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: bentway who wrote (651410)	4/14/2012 1:32:53 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580295

>> Why would this be of any more concern than the person that drinks? I generally agree, however, it is much easier for a drug addict to use drugs at work unnoticed than it is for a drinker to drink alcohol at work and remain unnoticed. Which is why so many businesses drug test. But if a person is functioning well at work while addicted I just don't have a problem with it. I'd like for them to get straightened out, and I wouldn't want them to expose the business to undue risk. But simply being a drug addict, in and of itself, doesn't do that. I think there is an irrational misunderstanding of what addiction is. I can understand it. We've all been brought up to believe these people are subhuman, out of control people. Sometimes they are and sometimes they're not. There are many, many people who are severely addicted to painkillers and work every single day, reliably and competently. But it is all okay because they have a prescription. The prescription does NOTHING to mitigate the drug addiction (and in fact, enables it -- doctors write them, pharmacists fill them). These people, because they're not buying them on the street, are permitted to hold down jobs. Those who are buying it on the street are denied that, if the law catches them. It is just irrational policy.

To: bentway who wrote (651410)	4/14/2012 11:19:59 AM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Respond to of 1580295

Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery But Disregards “image” As Indication Of Obama’s Ineligibility DAMAGE CONTROL: A recent ballot challenge hearing in New Jersey exposes a desperate strategy by Obama to distance himself from his forged certificate and induce the contrived value of his transient political popularity as the only “legitimate qualification” needed to hold the office of the presidency. By Dan Crosby of THE DAILY PEN \| Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:33 NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd as evidence toward proving Obama’s constitutional eligibility in court. Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”. Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate. At the hearing, attorney for the plaintiffs, Mario Apuzzo, correctly argued that Obama, under the Constitution, has to be a “natural born Citizen” and that he has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is indeed a “natural born Citizen.” He argued that Obama has shown no authenticate evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State demonstrating who he is and that he was born in the United States. Apuzzo also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen. As Obama’s legal argument becomes more contorted, he is being forced to avoid an ever shrinking legal space, and an increasing weight, of his failure to meet constitutional eligibility requirements.[...]