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: Wharf Rat who wrote (855046)	5/7/2015 4:43:08 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576593

WR, If they weren't shoving you around, your air would look like this What a load of bull. So if I don't bring my reusable bags to the grocery store, the air quality will be worse than that of Beijing? Or is that what your overlords tell you to say in order to avoid having to defend draconian environmental regulations? Tenchusatsu

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (855046)	5/8/2015 8:21:53 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1576593

Shut Up and Cover Up, So As Not to Offend Appallingly, but not surprisingly, the liberals who run the media have blamed Pamela Geller for angering the Islamic savages who recently attempted a terror attack to stifle free speech at her Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest, and who now promise to murder her so as to impose the will of Mohammad on our country. Geller and others (see here and here) have compared this to blaming a rape victim for having dressed provocatively. Given the fanatical devotion of our liberal rulers to their Moslem allies, and the conspicuous tendency of those allies to rape Western women, this comparison is more likely to affect the official politically correct attitude toward rape than toward freedom of speech. The satirical People’s Cube speaks on behalf of the liberal establishment: We are now in an environment where it is no longer safe to openly blame the perpetrators of violent acts committed by religious extremists [i.e., Moslems]. The official party narrative, as postulated by the state-sponsored media, is that the victims of these heinous acts are responsible for provoking their attackers. Viewed in this light, it is time to rethink whether we should allow our women to venture out into public alone, especially those without a head-covering. Remember Lara Logan, the female CBS reporter who was raped in Tahrir Square during the Cairo protests? She was not wearing a head-covering, nor was she accompanied by a husband or other male relative. Sure she had a right to appear in public without covering her head, but was it wise? Can we really blame the young men who raped her? If you’re a woman, don’t just shut up. You also need to cover up. Otherwise Moslems will find you offensive and have no choice but to attack you, for which the media will find you to blame. This also applies to Christians: They are well aware that it is against Sharia to be Christians, and they know the consequences. Yet they expect us to take pity on them? Do not fall victim to their shameless pleas for sympathy, comrades. All they have to do is renounce their faith in Christ and submit to Islam. To pretend that they have no way to escape their fate as martyrs is just plain dishonest. No wonder the Obama Regime won’t let Iraqi nun Diana Momeka into the country to tell us what ISIS has been doing to Christians. Who wants to hear a lot of whining about beheaded children who had it coming for being provocative? An updated Goofus and Gallant for liberal dhimmis. http://moonbattery.com/?p=58188

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (855046)	5/8/2015 8:32:50 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576593

We are now in an environment where it is no longer safe to openly blame the perpetrators of violent acts committed by religious extremists. The official party narrative, as postulated by the state-sponsored media, is that the victims of these heinous acts are responsible for provoking their attackers. Muslim_Gang_Rape_Sharia_Hillary.jpg [ 59.39 KiB \| Viewed 2732 times ] Viewed in this light, it is time to rethink whether we should allow our women to venture out into public alone, especially those without a head-covering. Remember Lara Logan, the female CBS reporter who was raped in Tahrir Square during the Cairo protests? She was not wearing a head-covering, nor was she accompanied by a husband or other male relative. Sure she had a right to appear in public without covering her head, but was it wise? Can we really blame the young men who raped her? According to the logic of the MSM, she was begging for it. The same could be said of the Christians who openly declare their faith. They are well aware that it is against Sharia to be Christians, and they know the consequences. Yet they expect us to take pity on them? Do not fall victim to their shameless pleas for sympathy, comrades. All they have to do is renounce their faith in Christ and submit to Islam. To pretend that they have no way to escape their fate as martyrs is just plain dishonest. It is time that we all learn that if we want a seat at the table, we must submit ourselves to Islam. Then we will have nothing to fear from anyone. If we refuse to do so, then our blood is on our own http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/msm-cbs-reporter-provoked-gang-rape-in-cairo-t16307.html Of course we all must submit even if we like to pretend that we are not submitting. As Mike Thompson of the Detroit Free Press says (and I'm sure he speaks for many other like-minded dhimmi cartoonists: Quote: If people are angry because of the worldview that a cartoonist is expressing, so be it. Again, freedom of expression must be absolute, and violence against one's right to free speech is unacceptable. But deliberately poking a stick in someone's eye for no other reason than to poke a stick in his or her eye, as the exhibit in Texas did, strikes me as childish. Or worse, a pointless waste of an opportunity to say something a bit more meaningful. So as you can see comrades, there are many ways to submit, to cover up, to not provoke gang rape, murder, etc. You can cover up your body, you can cover up your thoughts, or to absolutely avoid provocation and not "poke a stick in someone's eye . . ." you can cover up body and mind.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (855046)	5/8/2015 8:36:40 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1576593

