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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (61739)	1/27/2013 10:09:13 PM
From: pcstel	Respond to of 71588

Just look.. Lot's more of LLCF's wealthy Californian's that Want to Pay Higher Taxes. >Another North County San Diego resident, whose home is currently for sale, told Fox News he estimates he and his wife will save $30,000 a month by moving to Arizona. He said it's not that he is against paying his fair share, but more than 50 percent of state residents pay no personal income taxes at all, and that, he said, is "unfair".< >While most of the evidence of an exodus so far is anecdotal, some tax analysts expect the evidence to show up in declining tax revenues from the wealthy by 2014, as they figure out how to legally relocate without actually leaving the Golden State nine months a year.< >"We feel like the politically convenient target," he said. "Governor Brown used *the tyranny of the majority to steal from the minority. It's that simple.* The majority isn't going to vote to increase their taxes -- stick it to the guy next door. That is the mentality in California and while we love the state and will miss the beaches, we've had it. We're out." Read more: foxnews.com Really, tons of wealthy people WANT TO PAY HIGHER TAXES.. IT'S REALLY NO BIG DEAL!!

To: LLCF who wrote (61739)	1/29/2013 9:29:00 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71588

Clinton's Angry Outburst On Benghazi Was Meant To Deceive—Not Enlighten By Thomas Sowell An old-time trial lawyer once said, "When your case is weak, shout louder!" Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shouted louder when asked about the Obama administration's story last fall that the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. ambassador's quarters in Benghazi, Libya, was due to an anti-Islamic video that someone in the United States had put on the Internet, and thereby provoked a protest that escalated into violence. She shouted: "We had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?" Students of propaganda may admire the skill with which she misdirected people's attention. But those of us who are still old-fashioned enough to think that the truth matters cannot applaud her success. Let's go back to square one. After the attack on the American ambassador's quarters in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, the Obama administration immediately blamed it on the anti-Islamic video. Moreover, this version of what happened was not just a passing remark. It was a story that the administration kept repeating insistently. Hoax In High Places U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice repeated that story on five different television talk shows on the same Sunday. President Obama himself repeated the same story at the United Nations. The man who put the anti-Islamic video on the Internet was arrested for a parole violation, creating more media coverage to keep attention on this theme. "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Secretary Clinton now asks. What difference did it make at the time? Obviously the Obama administration thought it made a difference, with an election coming up. Prior to the attack, the administration's political theme was that Barack Obama had killed Osama bin Laden (with an assist from the Navy SEALs), vanquished al-Qaida and was now in the process of putting the terrorist threat behind us. To have the attack in Benghazi be seen as a terrorist attack — and a devastating one — would have ruined this picture, with an election coming up. The key question that remains unanswered to this day is: What speck of evidence is there that the attack in Benghazi was due to the much-discussed video or that there was ever any protest demonstration outside the ambassador's quarters? If there is no evidence whatever, then the whole attempt to say that a protest over a video escalated into an attack was a deliberate hoax by people who knew better. Clinton In 2016? There is no point in the administration saying that they did not have all the facts about the attack immediately. All the facts may never be known. But the real question is: Did you have even a single fact that would substantiate your repeated claims that some video led to a protest in Benghazi that got out of hand and led to the attack? Interestingly, Hillary Clinton herself was not featured in this campaign, even though as secretary of State she was a key figure. Hillary was not about to create video footage that could come back to haunt her if she runs for president of the United States in 2016. In a larger context, the Benghazi attack showed that you cannot unilaterally end the "war on terror" or the terrorists' war on us, by declaring victory. For years, the Bush administration's phrase "war on terror" was avoided like the plague by the Obama administration, even if that required the Fort Hood massacre to be classified as "workplace violence." But, no matter how clever the rhetoric, reality nevertheless rears its ugly head. Once the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi is seen for what it was — a highly coordinated and highly successful operation by terrorists who were said to have been vanquished — that calls into question the Obama administration's Middle East foreign policy. That is why it still matters.