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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (561441)	4/17/2010 7:44:54 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578927

Ted, > Yes, they do.....see SS. I rest my case. You can rest your case all your want but you have not proven a thing.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (561441)	4/17/2010 7:58:09 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578927

Its good to see that the media is beginning to realize that encouraging the tea partiers gains us nada. Free the Forbes 400! By Dana Milbank Sunday, April 18, 2010 I stopped by Freedom Plaza on Tax Day to check on the progress of the nation's populist revolt. On the stage, I saw the great populist leader himself: Grover Norquist, who, after getting two Harvard degrees, developed his common-touch lobbying for the tropical island paradise of the Seychelles. Norquist spoke from a lectern bearing a Tea Party emblem and a simple message: "The people speak." And which people might those be? The people of the Seychelles tourist industry? Or the people of British Petroleum, Fannie Mae, the Distilled Spirits Council and the Interactive Gaming Council? Norquist represented them all, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. If Norquist isn't convincing as man of the people, that's all right, because the Tea Party has its share of faux populists. They march under slogans such as "can you hear us now?" and "we the people," but their demands on Tax Day were more those of the angry affluent than oppressed commoners. One of Norquist's rallying cries to the crowd summed it up nicely: "Leave our earnings alone!" A CBS News/New York Times poll released on Tax Day found that Tea Party activists are wealthier than average (20 percent of their households earn more than $100,000, compared with 14 percent of the general population) and better educated (37 percent have college or postgraduate degrees vs. 25 percent of Americans ). This is in line with a USA Today/Gallup poll last month that found 55 percent of Tea Party supporters had incomes of $50,000 or more (compared with 50 percent in the general population), and only 19 percent had earnings below $30,000 (vs. 25 percent overall). The wealth advantage of the Tea Partiers helps to explain the rather un-populist message emanating from Freedom Plaza: Tax the wealthy less and the poor more. "We found out that we're about to have 47 percent of Americans not helping on Tax Day," Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) told the crowd, referring to households that pay no federal income tax, generally because their incomes are too low. Gohmert, in an apparent criticism of tax credits for the working poor, objected to giving "a rebate to people who didn't put any 'bate' in." read more............... washingtonpost.com

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (561441)	4/17/2010 8:02:08 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578927

More tea party disclosure. A Mighty Pale Tea By CHARLES M. BLOW Published: April 16, 2010 GRAND PRAIRIE, Tex. On Thursday, I came here outside Dallas for a Tea Party rally. At first I thought, “Wow! This is much more diverse than the rallies I’ve seen on television.” Then I realized that I was looking at stadium workers. I should have figured as much when I approached the gate. The greeter had asked, “Are you working tonight?” I sat in the front row. But when the emcee asked, “Do we have any infiltrators?” and I almost raised my hand, I realized that sitting there might not be such a good idea. I had specifically come to this rally because it was supposed to be especially diverse. And, on the stage at least, it was. The speakers included a black doctor who bashed Democrats for crying racism, a Hispanic immigrant who said that she had never received a single government entitlement and a Vietnamese immigrant who said that the Tea Party leader was God. It felt like a bizarre spoof of a 1980s Benetton ad. The juxtaposition was striking: an abundance of diversity on the stage and a dearth of it in the crowd, with the exception of a few minorities like the young black man who carried a sign that read “Quit calling me a racist.” They saved the best for last, however: Alfonzo “Zo” Rachel. According to his Web site, Zo, who is black and performs skits as “Zo-bama,” allowed drugs to cost him “his graduation.” Before ripping into the president for unconstitutional behavior, he cautioned, “I don’t have the education that our president has, so if I misinterpret some things in the founding documents I kind of have an excuse.” That was the understatement of the evening. I found the imagery surreal and a bit sad: the minorities trying desperately to prove that they were “one of the good ones”; the organizers trying desperately to resolve any racial guilt among the crowd. The message was clear: How could we be intolerant if these multicolored faces feel the same way we do? It was a farce. This Tea Party wanted to project a mainstream image of a group that is anything but. A New York Times/CBS News poll released on Wednesday found that only 1 percent of Tea Party supporters are black and only 1 percent are Hispanic. It’s almost all white. And even when compared to other whites, their views are extreme and marginal. For instance, white Tea Party supporters are twice as likely as white independents and eight times as likely as white Democrats to believe that Barack Obama was born in another country. Furthermore, they were more than eight times as likely as white independents and six times as likely as white Democrats to think that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites. Thursday night I saw a political minstrel show devised for the entertainment of those on the rim of obliviousness and for those engaged in the subterfuge of intolerance. I was not amused.