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: tejek who wrote (860914)	5/30/2015 1:04:44 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576819

OKMULGEE, Okla. — Oklahoma authorities say a state trooper has fatally shot a man who was involved in a fight with officers who came to evacuate him and another man from floodwaters. Timmons said two troopers were dispatched to help men who were trying to remove a vehicle stalled in rising water. They were upset that troopers wanted them to get out of the water, and one attacked a trooper washingtonpost.com

To: tejek who wrote (860914)	5/30/2015 3:07:52 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1576819

Hillary's media coverage as poor as her southern accent .................................................................................. Canada Free Press ^ \| 05/30/15 \| Jeff Crouere

To: tejek who wrote (860914)	5/30/2015 3:12:52 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576819

The New Nationwide Crime Wave--Good work Obama .................................................................................................. Wall Street Journal ^ \| May 29, 2015 \| HEATHER MAC DONALD

To: tejek who wrote (860914)	5/30/2015 3:36:53 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1576819

POLL: 96% BRACED FOR SUMMER OF RACE RIOTS

To: tejek who wrote (860914)	5/30/2015 3:47:40 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1576819

How Dishonest is Barack Obama? \.................................................................................................... Townhall.com ^ \| May 30, 2015 \| John C. Goodman A week ago Friday was an unusual day for the editorial page of The New York Times, where.an unsigned editorial lashed out at the president for his public statements about reengaging in Iraq. A Paul Krugman column attacked the administration’s defense of the new trade agreement. Both pieces said the administration was being … (how shall we say it?) … dishonest. Granted, this was nothing like the language Krugman and the Times typically use to describe Republicans. A few days earlier, Krugman accused Jeb Bush of “cowardice and vileness” with respect to his statements about Iraq. In a column on Jeb’s brother and the original invasion of Iraq, Krugman wrote “We were lied into war.” “It was worse than a mistake,” he added, “it was a crime.” Still, Krugman and the Times are normally the most visible and reliable apologists for the Obama administration. On “The Escalation of Unauthorized Wars,” the Times doesn’t accuse President Obama of “lying” or committing “crimes,” but it comes close: On the president’s promise that “I will not allow the United States to be dragged into another war in Iraq,” the Times writes “Those words were suspect then. They seem preposterous now.” On the administration’s claim that its authority to drop bombs in Iraq and Syria stems from a decade-old congressional resolution, the Times writes, “That claim was flimsy then. It, too, seems preposterous now.” In his claim that the administration is being dishonest in defense of its trade policies, Krugman tries to sugar coat his attack with this kind of rhetoric: One of the Obama administration’s underrated virtues is its intellectual honesty…. In the policy areas I follow, the White House has been remarkably clear and straight forward about what it is doing and why. Wow. How quickly memories fade. Everyone knows that Krugman follows health care, for example. Does he really not remember, “If you like the health plan you have, you can keep it.”? Or, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”? We now know from insider reports that the White House knew these statements were false at the time the president was making them. The federal budget is another matter Krugman follows and right now Congress and the president are wrangling over the sequester (across-the-board spending cuts) they agreed to a few years back. How many times has the president and his spokespeople tried to blame the sequester on the congressional Republicans? Yet it is incontrovertible that the idea first came from the White House. Sometimes when it isn’t clear whether the word “dishonest” applies, the context is suggestive. The other day, the President told a group of Coast Guard graduates that global warming is a threat to our national security. It was a controversial claim made at a controversial time and place. So a lot of thought must have gone into the speech. Yet only a few days earlier the President approved Shell Oil’s request to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean. Certainly these actions are inconsistent. Lots of people are inconsistent. Or, is more involved? Did the president really believe that carbon fuel is a threat to our security when he was speaking to the graduates? Did he have that same belief when he approved off shore drilling? One of the president’s finest moments was his appointment of Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles to lead a bi-partisan commission to recommend ways to curtail runaway entitlement spending. This reflected a position he took as far back as the 2008 Democratic primary and he promised both gentlemen that they had his full backing – regardless of their recommendations. Yet when the Simpson/Bowles report was released the president acted as though he had never heard of either one of them. Okay. That’s a broken promise. Or, is it more than that? Did the president really believe the promise when he made it? In 2008, candidate Obama promised to heal wounds, end partisan rancor and pull the nation together. “Yes, We Can” was a promise to unite the American people and members of both parties behind common goals. Yet President Obama has turned out to be the most partisan and the most polarizing president in our life time. And, yes, it really is his fault. Granted, Republicans have given tit for tat. But the president promised to lead. In his first State of the Union address he gratuitously insulted the members of the Supreme Court, who were sitting in the front row honoring him. He invited Paul Ryan to a gathering and proceeded to humiliate him on national TV. For the most part, the president doesn’t socialize with Republicans or even talk to them. But he doesn’t talk to Democrats either. He hasn’t done anything to bring about togetherness on either side of the aisle. Think back to the 2008 campaign. Did the president really mean what he said about bringing people together? I don't know

To: tejek who wrote (860914)	5/30/2015 3:58:13 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1576819

