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 (60730)	3/7/2009 5:15:37 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224724

I how Obama fails I don't want the USA to become another Cuba

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (60730)	3/7/2009 5:16:26 PM
From: MJ	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224724

Dirty politics!! Is this organization tax-exempt? Is it a legal organization? What's their status-----is it an arm of the DNC or of Obama----like Emily's List, backed by unnamed money backers that doublte contributions to the women who contribute to that list? They never say Looks like it is acting like a Political Action Committee. mj

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (60730)	3/7/2009 6:21:15 PM
From: lorne	7 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224724

Ken...let me get this straight the White House..obama..the president is taking on Rush? The president of The United States of America is so petty that he picks a fight with a radio announcer? President Bush would never be this petty...with all the garbage you and dem leaders piled on Him he never stooped as low as this obama pres. The economy is crashing and obama is making it worse and he wants to fight with a radio announcer...bet you are very proud?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (60730)	3/8/2009 8:41:54 AM
From: tonto	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224724

The agenda is clear, and we shall see through their disingeuous campaign. I think their plan is stupid. Thanks for pointing that out.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (60730)	3/8/2009 9:29:53 AM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224724

So do we tie Obama to Oprah now? What kind of nonsense are you discussing? Over the deep end it seems.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (60730)	3/8/2009 11:02:35 AM
From: lorne	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224724

Rep. Grayson won't hold his tongue By JOSH KRAUSHAAR 3/6/09 politico.com The standard playbook for new members of Congress includes this time-honored piece of advice: Lay low, focus on constituent service and avoid drawing too much attention to yourself. But Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) hasn’t paid much attention to the old adage about being seen and not heard. Just two months into his first term, he’s already making a name for himself with a shoot-from-the-lip style and an ideological edge that some argue is ill-suited for the competitive, suburban Orlando seat that he represents. On Wednesday, Grayson weighed in on the dispute between the Obama administration and Rush Limbaugh, calling the conservative talk show host “a sorry excuse for a human being.” In January, he referred to Limbaugh as a “has-been hypocrite loser” who “was more lucid when he was a drug addict.” The tart-tongued freshman also skewered Wall Street CEOs with sharp questioning at a recent Financial Services Committee meeting — video of which he uploaded to YouTube — and, in a much-noted personnel move, hired prominent liberal blogger and political consultant Matt Stoller to be a senior policy adviser on his congressional staff. During the past election, Stoller led efforts to recruit liberal primary candidates to challenge moderate Democratic members of Congress throughout the country. All of this has earned Grayson a national following of progressive admirers, including prominent congressional candidate Darcy Burner of Washington, who made a late January fundraising appeal praising Grayson for “scaring some of the people who got us into this financial mess.” “It’s who the guy is; it’s not like he’s changed at all since he’s been elected,” said Democratic pollster Dave Beatty. “It’s who he is. He’s outspoken, and he’s serving the same way he ran.” In dozens of congressional districts across the nation, Grayson’s approach would ensure a long career in office. The trouble is, Florida’s 8th District isn’t one of them. While Barack Obama, by all estimates, carried the district in 2008, George W. Bush won by comfortable margins in 2000 and 2004. As recently as 2004, then-incumbent Rep. Ric Keller (R-Fla.) won reelection with 61 percent of the vote. It’s the kind of competitive district where Grayson’s talk of beating “swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks” might not resonate the way it would elsewhere. “For someone in Congress, he’s really out there. He comes across as a total ideological flake,” said Florida Republican media consultant John Dowless. “He’s tacking hard left, and he’s trying to become the Robert Wexler of Congress, but Wexler’s in a district where you can do that and get away with it. Grayson’s not in that type of district.”

