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 (138925)	7/22/2012 10:32:36 AM
From: TideGlider	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

You need to STFU with your childish, repetitive postings. You are allowed two similar posts. You have exceeded that.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (138925)

7/22/2012 10:38:25 AM

From: TideGlider

3 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

From: Hope Praytochange

Presidential busts: The worst of all: Barack Obama (2009-?) http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jul/22/presidential-busts/ He took office at a time when the U.S. economy was on its worst slide in 75 years, but pushed policies using borrowed money that were more meant to preserve government jobs than broadly help the private sector where the great majority of Americans work, ensuring the jobs crisis continued. He railed against the heavy spending and big deficits of his predecessor, but blithely backed budgets that had triple the deficits ever seen in American history. He promised a smart, sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system, but ended up giving us a Byzantine mess promoted to the public with myths: that offering subsidized care to tens of millions of people would save money; that people would keep their own doctors; that access to care wouldn’t change; and that rationing would never happen. He promised a more sophisticated approach to the economy than that of his predecessor, but had so little common sense that his health law actually gave businesses a big financial incentive to discontinue providing health insurance to their employees. He offered hosannas to genius entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs in his prepared remarks, but when speaking off the cuff betrayed his faculty-lounge view of the world, saying of businesspeople, “if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.” He swore to bring overdue oversight and honest accounting to the corporate world, but made flagrantly dishonest claims about General Motors paying back its government loans that would have triggered a criminal fraud investigation in the private sector. He promised to set a high new standard for ethics in the White House, but used a baffling claim of executive privilege to shield his embattled attorney general from the repercussions of a cover-up involving the death of a federal law enforcement officer. He denounced his predecessor for permitting harsh interrogation tactics with suspected terrorists, but once in office somehow concluded that a better, more moral approach would just be to use drones to assassinate such suspects without getting any information from them. He presented himself as a shrewd student of Washington politics, but once in office displayed a counterproductive standoffishness to many Democratic lawmakers eager to embrace him, never developing the broad range of personal relationships that often mark a successful presidency. He ran as a unifying force who would bring in a new era of civility and racial healing to Washington, but once in office embraced ugly, Chicago-style political hardball that saw nothing wrong with his supporters’ loathsome practice of depicting opposition to his policies as being driven by racism. He constantly offered praise for the wisdom and insights of the American public, but reacted to the broad discontent over Obamacare, high unemployment and vast deficits by saying it was a failure of his administration to properly explain its glorious record to a confused populace – not a predictable reaction to his struggles and ineffectiveness. And in December 2011 – at a time in which one-quarter of American adults who wanted full-time work couldn’t find it, after a year in which the federal deficit was a staggering $1.3 trillion – here was what Barack Obama had to say for himself in a CBS interview: “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president, with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln.” Unbelievable. If self-reverence were a crime, our current president would be facing a life sentence. For the good of America, let’s pray we have someone else in charge of the federal government come Jan. 20, 2013.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (138925)	7/22/2012 11:24:10 AM
From: TideGlider	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Related Articles Bain Attacks Fail to Shake Up Presidential Race By Scott Rasmussen Among Uncommitted Voters, Obama Job Approval Is At 29% 47% Say It's Too Easy To Get Food Stamps Among Military Veterans: Romney 59% Obama 35% Confidence in Housing Values Falls to Lows for the Year Pennsylvania: Obama 48%, Romney 44% What They Told Us: Reviewing Last Week’s Key Polls Sunday, July 22, 2012 The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows Mitt Romney attracting 46% of the vote, while President Obama earns support from 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) more are undecided. Romney has a 24-point lead among military veterans. Check out our review of last week’s key polls to see “What They Told Us.” Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). See tracking history. Scott Rasmussen’s weekly newspaper column notes that the Obama campaign attacks on Bain Capital have failed to shake up the presidential race. They “have succeeded in raising some doubts about the challenger, but by highlighting his role as a venture capitalist, the attacks also have reinforced the belief that Romney sees economic growth as his top priority.” By a 62% to 30% margin, voters believe policies that encourage economic growth are more important than policies to ensure economic fairness. If you’d like Scott to speak to your organization, meeting, or conference, please contact Premiere Speakers. An analysis of the voters not committed to either candidate shows two distinguishing characteristics: They aren’t impressed with the president, and they aren’t paying much attention to the campaign. Just 29% approve of the president’s performance, while 66% disapprove. Eleven percent (11%) of these uncommitted voters believe the country is heading in the right direction. Only 13% are closely following the campaign. (Presidential Job Approval Data Below) A president’s Job Approval rating is one of the best indicators for assessing his chances of reelection. Typically, the president’s Job Approval rating on Election Day will be close to the share of the vote he receives. Currently, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance. Fifty percent (50%) at least somewhat disapprove ( see trends). Just 18% of homeowners expect their home to go up in value over the coming year, while 25% expect the value of their home to go down. Longer-term expectations are among the lowest ever recorded. Forty-seven percent (47%) believe it is too easy for Americans to get food stamps. Eighteen percent (18%) believe it is too hard. Forty-nine percent (49%) of Americans believe that federal welfare programs actually increase the level of poverty in the United States. Just 20% believe they reduce the level of poverty. Eighty-three percent (83%) favor work requirements for welfare recipients. The president leads by four in Pennsylvania. The Keystone State is rated as Leans Democrat in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections. (Approval Index data below) Intensity of support or opposition can have an impact on campaigns. Currently, 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president. Forty-one (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16 ( see trends). During midterm elections, intensity of support can have a tremendous impact on turnout. That was demonstrated in 2010 when Republicans and unaffiliated voters turned out in large numbers to express opposition to the Obama administration’s policies. However, in presidential election years, there is a smaller impact on turnout. To get a sense of longer-term Job Approval trends for the president, Rasmussen Reports also compiles our tracking data on a full month-by-month basis. (More below) Rasmussen Reports is a media company whose work is followed by millions on a wide variety of platforms. We regularly release our results at RasmussenReports.com, through a daily email newsletter, a nationally syndicated radio news service, an online video service and a weekly newspaper column distributed by Creators Syndicate. A nationally syndicated TV show-- What America Thinks --is scheduled for launch in September 2012. Our firm has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology ( see methodology). Pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have cited our " unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy." During Election 2008, Rasmussen Reports projected that Barack Obama would defeat John McCain by a 52% to 46% margin. Obama was 53% to 46%. In 2004, Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project the vote totals for both candidates within half a percentage point. Learn more about the Rasmussen Reports track record over the years.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (138925)	7/22/2012 11:33:20 AM
From: locogringo	8 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224729

