SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (139480)7/28/2012 10:07:49 AM
From: joefromspringfield4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224737
 
"Joe, the uninsured people in Texas certainly have the freedom to die. And you are bragging about that."

First of all, everyone in Texas will die at some point in time.

Emergency rooms must treat anyone who comes in under federal law.

The people in Texas and the other 49 states have the right to refuse medical services. Not always a wise decision, but freedom allows people to do dumb things. Christian Science followers often refuse medical treatment which is still part of their religious freedom

I am bragging about freedom and the personal responsibility that comes with it.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (139480)7/28/2012 10:22:03 AM
From: lorne6 Recommendations  Respond to of 224737
 
philips...."Joe, the uninsured people in Texas certainly have the freedom to die. And you are bragging about that."....

Do the hundreds of aborted little girls and boys have the freedom to choose to die? You are bragging about this situation by your support and adoration of hussein obama. IMO.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (139480)7/28/2012 10:55:21 AM
From: locogringo4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224737
 
the uninsured people in Texas certainly have the freedom to die

Are you saying that the insured people and freeloaders in the other 56 states won't die?

Your point makes no sense, kennedy.

Are you drinking this early on a Saturday?

How come you won't give THUG Paul V any well deserved recs?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (139480)7/28/2012 11:01:38 AM
From: TideGlider1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224737
 
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

in Politics
Email thisShareThis


Related Articles



Saturday, July 28, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Mitt Romney attracting 48% of the vote, while President Obama earns support from 44%. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

Romney’s has lead by four or five points for three consecutive days. That’s the largest advantage enjoyed by either candidate in over a month. As with any such change in the race, it remains to be seen whether it marks a lasting shift or is merely statistical noise. See tracking history.

Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).

In state polling, new numbers show the president with a three-point lead in Wisconsin. He also leads by five in Nevada and six in Michigan. All three states were won by Obama in 2008 and are considered potential swing states this year. The Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections show Obama likely to win states with 201 Electoral College Votes while Romney is likely to win in states with 170.

Most voters believe the president’s health care law will cause some companies to drop the health insurance they provide for their employees. Just 23% think it would be good for employees if their company dropped their insurance coverage and they were enrolled instead in a government-sponsored health insurance plan. Fifty percent (50%) say that would be bad for the employees. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly hold that view. A plurality of Democrats disagree and believe workers would be better off on a government plan.

Check out our review of this past week’s key polls to see “What They Told Us.”

(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, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) at least somewhat disapprove ( see trends).

Seventy percent (70%) of voters see Obama as politically liberal, while 67% see Romney as a conservative. However, the president is seen as more extreme ideologically. Forty-three percent (43%) see him as Very Liberal, while just 24% believe Romney is Very Conservative. Most voters are either politically Moderate or Somewhat Conservative. Sixty-two percent (62%) place Romney in that group while just 25% say the same for Obama.

In his weekly newspaper column, Scott Rasmussen notes that the declining economy is hurting the president’s reelection prospects. He points out that when President Bush was reelected in 2004 his summer job approval rating was similar to Obama’s. However, in 2004, the underlying trends were moving in his direction. “The big issue that year was the war on terror. In the summer of 2004, just 44 percent thought the United States and its allies were winning that war. In the five weeks running up to the election, however, confidence that our side was winning ranged from 49 percent to 52 percent.”

Rasmussen concludes that for Obama to win, “he will need to improve his own job approval rating between now and Election Day. For that to happen, perceptions of the economy will have to reverse their current downward trend.”

If you’d like Scott Rasmussen to speak to your organization, meeting, or conference, please contact Premiere Speakers.

(Approval Index data below)







Intensity of support or opposition can have an impact on campaigns. Currently, 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president. Forty-two percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17 ( 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.

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Platinum Members.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (139480)7/28/2012 12:46:52 PM
From: longnshort3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224737
 
Obama's Top Ten United Kingdom Gaffes



by John Nolte 28 Jul 2012, 8:00 AM PDT 17 post a comment


So what did Mitt Romney do that was so terrible? What was the supposed "gaffe" that launched a thousand news-cycles and will likely lead tomorrow's Sunday shows? While in London, Romney was asked by NBC's Brian Williams about the security situation surrounding the London Olympics, something that has received a ton of media attention, and this is what he said:

Mr. Romney told NBC News he saw “a few things that were disconcerting” about London’s preparations. “The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, supposed strike of immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging,” he said.

