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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (212197)	7/8/2011 1:17:17 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361142

Yes, Obama should pay attention to Ed Schultz and what he is saying tonight is significant -- and he may be emerging into "the Rush of the large liberal/progressive wing in this country"....Obama can NOT get re-elected without strong support from his base -- and many in his base watch Ed Schultz on national TV and listen to Ed Schultz' nationally syndicated radio program...hmmm...

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (212197)	7/8/2011 1:26:18 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361142

Obama’s Original Sin By Frank Rich nymag.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (212197)	7/8/2011 2:02:35 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361142

A Quote for President Obama to reflect on tonight... "Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage." ~Confucius

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (212197)	7/8/2011 2:48:34 AM
From: stockman_scott	3 Recommendations Respond to of 361142

I wonder what Obama and his campaign re-election Manager think about this comment: commondreams.org Posted by Old Guy Jul 7 2011 - 11:38am -- Obama won't invoke the 4th Amendment because that is not part of the game plan. The GOP's ultra-radical proposals provide cover for Obama to play his role, which is to appear to be a reasonable compromiser, even as he decimates all social programs and destroys the progressive influence on American politics. Many people on this site (myself included) have pointed out for years that Obama is a right wing plant. His pattern of speaking like a progressive or moderate, while voting to support the far right agenda is so apparent as to be obvious to everyone except those who have a vested interest in not seeing it. Many talking heads certainly see it, but to point out this obvious betrayal makes them too "radical" for the mainstream media. Many of us on this site have pointed out that Obama, regardless of what he says in support of Medicare and Social Security, will gut those programs under the guise of compromising with the radicals in the GOP. Last night the Washington Post reported that this is precisely what has just happened. Obama is putting Social Security and Medicare "on the table" as "concessions" to the GOP in the budget deficit fight. Nonsense! Those were never concessions. Those were staked out positions from the very start. I went on the Washington Post's website last night to see how readers were reacting to the news that Obama had betrayed progressives once again. The anger and outrage were palpable. The mask has been stripped away completely. Many Americans are finally understanding how they have been duped, and they are livid. Obama and the Democratic party are now flying in the face of almost 80 percent of the American people who strongly support these programs. It's a slam dunk to take political advantage of this momentum and then use it to create a better country for those at the bottom end of the social hierarchy. That is, it's a slam dunk unless your whole purpose as a political party is to throw elections to the GOP. If Obama is the best the Democrats can do for a candidate in 2012, then progressives should attend his campaign speeches with posters of him with the longest Pinocchio-style nose in human history. More to the point, Obama has just gutted what little remains of the heart and souls of the traditional Democratic Party that during the administration of FDR actually represented the American people. If they run this charlatan as their candidate, there will be two far-right candidates representing the two major parties. Let's not pretend otherwise. Yes, progressives need to insist on a challenge to Obama in the primaries, simply because it is the only way to highlight his duplicity. More importantly, disaffected (for good reason) Democrats need to notify the Democratic Party hierarchy that they have had enough and are leaving to join a third party or register as Independents. The enemy we see is less dangerous than the enemy who pretends to be our friend--and constantly betrays us in every way that affects the quality of our lives.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (212197)	7/8/2011 9:29:58 AM
From: koan	Respond to of 361142

As Wall St. Polices Itself, Prosecutors Use Softer Approach By GRETCHEN MORGENSON and LOUISE STORY nytimes.com Here is the problem with either self regulating captialism or letting capitalism monitor itself. Read bottem post which shows Obama told the legal system to not prosecute corporations. To let them monitor themselves. Corporations are sociopaths. As Bentway said so brilliantly: "there is no division of conscience. So if our society does not regulatre or police corporations and businesses we will end up like many third world countries where corporate criminality is rife and our entire justice system becomes unfair. LIke Mexico right now where drug cartels are taking over the coutnry because of a weak judicial system. 10 years for smoking crack, or stealing a pair of tennis shoes and nothing for stealing billions. Present that to a law class. <<Federal prosecutors officially adopted new guidelines about charging corporations with crimes — a softer approach that, longtime white-collar lawyers and former federal prosecutors say, helps explain the dearth of criminal cases despite a raft of inquiries into the financial crisis. Though little noticed outside legal circles, the guidelines were welcomed by firms representing banks. The Justice Department’s directive, involving a process known as deferred prosecutions, signaled “an important step away from the more aggressive prosecutorial practices seen in some cases under their predecessors,” Sullivan & Cromwell, a prominent Wall Street law firm, told clients in a memo that September. The guidelines left open a possibility other than guilty or not guilty, giving leniency often if companies investigated and reported their own wrongdoing. In return, the government could enter into agreements to delay or cancel the prosecution if the companies promised to change their behavior. But this approach, critics maintain, runs the risk of letting companies off too easily. “If you do not punish crimes, there’s really no reason they won’t happen again,” said Mary Ramirez, a professor at Washburn University School of Law and a former assistant United States attorney. “I worry and so do a lot of economists that we have created no disincentives for committing fraud or white-collar crime, in particular in the financial space.”

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (212197)	7/8/2011 10:01:07 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 361142

Palindrome A thoughtful ANNEP's comments subsequent to the Frank Rich article: When I voted for Obama, I was pretty sure he was not a liberal. I knew though it was important a Democrat nominate candidates for the then upcoming Supreme Court vacancies. Thus far, Obama’s choices seem to be okay. With a couple of elderly liberal Supremes still on the court, it is imperative again that a Democrat be elected. I would be extraordinarily happy if that Dem could be someone other than Obama but because the Supreme Court issue is so huge, I will vote but it will be hold-the-nose time. I remember watching Obama visit George Bush in the White House prior to his inauguration. On TV, I saw them walking outside, conversing. I don’t know exactly what struck me then–some sort of body language or facial expressions–but I was suddenly chilled to the bone. Something in their interaction “leaked out”. They seemed to be in alignment, that we were not really trading Bush for someone much different. It was a fleeting moment but it hit me hard. I brushed it off at the time but I’ve had to accept now that my gut reaction was on target. As for those early charges of narcissism, they increasingly seem to be true, too. Obama apparently fancies himself the one to conjure up the Grand Bargain, no matter who and how many may suffer in the end. This focus reeks of arrogance and narcissism. Two trillion in cuts not enough? How about 4 trillion instead, and let’s throw in SS, Medicare, and Medicaid cuts so we can put it all behind us. To hell with the common folks and what’s left of the shredded soul of the Democratic Party because it’s all about me me me being the Grand Bargaineer. Whee!! As for jobs, who needs them. The next 2 or 3 decades are going to be very rough indeed for this country. Whether the citizenry can marshall the will to halt the advance of the plutocracy/oligarchy and force the changes needed or whether this country will eventually be swept into the dustbin of history remains to be seen. Selfishly and sadly, I can only say I am glad that at this point in time I have lived the bulk of my life. nymag.com