SI
SI
discoversearch

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.

   PoliticsPolitics for Pros- moderated


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Bearcatbob who wrote (219896)9/16/2007 3:05:25 PM
From: KLP
   of 784807
 
Funny thing....When I saw that, I thought the same thing about McCain.

IMO, the two major issues of the day are stopping terrorism from coming to our shores, or the shores of our allies, with major WMD, and the second is regulating who is coming in through our borders.

So far the Dems have proven they are soft on terrorism....all lip and no stick...

and most of the Dems have always been for open borders -(aka Soros)

The article I posted about Eisenhower and the Operation Wetback of the 50's certainly shows that party to be the cause of some of our troubles today.

Message 23870430

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Geoff Altman who wrote (219902)9/16/2007 3:14:38 PM
From: KLP
   of 784807
 
If people would ONLY read and check to see the Who's Who of Groups like ANSWER.....

ANSWER was established by the International Action Center (IAC), which was founded by former United States attorney general Ramsey Clark and the Workers World Party. ANSWER was one of the first organizations formed to protest the policies of the Bush administration in the wake of the September 11 attacks. It was formed on an emergency basis within three days, and officially founded on September 14, 2001.

ANSWER's first major action was a September 29, 2001, "Anti-War, Anti-Racist" political rally and march in Washington, D.C., primarily in protest of the then impending U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. An estimated 8,000 people participated. ANSWER's next major demonstration took place on April 20, 2002, which according to ANSWER's website, drew 100,000 people to Washington in the largest pro-Palestine demonstration in U.S. history. On October 26 of that year, ANSWER held a demonstration against Congress' vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq, which according to its website drew 100,000 in San Francisco and 200,000 in Washington, D.C.

ANSWER called antiwar demonstrations on January 18, 2003, in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, which were each attended by 200,000 people, according to the group's website. ANSWER was one of several groups organizing the U.S. component of the worldwide February 15, 2003 anti-war protest, which was, across the globe, the largest anti-war rally that has ever taken place.[1] ANSWER sponsored emergency demonstrations just before the launch of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, on March 15, 2003, which according to its website drew 100,000 people each in San Francisco and Washington. With United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), it cosponsored an anti-occupation protest in Washington on October 25 of that year which, again according to the group's website, brought out 100,000 people in Washington.

ANSWER called for national anti-war, pro-Palestinian, and anti-Haitian coup demonstrations on March 20, 2004, the first anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. The protest in New York, cosponsored by UFPJ, was attended by 100,000 according to the ANSWER website. ANSWER participated in the March for Women's Lives on April 25, and the protests of the 2004 Republican National Convention from August 30 toSeptember 2. ANSWER and UFPJ jointly sponsored a rally in Washington, D.C. on September 24, 2005, whose attendance was estimated by police at 150,000 and by organizers at 300,000 people.[2]

ANSWER was involved with demonstrations on May Day, 2006, in support of rights for illegal immigrants, which brought out several million people across the U.S. These protests were organized by a number of groups unrelated to ANSWER as well.

In late June 2006, ANSWER organized and participated in local rallies against the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Shortly after Israel invaded Lebanon two weeks later, ANSWER — along with the National Council of Arab Americans and the Muslim American Society — initiated a call for protests on August 12, 2006, against the "U.S.-Israeli War on the People of Lebanon and Palestine." Organizers estimated that the August 12 demonstrations drew 30,000 protesters in Washington, 10,000 in San Francisco, and 5,000 in Los Angeles.[3]

[edit] Organizational members and prominent endorsers
Many of ANSWER's leaders were members of Workers World Party (WWP) at the time of ANSWER's founding, and are current members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), a Marxist-Leninist organization that formed in 2004. When the WWP did function in ANSWER, the coalition was accused of being a front group for the Party, which never took an official role on its steering committee.

