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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305130)	4/6/2011 12:35:53 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 306849

The emerging Obama Doctrine can be roughly described as being caught off-guard by foreign events, issuing numerous rhetorical warnings that sound swell and waiting for somebody else to do something.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305130)	4/6/2011 12:39:05 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Let's see....Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya...the trifecta. Oh and add Gitmo. Next time the Wizard is in town....you need to ask him for a brain so you can think more clearly. BTW the progressive condidate for WI supreme court is now ahead by 200 votes. She may defeat a ten year incumbent thanks to hosni walker and the teapers. Just two months ago she was behind by over 20 pts. We all thank you. ;-) And its on to the recalls.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305130)	4/7/2011 9:39:22 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 306849

Why Holder must resign AG's contempt for democracy By PETER KING April 6, 2011 nypost.com On Monday, as Attorney General Eric Holder stood at the podium at the Justice Department headquarters in Washington to announce that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 terrorists would be tried by military commissions at Guantanamo, he still insisted that he'd much prefer to try them in civilian courts. The guy just doesn't get it -- and because he doesn't, he should resign forthwith. Almost a year-and-a-half ago, when he announced at the same podium that he'd decided to try KSM and four of his co-conspirators in lower Manhattan, Holder did so with complete disregard for the security and day-to-day-activities of those who live, work and visit here. EPA Disdaining Congress, America & New Yorkers: Holder still thinks that trying the 9/11 terrorists as civilians is the correct choice. He'd never discussed the security implications with New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. He'd never consulted with the New York State Police. And he clearly never checked with the federal agency charged with securing federal buildings, whose director testified that the agency didn't have sufficient resources to secure the trials for more than two weeks. It's one thing to make a terribly bad decision, which is what Holder did in November 2009. But it's quite another to make a good decision badly, which is exactly what he did this week. Holder showed absolute disdain for Congress, New York and the will of the American people -- really, for anyone who disagrees with him. Declaring that he knows better than anyone, he continued to ignore the opposition of Americans and of their duly elected representatives, the US Congress, to the idea of a New York City trial. He refused to acknowledge that it was indeed a Democratic-led Congress that, with my strong support, passed legislation to prevent the transfer of Guantanamo terrorists to the American mainland. Exactly 507 days after his initial, terrible decision, he made clear, over and over and over again, that he stands by it. If Holder feels so strongly that bringing the terrorists who killed more than 2,500 Americans to New York City for a civilian trial is, in fact, the morally correct decision, then he should do the honorable thing and resign. He should clear out his desk in Washington, pack his bags and, if he wants, go back to his old law firm, which represents so many terrorist defendants. I am proud that I stood virtually alone among elected officials back in November 2009 in denouncing Holder's plan to hold the 9/11 trials in lower Manhattan as the "most irresponsible decision" ever made by any attorney general. I knew the enormous security risks and financial costs this decision would impose upon New York. Having led a congressional delegation to Guantanamo, I also knew that KSM and his fellow 9/11 terrorists should be tried by military commissions at the state-of-the-art, military-run detention facility there. I was glad on Monday to see Eric Holder finally announce a decision to do just that. Unfortunately, the attorney general doesn't even agree with his own, now correct, decision. New York and America deserve better. It is time for Eric Holder to go.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305130)	4/7/2011 2:01:49 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 306849

