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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (121430)	3/19/2010 11:32:41 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Skeets, Here is where I disagree: 1. There was illegal activity and some are being punished. But, most of the Wall Street/Fed activity was legal. Unethical? Yes. Something only scumbags would do? Yes. But, illegal, no. And totally present in the MSM. 2. When mandates have no specific numbers and when those that do exist are legally ignored in times of war, financial emergency or in the reign of a Fed Chairman who knows bigger words than the Executive Branch (from Reagan to Obama), mandates become suggestions. Too boring for the MSM. Or the cable channels, for that matter. American attention span is a fleeting concept. 3. Totally correct on all counts. Did we need "dirty" ammunition to beat Iraq? 4. Bush wouldn't allow the media to cover the body count from caskets being returned to Dover. I don't know why they aren't covering it now. Only progressive news cared under Bush, but now nobody cares. I don't get that. Isn't a GI just as dead under Obama? 5. Well covered by the media. Of course, you have Fox Fictional News claiming it is class warfare if you say anything less than praiseworthy about banks. But MSNBC has been chronicling the bank crimes, even if sister station CNBS is in the Fox camp on this one. CNN has also been on the beat. But the American Sheeple are more worried about fictional death panels and the possibility that govt. may get involved in Medicare. The Internet has been exaggerating stories, which makes it less credible when they report the truth.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (121430)	3/19/2010 12:19:10 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

this guy was right on. youtube.com

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (121430)	3/19/2010 1:11:46 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Don't put burglars in jail (unless they hurt someone), courts told By Steve Doughty dailymail.co.uk Thinking of Changing Jobs Posted by James R. Rummel on March 17th, 2010 (All posts by James R. Rummel) Via Ace comes a totally bewildering news story from Great Britain. The official government policy concerning burglary has just been changed. Burglars are not to be jailed unless they cause harm to persons or property. No matter how much they steal, no matter if it is irreplaceable family heirlooms, the criminal walks. They get “community punishment”, which I suppose is the same as “community service” is here in the United States. And we know that the felons will show up to fulfill their obligation to society because they are such stand up guys. Hardly like criminals at all. Right? My favorite part… “The recommendations to let burglars walk free come as, for the first time in several years, burglaries are increasing.” So refusing to lock the burglars up where they can’t ply their vile trade will cause the number of break-ins to decline? I keep rereading the news report, and I just can’t believe it. It slides off of my comprehension like claws on glass. Is this some sort of April Fools joke done early? In the spirit of full disclosure, there was a similar problem in the United States dating from the late 1980’s through the 1990’s. Space in our prisons was at a premium, the crowding so severe that courts were ordering a certain percentage to be released early to thin out the press. Eventually the money was found and more prisons were built. And, please note, the felons got at least some jail time. chicagoboyz.net