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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (636553)	11/18/2011 12:34:33 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1583378

>> Cause you know, that's what was wrong with his first term. He was trying to please too many people. Ten, I don't understand this. This would be akin to conservatives supporting Richard Nixon for re-election after Watergate. Except not only are we talking about corruption, Obama's administration is rife with incompetence, crony-ism, and most importantly -- devoid of leadership. At some point, as an American a person has an obligation to put the party affiliation aside and vote for America. It is one thing to have a difference of opinion about a president's policy (A lot of people thought GWB was a lousy president, but a strong case can be made by his supporters that he was one of the best presidents in recent history. What he WASN'T is corrupt, incompetent, or a weak leader. You can rationally argue about the policy, but not about the basic skills.) Sending Obama for a second term would be, by any reasonable measure, in insane action. Not because of the policy differences. But because of these other debilitating issues which make him unfit for the job. I just don't get it. Even if you like the policy of Obama -- and a few do -- how can one escalate that to a level of importance higher than key characteristics like integrity, leadership, competence, and trustworthiness? Geez, people have to find some priorities somewhere, and to proclaim the goal of, e.g., more government involvement in healthcare to be more important than integrity just makes no sense to rational people.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (636553)	12/4/2011 11:57:39 AM
From: Alighieri	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583378

Ken Cuccinelli: I Don't See A Lot Of Distance' Between Romney, Obama Health Plans First Posted: 12/ 4/11 01:02 AM ET Updated: 12/ 4/11 01:16 AM ET Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who hosted a Fox News forum with GOP presidential candidates Saturday night, said afterward that he was not convinced that Mitt Romney could differentiate his Massachusetts health care plan sufficiently from President Obama's. Politico's David Catanese reports that in a post-event interview, Cuccinelli said, "I don't see a lot of distance there between him and the president" on the issue. Romney, who was governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, has long drawn scrutiny from Republicans for instituting a state health care law in 2006 that imposed an individual mandate very similar to the one found in President Obama's overhaul, which passed Congress in 2010. Saturday's forum was no different. Romney fielded a question about how he would answer a charge from Obama that that president's plan was based on Romney's. Bloomberg reports: “I sure look forward to that” exchange, Romney, 64, said. “Do I like the bill overall? Yes. Am I proud of what we did for our state? Yes. But what the president has done is way beyond what we envisioned.” Romney said while his measure only aimed to cover the 8 percent Massachusetts residents who lacked insurance, “Obamacare is about taking over 100 percent of the people’s insurance in this country.” Romney's healthcare plan extended insurance coverage to 98 percent of Bay State residents.