I wonder if tonto has the courage to post whether he is opposed I wonder if you have the courage AND DECENCY to shove it where it belongs, and QUIT USING A TRAGEDY for political gain., and PLEASE STFU already. It is disgusting, and it SHOULD be beneath you......but I see it is not. You don't seem to be a bit upset about the hundreds of tactical weapons supplied by Holder and Obama to brutally kill and wound over 150 Mexican nationals, INCLUDING CHILDREN. They are murderers, and you sit silent. Your hypocrisy is overwhelming, and I imagine that YOU TOTALLY DISGUST ALMOST EVERY PERSON ON THIS THREAD BY NOW.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (138925)	7/22/2012 12:17:41 PM
From: tonto	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

You are a childman...

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (138925)	7/22/2012 7:34:50 PM
From: CF Rebel	9 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

Come On tonto, Man UP! Let us know where you stand. You have some nerve. You fail every day to "man up" and answer legitimate questions asked of you. And you think the thread members owe you something. You're a typical hypocrite liberal - can't hold a two way conversation unless it's in your interest. I'd say "grow up" but that is beyond your potential. CF Rebel

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (138925)	7/22/2012 8:29:02 PM
From: Farmboy	8 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

Well, a challenge from the gutless, spineless, gonadless wonder himself .... What a shock! Takes a lot of nerve Mr. Phillips, as you have dodged approximately 87% of the questions I have posted to you, and only given half-assed responses to the few you have answered. You should be ashamed of yourself, if you even understand the meaning of shame. You STILL haven't told me why it is you support the killing of hundreds of Mexican citizens, and one US border patrol agent . Come on Kennie boy, man up! Let us know where you stand! ..