Pause for … gasp.

Pause for … and egads.

That's right, Mitt Romney answered a question honestly.

I'm not saying Romney couldn't have been more diplomatic with his answer, but the perfect storm of horrible American news coverage that is now entering its third day is a punishment that does not fit the misdemeanor.

What we're really seeing, though, is our corrupt media at its worst -- a media so partisan and devoid of integrity that they look for any real or perceived mistake to keep the blistering spotlight as far away from Obama's failed record as possible and always on Mitt Romney.

That's not to say that the hysterical reaction from the notoriously hysterical British press shouldn't have been covered by our corrupt news media, but what our corrupt media's doing is much more than that.

Our media is choosing to make this the biggest story in the land; choosing to make this a bigger story than our collapsing economy; and most certainly choosing to attempt to make Romney's "gaffe" a defining moment -- something the corrupt media has never done to our gaffe-tastic president whose international mistakes frequently play like something out of an Inspector Clouseau movie.

In other words, what the media is doing to Romney has nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with partisan politics. Even as we learned our GDP had plummeted to 1.5% yesterday, Romney's London trip remained The Story. And you are damned right this is intentional.

This is all about the media OPENLY coordinating with the Obama campaign to win reelection for a failed president. And the only way to do that is to turn the failed president's opponent into an alternative that isn't acceptable. So as our economy burns and national security secrets fly out the White House window and guns are handed to Mexican drug lords -- the media enters day three of ensuring Romney remains beaten senseless by The Narrative.

This isn’t bias, it's corruption. And as proof, here are 10 examples of Obama's British gaffes, all of which the media has intentionally covered up or underplayed -- all of which are much more embarrassing than a candidate answering a question a little less diplomatically than he should have.

In no particular order:

1. The Toast:

President Inspector Clouseau completely bungles a toast to Queen Elizabeth:

The screwup: At this point, the band launched into “God Save the Queen” — but Obama continued speaking over the music: “.?.?. for the vitality of the special relationship between our peoples, and in the words of Shakespeare, ‘To this blessed plot, this Earth, this realm, this England.’ To the Queen.” She gave him a look, he set down his glass, and then stood motionless until the music stopped. Then everyone picked up their glasses. Oops.

Watch the video. The reaction around Captain Clueless is absolutely hysterical.

2. The iPod:

President Inspector Clouseau gifts Queen Elizabeth with an iPod loaded with videos and photos of… himself:

The bestowing of the Royal iPod brought a cringe from one top etiquette expert, who said it confirmed that Obama hasn’t figured out presidential gift-giving. Or that they shouldn’t all come from Best Buy[.]

Here's The Playlist of the Narcissist.

3. The Incompatible DVDs:

President Inspector Clouseau gifts Prime Minister Gordon Brown with a cheap box-set of DVDs incompatible with British DVD players:

As he headed back home from Washington, Gordon Brown must have rummaged through his party bag with disappointment.

Because all he got was a set of DVDs. Barack Obama, the leader of the world's richest country, gave the Prime Minister a box set of 25 classic American films - a gift about as exciting as a pair of socks.

Gordon Brown is a well-known movie fan so I'm sure he not only appreciated the White House laying out a cool two-hundred bucks or so for a pile of DVDs he couldn't watch, but also gifting him with movies any movie fan would already own.

4. The Hug:

Touching the Queen is as big a no-no at Buckingham Palace as sincere patriotism is at the Obama White House:

Whoever briefed Michelle Obama on the things one does and doesn't do with one's hands when one meets the Queen must be wondering what went wrong.

Within minutes of their first encounter at Buckingham Palace yesterday, America's first lady broke royal protocol by doing the unthinkable: she gave the Queen a hug. The monarch, for her part, responded with equally flagrant disregard for convention by returning the gesture.

