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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87036)	7/3/2010 10:03:52 AM
From: Sedohr Nod	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224750

You really do not know a single blessed thing about economics, do you?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87036)	7/3/2010 10:17:00 AM
From: chartseer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

oh bummer! What an idiotic nonsensical posting! Don't worry! Be happy! the stupid hopeless comrade chartseer in the new era of idiotic nonsensical replies

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87036)	7/3/2010 10:49:39 AM
From: Sedohr Nod	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224750

Silent on Bob Etheridge, Kenny?.....What a pus bag & a puss....hopefully his district will take care of business.... may he try that hockey with the right guy & soon. examiner.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87036)	7/3/2010 11:19:45 AM
From: tonto	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

Kenneth, your lack of knowledge in econ is clear...when wealth declines there is less spending and less jobs...of course the unemployed care about what will help them...

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87036)	7/3/2010 11:48:23 AM
From: nnillionaire	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

Kenny "Why should the unemployed care about the declining stock market?" Because, dummy, portfolio income and other savings is the only money to live on we have after unemployment benefits run out. nnil

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87036)	7/3/2010 4:04:41 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 224750

"EDITORIAL: Media blackout for Black Panthers Click here to find out more! Where is the New York Times? Where is The Washington Post? Where are CBS and NBC? A whistleblower makes explosive allegations about the Department of Justice; his story is backed by at least two other witnesses; and the allegations involve the two hot-button issues of race and of blatant politicization of the justice system. A potential constitutional confrontation stemming from the scandal brews between the Justice Department and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. A congressman highly respected for thoughtfulness and bipartisanship has all but accused the department of serious impropriety. By every standard of objective journalism, this adds up to real news. Or it would be real news if a Republican Justice Department stood accused. It would be real news if the liberal media weren't mostly in the tank for our celebrated but failing first black president. Tomorrow, the Civil Rights Commission will hear long-awaited testimony from J. Christian Adams, who resigned from the Voting Section of the Justice Department after the department improperly ordered him to refuse compliance with the commission's lawful subpoena. Mr. Adams first told his story in public in these pages on June 28 and later did two major interviews with Fox News' Megyn Kelly. In those appearances, he flatly accused the Obama Justice Department of adopting an unlawful, immoral policy identified in previous Washington Times editorials - namely, enforcing civil rights laws against white perpetrators who victimized minorities but never against black perpetrators who victimize whites or Asians. If this is indeed the policy, it makes a scandalous mockery of the cherished American principle of "equal justice under the law." All these allegations stem from what should have been a slam-dunk voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party videotaped in menacing behavior outside a Philadelphia polling place in 2008. The Obama Justice Department dropped or seriously reduced all the charges or penalties in the case after it already effectively had been won. Mr. Adams' former colleague, longtime award-winning civil rights lawyer Christopher Coates, has been reported on multiple occasions to have backed Mr. Adams' version of events and of the Obama team's openly discriminatory policy. If the department's motives are not racial or racist, Justice officials surely appear political. One of the Black Panthers against whom the department declined to press charges was an official poll watcher for the Democratic Party and an elected local party official. The department dropped charges just four days before another election, allowing him again to serve as a poll watcher. Mr. Adams says the official most directly involved in dropping the case, Steven H. Rosenbaum - whose ethics have been subject to judicial sanction - refused to read his own team's legal briefs before deciding to dismiss the case. Mr. Adams accuses Thomas E. Perez, head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, of providing false answers in testimony to the Civil Rights Commission. On a parallel track, The Washington Times has reported strong circumstantial evidence suggesting that department officials may have consulted the White House before dismissing the case. That possibility, too, cries out for investigation. These broad policy questions and suggestions of political chicanery are important. Do we have a nation of laws equally applied to all, or is justice being reduced to raw politics? Investigating such questions is the essence of the news business. Failure to look into such a scandal is evidence of the institutional corruption of the much-ballyhooed "fourth branch of government," a supposedly independent media." washingtontimes.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87036)	7/3/2010 7:12:46 PM
From: MJ	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

. Have you ever been unemployed? People don't become unemployed by choice-----usually they are given no choice. Sometimes they are part of a lay off of 'older' employees to cut expenses and hire younger employees------and for other reasons. The unemployed have likely lost both jobs and monies in their retirement plans and maybe directly in the market. The stock market reflects the economy-------and it ain't good as we say in the current vernacular at this time.