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 (118125)	11/22/2011 6:45:52 PM
From: locogringo	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

kenny_troll, reading his lying points emails, repeats them here: John King on CNN just read the riot act to Kelly Ayotte about the latest misleading and deceptive Romney Ad. It makes Romney look very bad. Newt will chew Wolf Blitzy-ditzy up, and Romney will shit him out in CNN rating chits. They will ALL make Obama (THE TOTAL FAILURE) look like a TOTAL FAILURE. I hope they mention you as a dedicated useful idio.......errr...........I mean, useful SHILL.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (118125)	11/22/2011 7:28:52 PM
From: chartseer	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

All's fair in love, war, and politics What romney did is standard fair in Chicago politics or against Chicago politicians.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (118125)	11/22/2011 8:09:04 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 224749

That's nothing.... when are they going to trot out what really happend in Budapest to get the Olymics?? ha ha... what a bunch of crooks. DAK

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (118125)	11/22/2011 10:39:05 PM
From: Paul V.	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 224749

Joe, with the super committee's failure to get a settlement, I was just told today at one of our local hospitals that the administration circulated an email indicating that the hospital would lose $1,000,000. I confirmed the answer with one of the administrators. If this occurred with one of our two hospitals it probably is true of other similar hospitals across the country. IMO, most voters fail to realize the potential impact that the cuts which will probably occur to the military and social programs at the Federal and State levels. When these cuts materialize all hell will be paid on one of the parties who the voters perceived as the cause of the problem. It will be interesting to see the fall out from the super committees failure and who will be personalized, and polarized against. The conflict between the 99'ers and Tea Party has just begun. Just wait until additional people get laid off, lose their houses and can not provide the basic needs (food, shelter, clothing and water) of individuals. Our local sheriff just stated to me this afternoon that he sees an felony increase in crime. When the mass crowds get into the mob hysteria

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (118125)	11/23/2011 7:55:04 AM
From: chartseer	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

All's fair in love, war, and politics

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (118125)	11/23/2011 8:40:18 AM
From: lorne	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

kenny, So how do you feel about a dictator ruling you and all of America???? Obama won't obey SCOTUS : November 21, 2011 Mychal Massie wnd.com The question of whether or not Obama, vis-à-vis the federal government, has the constitutional authority to mandate that we buy health insurance under threat of penalty will now presumably be decided by the Supreme Court. The question that begs an answer is: If the high court rules Obama does not have the constitutional authority to force us to purchase health insurance, will Obama abide by the ruling or will he pull a Franklin D. Roosevelt and attempt to overrule the court's decision? Don't say "not a chance" too quickly. He's already arbitrarily decided what laws he would not enforce – telling his attorney general not to enforce the law. Moreover, who would have imagined Congress abdicating its responsibility and allowing him to do it? You can argue he has essentially neutered Congress (with their consent), circumventing its legislative responsibility through the use of executive orders. Nicholas Ballasy, writing for the Daily Caller, captured Obama's hubris when he told a crowd: "I'm here to say to all of you … [I] can't wait for … Congress. … I've told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions [I] can take without Congress, steps that can … make government more efficient and responsive … and [I'm] going to be announcing these executive actions on a regular basis." ("Obama says he'll be taking 'executive actions' without Congress on 'regular basis' to 'heal the economy,'" Oct. 24, 2011) Specific to his belligerent braggadocio that best resembles a spiteful child, angry because he must obey his parents, he devises a method of disobedience, daring them to object. Combining all of the executive orders of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush, the total number spanning their combined 32 years was 70. Obama, in less than three full years of his first term, has signed 99, with two more waiting to be signed that will bring the total to 101. And he has promised to sign more every day, if he so deems, for the express purpose of getting his way. This from a man with zero business experience, who is singularly responsible for the loss of millions of jobs and who has spent $4.5 trillion in less than three years into his first term. Dick Schoen and Pat Caddell – Democrat strategists of unimpeachable credentials – disgustedly admit that Obama has no clue about how business and the economy works – but I digress. Obama arbitrarily decided to invade Libya without congressional authority, insisting he didn't need it. Even when the ACLU pointed out that President George W. Bush had gone before Congress to get authority to go into Iraq – telling him they were prepared to take legal action because he had failed to do so – still Obama pushed back and spitefully dragged his feet until the sword of Damocles was at his throat. When President George W. Bush proposed to overhaul and privatize Social Security he was met with fierce opposition. Rather than destructively polarize the nation, he sought other recourses. When President Clinton introduced his health-care proposal, he was met with similar fierce opposition. He, too, rather than destroy the cohesiveness of the nation, abandoned it and sought alternatives. Bush, a globalist, and Clinton, a liberal, put the will of the people above their personal desires. But Obama, in the face of his uncontrolled spending, unparalleled unemployment, a housing market collapse and an economy that demanded attention – decided to respond in the most vulgar ways ever witnessed by a sitting president. He chose to ignore the economy and added trillions more in spending just to have his way. In my column "Madison must be rolling over," I wrote: "… on May 27, 1935 ([Roosevelt's] aptly termed Black Monday), the Supreme Court handed down three unanimous opinions that struck down key provisions of the New Deal." (WND, March 2, 2009) "Roosevelt, however, denounced the court and introduced the 'court packing bill' in an attempt to expand Supreme Court membership, by which he planned to nominate justices who would side with him. This resulted in a bitter dispute between the two branches of government, with Roosevelt ultimately prevailing – which resulted in his overstepping the Constitution and ushering in the belief that government is our nanny." With his track record, can you honestly be confident of Obama obeying the SCOTUS should they not rule as he wants? Did he not tell lies about the court and berate the justices during his State of the Union speech? He ignored the ruling of the lower court when it ruled the government option was not constitutional. I say this man's narcissism will not permit him to simply abide by a ruling he doesn't like. Roosevelt didn't and it worked – why should Obama be any different?