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (60730)	3/8/2009 11:09:31 AM
From: SGJ	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224724

Shows you the fascism behind the socialists movement here and its going to continue. Do they ask Castle to vote the conscious of his constituents? No, they remove that link entirely. They replace it with him being led by Rush Limbaugh and voting his way. Castle, as do all Congressmen, represent thier districts, not Limbaugh. Criticizing a sitting Congressman outside of an election period for his vote is for his constituents to do, not some Socialist activist group. Did AFUC get some stimulus money?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (60730)	3/8/2009 11:47:02 AM
From: lorne	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224724

Hey ken...maybe if barrak hussein obama cut out the late nite money wasting parties in the White House he would'nt be so tired. Barack Obama 'too tired' to give proper welcome to Gordon Brown Barack Obama's offhand approach to Gordon Brown's Washington visit last week came about because the president was facing exhaustion over America's economic crisis and is unable to focus on foreign affairs, the Sunday Telegraph has been told. By Tim Shipman in Washington 07 Mar 2009 telegraph.co.uk Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest. British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister. But Washington figures with access to Mr Obama's inner circle explained the slight by saying that those high up in the administration have had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship. Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president's surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk. A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama's inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to "even fake an interest in foreign policy". A British official conceded that the furore surrounding the apparent snub to Mr Brown had come as a shock to the White House. "I think it's right to say that their focus is elsewhere, on domestic affairs. A number of our US interlocutors said they couldn't quite understand the British concerns and didn't get what that was all about." The American source said: "Obama is overwhelmed. There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda. "That was the gamble these guys made at the front end of this presidency and I think they're finding it a hard thing to do everything." British diplomats insist the visit was a success, with officials getting the chance to develop closer links with Mr Obama's aides. They point out that the president has agreed to meet the prime minister for further one-to-one talks in London later this month, ahead of the G20 summit on April 2. But they concede that the mood music of the event was at times strained. Mr Brown handed over carefully selected gifts, including a pen holder made from the wood of a warship that helped stamp out the slave trade - a sister ship of the vessel from which timbers were taken to build Mr Obama's Oval Office desk. Mr Obama's gift in return, a collection of Hollywood film DVDs that could have been bought from any high street store, looked like the kind of thing the White House might hand out to the visiting head of a minor African state. Mr Obama rang Mr Brown as he flew home, in what many suspected was an attempt to make amends. The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key. The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." The apparent lack of attention to detail by the Obama administration is indicative of what many believe to be Mr Obama's determination to do too much too quickly. In addition to passing the largest stimulus package and the largest budget in US history, Mr Obama is battling a plummeting stock market, the possible bankruptcy of General Motors, and rising unemployment. He has also begun historic efforts to achieve universal healthcare, overhaul education and begin a green energy revolution all in his first 50 days in office. The Sunday Telegraph understands that one of Mr Obama's most prominent African American backers, whose endorsement he spent two years cultivating, has told friends that he detects a weakness in Mr Obama's character. "The one real serious flaw I see in Barack Obama is that he thinks he can manage all this," the well-known figure told a Washington official, who spoke to this newspaper. "He's underestimating the flood of things that will hit his desk." A Democratic strategist, who is friends with several senior White House aides, revealed that the president has regularly appeared worn out and drawn during evening work sessions with senior staff in the West Wing and has been forced to make decisions more quickly than he is comfortable. He said that on several occasions the president has had to hurry back from eating dinner with his family in the residence and then tucking his daughters in to bed, to conduct urgent government business. Matters are not helped by the pledge to give up smoking. "People say he looks tired more often than they're used to," the strategist said. "He's still calm, but there have been flashes of irritation when he thinks he's being pushed to make a decision sooner than he wants to make it. He looks like he needs a cigarette." Mr Obama was teased by the New York Times on Thursday in a front page story which claimed to have detected a greater prevalence of grey hairs since he entered the White House. The Democratic strategist stressed that Mr Obama's plight was nothing new. "He knew it was going to be tough; he said as much throughout the campaign. But there's a difference between knowing it is going to be tough and facing the sheer relentless pressure of it all."