Mormons attack Broadway show, media blames producer Konservative_Punk 5/6/2015, 5:00 pm Book_Mormon_NYPD.jpg [ 36.1 KiB \| Viewed 1421 times ] MANHATTAN-- The NYPD is reporting that shots were fired at 230 W 49th St. this afternoon into the front of the Eugene O'Neill Theatre, which is the site of the Tony-Award winning Broadway musical, The Book of Mormon. It is unclear whether anyone was injured in the attack, but witnesses saw a pair of young men in white short-sleeved shirts with neckties fleeing from the scene on bicycles. It is being speculated that the young men on bicycles were angry Mormons expressing their outrage at the show's producers. Up until this violent episode, the reviews have been overwhelmingly positive: most critics gave the show a thumbs-up and even the Mormon Church did not condemn the satirical parody, but rather took the opportunity to ask viewers to read the Book of Mormon for themselves. However, in an effort to appear consistent after recent events in Garland, TX, the media is now changing the tune towards blaming the Broadway producers for inciting young practitioners of the Mormon faith to commit violent acts. FoxNews host Martha McCallum brought up criticisms that The Book of Mormon is “taunting” Mormon extremists, saying, "if you want to make a difference, you do it in a Christian way, you don’t do it in a crass crude way by insulting someone’s religion." In an exclusive interview, CNN's Alisyn Camerota sat down with one of the show's creators, Matt Stone, who is also a co-creator of South Park: CAMEROTA: Matt, where were you when the gunmen opened fire, and what happened inside? STONE: We had just finished Act I, and were preparing for the second act when the NYPD came in and asked us to remain calm. They informed us that shots had been fired into the theater lobby from the street. CAMEROTA: Didn't you know just how dangerous an event like this could be? STONE: Well, it's dangerous because increasingly, we're abridging our freedoms, so as not to offend Mormons. The very idea that if something offends me, or I'm insulted by something, I'll go on a shooting spree and that way I can get my way, is outrageous. But somehow this is okay with members of the elite media and academia, which is just as outrageous. CAMEROTA: Well, I mean, but Matt, nobody -- STONE: It's a Broadway musical. It's a funny production! CAMEROTA: Sure. And nobody is saying that this warrants the violence that you saw. I mean I haven't heard anyone in the media saying that it's okay for gunmen to show up at an event like this. But what people are saying is that there's always this fine line, you know, between freedom of speech and being intentionally incendiary and provocative. STONE: Intentionally incendiary and provocative by singing songs? This is the low state of freedom of speech in this country. I disagree, and I disagree most vehemently. The First Amendment protects ALL speech, not just ideas that we like. But even core political speech, ideas that we don't like, because who would decide what's good and what's forbidden? The Mormon Church? The government? Inoffensive speech, Alisyn, needs no protection, but in a pluralistic society you have offensive speech. You have ideas. You have an exchange of ideas. You don't shut down a discussion because I'm offended. If something offends me, should I go out and shoot up a lobby? CAMEROTA: I mean what your critics say about this is that you weren't just going after, say, Mitt Romney, or Glenn Beck, or Warren Jeffs, but Mormonism as a whole. STONE: The West must stand up for freedom of speech. It's the core, fundamental element of this constitutional republic. CAMEROTA: Sure, of course, but I hope that you will reconsider whether your show contains a bigoted message that is fit to be seen by the public. You have a right to continue running the show, but many will ask whether it's really appropriate in this age of political correctness. Thank you for sharing your views with me today. --End Interview-- http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/mormons-attack-broadway-show-media-blames-producer-t16313.html

