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 (91710)	9/26/2010 1:09:14 PM
From: Carolyn	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224704

The corruption of this administration is staggering. Get a load of this: “In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied SDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997.” The case was entitled “Pigford v. Glickman” and in 1999, the black farmers won their case. The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims. But then on February 23, 2010, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment: In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to “Pigford”. The amount was a staggering...... $1.25 billion. This was because the original number of plaintiffs – 400 black farmers – had now swollen in a class action suit to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America . There was only one problem: The United States of America doesn’t have 86,000 black farmers !!!! According to accurate and totally verifiable Official USDA 2007 Census census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. …... by the Official USDA 1992 Census data the US had only 18,816 black farmers ! Well, how on earth did 39,697 explode into the fraudulent 86,000 claims ? And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion ? Well, folks, you’ll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the “Rural Development Leadership Network” but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action – Shirley Sherrod. Yes, folks. It appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the United States - - a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed them into submission. And it gets even more interesting. Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her in this race fraud As it turns out, the original judgment of “Pigford v. Glickman” in 1999 only applied to a total of about 16,000 black farmers. But.... in 2008, a junior US Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds. The Senator was Barack Hussein Obama. Because this law was passed in dead silence and because the woman responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official, American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide depression to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim. But Breitbart knew. And last Monday, July 22, 2010, he cleverly laid a trap which Sherrod - - and Obama + his cronies - - stumbled headfirst into which has now resulted in the entire world discovering the existence of this corrupt financial judgment. As for Ms. Sherrod ?? Well, she’s discovering too late that her cry of ‘racism’ to the media which was intended to throw the spotlight on Breitbart has instead thrown that spotlight on herself – and the huge corruption. Sherrod has vanished from public view. Her ‘pigs’, it seems, have come home to roost. But the perpetrator of that law passed in dead silence leading to unlawful claims & corruption..... is still trying to fool all of US. Google and read for yourself "Pigford vs. Glickman" nationalaglawcenter.org pajamasmedia.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (91710)	9/26/2010 1:28:49 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224704

I don't expect that we will get the senate this election cycle. But we have the house pretty cleanly, even with the inevitable democrat election corruption. but at least the brakes will be on this out of control government. and in 2012 Obama will be gone. The only hope that the democrats have is to let Hillary run. But Obama's ego won't let him step aside, so he'll run. Enjoy the kegger party while you can, cuz Mom and Dad are on their way home and there's gonna be some 'splainin to do.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (91710)	9/26/2010 1:32:34 PM
From: Sedohr Nod	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224704

West Coast actually prefers big government I have doubts about that statement....but if it's so, then it's a real shame they don't prefer something they can afford....the real world is coming soon to even the west coast.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (91710)	9/26/2010 1:48:19 PM
From: lorne	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224704

