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 (71447)	9/2/2009 3:12:05 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 224718

Ouch!

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (71447)	9/2/2009 3:18:07 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224718

Rasmussen has Obambi at 45% and Zogby at 42%. CBS has him at 40% for his healthcare

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (71447)	9/2/2009 9:23:13 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224718

Liberal Lies About National Health Care: Third in a Series (Commemorative Plates On Sale Now!) by Ann Coulter (more by this author) Posted 09/02/2009 ET Updated 09/02/2009 ET (9) If you like Medicare, you'll love national health care, which will just extend Medicare's benefits to everyone. Hey -- I have an idea: How about we make everyone in America a multimillionaire by pulling Bernie Madoff out of prison and asking him to invest all our money! Both Medicare and Bernie Madoff's investment portfolio are bankrupt because they operate on a similar financial model known as a "Ponzi scheme." These always seem to run fabulously well -- until the money runs out. Not only is Medicare bankrupt, but it is extremely limited in whom and what it covers. If Medicare were a private insurer, it would be illegal in many states for failing to cover hearing aids, podiatry, acupuncture, chiropractic care, marriage counseling, aromatherapy and gender reassignment surgery. Moreover, Medicare payments aren't enough to pay the true cost of those medical services it does cover. With Medicare undercutting payments to hospitals and doctors for patients 65 and older, what keeps the American medical system afloat are private individuals who are not covered by Medicare paying full freight (and then some). That's why you end up with a $10 aspirin on your hospital bill. National health care will eliminate everything outside of Medicare, which is the only thing that allows Medicare to exist. Obviously, therefore, it's preposterous for Democrats to say national health care will merely extend Medicare to the entire population. This would be like claiming you're designing an apartment building in which every apartment will be a penthouse. Everyone likes the penthouses, so why not have a building in which every apartment is a penthouse? It doesn't work: What makes the penthouse the penthouse is all the other floors below. An "all-penthouse" building is a blueprint that could make sense only to someone who has never run a business and has zero common sense, i.e., a Democrat. (10) National health care won't cover illegal aliens -- as the president has twice claimed in recent radio appearances. Technically, what Obama said is that the bill isn't "designed" to give health insurance to illegal aliens. (That bill, the "Health Insurance for Illegal Aliens Act of 2009," was still being drafted by Ted Kennedy at the time of his death, may he rest in peace.) But unless the various government bureaucracies dispensing health care are specifically required by law to ask about citizenship status, illegals will be covered. We can't even get employers and police to inquire about citizenship status, but liberals assure us that doctors will? And by the way -- as with the abortion exclusion -- the Democrats expressly rejected amendments that would have required proof of residency status to receive national health care. Still not convinced? Day after day, The New York Times has been neurotically asserting that national health care won't cover illegal aliens (without ever explaining how precisely it will exclude illegal aliens). So far, just this week, these Kim Jong Il-style pronouncements have appeared in the Treason Times: -- "Illegal immigrants will be covered. (Myth)" -- Katharine Q. Seelye, "Myth vs. Fact vs. Other," The New York Times, Sept. 2, 2009 -- "(Sen. Jim DeMint) fueled speculation that a health care overhaul would cover illegal immigrants, although specific language says it would not." -- Katharine Q. Seelye, "Fighting Health Care Overhaul, and Proud of It," The New York Times, Aug. 31, 2009 -- "'Page 50: All non-U.S. citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services.' ... The falsehoods include (that italic statement)." -- Michael Mason, "Vetting Claims in a Memo," The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2009 -- "But that would not help illegal immigrants. Contrary to some reports, they would not be eligible for any new health coverage under any of the health overhaul plans circulating in Congress." -- Duff Wilson, "Race, Ethnicity and Care," The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2009 The last time the Times engaged in such frantic perseveration about a subject was when the paper was repeatedly insisting that Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong had a solid case against the Duke lacrosse players. By August 2006, every single person in the United States, including the stripper, knew the stripper's claim of "gang rape" was a lie. That was when Duff Wilson -- quoted above -- co-wrote the Times' infamous cover story on the Duke case, titled: "Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers." No answers! (11) Obama has dropped his demand for the ironically titled "public option" (i.e., government-run health care), which taxpayers will not have an "option" to pay for or not. Liberals never, ever drop a heinous idea; they just change the name. "Abortion" becomes "choice," "communist" becomes "progressive," "communist dictatorship" becomes "people's democratic republic" and "Nikita Khrushchev" becomes "Barack Obama." It doesn't matter if liberals start calling national health care a "chocolate chip puppy" or "ice cream sunset" -- if the government is subsidizing it, then the government calls the shots. And the moment the government gets its hands on the controls, it will be establishing death panels, forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions and illegal aliens, rationing care and then demanding yet more government control when partial government control creates a mess. Which happens to be exactly what liberals are doing right now.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (71447)	9/2/2009 9:38:13 PM
From: lorne	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224718