As of December 2006, ANSWER's Steering Committee consists of:

Alliance for Just and Lasting Peace in the Philippines
Free Palestine Alliance — U.S.
Haiti Support Network
Kensington Welfare Rights Union
Korea Truth Commission
Muslim Student Association — National
Mexico Solidarity Network
Nicaragua Network
Partnership for Civil Justice — LDEF
Party for Socialism and Liberation
IFCO/Pastors for Peace

Oh, there is More, Lots More at this link.....and all the links from here....

en.wikipedia.org

Remind others who is in bed with the Democrat Party.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Geoff Altman who wrote (219905)9/16/2007 3:15:34 PM
From: LindyBill
   of 784807
 
I've yet to hear of a radar that can't be jammed if you can deduce what type of radar it is

The history of warfare is neverending struggle of defense beating offense beating defense. I remember laughing about the "secrecy" of the shape of our first stealth planes. Everybody who was aware of the problem knew exactly what they were going to look like. When the models came out and the security boys got excited it was a joke.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Snowshoe who wrote (219874)9/16/2007 3:22:45 PM
From: KLP
   of 784807
 
Perhaps. But which items should he have vetoed? Restoring NYC from 9-11? Sending BILLIONS to Katrina victims? Rebuilding NO? (I actually think we should have looked to see if that were even possible at the below water level....) Supporting the troops? Did you want to cut their weapons like Clinton did? Or cut the Intel in the CIA and other services like Clinton did?

What items should GEB have vetoed?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: mistermj who wrote (219876)9/16/2007 3:24:28 PM
From: KLP
   of 784807
 
This time maybe he will get to sit in the slammer and have ample time to reflect on how he "should have done it".....

His arrogance is simply astounding!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: D. Long who wrote (219915)9/16/2007 3:25:30 PM
From: LindyBill
   of 784807
 
. I started celebrating

I suspect that the knowledge of Hillary's failure to pass the NY bar added to your enjoyment. :>)

lindybill@schadenfreude.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: LindyBill9/16/2007 3:32:40 PM
   of 784807
 
I don't post the political ones on the other thread. Glad to see this movie is watchable.

Review of "The Kingdom" From Dave At Garfield-Ridge
ACE OF SPADES
Dave sent this review. I hope it's okay to post it. After the review of the film he reviews the left's patriotism, which isn't really related but it seems like a good point.

Even though director Peter Berg had some comment like "I couldn't believe people were taking my movie jingoistically!," to be honest, I kind of like him, so I like to imagine that was said for career reasons. Sort of "Whoops, did I do that?"

Apparently he did wind up making a rather anti-terrorist, pro-American movie (even if that is muddied with the inevitable "bad on both sides" bullshit), and I'm assuming that didn't happen altogether by accident. Seems like a good movie.

Just wanted you both to let you know to check out The Kingdom once it opens. I saw it on a sneak Saturday night, and was really surprised at how effective it is. Yes, it's political-- more on that in a moment-- but as a "mere" action movie, it's pretty good, even excellent at parts. Yeah, it's basically CSI: Riyadh, but it's very precise, with only a handful of missteps along the way.

As for the politics, the movie opens with stylish-yet-clunky credits that explain the history of Saudi Arabia for all the morons who've never bothered to open up a history book. It had me worried there for a moment-- a lot of references to oil and politics made me wary that we were about to go into Kos Kid land-- but after that, the movie downshifts into police procedural mode.

That said, it's clear from the very beginning that these are radical Muslim terrorists at work (they're even identified specifically as Wahabbis!). They actually pray to Allah as they blow themselves up-- my mouth dropped at seeing that in a Hollywood film (which shows how wrong-headed Hollywood films are today, but you know that). There's a (very minor) moment later on in the film where our team discovers that the detonators used were American-made, but the point is dropped-- rather than leave it hang as a subtle reference to "blowback" (fair point, in my book), a lesser movie almost certainly would have taken that point and made all the terrorists pawns in an American plot to bomb the Saudi kingdom or some conspiratorial shit like that. Instead, the bad guys remain the bad guys, and I can't tell you how refreshing it was to see that.

Without giving anything away, the ending is almost too precious-- I expect a lot of the audience will walk away with the opinion, "Awwww, look-- big bad America created another terrorist, the cycle of violence is perpetuated, we really are the bad guys." But given everything that's come before in the movie, I think that the movie doesn't really show how we are all alike, but instead highlights our differences-- for us, innocent dead are tragedies to be avoided and mistakes have lessons to learn. For the bad guys, innocent dead remain a good day at the office.

