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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (402818)	1/8/2011 11:46:03 PM
From: KLP	1 Recommendation Respond to of 794008

Glenn Reynolds: January 8, 2011 PAUL HELMKE TRIES TO SEIZE ON TRAGEDY TO RESTORE HIS RELEVANCE. Nice try. Related: Liberals blast Palin and ‘rhetoric’ following AZ shooting. “Did liberals like Congressman Raul Grijalva, Arizona Democrat, Markos, Moulitsas, and Andrew Sullivan speak too soon for the sake of hoping that the Tucson shooter could have had a tea party or a right of center affiliation? From all of their statements today, both said and written, it sure seems like it.” As with Mike Bloomberg’s immediate effort to blame the Times Square bombing attempt on the Tea Party, this swift reaction betrays their hope for an issue that could save Obama by defaming his opposition. It also demonstrates that all their “have you no decency?” talk is a sham, since when push comes to shove, they have no decency themselves. Just desperate blood libels. Related: The Contemptible Paul Krugman. “This would be outrageous even if Krugman himself were not one of the worst hatemongers in public life, a man whose hysterical rhetoric exceeds anything you hear from Limbaugh, Beck, or any significant figure on the right who comes to mind. But this sort of contemptible demagoguery is exactly the kind of thing we have come to expect from Krugman.” No decency. And no shame. Meanwhile, better sense from Howard Kurtz: Let’s be honest: Journalists often use military terminology in describing campaigns. We talk about the air war, the bombshells, targeting politicians, knocking them off, candidates returning fire or being out of ammunition. So we shouldn’t act shocked when politicians do the same thing. Obviously, Palin should have used dots or asterisks on her map. But does anyone seriously believe she was trying to incite violence? I guess the Democrats’ map with targets was fomenting violence, too, then. Let me be clear, as a great man says: If you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Sarah Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting — which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie — or you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. So which is it? Posted at 11:15 pm by Glenn Reynolds pajamasmedia.com

To: KLP who wrote (402818)	1/9/2011 12:11:14 AM
From: d[-_-]b	2 Recommendations Respond to of 794008

Truly, there is no one on TV who can match this man’s hateful rhetoric. So funny because his show was supposedly about calling for the rhetoric to be toned down. He was "repudiating" all over himself tonight.