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (855046)	5/8/2015 8:45:14 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576593

Was Martin Luther King “asking for it?” When Chris Matthews and the rest of the media single out for criticism only those who offend Islam, they are enforcing Sharia Law, caving to tyranny, and inciting violence by making the threat of violence an effective tactic. White supremacy, Muslim supremacy - what's the difference? At the risk of his own life, King set mousetrap after mousetrap to expose the savagery of those who demand others curtail their rights. Pam Geller did the same thing. The only difference is that the national media was on King’s side. Today the national media are on the side of appeasing racist, sexist, gay-murdering, theocratic barbarians. Read more: http://pjmedia.com#ixzz3ZXjL65cW

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (855046)	5/8/2015 8:46:42 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1576593

Pamela Geller’s Critics Are Proving Her Point by David French May 7, 2015 1:56 PM Let’s be clear: The great freak-out over Pamela Geller’s “draw Muhammad” contest isn’t about love for Islam or for robust and respectful religious pluralism. Indeed, many of those expressing anguish over blasphemy against Islam show no such concern over even the most vile attacks on the Christian faith. Beyond that, they’re among the leaders in movements designed to banish religious liberty — including Muslim religious liberty — to the margins of American life. Instead, the fury against Pamela Geller is motivated mostly by fear — by the understanding that there are indeed many, many Muslims who believe that blasphemy should be punished with death, and who put that belief into practice. It’s motivated by the fear that our alliances with even “friendly” Muslim states and “allied” Muslim militias are so fragile that something so insignificant as a cartoon would drive them either to neutrality or straight into the arms of ISIS. That’s why even the military brass will do something so unusual as call a fringe pastor of a tiny little church to beg him not to post a YouTube video. That’s why the president of the United States — ostensibly the most powerful man in the world — will personally appeal to that same pastor not to burn a Koran. They know that hundreds of millions of Muslims are not “moderate” by any reasonable definition of that word, and they will,in fact, allow themselves to be provoked by even the most insignificant and small-scale act of religious satire or defiance. After all, there are Muslim communities that will gladly burn Christians alive to punish even rumored blasphemy. Our nation’s “elite” knows of the 88 percent support in Egypt for the death penalty for apostasy, and the 62 percent support in Pakistan. They know of the majority support for it in Malaysia, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories. They know that even when there’s not majority support for the death penalty for exercising one of the most basic of human rights — religious freedom — that large minorities still exercise considerable, and often violent, influence on their nations. The elite also knows this bloodthirstiness extends to supporting terrorists. The following Pew Research Center numbers should sober anyone who believes in the “few extremists” model of Muslim culture: .................. That's a staggering level of support for a man who not only targeted innocent men, women, and children in the west but who allied himself with the most medieval Muslim regime in the world: the Taliban. And, ominously, his support waned only as his power waned. Islamists have a new jihadist idol - ISIS. ............... Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418058/pamela-gellers-critics-are-proving-her-point-david-french

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (855046)

5/8/2015 8:53:24 AM

From: Brumar89

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576593

OH: Moneyed cronies seek to monopolize legal marijuana

Groups Trying to Get Pot Legalized in Ohio Aren’t Exactly Doobie Brothers
One initiative wants to limit the commercial growth of marijuana to 10 sites owned by wealthy investors.

by Rod Kackley
May 8, 2015 - 12:03 am

Ten wealthy investors who want to become the titans of weed in Ohio have pushed real potheads to the back of the party bus as they work to win voter approval of a proposal to legalize marijuana in the Buckeye State.

Responsible Ohio is one of three groups pushing to get nearly 306,000 petition signatures by July to put their proposals on the November 2015 ballot. This group, led by sports agent James Gould, has put up $36 million— and has hired political professionals who know how to win elections.

