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: zax who wrote (784230)	5/10/2014 9:03:00 PM
From: i-node	4 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 dave rose FJB one_less Respond to of 1578453

>> The only lies are coming from the lunatic right wing fringe media. The man was "liar of the year" last year. This week, WAPO's ultra-leftwing "fact checker" awarded him 4 Pinnochios. And the recently released email proved conclusively that the WH lied about Benghazi. And there is serious crap happening on the IRS abuse. I understand you having a disagreement politically with the Republicans. But I cannot understand anyone continuing to support this scoundrel in the White House. Really. How can you demand more of your elected officials? When I was a youthful liberal, I fully supported the efforts to remove Nixon. What Nixon did was literally nothing by comparison with Obama's transgressions. If you don't demand integrity you're going to continue getting this kind of behavior our of your elected officials.

To: zax who wrote (784230)	5/11/2014 8:44:29 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578453

you would have supported Hitler, what is wrong with you libs, party first country second, just like with the nazis in the 1930s. Face it Obama is a fascist

To: zax who wrote (784230)	5/11/2014 6:44:38 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB steve harris Respond to of 1578453

To: zax who wrote (784230)	5/11/2014 6:55:14 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB Tenchusatsu Respond to of 1578453

The Obama Lie That Was So Bad the Washington Post Said, ‘On Just About Every Level, This Claim is Ridiculous’ President Barack Obama earned “four Pinocchios” from the Washington Post Fact Checker, the highest ranking for a political lie, for asserting that Republicans filibustered 500 pieces of legislation, an exaggeration of nearly five times the reality. Obama spoke at a fundraising event for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Los Angeles Wednesday, and made the charge against Republican lawmakers.“Here’s what’s more disconcerting; their willingness to say no to everything — the fact that since 2007, they have filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation that would help the middle class just gives you a sense of how opposed they are to any progress — has actually led to an increase in cynicism and discouragement among the people who were counting on us to fight for them,” Obama said. The Post unsparingly said of the president’s assertion, “On just about every level, this claim is ridiculous.” “We realize that Senate rules are complex and difficult to understand, but the president did serve in the Senate and should be familiar with its terms and procedures. Looking at the numbers, he might have been able to make a case that Republicans have blocked about 50 bills that he had wanted passed, such as an increase in the minimum wage,” the Post said. “But instead he inflated the numbers to such an extent that he even included votes in which he, as senator, supported a filibuster.”[iframe name="google_ads_iframe_/75484061/TheBlaze.com/Stories_1" width="300" height="250" id="google_ads_iframe_/75484061/TheBlaze.com/Stories_1" src="javascript:"<html]"" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border: 0px currentColor; vertical-align: bottom; border-image: none;">[/iframe] The Post said that in reality, “there have just been 133 successful filibusters—meaning a final vote could not take place–since 2007.” Obama was bending the definition of filibuster, which means extending debate to delay a vote on a bill. However, the Post said he was likely referring to 527 cloture motions that were filed in the Senate since 2007 to close debate and go straight to a vote. To automatically correlate a cloture motion and filibuster is inaccurate, the Post said, citing studies from both the non-partisan Congressional Research Service and the left-leaning think tank Brookings Institution. The 2013 CRS report said, “it would be erroneous, however, to treat this table as a list of filibusters on nominations.” The 2002 Brookings report asserted 94 percent correlation rate between cloture motions and filibusters from 1917 1996. “But, even if you accept the way Senate Democrats like the frame the issue, the president is still wrong,” the Post said. “He referred to ‘legislation’—and most of these cloture motions concerned judicial and executive branch nominations. In the 113th Congress, for instance, 83 of the 136 cloture motions so far have concerned nominations, not legislation.” The Post noted that Obama referenced two years before he was president, when he was voting himself to block votes on legislation. “Obama’s count also includes at least a half-dozen instances when Republicans were blocked by Democrats through use of the filibuster. In fact, in the biggest oddity, the president reached back to 2007 in making his claim, so he includes two years when he was still a senator,” the Post said. “On eight occasions, he voted against ending debate—the very thing he decried in his remarks.” …

To: zax who wrote (784230)	5/11/2014 8:35:09 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By joseffy Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578453

In addition to the Benghazi attacks, it appears the reported kidnapping of 276 Nigerian schoolgirls by a notorious terror group is another tragedy that could haunt Hillary Clinton’s anticipated presidential bid in 2016. Enter Boko Haram. As reported by The Daily Beast, Mrs. Clinton refused to designate the terrorist organization as such during her time at the State Department. Our own Roger L. Simon reacts to the news: "Of course, anyone who had been paying the slightest attention to world affairs, surely a secretary of State, would have known about Boko Haram’s legendary psychopathic misogyny for years. So what possible excuse would there be for not branding them a terror organization? Could this have been the work of the same person who refused to answer pleas for backup from our now deceased ambassador in Libya? It’s certainly consistent." Bryan Preston writes the following at the PJ Tatler: "Clinton’s refusal to call Boko Haram a terrorist group kept American law enforcement from going after Boko Haram for more than two years, while it was building up strength and terrorizing Nigeria." He also adds to the list of important questions surrounding the former State Secretary’s judgement: "Did Clinton refuse to designate Boko Haram a terrorist group to help build the Obama campaign’s 'al Qaeda is decimated/on the run' line that it used in the 2012 election?" PJ Media’s Bridget Johnson pens her analysis: "The teenage girls are the canaries in the coal mine, warning a world that just might be ready to listen that Nigeria hardly has the control over al-Qaeda-linked Boko Haram that it claims." See the full piece here. She also brings reaction from State Department where Linda Thomas-Greenfield, assistant secretary of state for African affairs, notably called the terrorist organization a "group of bandits." Additionally, Thomas-Greenfield defended the timing of the U.S. response to the kidnapping. This story will be trending for quite some time. Be sure to visit PJMedia.com the latest on the situation, including reaction from us, the nation’s lawmakers and more. Sincerely, Aaron Hanscom Managing Editor, PJ Media pjmedia.com pjtv.com

To: zax who wrote (784230)	5/12/2014 3:06:16 AM
From: Brian Sullivan	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB joseffy TideGlider Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578453

Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive [1] media watchdog group that says it is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" Funding MMfA started with the help of $2 million in donations from liberal philanthropists connected to the Democratic party. According to Byron York, additional funding came from MoveOn.org and the New Democrat Network.