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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (30433)	6/10/2008 12:52:12 PM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 224750

good for them! It was a stupid idea!

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (30433)	6/10/2008 12:56:15 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224750

Obama Hussein isn’t eligible to be President We already know that Jihadist Obama HUSSEIN is not QUALIFIED to be the President, we now know that he is not ELIGIBLE to be President under American law. This is a great comment to a post over at Michelle Malkin’s blog: On June 10th, 2008 at 8:37 am, legendx3 said: Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. Natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986? . Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: “…If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai’i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years prior to Barack Obama’s birth, but after age 16. It doesn’t matter after . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18 in Hawai’i. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aformentioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Cizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office. * Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. * Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. Citzen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia. Now you can see why Obama’s aides stopped his speech about how we technically have more than 50 states, because it would have led to this discovery. This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. Election law. I think the Gov. Of California would be very insterested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without being a natural-born U.S. Citizen, and it would set precedence. Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days… DAWG! This guy really is about flaunting his illegal behavior in all of our faces, isn’t he? To: James Bowers who wrote (126144) 6/10/2008 12:24:35 PM From: TideGlider 1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) of 126156

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (30433)	6/10/2008 4:31:13 PM
From: DizzyG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

Just curious, Kenneth... But how, exactly, does a windfall profit tax reduce the price at the pump? More importantly...who gets the benefit of these alleged windfall profits? Is it the oil companies? Nope...these are publicly traded companies. So the windfall belongs to shareholders. Hmm...who are the shareholders? Have a look- In a report by Robert J. Shapiro, Bill Clinton's undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs, he states: "The data show that ownership of industry shares is broadly middle class, with the majority of industry shares held by institutional investors, often on behalf of millions of Americans through mutual funds, pension funds and individual retirement accounts." Interesting...so this windfall profit tax is really a tax on the middle class. Here is some more information for you to chew on. From the Shapiro study: * Almost 43 percent of oil and natural gas company shares are owned by mutual funds and asset management companies that have mutual funds. Mutual funds manage accounts for 55 million U.S. households with a median income of $68,700. * Twenty seven percent of shares are owned by other institutional investors like pension funds. In 2004, more than 2,600 pension funds run by federal, state and local governments held almost $64 billion in shares of U.S. oil and natural gas companies. These funds represent the major retirement security for the nation's current and retired soldiers, teachers, and police and fire personnel at every level of government. * Fourteen percent of shares are held in IRA and other personal retirement accounts. Forty five million U.S. households have IRA and other personal retirement accounts, with an average account value of just over $22,000. Here is your link to the study, Kenneth: energytomorrow.org I'm sure glad that Republicans had the good sense to stop this tax increase on the middle class. :) Diz-

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (30433)	6/10/2008 5:18:47 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 224750

Lets tax authors windfall profits. Speaking of Windfall Profits Barack Obama said yesterday that he wants to impose a "windfall profits tax" on American oil companies. This is a stupid idea, unless you want to reduce the supply of oil and thereby increase prices even further. But it did cause me to wonder why we don't have a windfall profits tax on authors. Think about it: it takes as much work to write a 300-page book that sells 1,000 copies as to write one that sells 1,000,000. Yet the former author is paid almost nothing, while the author who happens to write a best-seller gets rich. Where is the fairness in that? Besides, the oil companies need their profits to make huge capital investments in oil drilling equipment, ocean platforms, pipelines, and so on. What capital investment does an author need his windfall profits in order to make? A new pencil? An author could easily pay extra taxes on his windfall profits and have plenty of capital left over for his next book. A windfall profits tax on authors seems like a no-brainer. Coincidentally, Barack Obama's 2007 income of around $4.2 million came almost entirely from book royalties. Now, that's what I call a windfall! If authors' windfall profits are taxed at 90%, Obama can write a check to the Treasury for around $3.2 million. What do you say, Barack? Why not a windfall profits tax on authors? Posted by John powerlineblog.com