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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (649818)	3/31/2012 10:33:46 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1588265

Hussein Obama is a joke......a disgrace....

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (649818)	3/31/2012 10:34:16 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1588265

Nancy Pelosi is a joke......a disgrace....

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (649818)	3/31/2012 10:34:38 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1588265

Harry Reid is a joke......a disgrace....

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (649818)	3/31/2012 10:34:58 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1588265

Dike Kagan is a joke......a disgrace....

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (649818)	3/31/2012 10:36:01 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1588265

Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson is a joke......a disgrace....

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (649818)	3/31/2012 11:29:43 PM
From: jlallen	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1588265

You racist moron....lol

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (649818)	4/1/2012 1:26:04 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1588265

shepard is a race hater. Are you THREATENED by blacks, shepard?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (649818)	4/1/2012 2:00:10 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1588265

The man racist liberals have been deriding for decades emerges as the quiet intellectual leader of the court. .... At most liberals have long seen THOMAS as the Sancho Panza to Justice Antonio Scalia’s Don Quixote, Tonto to his Lone Ranger. No, says Toobin: the intellectual influence runs the other way. THOMAS is the consistently clear and purposeful theorist that history will remember as an intellectual pioneer; Scalia the less clear-minded colleague who is gradually following in Thomas’ tracks. If Toobin’s revionist take is correct, (and I defer to his knowledge of the direction of modern constitutional thought) it means that liberal America has spent a generation mocking a Black man as an ignorant fool, even as constitutional scholars stand in growing amazement at the intellectual audacity, philosophical coherence and historical reflection embedded in his judicial work. .... what he finds is that THOMAS has been pioneering the techniques and the ideas that could not only lead to the court rejecting all or part of President Obama’s health legislation; the ideas and strategies THOMAS has developed could conceivably topple the constitutionality of the post New Deal state. ...... Back in my Pundit High days, anyone who dared to suggest that the Bill of Rights gave individuals the right to bear arms would have been laughed out of the class as an ignorant yahoo. These days, that is the accepted view of the US Supreme Court and most of the legal profession. The resurrection of the Second Amendment proves that the “dead letter” clauses of the Constitution can come back to life — and suggests that Clarence THOMAS understands how this can be done. The next topic for Constitutional revisionism is the expansive reading of the commerce clause that the New Deal judges used to justify the Roosevelt administration’s ambitious economic programs. The Obamacare health reform depends on that kind of reading of the commerce clause; the penumbras must stretch pretty far for the Constitution to give Congress the right to require all Americans to buy private health insurance. ..... As TOOBIN tells the story, the revival of the Second Amendment was the first great triumph of the new approach. THOMAS and others assembled a mountain of evidence that convinced increasing numbers of legal scholars that the Second Amendment must be read as conferring an individual right to bear arms — not merely a generic endorsement of the right of each state to maintain a militia. More, this right was intended as political: to check the power of the state to overawe and crush the people. As a result, the once seemingly unstoppable movement toward gun control has gone into reverse gear. The startling possibility now beginning to dawn on some observers is that these same methods applied to the Tenth Amendment would lead to a much more far reaching revision to constitutional doctrine. .... Message 27601308 http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/28/new-blue-nightmare-clarence-thomas-and-the-amendment-of-doom/

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (649818)	4/1/2012 2:01:06 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1588265