My only problem with the movie-- Jeremy Piven plays an obstructionist (read: accuratel State Department guy in Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, he plays it in full on "Ari" mode, all jokey and back-slapping and stuff. Excuse me, I just can't see any senior diplomat, let alone one assigned to a place like Saudi Arabia, behaving at all like that. I like Piven, but it was just wrong, wrong, wrong-- bad casting choice, worse acting choice, and he sucked me out of the movie every time (mercifully few) that he shows up on screen.

Also, I guess it can be criticized for being a little too much like Friday Night Lights-- I absolutely love that movie, but directer Peter Berg uses a lot of the same directing style he used in that movie, and it felt a little out of place (or it made me feel like I was watching a football movie ;-). Also, he asked Danny Elfman to score The Kingdom exactly like the guys who composed the music for Friday Night Lights-- in fact, I was shocked to discover this morning that Elfman hadn't written the music for FNL, the scores are nearly identical in places. Guess Berg likes that music (so do I, but again, out of place in the movie-- then again, it's a welcome departure from yet another "Middle Eastern music"-influenced score in these kind of movies).

Anyway. . . just wanted to give the movie a shout-out. In a season sure to be dominated by Meryl Streep movies about the war (I knew she's in Lambs for Lions, but I also saw her in the hideously preposterous trailer for Rendition-- THAT movie looks like a comic book version of the real world), it was nice to see a movie that actually bothered to have us as the good guys, albeit good guys operating in a complex world.

As a tangent, that last point is one that grates on me when talking with Leftists, and even liberals-- whenever I argue that we're the good guys, they argue back that the world isn't black-and-white, good guys and bad guys, that everything is "much more complex than that." I then concede that OF COURSE the world is more complex than that, and the real world forces difficult decisions on us every day, and sometimes we have to play in gray areas-- but recognizing that doesn't change the fact that we are the good guys. They inevitably respond with the rejoinder, "Well, we're all bad guys then." But they never seem to understand that even if we are all bad guys, it's preferable to be a bad guy for our side-- for our homes, families, and nation-- than for the OTHER side.

But of course, to even acknowledge that there is an "other side" means you have to be patriotic to your side. And we mustn't question their patriotism. Just once, I'd like it if their patriotism didn't include the word "BUT" in a sentence, but I guess that's too simplistic for a complex world.

I just always find that whenever the issue of complexity is introduced by the Left, they use it as a way to end the argument, like "It's too hard, you silly jingos wouldn't understand, and if you did, you'd agree with me."

minx.cc

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: LindyBill9/16/2007 3:39:16 PM
   of 784807
 
After a lot of Friedman blather, his last paragraph tells it like it is:

Democratic candidates have been talking about health care and other important issues, but the overriding foreign policy message that still comes across from them to many Americans, argues Mr. Rothkopf, is that Democrats are simply "anti-Bush, antiwar and antitrade." Be careful: despite the mess Mr. Bush has made in the world, or maybe because of it, Americans will not hand the keys to a Democrat who does not convey a "gut" credibility on national security.

Somebody Else's Mess
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: September 16, 2007

George W. Bush delivered his farewell address on Thursday evening — handing the baton, and probably the next election, to the Democrats.

Why do I say that? Because in his speech to the nation the president basically said that on the most important, indeed only, legacy issue left in his presidency, Iraq, there would be no change in policy — that a substantial number of U.S. troops would remain in Iraq "beyond my presidency." Therefore, it will be up to his successor to end the war he started.

"In one fell swoop George Bush abdicated to Petraeus, Maliki and the Democrats," said David Rothkopf, visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment, referring to Gen. David Petraeus and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki. "Bush left it to Petraeus to handle the war, Maliki to handle our timetable and therefore our checkbook, and the Democrats to ultimately figure out how to end this."

The sad thing for the American people is that we have no commander in chief anymore, framing our real situation and options. The president's description on Thursday of the stakes in Iraq was delusional. An Iraqi ally fighting for "freedom" against "extremists"? There are extremists in the Iraqi government, army and police. There is a civil war on top of tribal, neighborhood and jihadist wars, fueled not by a single Iraqi quest for freedom, but by differing quests for "justice," revenge and, yes, democracy. The only possible self-sustaining outcome in the near term is some form of radical federalism.

