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 (90958)	9/13/2010 8:55:58 PM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224720

Budget deficit on pace to hit $1.3 trillion Federal budget deficit on pace to hit $1.3 trillion, second highest on record ShareretweetEmailPrintMartin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer, On Monday September 13, 2010, 2:09 pm WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government is on track to record the second-highest deficit of all time with one month left in the budget year. The Treasury Department says that through August, the deficit totaled $1.26 trillion. That's down 8.1 percent from the same period in 2009, when the government recorded a record $1.4 trillion deficit. But it is on pace to total $1.3 trillion -- the second-largest deficit on record. Soaring deficits have become a major issue with voters heading into the midterm elections. Republicans have highlighted the deficits to illustrate how government spending is on the rise under Democrats. Search for mortgage, home equity, savings, auto and credit card rates

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (90958)	9/13/2010 9:08:51 PM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224720

Have you seen a federal Budget yet? Talk about running a country like a banana republic ROFLMAO! This regime has to go!

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (90958)	9/13/2010 9:11:32 PM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224720

Level of people in poverty rising...but Obama likes that. He wants everyone starving and grateful for crumbs.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (90958)	9/13/2010 9:55:34 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224720

The deficit is down 8% and the economy is growing: idiot odumba still bounces in shithouse and kennyboy still spinning filthy economy growth.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (90958)	9/14/2010 8:01:20 AM
From: lorne	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224720

Growing list of Muslim atrocities September 14, 2010 Les Kinsolving wnd.com From a good clergy friend of mine in Michigan, whom I was unable to reach by phone for an inquiry concerning its original source, I received a list of 13 questions via e-mail. Originally this list contained multiple-choice answers to each question. But the majority of those choices were humorous, I include the one correct answer to each of these 13 questions. 1) In 1968, Sen. Robert Kennedy was shot and killed by: Answer: A Muslim, male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40 2) In 1972 at the Olympics in Munich, Germany, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by: Answer: Muslim, male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 3) In 1979, the U.S embassy in Iran was taken over by: Answer: Muslim, male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 4) During the 1980s, a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by: Answer: Muslim, male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 5) In 1983, U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by: Answer: Muslim, male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 6) In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70-year-old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by: Answer: Muslim, male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 7) In 1985, TWA Flight 847 was hijacked in Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by: Answer: Muslim, male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 8) In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: Answer: Muslim, male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 9) In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by: Answer: Muslim, male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 10) In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by: Answer: Muslim, male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 11) On Sept. 11, 2001, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Center. Of the remaining two, one crashed into the U.S. Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by: Answer: Muslim, male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 12) In 2002, the U.S. fought a war in Afghanistan against: Answer: Muslim, male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 13) In 2002, reported Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by: Answer: Muslim, male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 Footnote: At Fort Hood, Texas, another Muslim, 39, killed 13 people and wounded 30 others. My friend added the following conclusion: "No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent upon killing us, airport-security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identifications, Secret Service agents who are members of the president's security detail, 85-year-old congressmen with metal hips and Medal of Honor winner and former South Dakota Gov. Joe Foss. However, they must leave Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40 alone – lest they be guilty of profiling."

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (90958)	9/14/2010 8:01:58 AM
From: lorne	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224720

Obama's tiresome tolerance lectures September 14, 2010 wnd.com Why did President Obama choose tolerance as the subject of his speech at the Pentagon ostensibly to commemorate the victims of 9/11? Why is it that he insists on making this the overarching point at such events rather than, say, express our deep regret for the lost lives of the murdered Americans and repeat our national resolve to "bring to justice" those behind the massacre? Then again, we are talking about President Obama here, the man who also believes the primary lesson we should learn from the Islamists' beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl is that the freedom of press is alive and well (I'm speechless here). Obama's the guy who, instead of somberly lamenting the killing of 12 soldiers and a security guard by U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood, began his remarks with a detached "shout out" to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow, leaving the world to wonder just how warm the blood flowing through his veins is. But it's not Obama's curiously bloodless behavior and strange disconnectedness (as British journalist Toby Harnden put it) that most concerns me about his Pentagon speech and the others. It's his reflexive instinct to lecture Americans, when they're not the ones who need lecturing. His first reaction, for example, when Americans protested the building of the ostentatious mosque at Ground Zero was to assume Americans were being intolerant and bigoted. He came out strongly in favor of the mosque and the importance of religious tolerance. He later pretended he was talking about the Muslims' and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's First Amendment rights, but no one was suggesting they didn't have the right to build. You will note that when Pastor Terry Jones threatened to burn the Quran, Obama didn't come out stumping for his First Amendment rights, not that I think he should have done so here, either, but it certainly reveals a double standard in his thinking. He and Defense Secretary Robert Gates thought they had to personally contact Jones to dissuade him from engaging in his gratuitously provocative act, but they didn't similarly feel the need to contact Rauf to dissuade him of his grossly insensitive act. You would think that if Obama wanted to lecture someone on the need for tolerance, it would be the imam, who can't possibly believe that his plan to build a mosque on the very sacred grounds of 9/11 is a bridge-building overture – as opposed to the obviously in-your-face statement that it is. But Obama remains silent. Why does he constantly have to remind the Muslim world that we are not at war with Islam, but only al-Qaida, when we have never indicated otherwise? If he truly wants to make a point about tolerance, especially religious tolerance, don't you think he owes us a better handle on reality? Is it not the United States that permits virtually unfettered religious liberty for Muslims, as well as all other religious people – except for the persistent discrimination against Christians? Is America not the home of some 2,000 mosques? Has Obama even considered pointing his finger at the Muslim world, asking them why they are so uniformly intolerant in their countries? Why they don't permit churches? Why they don't permit Muslims to convert to Christianity? Why they commit so much violence against Christians and Jews? America is the most tolerant society in the history of the world, so Obama's constant apologies to the contrary, while ignoring the truly intolerant societies, are increasingly offensive. Besides, contrary to what Obama and many of his fellow liberals believe, so-called tolerance is not the highest virtue, especially when it gets in the way of truth and national security. The fact that his administration willfully ignored the radical, jihadist behavior of Fort Hood shooter Hasan might well have enabled his murders. The administration's willful cover-up of his jihadist motivations after the fact may well enable future jihadists. While leftists are congratulating themselves on their moral superiority in mouthing tolerance, more people's lives are at risk as a result of their refusal to consider radical Islam a motive in many murderous attacks, which is hardly the same thing as categorically indicting the entire Muslim religion – as Obama implies. Surely it should be obvious to Obama and his ilk by now that Islamists don't attack us because of our alleged "intolerance." They don't even respect tolerance. They don't aspire to it. They reject it. And they reject us – and will continue to, regardless of how nice and "tolerant" we are.