NY: @Wegmans Market Creates Sharia-Compliant Checkout Line for Muslim Cashier Posted on April 1, 2012 by creeping This is how it creeps. via Atlas Shrugs* – Islamization of the Workplace: Wegman’s Adheres to Sharia, Halal Checkout Line for Muslim Cashier.* Wegman’s has put up a sign asking customers buying pork or alcohol not to use a particular checkout line when a Muslim teenager is on duty as the cashier. More islamization of the marketplace. This is a pattern. If you dont want to handle meat that’s not halal, work for a Muslim butcher. Don’t take a job at Wegman’s, Wal-mart or Target. But it is not about that. It’s about imposing Islam on non-Muslims. Special accommodations for a “special class.” This is part of a systematic campaign to impose the sharia on the secular marketplace. Muslim workers suing Disney over their sixty-year-old dress code or Muslim cashiers suing Wal-Mart and Target over their refusal to handle meat that is not halal is all part of a much larger supremacist effort. It has succeeded in Europe, which is all but doomed. They mean to replicate it here. This is well documented in my book, Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Wegmans Foods Markets, Inc. c/o Jo Natale, Public Relations 1500 Brooks Avenue PO Box 30844 Rochester, NY 14603-0844 Customer Affairs: 1-800-WEGMANS (934-6267) Email: jo.natale@wegmans.com The media shapes the story like it’s a great thing and oh doesn’t everyone thinks it’s a great idea? No, we don’t. *Sign at Wegmans draws attention* It’s a first for Wegmans in this area. They’ve put up a sign asking customers buying pork or alcohol not to use a particular checkout line when a Muslim teenager is on duty as the cashier. The sign went up a week ago at their Lyell Avenue store. Wegmans says they haven’t gotten any in store complaints and Wegmans was very upfront about the cashier. They just wouldn’t allow us in the store to talk with her or customers. Spokeswoman Jo Natale says the cashier is a teenaged girl who wears a head covering. She told her supervisor she was uncomfortable handling those items because of religious reasons. So the store manager who had experience with this type of situation outside of Rochester decided to put up a small sign whenever the girl was at the checkout counter. It says, “If your order contains pork or alcohol product, we respectfully ask that you choose another lane.” Wegmans also says the girl has been coached what to say if customers ask why. People News10NBC spoke with outside the Lyell Avenue Wegmans store said they were okay with it and one even knows Christians who don’t like the idea of serving alcohol. Bernard Thomas said, “I feel like if they’re going to hire her and she’s got to have the job, why shouldn’t we respect her. Just go to another cashier.” Darlene Hucko said, “I would respect her beliefs and go to the next line if I had alcohol. Levato said, “You think that’s okay.” Hucko said, “I think it is okay.” Alex Gritsvuta said, “I’m from a Christian background and waiters…the Christian girls that I know have a problem serving alcohol to people in a bar. Not in the bar necessarily, maybe in the restaurant.” It’s not ok and should not be tolerated. If you want to live in an Islamic country you are free to do so. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not want to live under sharia law. Contact Wegmans and your elected officials.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (649818)	4/1/2012 2:31:55 PM
From: Brumar89	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1588265

Justice Sonia Sotomayor's Shocking Ignorance Jason Lee The liberal Supreme Court justices have demonstrated profound and shocking ignorance of the American health care system. Here's one of the most jarring examples: "What percentage of the American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and that child was turned away because the parent didn't have insurance," asked Sotomayor, "... do you think there's a large percentage of the American population that would stand for the death of that child -- (who) had an allergic reaction and a simple shot would have saved the child?" I have a precise answer for Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The percentage of American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and were turned away because the parent didn't have insurance is exactly zero. No person, whether American or not, is ever turned away from an emergency room for lack of health insurance. Ever. This simply does not happen. Here's why: 1. It's illegal. Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment. You can thank Republican President Ronald Reagan for that, for better or for worse. As a health care provider who interacts with emergency room physicians on a daily basis, I can attest to the fact that seriously ill patients are never discharged from an emergency room in the tragic fashion that Sonia Sotomayor imagines. Even uninsured patients with minor, self-limited problems are treated better than that. 2. Morality and the patient-doctor relationship Although this might come as a shocking revelation to liberal Democrats, most physicians understand the difference between right and wrong. No physician would turn away a child simply because the parent didn't have insurance. This is primarily because physicians, even conservative ones, are as compassionate as liberal Supreme Court justices. (And in securing scarce and enormously expensive resources for their patients in an emergency, physicians have virtually unlimited latitude.) 3. The legal risks of selfish, short-sighted decisions are enormous. A jury would have no mercy on a physician who withheld treatment inappropriately, causing a child to die. The financial and professional consequences would be devastating. It's disheartening to note that Justice Sonia Sotomayor, as profoundly ignorant as she is, will be making a monumental decision about a 2,700 page health care law. Justice Sotomayor needs to have a talk with her brother. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/justice_sonia_sotomayors_shocking_ignorance.html#ixzz1qneytGEA Why do liberals believe so many things that just aren't true? Why are they so ignorant? Is it because they live in bubbles (sometimes self-created) where they never see or hear facts?