There Are Flawed Candidates, And Then There’s Hillary Clinton .............................................................................................. Townhall.com ^ \| May 30, 2015 \| Matt Vespa . Hillary Clinton has to be the gold standard for flawed candidacies. She had unsubstantiated intelligence sent to her private email system; from an address her lawyers said did not exist when she was at State. That was a lie. She claims to be the most transparent (chuckle) person in public life, yet we find little nuggets every day about her non-profit failing to disclose donations, botching tax forms, and allegedly being the nexus for foreign governments to cash in on their favors from their donations to the Foundation. She had a private email system, which she used to conduct all her business while at the State Department, even though it was against government regulation to do so–and served as judge and jury for emails on that server that were work-related and personal. Oh, and she deleted the personal emails and wiped the server clean. Regarding her finances, we now know that Bill Clinton established a shell company, which wasn’t disclosed since its assets were less than $1,000. The arrangement was designed to “pass-through” payments to the former president, but “the precise amounts of Bill Clinton's earned income from consulting have not been disclosed, and it's not known how much was routed through WJC, LLL [the company in question], according to the Associated Press. Bill Clinton incredulously said getting paid $500k per speech was necessary because he has bills to pay. Regarding the Clintons’ speaking fee rates, if either of them delivers just three speeches, they make more money than most Americans do in their entire lifetimes. On top of that, there’s the “dead broke” remark that Clinton uttered last June, which highlighted another aspect of her flawed candidacy: she’s an abysmal campaigner. If there’s anything that will carry over into next year, it’s this remark, which Maggie Haberman noted is still fresh in a lot of voters’ minds–and possibly the alleged shady dealings surrounding the Foundation. These dealings veered into the world of arms deals, where foreign governments got billions worth of military equipment that was approved by Clinton’s State Department after they gave the Foundation millions of dollars. The International Business Times, which reported on the story, wrote, “news reports document that at least seven foreign governments that received State Department clearance for American arms did donate to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary: Algeria, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Thailand, Norway and Australia." Oh, and Bill Clinton was getting paid to deliver speeches to countries that gave the Foundation money around the same time their arms sales were being approved by the Clinton State Department. Back to their finances, the truth is that the Clintons were obviously never going to be “dead broke.” The earning potential for a former president is astronomical, and Bill Clinton was making, on average, $24,000 a day in the first few months after he left the White House. Prior to that, the Clintons occupied the governor’s mansion in Arkansas pretty much since 1978. Bill lost re-election in ’80, but came back with a vengeance in 1982, remaining the state’s governor until he ran for president in 1992. So, neither of them have really been a power couple for the people, which they’re trying to cast themselves in this election cycle. Moreover, the Clintonomics of the 1990s comprised of being pro-Wall Street and reducing capital gains taxes; two things that are anathema to the Democratic Party base today. Another reason why Hillary plans to run on Obama’s economic record since that’s really the only option, though she could do whatever she wants since she already has the nomination in the bag. Could you imagine any Republican candidate surviving the media scrutiny upon learning any of the things we now know about the secretive world of the Clintons? Replace the Clintons with any Republican family that’s run for president, and I guarantee you the media would be saying how any of these issues (email system, Libya, wealth, and non-profit dealings) disqualify that person from being the next president. When the news of the private email server broke, pretty much every major news outlet reported on it. They continued until it began to impact Clinton in the polls regarding favorables and trustworthiness, and the coverage virtually collapsed. Current incarnation of the Hillary email story is going, going, gone. pic.twitter.com/bb2DpaZL4l Current incarnation of the Hillary email story is going, going, gone. pic.twitter.com/bb2DpaZL4l— Patrick Ruffini (@PatrickRuffini) March 23, 2015 As I’ve written before, even before the Clinton Foundation dealings became more explicit, Hillary is eminently beatable. Voters in key states also view her as dishonest. As for her tenure at State, we now have renewed Russian aggression, Yemen collapsing, the rise of ISIS, and lingering questions about Benghazi. She’s truly the Willie Mays of bad candidates, but we all know the media have different standards. Last note: Yahoo!’s Matt Bai noted that maybe Clinton’s wealth isn’t the problem; it’s the fact that she doesn’t seem to think of herself that way. Moreover, insecurity is the problem: …if there’s anything voters should fear about Clinton, perhaps, it’s not that she’s rich but that she doesn’t seem to regard herself that way. Having come from modest means and devoted most of their lives to public service, the Clintons seem to spend an awful lot of time these days focused on accumulating money, as if they still don’t have very much of it. The speeches that have recently netted them $30 million, the foundation that sucks up cash from foreign governments, the first-class tickets for a two-hour flight from New Hampshire to Washington — all of it speaks to some underlying need to live in the rarified world they could only hope to glimpse as career politicians. I don’t buy that Clinton is hopelessly out of touch with the lives of these “everyday Americans,” and I doubt that voters will, either. But I do wonder if she harbors some persistent insecurity about her own financial wherewithal after all these years spent in the company of staggeringly rich contributors. Where insecurity lurks, bad decisions follow. Yet, given all of this, Hillary could be the next President of the United States (Lord, save us!). Will it be because of gender politics, the media providing exceptional political cover, or American voter apathy regarding the enormous ethical issue of a family-owned non-profit accepting donations from foreign governments, in which case the mother is the President of the United States? In 1984, Arkansas' Amendment 63 extended terms to statewide officers to focus years.