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 (100449)	2/23/2011 8:13:42 PM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224724

Paying a tax is constitutional and there is no problem. This is not a tax and it is forcing people by threat of penalty to purchase a product. By your ridiculous standards the government can force people to do anything they wish. Way too far of the reservation Kenneth.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (100449)	2/23/2011 8:13:45 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	9 Recommendations Respond to of 224724

Make a decision to not pay your taxes and watch what happens. Make a decision to no sign up for Medicare Part B and watch the consequences. There are many decisions to not take action which are regulated by the government. I can't wait for a libertarian to get elected as president and have him tell the DOJ that they are to no longer enforce federal income tax laws as he considers them to be unconstitutional. Obama is changing the rules left and right to the applause of the lefties. I suspect that the lefties are not going to be too happy when the republicans use the same tactics to subvert lefty agendas.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (100449)	2/23/2011 11:01:32 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224724

kennycanary : newschannel5.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (100449)	2/23/2011 11:19:02 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224724

Editorial: $100 Oil Is Devil’s Due For Drilling Bans Posted 06:57 PM ET Energy: President Obama talks much of moving to sustainable energy. But as he blocks domestic drilling, the reality is he’s outsourced U.S. oil needs to mad-dog dictators like Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi. That’s even less sustainable. Oil prices hit $100 a barrel Wednesday as thousands of Libyans marched in Tripoli. The crazed Gadhafi vowed to fight to "the last bullet," denouncing his own countrymen as "greasy rats" and turning his weapons of war on 1,000 of them. He also threatened to incinerate his nation's oil wells as he goes down, an unsubtle suggestion to Big Oil companies operating in his country that they should act to save his regime. As a result, oil is soaring because markets worry that a string of petro-tyrants will go down like Gadhafi and energy may soon become scarce. How did it come to this? U.S. dependence on imports — from dictators like Gadhafi — is a big factor. The problem is that we have no political will to drill. The U.S. has plenty of oil resources. Yet our president seems set on pursuing boutique alternative energy schemes dependent on huge public subsidies. As that happens, U.S. dependence on imports grows. It's not just Gadhafi who supplies oil, but so many others — from the oligarchs of Saudi Arabia, to the satraps of the Gulf, to the lunatic running Venezuela. All are at high risk of ending up on the business end of revolution, making them unreliable suppliers. "The situation in Libya and the Middle East should serve as a wake-up call to the Obama administration to stop its uprising against domestic oil production," said Dan Kish of the Institute for Energy Research. "Instead of rushing towards expensive and unreliable 'green' energy sources that rely on American taxpayer dollars," he said, "it is time to stop the embargo against our own American oil supplies." This includes Obama's moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, and his subsequent refusal to issue Gulf permits, putting him in contempt of court. America's energy needs are 17 times greater than they were 50 years ago, according to the Energy Department. But U.S. output of domestic energy has fallen by 40% in the same period. That's a sorry picture given that the U.S. is surrounded by offshore oil and has 200 years' worth of shale oil on the mainland. Fact is, Obama's suppressing oil production here. And whether he knows it or not, he's outsourcing our energy future to the devil. Now we've been handed the bill, and the devil wants his due. Energy: President Obama talks much of moving to sustainable energy. But as he blocks domestic drilling, the reality is he's outsourced U.S. oil needs to mad-dog dictators like Libya's Moammar Gadhafi. That's even less sustainable.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (100449)	2/23/2011 11:59:03 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224724

humanevents.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (100449)	2/24/2011 8:27:29 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224724

how many burgers kennycanary flips to fill up gas tank: Message 27191735

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (100449)	2/24/2011 9:24:01 AM
From: locogringo	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224724

Obama's 2010 Job Approval Rating Dropped 10 Points or More in 31 States President Obama's average job-approval rating for his second year in office was 47 percent, down 11 points from the 58 percent he enjoyed in 2009, according to Gallup. But another way to illustrate that drop is to look at his approval rating by state, and Gallup's surveys show that Obama tumbled by 10 points or more in 31 states. His biggest drops were in Vermont (15.2 points), Arizona (14.5 points), Kentucky (14.2 points) Missouri (14.1 points) and Utah (14 points). politicsdaily.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (100449)	2/24/2011 10:04:15 AM
From: JakeStraw	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224724

In some regard, the developments in the Arab world today can be seen as evidence that the so-called Bush doctrine is working, he says, arguing there's a "demonstration effect" because of regime change in Iraq. "It's preferable for democratic revolution to be indigenous and not the result of the U.S. coming in," Glassman says. "On the other hand, people are looking at Iraq, as messy as it was to get there, as one example of an Arab democracy, and the only substantial one." What do you think? Was Bush right? Do events in the Middle East suggest future historians will judge President Bush more favorably than most current ones do? finance.yahoo.com