Responsible Ohio’s proposal would allow people over the age of 21 to use pot and would legalize medical marijuana for minors with parental consent.

People over the age of 21 would also be able to get a growers license to grow up to four marijuana plants for their personal use. That is one for the potheads.

But what the other groups pushing for legalized pot don’t like is the provision that shows that the wealthy investors in Responsible Ohio want more of a return on their investment than just a good buzz at a decent post-election party.

They want to limit the commercial growth of marijuana to 10 sites owned by the investors who are behind the Responsible Ohio ballot campaign.

Keith Stroup, an attorney with the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), told the Cincinnati Enquirer it is important to remember the Ohio residents who have spent decades fighting to legalize weed.

He doesn’t want them swept aside like so many unwanted seeds and stems.

“These people have invested their lives and taken great risks to get us to where we are today,” he said. “We would like the market to be open to small-and mid-growers, not just the big guys.”

A December 2014 editorial in the Cleveland Plain Dealer said Responsible Ohio’s proposal would create “an anticompetitive constitutional monopoly aimed at enriching a tiny number of landowners” and concluded it “seems like the exact wrong way to go about any conceivable legislation.”

Still, Stroup said if Responsible Ohio is able to get this proposal on the November ballot and the other organizations failed in their endeavors, NORML would probably support it.

This is highly unusual. NORML is never put in this kind of position. But to borrow a business cliche, Responsible Ohio has changed the paradigm of the way marijuana initiatives have been run in other states.

Small- and mid-sized growers, along with people who just like to smoke pot, usually team up with NORML or another national organization like the Marijuana Policy Project to get their proposal on a ballot and hopefully round up enough votes to win. In other words, grass-roots organizations, with the accent on grass.

“Grass-roots” is a description that pretty much covers the other two organizations pushing marijuana reform in Ohio. They are circulating petitions in opposition to the Responsible Ohio proposal.

The Ohio Rights Group has petitions on the streets asking for a slot on the ballot for the Ohio Cannabis Rights Amendment. It would allow the medical and “therapeutic” use of cannabis and industrial hemp. People would be allowed to grow what they need in their homes. Commercial sales would be regulated but not limited to just a few growers.

The End Cannabis Prohibition Act is proposed by Responsible Ohioans. It would allow for anyone over the age of 18 to grow up to 24 plants for their personal use. The Ohio Legislature would create a licensing process for commercial growers, who would not be limited to those who put money into the petition campaign.

The End Cannabis Prohibition proposal isn’t on the street yet. Well, it was for a while but it had to be pulled back. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine rejected the proposal’s language in March. But Tonya Davis, one of the leaders of Responsible Ohioans, said they are trying again.

Assuming at least one of these proposals to legalize marijuana earns a space on the November ballot, the next challenge will be to sway enough voters to vote “yes.” That might not be easy.

A Quinnipiac University poll released April 6 showed a slim 52-44 percent margin of support in Ohio for the concept of allowing adults to possess small amounts of marijuana for their own use.

Legalizing medical marijuana was supported by a much wider margin, 84-14 percent.

Here’s another problem: The idea that the losers of this petition race will embrace the winner if that victor turns out to be Responsible Ohio is a false assumption.

Neither Davis nor John Pardee, one of the leaders of the Ohio Rights Group, has much good to say about Responsible Ohio.

Pardee told the Cincinnati Enquirer the Responsible Ohio proposal would set a “very dangerous precedent.”

Davis said she can’t stand the idea of allowing only 10 wealthy investors to grow all of Ohio’s marijuana, as proposed in the Responsible Ohio proposition.

“That just drives me nuts. I think it’s just going to create another class of criminal,” she said. “These folks that are coming in know nothing about cannabis. They just have the money.”

Read more: http://pjmedia.com/blog/groups-trying-to-get-pot-legalized-in-ohio-arent-exactly-doobie-brothers/#ixzz3ZYDjwVgL