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 (114613)	10/4/2011 4:03:34 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 224750

how are you gonna tax the rich ? please explain your plan

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (114613)	10/4/2011 4:06:13 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

Daughters listed as senior staff…American taxpayers being robbed by tacky, greedy nouveau riche hypocrites campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (114613)	10/4/2011 4:41:00 PM
From: lorne	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

kenny..."Poll: Well-off say tax the rich".... And when there are no more rich left..what then kenny? Hey I know the commies can raise the minimum wage...and when that no longer works do what comrade stallan did, just reduce the population?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (114613)	10/4/2011 9:36:26 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

Indict Eric HolderPosted 06:59 PM ET Scandal: A major-league pitcher was indicted for lying to Congress about steroid use. Administration memos show Eric Holder lied about what he knew about Fast and Furious and when he knew it. What's the difference? Somewhere, Scooter Libby must be scratching his head. He was indicted and convicted simply because his recall of when a meeting occurred differed from others. He didn't lie about a gun-running operation that led to the deaths of two American agents and at least 200 Mexicans. But Attorney General Eric Holder did, according to memos obtained by CBS News and Fox News. They show Holder lied to Congress on May 2, 2011, when he was asked about when he knew about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Fast and Furious gun-running operation. He told House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa he was "not sure of the exact date, but I probably learned about Fast and Furious over the last few weeks." Holder learned of the operation as early as July 2010 in a memo from the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center informing him of an operation run by the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force out of the Phoenix ATF office, under which "straw purchasers are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to Mexican drug cartels." On Oct. 18, 2010, one of Holder's chief deputies, Lanny Breuer, chief of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, told Holder in a memo that prosecutors were ready to issue indictments of a few gun traffickers involved in Fast and Furious. A memo the day before from Deputy Attorney General Jason Weinstein to another lawyer in the Criminal Division, James Trusty, asked if Breuer should do a press conference when Fast and Furious became known. "It's a tricky case," Weinstein wrote, "considering the number of guns that have walked." Trusty replied, "It's not going to be any big surprise that a bunch of guns are being used in MX (Mexico), so I'm not so sure how much grief we'll get for 'gun walking.'" Fast and Furious became known two months later when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed at the hands of an illegal immigrant working for the Sinaloa cartel just 10 miles from the Mexico border near Nogales, Ariz. Guns found at the scene were traced to Fast and Furious. In addition to Terry, Immigration Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata was killed in a separate incident by a weapon allowed to "walk" into Mexico from the U.S. Holder, quite simply, has lied to Congress, although the defense now being offered is he didn't understand Issa's question, doesn't read all the memos sent to him or was otherwise out of the loop. It is perhaps the first time incompetence has been offered as a defense to possible charges of criminality. ATF agent testimony, last Friday's document dump, communications between National Security council staffers and the ATF, and now this demonstrate that Holder and the White House knew that guns were deliberately being allowed to "walk" into the hands of murderous Mexican drug cartels. As Issa told radio talk show host Laura Ingraham last month: "We have a paper trail of so many people knowing that the only way the attorney general didn't know is he made sure he didn't want to know. ... But if you don't want to know something of this sort, then you shouldn't have the job he has." We'd go a step further. Baseball star Roger Clemens was equally vehement when he told a House committee in 2008: "Let me be clear. I have never taken steroids or HGH." Clemens was indicted for lying to Congress. The same should go for Eric Holder.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (114613)	10/4/2011 9:36:57 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224750

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (114613)	10/4/2011 9:37:37 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224750

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (114613)	10/4/2011 9:39:09 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	6 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

