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 (73134)	10/4/2009 8:55:50 PM
From: MJ	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224729

Kenneth, who is "We in We've debunked both before." ? Do you work for Annenberg? mj "This latest e-rumor is a double-header. It recycles one false claim and alludes to another. We’ve debunked both before." factcheck.org

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (73134)	10/4/2009 9:13:09 PM
From: MJ	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

According to Kenneth's Fact Check Org "Partly True: It is not entirely true that Obama’s "first executive order" facilitates abortions. What the author is referring to is a presidential memorandum (different from an executive order) that was signed Jan. 23. It overturned a policy that was first established by Ronald Reagan, rescinded by Bill Clinton and reimposed by George W. Bush. The so-called "Mexico City Policy" had cut off foreign aid money to any private aid group that provided advice, counseling or information regarding abortion, even if they used their own money for those purposes. As CNN reported, the result of the order is to allow U.S. money to flow to "clinics that promote abortion or provide counseling or referrals about abortion services." But Obama had signed at least half a dozen executive orders and presidential memoranda before getting to this one, so it was by no means his "first." For the record, Obama said in his memo that the restrictions he overturned "have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations." What a sham, of course Obama endorsed abortions-----the family planning programs in foreign nations are known as abortion mills. Of course Obama signed a memorandum, a quasi order, that American's monies would go to support baby killing. No, it wasn't his FIRST order---but one of his most egregious that he would use our money to carryout baby killing in foreign nations. WHAT WAS BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S FIRST ORDER? Was Obama's First order to close off access to ALL OF HIS RECORDS, BIRTH, MARRIAGE, PASTPORTS, SCHOOL, ETC. -------letting the questions of who he is to fester---the questions of his birth, his parentage and heritage? Or was that the second one-----as I recall that one was done as soon as the innauguration was over----within 24 hours. Or was it his second? mj

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (73134)	10/4/2009 10:07:19 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

Howard Dean Blasts Baucus Healthcare Bill September 16, 2009 05:51 PM ET \| Paul Bedard, Nikki Schwab By Nikki Schwab, usnews.com Washington Whispers Howard Dean, former Democratic National Committee chairman, minced no words about Sen. Max Baucus's healthcare proposal, unveiled to the public this morning. "The Baucus bill is the worst piece of healthcare legislation I've seen in 30 years," Dean said last night at a healthcare town hall and book signing in Washington. "In fact, it's a $60 billion giveaway to the health insurance industry every year," he said. "It was written by healthcare lobbyists, so that's not a surprise. It's an outrage." The Baucus bill leaves out some of the president's goals for healthcare reform, such as the controversial public option. While more palatable to Senate moderates, the Baucus proposal also drew criticism from Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia, who said yesterday he would not vote for it in its current form. "I'm glad Senator Rockefeller is not going to vote for it. I wouldn't vote for it at all under any circumstances," Dean added. Instead, Dean said Senate Democrats should and would end up using the reconciliation process to pass a plan with the public option. "It can be done, and that's how it will be done," Dean said, pointing out that a majority of Senate Democrats still support a more robust bill.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (73134)	10/4/2009 11:00:03 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

Focus on Rangel, a Chairman Under Investigation CARL HULSE Published: October 2, 2009 WASHINGTON — Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York is increasingly in the spotlight these days and not just because he is in the thick of the health care debate as chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Rangel a symbol of Democratic misconduct and institutional arrogance because of his belated disclosure of personal assets and other financial missteps. The hard decision for Democrats might come after the ethics findings. The panel could recommend that Mr. Rangel be ousted from his chairmanship. If a censure were recommended and approved by the House, he would automatically lose his chairmanship under Democratic rules. But if the ethics committee delivers a mild or moderate rebuke, Democrats might have to assess, with an eye to difficult midterm elections, whether they can take the heat of having the tax panel headed by a lawmaker who erred on his own finances and taxes.