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 (145379)	10/11/2012 7:42:58 AM
From: lorne	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224774

Obama fans: We'll riot, leave U.S. if Mitt wins 'I want to shoot Romney in the penis. Why do we let him talk?' by Joe Kovacs Thursday, October 11, 2012 wnd.com With Mitt Romney surging in polls since his strong debate performance last week, supporters of President Obama are vowing online to riot nationwide and even leave the U.S. should the Republican challenger oust the incumbent. Numerous Twitter postings in recent days feature threats of street violence, often poorly worded, as collected by the Twitchy website. For instance, on Oct. 8, John Kramer@YoungCal626 posted: “I Hope The USA Is Well Aware That If In The Event This Character Romney Wins The Election, The People Will Start A Country Wide Riot! #Power” On Oct. 3, Tommy Pickles@ThugPickles wrote: “I Heard Mitt Romney , Tryna Take Away Food Stamps , If He Do .’IMA START A RIOT , IMA START A RIOT’” One Twitter user, Facey!@daboifacey, apparently felt a sense of rioters’ remorse, as he posted: “Ok,I apologize for that tweet about Romney,It was a joke,I would never start a riot -___- its twitter.” Beyond the violence threats, many more are vowing to begin a mass exodus out of America if Obama is not re-elected. Amber Lee@JoseAmbuervo says: “Told my New Zealand friend that if Romney is elected I am moving to her country. She said ‘Deal. We don’t need politics we have ferns.’” Candice J @Cannadiss posted: “If Romney wins this election, I’m moving to New Zealand because this f–ker is not taking away the sh-t that I believe in.” Some may even grab the attention of the U.S. Secret Service. Rafiki the Ukulele@lovingschneider said: “I want to shoot Romney in the penis. Why do we let him talk? If he wins I’m moving to New Zealand.” Many Obama supporters are threatening to leave the country, start riots, or even shoot Mitt Romney if Romney defeats President Obama in the 2012 election. Besides New Zealand, other popular countries on the list of post-Obama destinations include Canada, England, Scotland, Australia, Mexico, Ireland and Italy. Anorb @broNaNa45 says: “I’d rather live in Ireland’s horrible economy then live under Romney as president. So if he wins, a select few can visit me in Ireland.” “I’m moving to Italy if Romney win; Italian men love black girls,” wrote illest ice@iamDynastyCold And Eddie Smith@EdFoo89 said: “I will literally have to move to Mexico if Mitt Romney gets elected. I can’t live in a Mormon ruled land. Nope. I won’t do it.” Even the island paradise of Cuba got some mentions, including Cleopatra @IAMLexxie, saying. “If romney wins & is as horrible a he appears now … Deport me back to cuba .. Ill call them myself.” And with the campaign recently focusing on “lady parts,” Melissa Beaird@melissabeaird said she’d prefer not even to be on this planet: “If Romney is elected I’m taking my uterus and moving to Mars.” For his part, President Obama expects the “hand-wringing” among his backers after his lackluster debate performance to dwindle next week. “[Vice President Joe] Biden I think will be terrific in the debate this week. I’ve got another debate,” Obama said Wednesday on the Tom Joyner Morning Show. “By next week I think a lot of the hand-wringing will be complete because we’re gonna go ahead and win this thing.” … “You have a seven game series, you’re up 2-0 and you lose one,” Obama said. While many Democrats appear to be pressing the panic button, some professional analysts say Obama’s performance in the next debate Oct. 16 will be key, especially if the president does not have a good night. “My honest and truthful answer is Democrats are not panicked – and I’m not exactly sure why,” longtime Clinton adviser James Carville told Politico, as he thinks Obama will still win. “Maybe I’m being silly here, but I’ve talked to a lot of people today and everybody’s saying the same thing. … Should I be more concerned than I am? “We’re all trying to talk ourselves into a state of panic, and we’re not quite there yet.” Meanwhile, Jen Psaki, the Obama campaign’s traveling press secretary, said Wednesday she wasn’t concerned about the fretting among Democrats. “We don’t get too high when things are high and down when things are down,” Psaki said on CNN’s “Starting Point.” “We’ve always thought this was going to be a very, very close race, and that’s why we’re running like we’re 5 points down in every single state. We have blinders on. We’re implementing our plan. And ultimately, we think the American people are going to look at the choice and they’re going to vote for President Obama, and that’s why we’re out there every day making the case, but we don’t get too worried with all the ups and downs of the polls and we know [there will] be many, many more before Election Day.” “We don’t think anything needs to be turned around,” she continued. “You know, I know people want us to say we’re … depressed or we’re under a table, but we feel much better about our ground game, we feel better about the choice we’re offering the American people than Mitt Romney, and you know, we’ll let him run his own race and we’ll run our own race,” she said.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145379)	10/11/2012 8:20:10 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224774

