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 (73045)	10/2/2009 1:06:21 PM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224748

That is a damned LIE! It is like 41 for and 53 against or something similar.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (73045)	10/2/2009 1:14:17 PM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224748

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Friday, October 02, 2009 Email to a Friend ShareThis.Advertisement The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 (see trends). Looking at the numbers on a Month-by-Month basis, the President’s ratings stabilized in September. Thirty-six percent (36%) of Americans say it was a good idea for the President to help Chicago’s Olympic pitch. Forty-three percent (43%) hold the opposite view. Government ethics and corruption has inched ahead of the economy as a top voter concern. Eighty-three percent (83%) say the ethics issues are Very Important while 82% say the same about the economy. Health care is next on the list at 73%. Just 49% believe the economy will be stronger in five years. That’s down from 58% in July and 64% at the beginning of the year. In an early look at the 2010 Delaware Senate race, Republican Mike Castle leads Democrat Beau Biden. However, if Castle doesn’t run, Biden has the edge. The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter and Facebook. Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-one (51%) disapprove. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on our Obama By the Numbers page. (More Below) Eighty-three percent (83%) say that all legislation should be posted online and available for everyone to read before Congress votes on it. Of those who want the information available, 64% say legislation should be posted in final form at least two weeks before a vote. When it comes to health care, just 22% believe most Members of Congress will understand what’s in the legislation before they vote on it. In the Virginia Governor’s race, Republican Bob McDonnell has opened a nine-point lead. Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln is struggling in her bid for re-election and trails all potential challengers. In California, former Governor Jerry Brown (D) leads all challengers in a bid to reclaim his old job. In Arizona, incumbent Governor Jan Brewer (R) trails Attorney General Terry Goddard (D) by seven. Republicans have a very slight edge on the Generic Congressional Ballot. It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. (More Below) Scott Rasmussen has recently had three analysis columns published in the Wall Street Journal. The most recent was on health care. Earlier columns were on the President's approval ratings and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you'd like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott's favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe. Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated polling techniques. While some of our competitors diss the approach and prefer their own operator-assisted technology, Pollster.com founder Mark Blumenthal noted that “independent analyses from the National Council on Public Polls, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the Pew Research Center, the Wall Street Journal and FiveThirtyEight.com have all shown that the horse-race numbers produced by automated telephone surveys did at least as well as those from conventional live-interviewer surveys in predicting election outcomes.” Additionally, an analysis by Pollster.com partner Charles Franklin “found that despite identically sized three-day samples, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is less variable than Gallup.” During Election 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll was the least volatile of all those tracking the race. That stability is one reason that Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com said that the Rasmussen tracking poll “would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island." A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote. In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. (see our 2004 results). Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters--is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members. Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past five years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased. Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 37.2% Democrats, 32.7% Republicans, and 30.1% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (73045)	10/2/2009 2:24:59 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224748

odumba wasting taxpayers US$$$$ gasoline on airforce one: Chicago Is Rejected in First Round of Voting By JULIET MACUR and LYNN ZINSER 17 minutes ago The Olympics were awarded to a South American city for the first time, when the International Olympic Committee voted for Rio de Janeiro on Friday.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (73045)	10/2/2009 2:52:22 PM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 224748

THE EGO HAS LANDED WORLD REJECTS OBAMA: CHICAGO OUT IN FIRST ROUND

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (73045)	10/2/2009 3:08:29 PM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224748

Kenneth, we have to stop the universe from expanding. It could cause catastrophe on earth in the future. Ya think higher taxes will do it?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (73045)	10/2/2009 3:09:15 PM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 224748

The myth of consensus on climate change America needs a national commission appointed to assess the evidence about climate change, writes columnist George F. Will. Alarmists will fight this because the first casualty would be the carefully cultivated and media-reinforced myth of consensus. By George Will Syndicated columnist Plateau in Temperatures Adds Difficulty to Task Of Reaching a Solution — New York Times, Sept. 23 WASHINGTON — In this headline on a New York Times story about difficulties confronting people alarmed about global warming, note the word "plateau." It dismisses the unpleasant — to some people — fact that global warming is maddeningly (to the same people) slow to vindicate their apocalyptic warnings about it. The "difficulty" — the "intricate challenge," the Times says — is "building momentum" for carbon reduction "when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years." That was in the Times' first paragraph. In the fifth paragraph, a "few years" became "the next decade or so," according to Mojib Latif, a German "prizewinning climate and ocean scientist" who campaigns constantly to promote policies combating global warming. Actually, Latif has said he anticipates "maybe even two" decades in which temperatures cool. But stay with the Times' "decade or so." By asserting that the absence of significant warming since 1998 is a mere "plateau," not warming's apogee, the Times assures readers who are alarmed about climate change that the paper knows the future and that warming will continue: Do not despair, bad news will resume. The Times reported that "scientists" — all of them? — say the 11 years of temperature stability has "no bearing," none, on long-term warming. Some scientists say "cool stretches are inevitable." Others say there may be growth of Arctic sea ice, but the growth will be "temporary." According to the Times, however, "scientists" say that "trying to communicate such scientific nuances to the public — and to policymakers — can be frustrating." The Times says "a short-term trend gives ammunition to skeptics of climate change." Actually, what makes skeptics skeptical is the accumulating evidence that theories predicting catastrophe from man-made climate change are impervious to evidence. The theories are unfalsifiable, at least in the "short run." And the "short run" is defined as however many decades must pass until the evidence begins to fit the hypotheses. The Washington Post recently reported the theory of a University of Virginia professor emeritus who thinks that, many millennia ago, primitive agriculture — burning forests, creating methane-emitting rice paddies, etc. — produced enough greenhouse gases to warm the planet at least a degree. The theory is interesting. Even more interesting is the reaction to it by people such as the Columbia University professor who says it makes him "really upset" because it might encourage opponents of legislation combating global warming. Warnings about cataclysmic warming increase in stridency as evidence of warming becomes more elusive. A recent report from the United Nations Environment Program predicts an enormous 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit increase by the end of the century. The U.S. goal is an 80 percent reduction by 2050. But Steven Hayward of American Enterprise Institute says that would require reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to the 1910 level. On a per-capita basis, it would mean emissions approximately equal to those in 1875. That will not happen. So, we are doomed. So, why try? America needs a national commission appointed to assess the evidence about climate change. Alarmists will fight this because the first casualty would be the carefully cultivated and media-reinforced myth of consensus — the bald assertion that no reputable scientist doubts the gravity of the crisis, doubt being conclusive evidence of disreputable motives or intellectual qualifications. The president, however, could support such a commission because he is sure "there's finally widespread recognition of the urgency of the challenge before us." So he announced at the U.N. climate-change summit, where he said the threat is so "serious" and "urgent" that unless all nations act "boldly, swiftly and together" — "time ... is running out" — we risk "irreversible catastrophe." Prince Charles agrees. In March, seven months ago, he said humanity had 100 months — until July 2017 — to prevent "catastrophic climate change and the unimaginable horrors that this would bring." Evidently humanity will prevent this. Charles Moore of the Spectator notes that in July, the prince said that by 2050 the planet will be imperiled by the existence of 9 billion people, a large portion of them consuming as much as Western people now do. Environmental Cassandras must be careful with their predictions lest they commit what deniers among the climate alarmists consider the unpardonable faux pas of denying that the world is coming to an end. George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post, writing about foreign and domestic politics and policy. E-mail: georgewill@washpost.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (73045)	10/2/2009 3:27:37 PM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224748