If only Michelle were so eager to embrace American liberty.

5. The Throwing of Churchill Out of the Oval Office:

Thanks to some dogged ( and very entertaining) reporting from ABC's Jake Tapper, we've finally gotten to the bottom of the Obama White House's lies surrounding Churchill Bust-Gate. But the bottom line is that this remains 100% true:

But when British officials offered to let Mr. Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

Duzza yer dug bite?

6. The Kitchen Meeting:

"The Special Relationship" hits bottom as Obama makes the British Prime Minister chase him around America like a scorned school girl:

British officials made five attempts to secure official talks with the US President and even agreed to a policy change in an attempt to land a joint appearance between the two leaders, said diplomatic sources.

But the White House rebuffed the offers and Mr. Brown, who had hoped to increase his popularity by appearing on his own with Mr. Obama, had to settle instead for a snatched conversation with the President in a New York kitchen.

7. The, uhm, Special Relationship?

Special Relationship? What Special Relationship?

The gratuitous words of a State Department official in May 2009 were particularly harmful. “There’s nothing special about Britain,” the official said. “You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

I don't see any Special Relationship. Do you see a Special Relationship?

8. The, uhm Special Relationship? - Part Deux:

Why don’t you take a look, because I've looked all over and there's no Special Relationship anywhere:

The Obama administration is not known for its pro-British track record, but this is by far the strongest indication yet that the current White House has little regard for the Special Relationship and its unique role in modern American history. At a White House photo opportunity with French President Nicolas Sarkozy today … President Obama had this to say:

“We don’t have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy, and the French people.”

Quite what the French have done to merit this kind of high praise from the US president is difficult to fathom, and if the White House means what it says this represents an extraordinary sea change in US foreign policy.

Toldja there was no Special Relationship.

9. The Old Obama's-Too-Tired-To-Treat-The-British-PM-With-Respect Ploy:

It was March of 2009 and the President was exhausted from putting together the policies that would ensure our economy would never-ever-ever-ever recover.

Sources close to the White House say Mr. Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.

British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister.

But Washington figures with access to Mr. Obama's inner circle explained the slight by saying that those high up in the administration have had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship.

Hey, putting together an economy that produces more food stamp recipients and people on disability than jobs is exhausting.

10. The Compromising of British Intelligence:

The White House leaking national security secrets to make the President look good?

Go on!

An alleged intelligence leak regarding a covert operation that thwarted an "underwear bomb" plot last week is now creating distrust and ill feelings within the U.S. intelligence community and has led to increased talk about intelligence leaks at the highest levels of government, according to terrorism experts on Friday.

Former Central Intelligence Agency officers are openly blaming President Barack Obama, his administration, and possibly his campaign committee for undermining national security and compromising the British domestic and foreign intelligence agencies, MI5 and MI6, for political reasons, according to a U.S. counterterrorism source who contacted the Law Enforcement Examiner on Friday and requested anonymity.

"When presidents are in trouble because of their failing domestic agenda, they attempt to look presidential by getting involved in military or intelligence operations. And Obama has taken that to a whole new level," said the source.

This White House leak security secrets for political gain?

Our White House?

Shut up, racists.

-----

The list above is not only proof that Obama is frequently a downright fool who can't stop embarrassing himself and his own country (and this list only pertains to only a single country), but that the media covers for him.

Granted, mistakes happen. Ten mistakes, however, are defining. But the corrupt media refuses to portray this President as anything other than calm, cool, and competent even as everything he touches turns to crap.

Moreover, on The Stupid Scale, compare even one item on the Obama list to Mitt Romney answering a question inelegantly. Nothing compares. Nothing.

But damn the truth. The media is determined to portray Romney as everything Obama truly is -- a clueless, dishonest, narcissistic boob.

And it's only July.

breitbart.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (139480)7/28/2012 3:00:11 PM
From: longnshort5 Recommendations  Respond to of 224737
 
an idiot woman libber start a petition to kick chicken fil-a off the capmus at wichita state she got 450 signatures.

Then a guy on that campus started a petition to stop serving gay chickens sandwiches at chick fil-a, he got 950 signatures