig Holman, a government-affairs lobbyist at watchdog group Public Citizen.

This tension can be traced back to Mr. Obama's claim during last year's campaign that President George W. Bush engaged in an "extraordinary politicization of foreign policy." Mr. Obama said he instead would ensure that hires are based on merit, rather than party or ideology. The American Academy of Diplomacy, an association of former diplomats, seized on the comments in lobbying him to lower the portion of ambassadors drawn from outside the foreign-service establishment to as little as 10% from the 30% average since President John F. Kennedy's tenure. (Mr. Bush's score was 33%.)

Entertainment executive Charles Rivkin is among major fund-raisers tapped for top ambassadorial postings.
Of the Obama administration's 55 ambassadorial nominees so far, 33 -- or 60% -- have gone to people outside the foreign-service ranks, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

That ratio is almost certain to tilt back toward career diplomats as dozens of the remaining posts are filled.

"The president said in January that he would nominate extremely qualified individuals like Mr. Roos, former Congressman Tim Roemer, and Miguel Diaz, who didn't necessarily come up through the ranks of the State Department, but want to serve their country in important diplomatic posts," said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Mr. Obama has chosen some diplomatic heavy hitters. Diplomacy experts have praised the experience of Christopher Hill, ambassador to Iraq; Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, ambassador to Afghanistan; and United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice.

Representatives of Mr. Roos and other ambassadorial nominees said they wouldn't comment before confirmation, a customary position for all nominees, White House aides said.

Ronald E. Neumann, president of the Academy and a retired Foreign Service officer, cautioned that it is far too early to tell how the Obama lineup will look. When administrations turn over, the first ambassadors to leave their posts often are the prior president's political appointees; those spots are first to be filled, in turn, with new political appointees. Mr. Roos's predecessor in Tokyo, in fact, was a former business partner of Mr. Bush, although he had served as ambassador to Australia before the Japan post.

The president's slate of nominees thus far, Mr. Neumann said, "tells you it's not change, but it doesn't yet tell you what it is."

Mr. Obama's ambassadorial nominees include Kentucky Internet executive Matthew Barzun, an Obama fundraiser, for Sweden; Colorado businessman Vinai Thummalapally, the president's roommate at Occidental College, for Belize; and Howard W. Gutman, who pulled together a half million dollars in Obama contributions, for Belgium.

The Court of St. James's in London would get Mr. Susman, the former investment banker, who bundled at least $100,000 from donors for Mr. Obama's presidential run and $300,000 for his inauguration celebration, according to Public Citizen. Mr. Rooney, tapped for Ireland, threw his weight behind Mr. Obama ahead of the Pennsylvania primary. And Charles H. Rivkin, who if confirmed will be heading for Paris, is chief executive of entertainment company W!LDBRAIN Inc. and former president of Jim Henson Co., creator of the Muppets.

White House officials say the term "political appointee" often undersells a nominee's qualifications. Mr. Diaz, a professor at St. John's University and the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota, may not have diplomatic experience, but he would be the first theologian to be U.S. ambassador to the Vatican. Mr. Roemer, nominated as ambassador to India, also has no Foreign Service experience, but he was a prominent member of the 9/11 Commission.

Mr. Susman wasn't among the biggest fund-raisers for Mr. Obama, but he worked in Chicago at the epicenter of the Obama political apparatus. People familiar with his nomination attribute it to his role as an influential businessman and lawyer in the president's hometown.

Mr. Rivkin developed a connection with France and its language while his father was U.S. ambassador to Senegal and Luxembourg, both French-speaking countries, people familiar with the nomination say. Since 1968, the family has presented the annual Rivkin Award honoring constructive dissent in the Foreign Service. Mr. Gutman, a former Supreme Court clerk, served presidents of companies and countries for more than two decades at the Washington office of law firm Williams & Connolly.

The Swiss media aired some concerns about the choice of car-dealership magnate Don Beyer for the Geneva posting. The hope was for someone seasoned in financial issues, given White House pressure on Switzerland to make its banking system more transparent, according to Mr. Holman of Public Citizen.

Many in Japan, meanwhile, were surprised and even disappointed at the choice of Mr. Roos -- in part because it had been rumored in local media that the choice was to be Joseph Nye, a Harvard University professor of international relations and former assistant secretary of defense. Some commentators suggested the Roos nomination showed Mr. Obama's lack of interest in relations with Japan.

The Japanese now appear to be making the best of Mr. Roos's eventual arrival. The Nihon Keizai Shimbun business daily said the U.S.-Japan relationship has grown so mature that it doesn't require a big name as a go-between.

A White House official offered Tokyo some reassuring words: "John Roos is very close to the president, and having that can be very important."