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: Justin C who wrote (115450)	10/13/2011 6:25:28 PM
From: joseffy	7 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

'Obama's father did not leave when he was a "toddler." He likely never saw the boy. Obama's parents never lived together. By the time Obama was a month old, he was living with his mother in Seattle thousands of miles from his father in Hawaii. There was no happy little Obama family. Obama fabricated that family in Dreams and built his 2008 campaign around the fabrication.'

To: Justin C who wrote (115450)	10/13/2011 6:33:58 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224750

Cashill is really pissed off about the fact that the Weekly Standard editors refused to print his articles --and also refused to review his book regarding Bill Ayers' writing of Obama's book. Cashill even quotes their letters to him rejecting his work. Interesting to see what a closed shop the media is, even in conservative circles.

To: Justin C who wrote (115450)	10/13/2011 10:43:26 PM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

Poor Obama---the cheese has fallen off his cracker.

To: Justin C who wrote (115450)	10/13/2011 11:28:43 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 224750

Disney Channel Edits Out Gun From 1938 Mickey Mouse Cartoon ....................................................................................................................................................... ammoland.com United States --(Ammoland.com)- Almost every morning the Disney Channel runs shortened versions of their “golden oldies” between some of their modern day cartoons as a way to fill time until the next scheduled show begins. One morning recently my kids were watching the Disney Channel when they featured an old Mickey Mouse classic called ‘Mickey’s Parrot‘ which was originally released back on September 09, 1938. In this episode, a parrot belonging to an escaped killer wanders into Mickey’s basement. Mickey hears it talking and thinks that the parrot is the killer who is on the loose who he just heard about on the radio. Mickey then goes and grabs his double barreled shotgun off of the wall and prepares to defend himself. Well, wouldn’t you know it… in the version they presented on the Disney Channel the other day, they had digitally removed the shotgun and replaced it with a broom. Yes, Mickey grabbed a broom off of the gun rack, shouldered it, and prepared to defend himself with his handy, dandy tactical… broom. Really, Disney? Really? Do you think we have come to the point as a society that we can’t even allow guns to be seen by children for fear that it will cause them to become crazed, blood thirsty psychopaths? Do you really think guns are so evil that the mere sight of one will cause blood to run in the streets? Give me a break! Disney cartoons from that era have featured firearms literally more times than I can count. They’ve depicted firearms in terms of being a legitimate means of self defense, as a means to take game animals, and they have shown firearms as the indispensable tool that they are for every cowboy and cowgirl of the old west. Several generations have now been brought up with Disney cartoons that have depicted firearms as an integral part of their plot, and now you are telling me that we as a society can no longer handle it?… That our children must be completely isolated from the mere sight of a cartoon gun? Ridiculous! ammoland.com *****

To: Justin C who wrote (115450)	10/14/2011 3:16:27 PM
From: Justin C	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

Which Republican Can Beat Obama? By Robin of Berkeley I love Michele Bachmann. I'd vote for Sarah Palin in a heartbeat. In fact, I'd pull the lever for any Republican candidate for President, though I'd have to hold my nose for the more moderate ones. But who do I think could actually win against the Obama machine? A strong black man. . as in the brainy, charismatic Herman Cain. One of the things I've been doing since I woke up from my leftist coma three or so years ago is closely observing Obama. I've been trying to figure out what makes the man tick. My guess is that Obama had a terrible childhood, worse than we know. I wouldn't be surprised if there was quite a bit of abuse, as well as neglect. We all know about the continual abandonments. Without much nurturance, but given the illusion of greatness by others, Obama has developed a Messiah Complex. He thinks he walks on water. There are not too many mere mortals who could intimidate him. Obama made mincemeat of Hillary. While I am a huge Sarah fan, I think he'd do the same to her. The genial and gracious Michele -- he'd descend on her like a vulture. A white male, a Native American man. . . all the same. He and his handlers would chew them up and spit them out. But it would be different with an African American alpha male. I think that someone like Cain could and would put Obama in his place. And though Obama would pounce on Cain, Obama's bark would be worse than his bite. My guess is that Obama would feel weak around him; Obama would become the beta male he truly is deep inside, though he hides it. It's not a coincidence that Obama chose dominant black men as father figures such as Frank Marshall Davis and Rev. Wright. I predict a more tongue-tied and intimidated Obama if he has to go up against Cain. For one thing, Obama is used to using race to silence white people. How much harder it would be for Obama to bulldoze and menace Herman Cain. I see many other potential benefits of a qualified, black candidate like Cain. Certainly, Cain's running would neutralize the left's cries of racism. And their attempts to smear Cain as an "Uncle Tom" would reveal for all the world to see the inherent racism in the so-called progressive movement. Cain as nominee would also draw new people to the Republican Party. Cain's straight-talking personal style and compelling message would attract blacks to the Party for the first time in eons. He would grab the imagination of dissatisfied blacks, particularly traditional families who have been skittish about joining the right. A black man would also have the gravitas to articulate the core values of conservatism in a way that could appeal to minorities. Who knows? Given, Cain's down-to-earth manner and his strong character, he has the potential to be another Ronald Reagan. Is it fair to choose a candidate partly based on race? Two words here: Barack Obama. Only the most hard-core and deluded leftist would argue that Obama's meager resume prepared him to be the Leader of the Free World. With Obama nominated and installed based almost entirely on his race, choosing based on skin color along with integrity and intelligence is perfectly appropriate. Cain brings plenty of both to the table, along with common sense, business experience, and economic prowess. And, along with the sanity of a Cain presidency, wouldn't it be icing on the cake to have the first fully black president be a conservative? Will I get my wish? God, I hope so. Anything is possible in this year's GOP horse race. But from what I see, the strongest chance we have to reclaim the White House -- and perhaps to save this nation -- is Herman Cain. I just hope that the head honchos in the Republican Party, as well as the American people, see things the same way. http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/which_republican_can_beat_obama.html