We also do not have a commander in chief weighing the costs of staying in Iraq indefinitely against America's other interests at home and abroad. When General Petraeus honestly averred that he could not say whether pursuing the surge in Iraq would make America safer, he underscored how much the war there has become disconnected from every conceivable worthy goal — democratization of Iraq or spreading progressive governance in the Arab-Muslim world — and is now just about itself and abstractions of "winning" or "not failing."

That is why I thought the most relevant comments from the Petraeus hearings last week were those offered by the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Ike Skelton, when he said at the outset:

"We must begin by considering the overall security of this nation. It's our responsibility here in Congress under the Constitution to ensure that the United States military can deter and if needed prevail anywhere our interests are threatened. Iraq is an important piece of the overall equation, but it is only a piece. There are very real trade-offs when you send 160,000 of our men and women in uniform to Iraq. Those troops in Iraq are not available for other missions."

While Mr. Bush's tacit resignation last week greatly increases the odds of a Democratic victory in 2008, there are several wild cards that could change things: a miraculous turnaround in Iraq (unlikely, but you can always hope), a terrorist attack in America, a coup in Pakistan that puts loose nukes in the hands of Islamist radicals, or a recession induced by the meltdown in the U.S. mortgage market, which forces a stark choice between bailing out Baghdad or Chicago.

The first three, for sure, could propel the right Republican candidate right back into the thick of things — especially if the Democrats have not positioned themselves with a credible approach to Iraq and the wider national security issues facing the country.

There is an opportunity now for Democrats, and Americans will be listening — but they need to articulate a concrete endgame policy, and it would have to include at least three components:

First, a detailed blueprint with a fixed withdrawal date tied to a negotiation with Iraqi factions on a federal solution tied to a military redeployment plan to contain the inevitable spillover from Iraq.

Second, a commitment by the next president to impose a stiff tariff on all imported crude oil, to make sure we become less dependent on what is sure to be a more unstable Middle East as we leave Iraq. And third, a plan to deal with the broader terrorist challenge. Set a date. Set a price. That will get people's attention.

Democratic candidates have been talking about health care and other important issues, but the overriding foreign policy message that still comes across from them to many Americans, argues Mr. Rothkopf, is that Democrats are simply "anti-Bush, antiwar and antitrade." Be careful: despite the mess Mr. Bush has made in the world, or maybe because of it, Americans will not hand the keys to a Democrat who does not convey a "gut" credibility on national security.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Joe Btfsplk9/16/2007 3:54:57 PM
   of 784807
 
The tragic consequences of income disparity:

theonion.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: D. Long9/16/2007 4:01:15 PM
   of 784807
 
What a difference an election makes for the French. Looks like the Germans are playing the sanctions - avoid UN sanctions while encouraging "unilateral" sanctions against Iran.

BBC

Last Updated: Sunday, 16 September 2007, 19:29 GMT 20:29 UK

France warning of war with Iran

Mr Kouchner has sounded the alarm over Iran's nuclear programme
French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner says the world should prepare for war over Iran's nuclear programme.

"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," Mr Kouchner said in an interview on French TV and radio.

Mr Kouchner said negotiations with Iran should continue "right to the end", but an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose "a real danger for the whole world".

Iran has consistently denied it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons but intends to carry on enriching uranium.

Mr Kouchner also said a number of large French companies had been asked not to tender for business in Iran.

EU sanctions

Bushehr nuclear reactor
Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful

"We are not banning French companies from submitting. We have advised them not to. These are private companies."

"But I think that it has been heard and we are not the only ones to have done this."

He said France wanted the European Union to prepare sanctions against Iran.

"We have decided that while negotiations are continuing to prepare eventual sanctions outside the ambit of UN sanctions. Our good friends, the Germans, suggested that," he said.

Until now the Security Council of the United Nations has imposed economic sanctions on Iran, but did not allow for military action.

The United States has not ruled out a military attack against Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10