Sat, Nov 22, 2014, 5:08 AM EST - U.S. Markets closed


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd. Message Board

  • markox5 markox5 Oct 17, 2008 5:17 PM Flag

    Conservative newspapers endorse Obama

    Uh oh, looks like there is mutiny in the conservative ranks - how can they endorse this tax raising left wing liberal!

    Oh wait, they are media elite

    Yes two papers that have NEVER endorsed a democratic nominee - liberal rags!

    The Chicago Tribune is Democrat Barack Obama's hometown paper, so you might think its endorsement of him for president today is a no-brainer.

    Not so much. The paper's editorial board is conservative and this is what it said: "This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president." The paper first published in 1847, the Obama campaign says. Click here to read the Trib's reasoning.

    The Los Angeles Times also made history today by endorsing Obama. It has not endorsed a presidential candidate since Richard Nixon in 1972, and it has never before endorsed a Democrat.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • vpratt,

      lol...I like to think of them watching too, and shaking their heads, wondering what's happened to their noble vision for Democracy.

      I'm astonished, myself, by how little American citizens really know about how this country came to be, or that it's its promise of freedom and the pursuit of happiness is a feagile bargain, that will not last without vigilence and participation in securing the principles as they are laid out so elegantly in the Constitution.

      All great empires collapse - eventually. Some sooner than later. I'm hoping America gets a reprieve from the slippery slope of degregadation we're on. I think eight years of working together to regain our reputation and economic prosperity will save us - for at least another 200 years..-:)

    • Dummy. Quote all of them just to twist and mislead. Each and everyone of them was a deist. They would say exactly such a thing about Christianity. You show your ingnorance in a sad attempt to be intelligent.

    • You're a sad pathetic bigoted soul. It pains me to read a post like this...

      Some enlightening quotes from our founding fathers:

      "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak
      minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
      -- Jefferson in a letter to his nephew

      "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
      -- Jefferson

      "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
      -- Madison

      "Lighthouses are more useful than churches."
      -- Franklin

      "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
      -- Adams

      Over 200 years later science has changed our understanding of the world in unfathomable ways, yet our leaders and the likes of you insist on clinging onto mythology that our founding fathers soundly rejected centuries ago.

      May peace and knowledge find a way into your life.

    • You really are an ignorant man. You only want to argue. How do you know what the taliban's views consist of?

    • "Maybe it is just me, but if there is a god, I suspect we will be better off by letting he or she decide who to help."

      Now THAT's a concept that could work!!! Do you think we could pull that off? I wish it could be so. On the basis of interpretations of his/her will, we (mankind)have made quite a grand mess of things.

    • No, never said the Republican party was the party of God, dufuss. I said, he chose race above God. He chooses to support infatacide over God, amongst other issues.

      You people think you are so smart. Your own intelligence brings you down. You twist and contort the good of this world and the heavens, to the point where you think evil is good. You support infantacide, euthanasia, homosexuality, sodomy and say it is good. That is the truth of the matter. Yes, Im' out with it. You are at the very most, pitiful. I hope one of these days you will come around and figure out which way is up and which is down.

    • Well, I say that Obama is not associated with the "merchants of poverty" as you call them, Jackson and Sharpton. Don't you remember when Jackson said he wanted to cut Obama's cojones off? That was just this summer, too.

      I think Obama is much closer to a technocrat, and will govern accordingly. Think the new black mayors (not Kwame! not! Kwame!). Think Adrian Fenty in DC. Corey Booker in Newark. If I have a problem with Obama, it's actually that he's too corporate, too go-along.

      Back in his law school days, he made it a point to befriend the Federalist Society types, and when he became Harvard Law Review Editor, he put three of them in powerful positions, enough to really pi$$ off those who thought having a black review editor would mean all the plum jobs would go to other minorities. He could have just done that in the Jesse Jackson mode - it was the mid 80s and that was the expected MO.

      Then in Chicago, he didn't really find his political legs until he started building a multiracial coalition. He couldn't make it there solely as a "black" politician. This was after he lost to the former Black Panther for Congress. The south Chicago people didn't think he was black enough, which was a common sentiment early in the presidential primary campaign (how easily we forget...), when many black people (I talked to plenty here in New York) still backed Hillary. And, if you ride the bus in certain areas here in NYC, you'll still hear this stuff, amusingly enough.