Ken...is hussein obama a war monger? White House fears liberal war pressure By MIKE ALLEN \| 9/1/09 dyn.politico.com White House officials are increasingly worried liberal, anti-war Democrats will demand a premature end to the Afghanistan war before President Barack Obama can show signs of progress in the eight-year conflict, according to senior administration sources. These fears, which the officials have discussed on the condition of anonymity over the past few weeks, are rising fast after U.S. casualties hit record levels in July and August. The aides also expressed concern that Afghan election returns, still being tallied, will result in a narrow reelection for President Hamid Karzai that could result in qualms about his legitimacy — “Tehran II,” as one official put it, in reference to the disputed Iranian election. The result: some think Afghanistan — not health care — will be the issue that defines the early years of the Obama administration. “There’s no question that the drumbeat is going to get louder and louder on the left, and you’ll see some fall-off on the right,” said Matt Bennett of the think tank Third Way, the moderate voice of the progressive movement. “His supporters on the Hill are fighting a really serious political battle to keep the criticism under control.” The Afghanistan conflict, which has gotten relatively little attention in part because Obama talks far more often about domestic concerns, is roaring back to the top of the Obama agenda as Congress is about to return from weeks of meetings with often unhappy voters. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) last week called for a timetable to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan — the same tactic he and other war opponents used to build congressional support for forcing an end to the Iraq war. But Obama officials — including National Security Adviser James Jones and Defense Secretary Robert Gates — know the problem is much bigger than Feingold and timetables. They anticipate a growing number of anti-war liberals will call, with increasing force, for an end to the conflict when lawmakers return. Cost could become an issue, too. With deficits high, there will be heavy pressure on Obama to find savings somewhere in 2010 — and war critics see Afghanistan as a good place to start. George F. Will opened a new fissure among conservatives with a column Tuesday calling for the U.S. to pull all ground troops out of Afghanistan, on the theory on the French general Charles de Gaulle that genius “sometimes consists of knowing when to stop.” But it’s Democratic opposition that could force Obama to retreat on what he has called a "war of necessity." To try to salve critics, the administration has been developing a series of numerical indicators, scheduled to be sent to Capitol Hill by Sept. 24, that are designed to sharpen U.S. goals by measuring everything from civilian deployments to the proportion of the Afghan population that is secured. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told POLITICO: “We have to show the American people that all this effort, all these resources, all these lives are making a difference.” White House officials expect that a whole new national conversation about what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan, and how, will be prompted by recommendations for strategy adjustments that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, made in an assessment of the war that went to the Pentagon on Monday and is likely to be delivered to the White House in the next week. McChrystal held off from requesting additional troops in the assessment, but administration officials expect he will ask for at least 10,000 more soldiers and Marines later this fall, on top of the 20,000 additional troops Obama authorized in February and March. “Our point here is: Let’s see what’s working, and what’s not, and base it on the facts, not a gut instinct that most commanders have, that more is better,” a senior administration official said. “We’re prepared to shift and adjust, depending on what we see work. We need to let this strategy take hold, and see what we’re doing well, and if there are deficiencies, before coming in with any requests for additional resources.” Nevertheless, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said at Monday’s briefing: “I think there's broad agreement that for many years our effort in Afghanistan has been under-resourced politically, militarily, economically.” Liberal House members have already made it clear they will balk at future funding requests, but now the administration is trying to make sure that leaders and key committee chairmen don’t also lose their stomach for the conflict after two months in a row of record U.S. casualties since the 2001 invasion. “It doesn’t need to be victory in 12 months to 18 months — that’s not realistic,” a top administration official said. “But the American people needed to have a sense that we are moving in the right direction. We need to bring about noticeable change on the ground. We have to start to show progress.” Bennett, of Third Way, said Americans need to recognize that the situation Obama inherited in Afghanistan “is as bad as the economy was — heading off the rails in just as dramatic a way.” “In both cases, the president took a bunch of action very quickly to get back on track, and it will take time to show benefits,” Bennett said. But unlike with the economy, there are few signs of “green shoots” in Afghanistan. In August, U.S. deaths in Afghanistan passed 50 for the first month since the 2001 invasion, adding to administration worries about keeping key lawmakers on board. A senior official said the White House always “knew it was going to get worse before it got better.” “These casualties, as gut-wrenching as they are, are not a surprise to anyone,” the official said. “When you put in 20,000 additional forces and you deploy them to regions of the country that had been untouched by coalition forces for a long time — had been basically ceded to the Taliban — it’s not at all unexpected that that would then result in difficult confrontations, and American and coalition lives lost. But, ultimately, by going after the Taliban in these strongholds, it’ll turn the tide in those areas.”