In This Reporter's Opinion, Obama's Terror Victory Is A 'Major Lie' Terrorism: The Obama victory lap following Bin Laden's death has had its share of hurdles, none higher than the one presented this week by a CBS reporter who knows the facts. 'Did we mention that we killed Osama bin Laden?" That pretty much sums up the Obama administration's case for its foreign policy, which — save for this much-hyped rub-out — has been marked by confusion, timidity and failure. What we're supposed to think, of course, is that bin Laden's death (along with drone hits on a few other big terrorists) were fatal blows against the movement he founded, and perhaps against Islamist terrorism in general. Al-Qaida is "on its heels," the president informs us. As for al-Qaida's old hosts, the Taliban, they're supposed to be on track toward peaceful power sharing in 2014, when we're scheduled to leave Afghanistan. It all looks good on paper, if you squint really hard. On the ground, the facts are inconvenient for the Obama victory narrative. That was the message delivered Monday, with all the subtlety of a live grenade, by CBS chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan. Speaking to Chicago's Better Government Association, she skewered the administration story as a "major lie." Al-Qaida is not on the run, Logan noted. The Taliban are not being tamed. Pakistan is not cooperating with us. Our enemies are no less eager to kill Americans than they were before 9/11. They will not stop their war against us just because we stop fighting them. As Logan put it, "You're not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script." (For video of her riveting talk, just Google "Lara Logan speech.") What makes this speech so damaging to the Obama camp is that it comes from a reporter in the mainstream media, a veteran war correspondent. She has been to Afghanistan every year since the war started in 2001. Logan's also been on the receiving end of Islamist misogyny — she was sexually assaulted in Cairo's Tahrir Square during the 2011 Arab Spring demonstrations — and we expect some of the more repellent Obama surrogates to suggest this trauma has colored her judgment. But in her speech and "60 Minutes" work, she's dealing in facts. Whatever one thinks of her policy advice, there's no disputing what she's seen and heard. Veteran political reporter Jeff Greenfield, hardly a Republican mouthpiece, calls Logan's remarks "one of the more remarkable pronouncements I have seen in recent years from a prominent American journalist." He also suggests they could damage Obama's re-election hopes, if only because CBS' Bob Schieffer is moderating the Oct. 22 foreign policy debate and would find it hard to "ignore the blistering words of his colleague." Debates aside, Logan's "major lie" accusation gives legs to the growing scandal surrounding the Sept. 11 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. The State Department now admits the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others had nothing to do with demonstrations over some cheesy anti-Muslim video. In fact, there were no demonstrations. The assault came out of the blue, on an otherwise quiet evening. Left unexplained, for now, is why the administration had U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice make the rounds of TV news shows explaining that the attack was a demonstration that got out of control. As we know now, no one in the administration believed this fairy tale. So why did they peddle it? The only sensible answer is that the administration was trapped in that big lie of which Logan speaks. It had to maintain the illusion that, for all his other failings, Obama had at least made Americans safer from terror. Now along comes a CBS war correspondent to argue that the Libya assault was only a harbinger of worse to come. (Logan compared it to the bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole in 2000.) We'll leave it to the American people to decide who's more believable at this point.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145379)	10/11/2012 8:39:13 AM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224774

