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 (88983)	8/10/2010 11:08:57 AM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224757

it was a vote on Obama and you know it.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (88983)	8/10/2010 11:38:57 AM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224757

Muslim Raheel Raza speaks out against Ground Zero Mosque on O’Reilly Posted by THERIGHTSCOOP in Politics on Aug 9th, 2010 \| View Comments Raza says the building of this mosque is confrontational, in bad faith, and doesn’t help the cause of tolerance. She goes on to slam the ‘bleeding heart white liberals’ like Bloomberg for their PC attitude about this controversial mosque and surprises O’Reilly with her articulate understanding of this issue. He was almost speechless: therightscoop.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (88983)	8/10/2010 11:41:17 AM
From: Sedohr Nod	3 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224757

If the question had been on whether insurance companies should be forced to cover pre-existing conditions, the vote would have been the other way. Got any back up for that? Or are you just Obamicating as usual? The country is over & done if the day ever comes that the majority of the voting public is that dumb.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (88983)	8/10/2010 12:54:15 PM
From: MJ	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224757

Kenneth The requirement by Obama that would turn citizens into criminals if they don't pay for the insurance the Federal Government mandates is what freedom loving Americans are objecting to. You are beating a dead horse to death by bringing up pre-existing conditions as an excuse for Obama-non-care. The requirement for pre existing conditions to be covered can be a simple and separate piece of legislation of one simple phrase------if needed, I question it being needed. A simple one time regulation. Now, let me tell you about pre-existing conditions-------in our family we have had 4 generations of people who developed Rheumatoid Arithitis and Lupus in their 20's and 30's. Does the insurance companies cover those conditions-----you bet they do and have. The good news is that advances have been made in the diagnosis of those diseases and the treatment enabling more people to function more fully in modern day life. What pre-existing conditions do you want covered that you believe should be covered????? What are your concerns??? Be specific. mj