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (71447)	9/3/2009 6:44:22 AM
From: TideGlider	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224718

Gallup is bogus as you have reported in the past. Kenneth says only Rasmussen can be trusted.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (71447)	9/3/2009 8:48:01 AM
From: lorne	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224718

Gees ken..this has got to be true..cnn preaches only your liberal gospel CNN Poll: Independents disapprove of Obama Posted: September 1st, 2009 From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com WASHINGTON (CNN) — A majority of independent voters disapprove of how Barack Obama's handling his job as president, according to a new national poll. Fifty-three percent of independents questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say they disapprove of how Obama's handling his duties in the White House, with 43 percent in approval. That result marks the first time in a CNN poll that a majority of independents give the president's performance a thumbs-down. Obama's overall approval rating of 53 percent is down 3 points from a month ago, and down 8 points from June. Forty-five percent of those questioned disapprove, up 5 points from a month ago and up 8 points from June. According to the poll, nine in 10 Democrats approve of the job Obama's doing, up three points from a month ago, with 15 percent of Republicans approving, down 8 points. "Obama won a majority of the vote among independents last year, and that helped put him in the White House," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Losing their support makes it more difficult for Obama to govern from the center." Broken down by issues, the president still gets majority support on foreign affairs and terrorism, but a majority now disapprove of how he has handled health care, taxes, the economy and the budget deficit. Is the fight over health care responsible for the downturn in Obama's numbers? "Yes, in part, but his standing on some other issues has taken an even bigger tumble," adds Holland. "Among all Americans, his rating on health care has dropped 13 points since March. Compare that to his 16 point drop on the deficit and 17 point dip on taxes and it looks like there is growing discontent with Obama's overall domestic agenda — not just his health care policy." According to the poll, Obama's approval rating on how he is handling the war in Afghanistan also fell 18 points since March. The survey also indicates that 37 percent of Americans think the media has treated Obama fairly, down 18 points from February. One in four say the media has been too critical of the president, up seven points from February and 36 percent say the media has not been critical enough, up 10 points. The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted Friday through Monday, with 1,010 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (71447)	9/3/2009 8:49:22 AM
From: lorne	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224718

