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: TideGlider who wrote (512582)	10/10/2012 10:31:56 AM
From: DanDerr	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794225

Yes, Rice was tee'd up to replace Hillary if Obama were to win. No matter at this point. She has NO CHANCE at this point. She'll be a mess after the Obama thugs ruin her reputation prior to throwing her under that proverbial Bus!

To: TideGlider who wrote (512582)	10/10/2012 11:13:03 AM
From: Little Joe	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 794225

re: Susan Rice "I doubt seriously that she will smudge them by protecting the administration." Hasn't she already done that. lj

To: TideGlider who wrote (512582)	10/10/2012 11:24:39 AM
From: unclewest	6 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794225

It would be of great interest what she does say when called and she will be called. 1. I am greatly interested in what Susan Rice already said, or should I say the lies she already perpetrated on all Americans. If diplomatic integrity at home and abroad counts, Rice counts for nothing. 2. I heard more this AM about Obama bragging again about killing Osama. I wish I thought that was as hugely important as Obama does, but I don't. Obama has not been involved in AQ operations for several years. Then again it seems to be the only accomplishment in Obama's four years. At least he has one thing to brag about, but it is getting to be very old news and its not like he can do it again.

To: TideGlider who wrote (512582)	10/10/2012 11:38:42 AM
From: simplicity	20 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794225

I was never a fan of Richard Nixon, but think about this for a minute: The mainstream media hounded a president out of office simply because he attempted to cover up a third rate break-in, aimed at obtaining petty political information, at a D. C. hotel. He did not know about the break-in in advance, and was completely unaware of it after the fact, until it was brought to his attention some time later. Now think about the dozens (if not hundreds) of end runs around the Constitution that this president has committed -- governing by executive order, skirting Congress in creating legislation and declaring war, choosing which laws he wants to enforce and which he wants to ignore, having his agencies rule on what should be legislative prerogative, being an integral part of plans to commit massive voter fraud, blatantly collecting tens of millions of dollars in illegal campaign donations from foreign entities, etc. The list is endless. To my mind, the refusal to commit additional security forces to protect an American ambassador, despite thirteen requests from him to do so, which resulted in his -- and three other -- deaths, and then using a blatant cover-up of the facts about the murders and the ensuing violence across the Middle East, are grounds for impeachment, at the very least, and major criminal charges (even more necessary). Compare all of that to the Watergate 'scandal' (again, an attempted cover-up, after the fact, of a third-rate break-in). There is absolutely no comparison. And yet the mainstream media hounded the president involved with the latter out of office, and are attempting with all of the biased, propagandistic power at their disposal, to drag the former across the campaign finish line. The American mainstream media are more of a threat to America's safety and security than any enemy from outside of our borders.