DATA SNAP: U.S. Jobless Claims Drop to 339,000 in Latest Week Last update: 10/11/2012 8:30:30 AM By Sarah Portlock and Tom Barkley WASHINGTON--The number of U.S. workers filing applications for jobless benefits fell last week, a hopeful sign for the job market following the recent drop in the unemployment rate to its lowest level since January 2009. Initial jobless claims--a measure of layoffs--were down by 30,000 to a seasonally adjusted 339,000 in the week ended Oct. 6, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had forecast 365,000 new applications for jobless benefits last week. However, the report may not be as positive as the sharp drop indicates. A Labor Department economist said one large state didn't report additional quarterly figures as expected, accounting for a substantial part of the decrease. Claims for the week ended Sept. 29 were revised up to 369,000 from an initially reported 367,000. The four-week moving average of claims--which smoothes out volatile weekly data--fell to 364,000, the lowest level since the week ended March 31. Last week, the Labor Department reported the country's unemployment rate dropped to 7.8% in September, the lowest number since January 2009. That report also said payrolls--which are obtained in a separate survey of employers--increased by a seasonally adjusted 114,000 jobs last month. Thursday's jobless claims data showed the number of continuing unemployment benefit claims--those drawn by workers for more than a week--fell by 15,000 to 3,273,000 in the week ended Sept. 29. Continuing claims are reported with a one-week lag. The number of workers requesting unemployment insurance was equivalent to 2.6% of employed workers paying into the system in the week ended Sept. 29. The rate has remained constant since mid-March. The Labor Department report on jobless claims can be accessed at: dol.gov. Write to Sarah Portlock at sarah.portlock@dowjones.com and Tom Barkley at tom.barkley@dowjones.com. (END) Dow Jones Newswires October 11, 2012 08:30 ET (12:30 GMT

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145379)	10/11/2012 11:35:25 AM
From: Carolyn	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224774

But when questioned, Lamb denied that budgetary concerns had influenced her decision. committee “It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.). “You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?” “No, sir,” said Lamb. The State Department viewed the situation in Libya as growing more dangerous, yet denied Eric Nordstrom’s request to keep certain security at then-current levels. Representative Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) asked Nordstrom, a regional security officer at the State Department who had been stationed in Libya for several months recently, about his pay. “What I think you’re referring to is the increase in danger pay for a post,” responded Nordstrom. “To clarify,” Chaffetz cut in, “you were asking for more assets, more resources, more personnel. That was denied, but the State Department went back and re-classified it as more dangerous. The danger pay, therefore, increased. They didn’t tell you that we didn’t have resources, they the Congress just cut your budget. They gave you an increase because the danger was rising. Correct? “That’s correct,” responded Nordstrom, “we received a danger increase.” 5. Nordstrom and Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guard member who had led a security team in Libya , were both frustrated by the lack of support from the State Department on granting security requests. “Mr. Nordstrom, do you think they were ever going to give you what you wanted?” asked Representative Jim Jordan (R., Ohio). “What do you think would warrant them saying “You know what, these guys know what they’re talking about and we’re going to meet their request?” “Thank you for asking that question,” responded Nordstrom. “I actually had that conversation when I came back on leave and for training in February. I was told by the Regional Director for Near Eastern Affairs that there had ‘only been one incident involving an American’ where he was struck by celebratory fire, it was one of Colonel Wood’s employees. The takeaway from that, for me and my staff, it was abundantly clear, we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. And the question that we would ask is, again, ‘How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?’”

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145379)	10/11/2012 12:51:01 PM
From: DanDerr	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224774

Hmm, maybe the DOS should have re-budgeted the $110,000 that they used for a silly Green project at the Vienna Embassy? Tha'd work, eh? And besides, the scandal is NOT the heighth of walls etc, but rather the lack of Security Assets and support from DOS. And the scans]dal is about the Obama/Clinton Cover-Up, not the Cameras installed. BTW, don't you find it strange that nobody knows were the Security Tape from the Consulate is after they discussed the Contents? Probably in the Oval Office under Obama's College Records and transcripts????