New poll shows Congress' popularity dropping Sep 2 12:34 PM US/Eastern By LARRY MARGASAK Associated Press Writer breitbart.com WASHINGTON (AP) - Slightly more than one-third of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Democratic-led Congress, a new poll said Wednesday in a clear warning to the majority party. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press said the 37 percent expressing a positive opinion represents a decline of 13 points since April. The favorable percentage is one of the lowest in more than two decades of Pew surveys—if not the lowest, the poll said. The previous low was 40 percent in January, but the difference is not statistically significant because of the margin of error. The overall percentage wasn't the only warning for Democrats. The poll found a major drop in intentions to vote Democratic in next year's midterm elections. Forty-five percent of respondents said they would vote for a Democratic candidate in their district or lean Democratic, while 44 percent said they would vote or lean Republican. Four years ago the numbers favored Democrats 52 percent to 40 percent, as the party went on to gain control of Congress. The bad news for Democrats isn't a bonanza for Republicans. The survey found that favorable ratings for the GOP remain low at 40 percent. Most of the shift in voting intentions occurred among political independents, who backed Democrats by a wide margin previously but now say they would back Republicans in their districts by 43 to 38 percent. On specific issues, a separate Pew survey showed mixed results—with Democrats trusted more but with their leads narrowing. Democrats are viewed as more associated with honest and ethical governance, concern with average Americans and having better candidates. However 34 percent said Republicans could manage the federal government as well as Democrats, compared to 38 percent who favored Democrats. Two years ago, Democrats led by 44 to 32 percent. The survey covered 11 policy issues, and Democrats held significant leads on seven. The parties were viewed about equally on handling the budget deficit, taxes and immigration, while Republicans had a slight lead on only one issue, handling terrorist threats at home. The Aug. 20-27 survey on opinions of Congress contacted 2,003 adults nationwide, with a margin of error of plus-or-minus 2.5 percent. The Aug. 27-30 issues survey contacted 1,005 adults and had a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.5 percent.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (71447)	9/3/2009 9:47:15 AM
From: jlallen	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224718

Bad news for Obambi... Zogby: Obama Approval Plummets to 42 Percent President Barack Obama's job approval rating is down to 42%, with a decline in approval from Democrats the leading factor. The latest Zogby Interactive poll of 4,518 likely voters conducted from August 28-31 found 48% disapprove and 42% approve of the job Obama is doing. The poll found 75% of Democrats approve of Obama's performance, a drop of 13 points among Democrats from an interactive poll done July 21-24 of this year. That same poll found 48% of all likely voters approving of Obama's job performance, and 49% disapproving. In the most recent poll, 8% of Republicans and 37% of Independents approve of Obama's job performance. Both are down slightly from six weeks ago; two points among Republicans and three among Independents. The tables below compare changes from July 24 to Aug. 31 in Obama's job approval among some of the groups who were Obama's strongest supporters in the November election; Democrats Aug. 31 July 24 Approve 75% 88% Disapprove 13% 10% Not Sure 12% 2% Liberals Aug. 31 July 24 Approve 86% 95% Disapprove 4% 4% Not Sure 10% 2% African-Americans Aug. 31 July 24 Approve 74% 83% Disapprove 21% 17% Not Sure 5% .4% Ages 18-29 Aug. 31 July 24 Approve 41% 59% Disapprove 41% 38% Not Sure 19% 3% In the time between the two aforementioned polls, Zogby conducted a similar interactive survey from Aug. 18-20. That poll found 45% of all likely voters approving of Obama's job performance and 51% disapproving. So Obama is up very slightly overall from 10 days earlier. The Aug. 28-31 poll also found that: # 17% give Obama an excellent job rating, 25% rate him good, 16% fair and 41% poor. Combining the two highest and lowest rankings shows 42% rating Obama positively and 57% negatively. (This is the standard Zogby International has used for many years in measuring job performance.) # Likely voters are closely split on whether they have a favorable opinion of Obama, with 50% favorable and 48% unfavorable. Democrats are more positive about Obama personally than they are of his job performance, with 85% rating him favorably. # 52% of all likely voters are proud to have Obama as President, and 35% are ashamed. The percentage of those proud is unchanged from six weeks ago. # A majority of likely voters (53%) believe the U.S. headed in the wrong direction, with 38% saying right direction. The margin of error for the poll is +/- 1.5 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.