ken...Are the rats from media deserting a sinking stinking ship...must hurt to see them scurry away from the dem ship? How dare them put something like this in print. :-) History shows Obama, Dems face stiff headwinds New msnbc.com Voter Confidence Index tracks midterm trends NBC News and msnbc.com updated 9/24/2010 msnbc.msn.com WASHINGTON — With the midterm elections less than six weeks away, President Obama and the Democratic Party are suffering from a lack of voter optimism, according to a new Voter Confidence Index created by NBC News and msnbc.com. Pessimism about the current direction of the nation, lowered approval of Obama's performance in office and dim views of the Democratic rule in Congress could spell major losses for the party this November -- midterm losses similar to those suffered by other presidents in recent history. The NBC Political Unit and msnbc.com created the VCI as a way to try and measure the current political environment, what it may signal about this fall's elections – and how it compares with past midterm elections. For the index, we’re using a combination of three questions commonly asked in national polls -- the president’s job approval rating, the direction of the country, and the generic congressional ballot. As a dynamic measurement, the index will change over time as attitudes change. Bottom line: A positive (+) VCI is good for the president’s party; a negative (-) one is bad. Generally, the lower the number, the worse the president's party performs in the midterms. History not on Obama's side Having begun his presidency with high expectations (and a high VCI), fierce fights over federal stimulus spending and health care have combined with a still-struggling economy and a months-long oil spill to erode voter attitudes. Currently, the VCI shows Obama and the Democratic Party in negative territory, with a -38 VCI average for the month of September. That’s eight points worse than where President Clinton and the Democrats stood in 1994, when Democrats lost 54 seats in the House and eight in the Senate. Does that mean Democrats are doomed to repeat 1994? Not necessarily. There were mitigating structural factors in 1994, including more Democratic retirements and an environment that seemed to sneak up on longtime incumbents. Neither is the case this year. Also consider, the current VCI is 17 points better than where George W. Bush and Republicans stood in 2006, when Republicans lost 30 House seats and six in the Senate. And it’s three points worse than where Ronald Reagan and the GOP stood in 1982. But Republicans then lost 26 House seats and when unemployment was at 10 percent, like it nearly is today. The bottom line is: The current political environment is bad for Democrats, and that forecasts major losses in November. Methodology There are many polls out there, and there’s plenty of disagreement in the statistical community about what constitutes a good poll or a bad poll. The NBC News standard is to generally use polls that are done with live callers, not ones that are automated. For the VCI, NBC News chose to use the best-known and most-often conducted live-caller national polls: NBC News/Wall Street Journal, ABC News/Washington Post, CBS News/New York Times, Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, CNN/Opinion Research, Pew Research, USA Today/Gallup, Ipsos (including AP, Reuters, McClatchy), AP/GFK, Bloomberg/Selzer, and Newsweek. The VCI is computed by taking the average from all of these polls. For the VCI scores on past presidents dating back to Gerald Ford, our NBC/WSJ pollsters went back and calculated the national averages.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (91710)	9/26/2010 1:49:33 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224704

Sanchez Under Fire for Ethnic Remarks September 24, 2010, By REBECCA CATHCART thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com LOS ANGELES – Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, is attracting criticism for a remark to a television reporter that, “the Vietnamese and the Republicans” were “trying to take away” her seat representing California’s 47th Congressional District. Though the interview with Ms. Sanchez aired on Univisión on Sept. 12, her remarks drew widespread attention this week after a report appeared in Orange County Weekly and were mentioned on the air by Roger Hedgecock, a nationally-syndicated conservative radio commenter. The comments sparked anger among residents of Santa Ana, home to one of the country’s oldest and largest Vietnamese communities, and threatened to further tighten her race against State Assemblyman Van Tran, a Republican. “She’s involved in the toughest re-election fight she’s had to deal with,” said Chip Hanlon, an Orange County resident and editor of Red Country, a conservative political blog. “Her lead is within the margin of error. If she’s still within the margin on election day, I think she will lose.” In the same televised interview on the Spanish-language show, Al Punto, Ms. Sanchez called Mr. Tran, “anti-immigrant” and “anti-Latino.” Mr. Tran has demanded Ms. Sanchez issue an apology. “I was shocked that a senior member of Congress would speak that way about me and about her own constituents,” Mr. Tran said Friday. “What’s ironic is that I have more in common with the Latino community as a first generation immigrant than she does, having been born here.” Ms. Sanchez released a statement Thursday saying her words referred only to, “those in the Vietnamese community who are supporting her opponent.” Ms. Sanchez’s spokeswoman did not respond to calls or e-mails Friday.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (91710)	9/26/2010 1:58:06 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	8 Recommendations Respond to of 224704

You won't get the Senate because the West Coast actually prefers big government. Being a west coast person, I'm pretty familiar with the situation. The fact that California is so leftist and on the verge of collapse is going to end up hurting the left throughout the states. We Californians always did lead the rest of the country. We are going to be the first to fail and then the first of the failed states to bounce back firmly in the new conservative reality. The west coast big government leaning is going to sink the lefties. Any lefties who win on the west coast will have a pyrrhic victory.