Hollywood trial lawyers’ inside job Obama judge greenlights legal shakedown Wednesday, April 6, 2011 washingtontimes.com Hollywood’s close ties to the Obama administration are taking root in the judicial branch. Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell, who was named to her spot on the federal bench by President Obama in July, ordered several Internet service providers to hand over the identities of 5,583 unidentified customers being sued as “John Does” for illegally downloading B-movies. This action would be relatively unremarkable if not for the fact that Judge Howell just happened to be a former registered lobbyist for the Recording Industry Association of America and Universal Music Group. It’s hard to believe that she would not have preconceived views on the case given her former employers were just as sue-happy as Donkeyball Movie LLC, Maverick Entertainment Group Inc. and Call of the Wild Movie LLC - plaintiffs in the present action. The firms assert that they have suffered significant harm from the unauthorized downloading of unforgettable cinematic classics such as “13 hours in a Warehouse,” “He Who Finds a Wife” and “Hellbinders.” The latter film’s plot is summarized as: “Max is a fast-talking mercenary willing to risk everything for the almighty dollar, but he has met his match when he agrees to take on a job to terminate the devil himself.” We don’t want to ruin it for you, so in case you haven’t seen it yet, we won’t give away the ending. Although the studios claim that they are merely protecting their intellectual property, they typically send all defendants, once identified, a threatening letter. It states penalties of up to $150,000 per movie downloaded are possible but that they are willing to drop the matter in exchange for between $1,500 and $3,900. There’s a website, copyrightsettlement.info, that allows convenient payment with “All Major Credit Cards Accepted.” Even for someone wrongly accused, it can make sense to pay up and avoid the legal expense, stress and public humiliation of being sued for allegedly downloading the film “Stripper Academy.” It’s quite possible that many of these flicks were secretly downloaded to avoid the embarrassment of having them show up in a Netflix queue. This legal heist allows a minor studio to convert films that have little commercial value into blockbusters. All it takes is a team of lawyers and a compliant judge - and that’s exactly what they’ve gotten with Judge Howell. Financial-disclosure documents show that she earned several hundred thousand dollars between 2004 and 2008 trying to convince Congress to enact the very laws that made this particular racket possible. Her actions have shown partiality. Judge Howell steamrolled over the particularly apt objection of Time Warner Cable that Hollywood’s most recent demands involved hunting down the identities of over 4,000 subscribers. Time Warner is not a defendant in the case and has done nothing wrong. Each time it has to identify a customer, it needs to go through and check records to determine who had a specific Internet address at a specific time. The company estimates each search costs $45 in staff time and takes away resources from more important law-enforcement requests for similar information. Judge Howell only has jurisdiction over downloading that took place within the District, but her broad order refused to separate out the vast majority of the accused who happen to live in other parts of the country. So far, Hollywood has gone after 100,000 “John Does” in these downloading cases. That would mean $150 million, if everyone settled. The Constitution provides for a limited copyright protection for the specific purpose of promoting “the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” This goal is not accomplished by enriching trial attorneys and endorsing scattershot, dragnet lawsuits that offer little way out for those wrongly accused.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305130)	4/7/2011 2:53:57 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 306849

Note the date on the article......the day before the WI elections. The guy is almost prophetic. Charlie Cook: Warning Signs Among the GOP It’s not inconceivable that Republicans might start seeing things go against them in the court of public opinion, starting with the current spending debate. nationaljournal.com

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305130)	4/8/2011 11:22:39 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 306849

Mystery scars on Obama's head prompt another question from conspiracy theorists - has the President had brain surgery? By Daily Mail Reporter 6th April 2011 dailymail.co.uk He has been plagued with questions and doubts concerning his background throughout his first term as President. Questions like - is Barack Obama actually American? Is he a Muslim? have frequently been asked. The next question circulating on the internet - has President Obama had brain surgery? i.dailymail.co.uk President Obama meeting comedian George Lopez as the First Lady looks on. Some observers believe this image shows a distinctive scar which looks like those left after brain surgery. However, there could simply be another explanation such as a bad haircut or birth mark i.dailymail.co.uk This enhanced image purports to show the scar running from the top of the President's head to behind his right ear Internet blog sites, conspiracy theorists and forums are awash with rumours as to what those mystery scars on the president's head are from. In pictures, Obama appears to have a long scar which goes up the side of his head and over his crown. Some conspiracy theorists claim they are scars that you would see on someone who has had brain surgery. But without medical records (along with his school records and birth certificate) no one seems to be able to provide an answer as to the cause of the mystery scars. Ben Hart, a blogger for Escape The Tyranny a website which presents itself as a Social Network & Forum For Conservatives, said: 'Obama's almost done with his first term, and we still know almost nothing about the background of the President of the United States. 'Whatever happened to create that scar, it was clearly something serious. Was it a brain operation? Has it affected his thinking? 'No one is allowed to see his birth certificate. He is just one big mystery man, which adds intrigue to what that huge scar is all about.' i.dailymail.co.uk The 'scar' seen from another angle. One blogger says the surgery might explain why the President has, on occasion, got lost speaking without a teleprompter Rumours: The Escape The Tyranny website strongly questions Obama's head scars as well as why no one has seen his birth certificate He also said that surgery might explain why the President gets lost speaking without a teleprompter, and posted a video of Obama struggling through a speech, repeating his words and getting lost mid-sentence. Speculation about different aspects of Obama's life first gathered momentum when questions over his actual birthplace started to emerge, with many believing he was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii, as he has stated. Millions of dollars have allegedly been spent trying to ensure that it is not released to the public, not even the Hawaiian governor has access to it. Added to that are the fact his medical records have also been sealed. A spokeswoman from the White House said they were not willing to comment on such claims, saying they were 'ridiculous'. Countless neurosurgeons said it is 'not their place' to comment on whether or not distinctive scars on the President's head are as a result of brain surgery. Others offered explanations such as a bad haircut or even a birthmark though many did agree that the scars are similar to those a produced after major brain surgery. Without medical records or an admission from the White House, the public may never know the answer to the question, along with the contents of his birth certificate. Read more: dailymail.co.uk