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: tejek who wrote (542926)	1/11/2010 4:09:46 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576323

Didn't need it but another reason to not watch Fox News: Lawyer says Palin takes Fox News commentator job By RACHEL D'ORO, Associated Press Writer Rachel D'oro, Associated Press Writer 2 mins ago ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Sarah Palin is taking her conservative message to Fox News. An attorney for the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate says Palin will provide some type of commentary for the cable network. Attorney Thomas Van Flein declined to elaborate on the deal. Palin is hugely popular with conservatives and has more than 1 million Facebook followers. She stepped down as Alaska governor in July, 17 months before the end of her first term in office. Her resignation came less than a year after she vaulted to overnight fame as John McCain's running mate. Palin worked part-time as a weekend sportscaster in the 1980s for KTUU-TV in Anchorage.

To: tejek who wrote (542926)	1/13/2010 3:19:47 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1576323

Look....better to be in the control of the gov't than of the rich. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Better for what to be in control of the government? If its supposed to be relevant to the discussion it would have to be better for the wealth created by the wealthy to be in control of the government which is totally false. You dream is that of an agrarian society No it isn't. That's because we have grown much larger. We had considerably less government when the US had almost half the population it does today, and our biggest city had a similar level of population. Very small towns have very little need for gov't. Big cities have considerable need. Large cities need more local government (probably even on a per person or per dollar of gross production basis) than a very small town, but they don't need a very large and interventionist national government, and they don't need as much local government as they have now.