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 (571821)	6/15/2010 7:05:19 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	3 Recommendations Respond to of 1578531

Barney Frank Van Jones Anita Dunn Hank Johnson Ted Kennedy Jimmy Carter That's enough nutballs to feed a nation.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (571821)	6/15/2010 7:15:29 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578531

Ted, from the column: > No other-handism here: this sort of perverse nuttiness just simply doesn't exist in the Democratic party. LOL ... And your point is what?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (571821)	6/15/2010 7:28:27 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578531

* Meg Whitman, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in California, reportedly pushed an employee in an executive conference room at eBay's headquarters a few years ago. The former CEO paid a six-figure financial settlement.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (571821)	6/15/2010 7:31:34 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578531

From the liar, liar, pants on fire corner of the GOP: KIRK'S PROBLEMS GET A LITTLE WORSE.... Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk ran into trouble recently when a variety of claims about his military service -- in speeches, in correspondence, and in written materials -- were proven to be untrue. Making matters worse for the Illinois Republican, the story isn't quite done yet. As of about a week ago, I think the list was up to eight separate incidents: Kirk (1) falsely claimed he served "in" Operation Iraqi Freedom; (2) falsely claimed to "command the war room in the Pentagon"; (3) falsely claimed to have won the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year award; (4) falsely claimed to have been shot at by the Iraqi Air Defense network; (5) falsely claimed to be a veteran of Desert Storm; (6) falsely claimed to be the only lawmaker to serve during Operation Iraqi Freedom; (7) falsely claimed to have been shot at in Kosovo; and (8) falsely claimed to have been shot at in Kandahar. This week, we have a new one for the list. When Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk says he repeatedly deployed to Afghanistan with the Navy, he's referring to two-week training missions as part of his annual reservist requirements. After acknowledging a series of misstatements that embellished his Navy service, Kirk is being challenged over his use of the military term "deployment," and this could be yet another opportunity for critics to parse his words in what has recently become a resume-bashing battle with Democratic Senate opponent Alexi Giannoulias. Deployment can mean more than one thing in the military, but it is often used to describe service members going off to war for an extended time. Navy Cmdr. Danny Hernandez said there is a difference between annual training and being deployed, which can sometimes last more than a year. "I would think that would be (considered) two weeks of annual training," Hernandez, a Navy spokesman, said of Kirk's stints. "A deployment is a deployment and annual training is annual training." The official response from the Kirk campaign is that the candidate's definition of "deploy" is different from that of the U.S. military. As political spinning goes, this needs some work. Making matters slightly worse, the Pentagon said this week that Kirk "twice violated military policy by participating in political activities while on active duty -- once in 2008 and once in 2009." Remember when Mark Kirk's selling point as a candidate was his military service? For more on all of these controversies, Nitpicker is the guy to rely on. Indeed, it's worth emphasizing that he's broken many of these Kirk-related incidents that were later picked up by major outlets. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (571821)	6/15/2010 7:34:34 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578531

And from the Lowden corner of the GOP where I am crazier than a loon and proud to be a Republican: THE ANGLE FOLLIES, CONT'D.... Sharron Angle, the strikingly ridiculous Senate candidate in Nevada, is already on record demanding the elimination of two cabinet agencies -- the Departments of Education and Energy. It looks like we can now add a third to the list. Here's the Nevada Republican talking to a local NPR affiliate last month, talking about her desire to privatize the Department of Veterans Affairs. ANGLE: He's 87 years old and has Parkinson's and we have to pay more and more for his health care. I know he pays over $800 a month in prescription drugs that we can't get through his VA nor through Medicare -- they just won't cover those things. And I know lots of seniors -- BECKER: Should they cover those things? ANGLE: No, not if you're working towards a privatized system. And he can pay for them. That's my whole point. As Greg Sargent explained, "It isn't entirely clear what Angle's overarching policy prescription is here. She says it's proper that the VA isn't covering her father's prescription drugs 'if' we 'are working towards a privatized system.' It's hard to read that as anything but an endorsement of the idea." For good measure, it's also worth noting that in the same interview, Angle also argued, "The idea of privatizing and getting out of Medicare and Social Security is not up for grabs." In other words, she not only wants to eliminate these bedrocks of American society, Angle considers the matter non-negotiable. And before we go, let's also note that Angle condemned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) yesterday, saying he "has pretty much waterboarded our economy for the last year and a half." Substantively, that's obviously ridiculous -- Reid backed the recovery effort that rescued the economy from a tailspin -- but simply as a matter of rhetoric, aren't Republicans supposed to like waterboarding?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (571821)	6/15/2010 7:37:38 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578531

And from the I am white and straight but believe blacks and homos should be allowed to live corner of the GOP: A DIFFERENT KIND OF CONTROVERSY FOR RAND PAUL.... In general, right-wing Senate candidate Rand Paul has generated controversy with his extremist ideology. Now, the Kentucky Republican has a more professional problem on his hands. U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul says he is a "board-certified" ophthalmologist -- even though the national clearinghouse for such certifications says he hasn't been for the past five years. Rand Paul, who practices in Bowling Green, says he is certified by the National Board of Ophthalmology, a group that he incorporated in 1999 and that he heads. But that entity is not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties, which works with the American Medical Association to approve such specialty boards. The American Board of Medical Specialties lists 24 approved certification boards for practicing physicians. To be a "board certified" doctor, as Rand Paul claims, he would need recognition from the American Board of Ophthalmology, the nation's main ophthalmological certification group. He doesn't. Paul had certification from the board, but let it lapse. He is now recognized by the National Board of Ophthalmology. And what's the National Board of Ophthalmology? I'm glad you asked. That's a separate certification organization, created by Rand Paul and his relatives, that recognizes Rand Paul. Rand Paul, in fact, is listed as the "owner/president" of his own certification board. The Louisville Courier-Journal sought comment from Paul on this, the candidate said he was unwilling to "go through all that right now." Asked when he might be willing to discuss his own professional background, Paul said, "Uh, you know, never." Paul's wife is the vice president of the National Board of Ophthalmology, and was asked what requirements the board makes for certification. She refused to say. His campaign manager added that Paul would only answer questions on the matter submitted in writing. Seriously. Paul's position, apparently, is that this is not relevant to his candidacy. He told the Courier-Journal, "What does this have to do with our election?" Rand Paul may not understand this, but he's never held elected office at any level. He wants to be elected to the U.S. Senate as a "board certified" ophthalmologist. If he's not, in reality, board certified, this has more than a little relevance to his candidacy. Update: Paul has issued a statement responding to the issue, arguing that he created his own board because he was unsatisfied with the way the established certification organizations operate.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (571821)	6/15/2010 7:38:12 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578531

From which corner of the GOP do you emanate, Ten?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (571821)	6/15/2010 8:29:01 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578531

And then there is I am as rich as a queen corner of the GOP that thinks it can buy the election: CA-Gov: Queen Meg goes in for another $20 million by Dante Atkins Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:22:04 PM PDT Perhaps the best argument for campaign finance reform that anyone could ever make is coming out of California right now. Here's a snippet of the latest campaign finance disclosure for billionaire CEO Meg Whitman's campaign for Governor: Yes, you read that correctly. That is Meg Whitman dumping yet another $20 million of her own vast personal fortune into her campaign to literally buy the Governorship of California. And it's not just campaign finance reform advocates that should be outraged by this. If you believe that our democracy shouldn't be controlled by which plutocrat is willing to expend more of their immeasurable personal wealth, you ought to be concerned by the direction that we're heading in. This is especially true in a state like California, where money for media is still the most effective way to win statewide.