Wow Great best seller!! Breaking records! Beautiful woman. Beauty and Brains do go together!

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (73045)	10/2/2009 5:00:53 PM
From: lorne	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224748

ken...is this what the future has in store for Americans with hugo...oops...hussein obama in charge? Cops trap, gas college students in stairwell 'We can't go that way! They're shooting at us!' October 02, 2009 By Chelsea Schilling © 2009 WorldNetDaily wnd.com Editor's note: Video contains one incident of obscenity Several college students claim they were trapped and attacked with tear gas on the University of Pittsburgh's campus while they observed the G-20 summit protests in Pittsburgh. Anarchists were behind some of the clashes with police during the protests, but many students say they were involuntarily caught up in the melee and arrested or tear gassed as police blocked outlets. In the following video posted on YouTube on Sept. 25, riot police allegedly trapped a group of students on a staircase and launched tear gas at them while they coughed, screamed and desperately tried to escape: Warning: Video contains one incident of obscenity youtube.com The students stood observing the street protests from atop bridge on campus. One man in the stairwell can be heard asking, "Are we trapped, dude?" Then several people begin coughing and screaming as cans expelled tear gas. The video shows students trying to leave the staircase, but riot police appeared to be waiting for them at the bottom with tear gas. So, they walked up the steps and more police officers with batons instructed them to head back downstairs. One woman shouted, "Wait, we can't go that way! They're shooting at us." More cans were fired as the students screamed, covered their faces and pleaded with police. A woman begged, "Please stop. Please." Riot police at the top of the stairs allowed them to proceed after they begged the officers to stop throwing tear gas. One shaken man shouted, "They f--ing trapped us and gassed us." Another said, "We couldn't leave." A man identified himself as Tim Buzzard, a University of Pittsburgh student who lives in a tower located near the streets where the riots took place. He told the following story: I was in the bridge observing the riot and police – a riot squad – surrounded us on both sides on the steps. We couldn't escape, and they shot multiple cans of tear gas into us. It severely burned us. I mean, I feel like I'm on fire. … I definitely feel like our rights have been violated. We were just observing and they were shooting tear gas into us. Who's responsible? The police, the chief of police, they have no business infringing on our campus. I don't care if there's freaking idiots running around in bandannas. They shouldn't be coming into our residence halls. There's no need for that. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, riot police chased students who were waiting in line at a local restaurant, studying at the library and observing in front of residence halls. The Student Press Law Center reported that riot police also targeted and arrested journalists as they attempted to document the event. According to the Pitt News, seven say they were gassed with pepper spray or tear gas, another was sprayed in the face with mace and numerous reporters from Pitt News, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Twin Cities IndyMedia and several freelance journalists were arrested. "There is some indication that at the very least, the police were indifferent to newsgatherer status," said Chris Hoel, an attorney representing the Pitt News. "There are even some indications that they might have been targeting journalists. ... In this case, [arresting journalists] seemed to be an objective." Hoel told the Student Press Law Center, "They chased students eight blocks west and then charged them with failure to disperse. Think that through. They chase you for eight blocks and then tell you you didn't disperse." Jacob Brown, student at the university, reported in a Pitt News column that the Pamplona in Pittsburgh suddenly became more like Tiananmen Square. "I saw police throwing OC gas," he wrote. "I saw students being clubbed to the ground. I saw hell." He acknowledged that the riot police were trying to ward off anarchists. "But the anarchists weren't there," he wrote. "Instead, the only people I saw facing the wrath of the police were students. Our campus had suddenly become a battleground where there were no innocent bystanders." Brown said he could not walk to his apartment because police would have arrested him. "This wasn't my home," he wrote. "The principles of the United States had been lost in the wake of martial law. …[F]or the first time in my life, I was scared of my own government." Police say 51 students were among 190 people arrested during the protests. Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, the Citizen Police Review Board and Pittsburgh City Council say they plan to investigate the handling of arrests, the Pitt News reported.