Are You Ready For Some... Free Speech?By DOUGLAS MACKINNON Posted 06:43 PM ET I once had a conversation with a well-connected Democrat in Washington, D.C., with regard to lack of advertising in conservative publications. Without missing a beat, she said it was because "advertisers and corporate America are petrified of the far left. The executives at these companies fear that if they advertise in conservative outlets, the far left will harass them, boycott them, threaten them, and picket them forever until they give in to the thuggish behavior." I then pointed out that these same companies who for the most part shun conservative outlets are thrilled to advertise in far-left magazines like Mother Jones and Vanity Fair, and far-left newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post. "Precisely," she responded. "Because these companies know beyond a shadow of a doubt that conservatives will never lift a finger in protest. They may offer an initial objection, but in the end, they will do nothing." Unfortunately, my Democrat friend is all too correct. There have been endless examples of where conservatives could and should have risen up in protest against advertisers or liberal outlets, and didn't. When do conservatives say "no more?" When do they finally draw that uncrossable line in the sand? As an independent conservative, I am more and more worried that day will never come. As my liberal friend says: "That's not the conservative way. They are much too polite and civilized for the hand-to-hand combat the far left lives for." Well, another glaring example of when conservatives and defenders of free speech can and should rise up against the politically correct censorship of the far left is upon us in the guise of liberal ESPN dropping Hank Williams Jr. from Monday Night Football. What did Mr. Williams do wrong? He dared to touch the third rail of the far left and publicly criticize their oracle, Barack Obama. On the Fox News show "Fox & Friends," Mr. Williams opined that GOP House Speaker John Boehner participating in the "golf summit" with Mr. Obama was "one of the biggest mistakes ever. ... It would be like Hitler playing golf with Benjamin Netanyahu." Goodbye. To be sure, I wish everyone in the public eye would stop invoking Hitler's name for anything. That said, Williams wasn't comparing Obama to Hitler. As is his right, he was simply using that example to highlight how nonsensical the "golf summit" was to him. All Americans and all conservatives should understand that liberals firmly believe that free speech exists only for them. Not only will they do all in their power to deny the privilege of free speech to Republicans and conservatives, they will also purposefully twist and exaggerate words to destroy certain Republicans

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (114613)	10/4/2011 9:39:55 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224750

Good For Canada And Us Good For Canada And Us Energy: Environmentalists are making a last stand against the Keystone XL pipeline with a scare campaign about groundwater. Time to review the facts and let the project proceed. The Obama administration gets a lot wrong, but it does seem to be getting more clear-headed about oil. This week, it announced it was moving ahead with oil leases that open a sizable swath of the Arctic Ocean to drilling. And it may soon give the green light to TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL, a 1,700-mile, $7 billion pipeline that would bring oil from the tar sands of Alberta to refineries in Texas. If it does so, it will deeply disappoint the green lobby, which sees Keystone XL as a giant step backward. The Natural Resources Defense Council has warned that Keystone XL "undermines the United States commitment to a clean energy future." But that future is far more distant than the NRDC wants to admit. One clue: This year's sales of the most popular electric car in America, the Nissan Leaf, totaled all of 7,199 through September. Compare that with the Ford F-Series (416,388), Chevy Silverado (296,438) and Toyota Camry (229,521) and you can see that the car of the future has some way to go before it supplants the fossil fuel-powered cars and trucks of the present. In the meantime, America will run mainly on oil. Neither the NRDC nor anyone else has figured out how to meet our energy needs without more of it. Keystone XL already has a favorable environmental review from the State Department (which is involved because the project crosses U.S. boundaries). State now needs to determine if the project is in the "national interest." That test should be an easy one. The project is a win-win deal for Canada and America. Canada gets a new market for its tar-sands crude; the U.S. gets jobs, better energy security and a boost to its emerging role as a significant energy exporter. Even if the U.S. does not consume all the oil that runs through the pipeline, the oil and the products refined from it will help keep global energy prices down. Keystone XL will further diminish the market power and political influence of Middle East petro-states. Canadians argue that their "ethical oil" carries less of a moral taint than crude from Saudi Arabia and other places with wretched records on human rights. And we'll say this much: Oil dollars sent to Canada are unlikely to end up funding al-Qaida. So what's not to like? "It's true that tar sands oil has environmental impacts, such as deforestation and high energy use." But Canada is going ahead with it anyway. If it's denied a U.S. pipeline, it could always build one to its Atlantic or Pacific coasts to get access to the global energy trade. The only loser then would be the U.S. Then there's the argument that much of the Canadian crude might be refined into products for export, especially diesel. This is said to undermine the "energy security" case for the pipeline. In fact, the project would enhance security by bolstering America's refining capacity. The broader the market for energy products, the better the outlook for refiners. When demand is weak at home — as it is now — they can stay profitable by tapping demand overseas. And it takes a certain disconnect with reality to argue, especially in this economy, against more American exports and good-paying refinery jobs. The antis are now making a stand in Nebraska, one of the states the pipeline would cross. They've gained some traction by claiming the "thick, toxic bitumen" (as the NRDC calls it) threatens the state's vital Ogallala Aquifer. State Department representatives are getting an earful on this issue at public hearings, and even the state's Republican governor, Dave Heineman, has asked that the pipeline be rerouted. But the geology of the aquifer serves as a buffer against oil leaks. The pipeline can be shielded, monitored and routed in any number of ways to reduce the chance of leaks and to keep them small if they occur. In short, the pipeline is no threat to Nebraska. It's time to give the facts a fair hearing and move forward.