      My point is, I know you think he's a bombthrower, but his whole political life is based on a rather cautious multiracial coalition building strategy, not the identity/grievance politics of Jackson and Sharpton. It's how he's won. It's where his bread is buttered. And it's going to determine how he governs.

      I have been a supporter since day one of his campaign, and I've followed his strategy very closely. He essentially believes that the things that need fixing - health care, the other entitlement programs, our broken foreign policy strategy, the need for alternative energy, and, yes, climate change (McCain agrees, despite a cold year or two) - are fairly obvious to enough people of both parties, and that the current red-blue trench warfare partisan stalemate is the essential thing holding up solutions. So he believes that by building a coalition - getting people like Colin Powell on board - he can break up the stalemate and hit the political jackpot.

      So this idea that he's going to be some radical is just ridiculous, since his entire strategy (and really his political existence) hinges on getting disparate groups to agree with one another.

    • "I have never seen so many idiots and racists than within the democrat party. To think that 95% of Blacks in America can not see beyond the color black is more racist and is the reason why Obama will further polarize our nation after his policies fail to even help his own constituents."

      Does the term "Southern Strategy" mean anything to you? There's racial polarization along partisan lines for a reason, and that's because Nixon and Reagan and subsequent Republicans found it a winning strategy, and used it consistently and often effectively.

      90% of African-Americans voted for Kerry, so I guess that extra 5% really does indicate that they only care about skin color. Yes, a sad situation indeed.

      I'd contend that your party (assuming you vote Republican) has done a miserable job attracting black votes! You've shot yourself in the foot, historically. McCain realized it, to his credit. Too bad for his party he couldn't continue to tour areas like New Orleans and Mississippi. Too bad for them a potential black republican voter couldn't have seen more diversity at the Republican Convention - they might have been more able to envision themselves as wanted by the party.

      I'd also contend that, at least since the late 90s, a good chunk of the black vote has been yours to lose. For all that republicans like to talk about welfare queens like it's still 1986, you will find no other group in America more interested in successful business ownership, entrepreneurship, being tough on crime, self-improvement, and self-sufficiency than African-Americans. You will find few other groups in America with as strong a bond between church and community. Along with the black evangelicals and "prosperity gospel" believers, even in the uber-"scary" Rev. Wright's church, when you look at what the supposed "hate group" actually does, it's all about helping kids do well in school, and helping community development (which, if you need a translation, means starting businesses). There's your best example of faith-based initiative. But no, they're all a bunch of terrorists, you don't want their vote.

      You guys should have been jumping all over this. In truth, it would be healthier for the black community if both parties competed for their votes. But instead you guys are coming with this weak "reverse racism" stuff. Shooting yourself in the foot for this go-round too. As your man used to say, "There you go again..."

    • Sirf,
      My problem with that scenario is that Iraq will blow up in the next year and force our military into a firestorm (unless we don't mind gas rationing on a scale with mad max). And frankly, I'm not too enthusiastic about having my daughter have to register with selective service. I did 23 years of time and it was rough...I wouldn't want to see my own daughter have to go through anything like that against her will.

      da schmuck

    • Crozet,
      If Obama doesn't increase my taxes and he manages to corral corporations from outsourcing...I'll accept the increased cost of goods due to production by American workers and will welcome his methods...but there's far too much at stake for the "merchants of poverty" for any of that above pipe dream to come to fruition. Even record cold temperatures don't seem to faze the global warmers and their greedy fundraising snowball. What in the world will come of jackson and sharpton?!

      da schmuck

    • View More Messages
0.1618-0.0002(-0.12%)Nov 21 3:56 PMEST

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
GameStop Corp.
NYSEFri, Nov 21, 2014 4:04 PM EST
Exa Corporation
NasdaqGMFri, Nov 21, 2014 3:59 PM EST
AVG Technologies N.V.
NYSEFri, Nov 21, 2014 4:02 PM EST