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (60730)	3/8/2009 1:33:34 PM
From: HPilot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224724

This will only make Rush more people tune into Rush. And many of them will then realize that they are lying about Rush and Obama.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (60730)	3/9/2009 3:12:46 PM
From: DizzyG	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224724

This is just another George Sorros splinter group, Kenneth. So is this Obama's attempt to change the subject? Ever the useful idiot Kenneth. LOL! Diz-

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (60730)	3/10/2009 2:25:33 AM
From: Neeka	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224724

h/t Brumar Majority of Democrats want Bush to FAIL - 2006 Posted by: Sister Toldjah on September 24, 2006 at 6:36 pm Craig Charney, former pollster for Bill Clinton, writes in today's NYPost (emphasis added): A recent Fox News poll gets at the disturbing truth: A majority of Democrats say they want to see the president FAIL. Such deep hatred is bad news for the country at a time when America needs to bridge the partisan divide. It's also bad news for the Democrats, who risk repeating the Republicans' mistakes of a decade ago, driving away the centrists they need to regain power or going too far if they do manage to win. Fox's question was revealing: "Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?" Democrats said "not," 51 percent to 40 percent - where the public at large wanted success by almost two to one. [See page 4 of this document for the poll in question.--ST] In other words, the rage extends way beyond the lip-pierced Deaniacs, aging hippies and other fringes of the Democratic Party. Lots of otherwise sensible people - suburban moms, hospital orderlies, schoolteachers, big-hatted church ladies - detest George W. Bush. When these Democrats say they want Bush to FAIL, might this mean that they simply reject what they see as his far-right religious and corporate agenda? If so, it's hard to see why independents - hardly right-wing zealots - hope he succeeds by 63 percent to 34 percent. Sadly, much of the Democratic Party wants to see this president crash and burn. In fact, the fury against to Bush has reached unprecedented levels, even compared to the animosity among Republicans to his predecessor. Not long ago, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that "strong disapproval" of Bush was 10 points higher than that recorded for Bill Clinton at any point during his presidency, including his impeachment. (That wasn't during a war, either.) Betsy Newmark nails it: Remember, for better or for worse, George W. Bush will be our president for more than two years. Hoping that he'll FAIL is really hoping that America will FAIL. These people detest Bush so much that they don't mind America getting a setback across the globe if it will weaken Bush. Yep, that's a point I made in this post and this one as well. I wrote in the latter post: All of this [deliberate distortion of the facts] is done in an effort by the Nutrootians to put pressure on Congress to get Bush to pull out of Iraq, because in their minds a defeat for Bush in Iraq is a defeat for - well, Bush. While that would be true, what they ignore is that a defeat for Bush in Iraq would not only be a defeat for him, but a defeat for America in the war on terrorism as well - but the ends justifies the means to the far left, so distorting (lying, really) the facts is not a big deal to them, even if it comes at the price of the United States losing face in Iraq. Priority one is getting Bush to admit to "failure" in Iraq and following that a shameful pullout of our forces there. That would be a feather in the caps of the hate-Bush cultists in the Democratic party who see nothing wrong sacrificing our national security at the altar of partisan politics, even as the enemy still fights for the control and submission of the west (more on that here). Think about that for a minute. Losing in Iraq would = failure for President Bush - and for America. But as the poll Charney referenced indicates, that dosen't matter to those who hate Bush right now apparently more than they love their country. It's a very disturbing throught. What's happening is that you've got the same people who have, for the last five years, accused Republicans of 'putting party over country' because conservatives have steadfastly supported the President's efforts on the war on terror, in essence being the pot calling the kettle black. They have, quite simply, put their party ahead of their country, and they've been doing it ever since the President "stole" the 2000 elections. They've never, ever gotten over that. That's why you saw so many prominent Democrats echo the theme that Lieberman was "subverting the Democratic process" by running as an Independent: those Democrats wanted to stir up old fears of 'another stolen election!!!!' It's why you see some Democrats engaging in sleazy campaign tactics in an effort to try and win over voters. If you're a Republican, next time you come across a Democrat who accuses you of putting party before country, please make use of this poll. 51% of Democrats want the President to FAIL. 9% "don't know", which is almost as bad as saying "yes, I do want him to FAIL." Who would even consider such a thing? The left, that's who - and not just the far left, anymore. sistertoldjah.com