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: i-node who wrote (881341)	8/21/2015 2:12:55 AM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 1586616

I know you didn't read that link. How's it feel to be grubered? :)

To: i-node who wrote (881341)	8/21/2015 12:01:02 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1586616

I found you a candidate for 2016....he thinks just like you do: Trump wants to tell you about the ‘real’ unemployment rate 08/21/15 10:11 AM—UPDATED 08/21/15 11:36 AM By Steve Benen On the first Friday of every month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases a report on monthly U.S. job totals and the nation’s unemployment rate. In the most recent report, the rate was 5.3% – its lowest point in more than seven years, and far from its peak of 10% in 2009. In Republican circles, this poses a bit of a problem. President Obama and his agenda are supposed to be causing an economic nightmare of historic proportions, with “job creators” crying over their balance sheets when they’re not being dragged into the streets for their ritual tar-and-feathering. With job creation improving so much, so quickly, conservatives find themselves looking for new ways to talk about the issue. For some, conspiracy theories are a convenient crutch – that rascally White House, the argument goes, must be manipulating the data to fool everyone – while other Republicans make the case that there’s a difference between the unemployment rate and the real unemployment rate. *Consider GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s comments to Time* magazine this week: “We have a real unemployment rate that’s probably 21%. It’s not 6. It’s not 5.2 and 5.5. Our real unemployment rate – in fact, I saw a chart the other day, our real unemployment – because you have ninety million people that aren’t working. Ninety-three million to be exact. If you start adding it up, our real unemployment rate is 42%.” Note, over the course of a few seconds, Trump said the “real unemployment rate” doubled from 21% to 42%. That escalated quickly.** We’re left with two very different sets of numbers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Labor Department have official data that shows a rate of 5.3%. On the other hand, Donald Trump “saw a chart the other day” and came up with 42%. I’d ordinarily just shrug this off as Trump being Trump, but with so many conservatives looking for ways to question good news, it’s worth pausing to appreciate what they’re trying to say. Trump’s numbers aren’t completely made up. When the GOP candidate talks about “our real unemployment rate,” he points to the 93 million Americans who, in reality, do not have a job. But as the Wall Street Journal explained, the details matter. [M]any people without jobs are teenagers and retirees…. The Labor Department doesn’t consider these people unemployed for a reason: Your kid brother who is a high school junior and my grandma who just turned 88? They’re not considered unemployed, for a very good and very obvious reason! Right. For Donald Trump, the “real” unemployment rate should include kids in high school and seniors who’ve retired from the work force. That strikes me as a little silly, but your mileage may vary. If conservatives want to make the case that the official unemployment rate – the U-3 rate for you wonks out there – is not the best metric for understanding the health of the job market, I’m not unsympathetic to the argument. As regular readers know, I’m far more interested in whether jobs are actually being created than whether the rate, which only counts those actively looking for a job, is inching higher or lower. But let’s not play political games with the data, pretending there’s a “real” unemployment rate that should include octogenarians.

To: i-node who wrote (881341)	8/21/2015 12:11:18 PM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586616

Hell, Iran is doing their own damned inspections. Lies, lies and more lies from the peanut gallery. Thanks Dave. A senior State Department official said that the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, would have "total oversight" of sampling and inspections of Parchin under the agreement between the agency and Iran over access to the site. "Iran is not self-inspecting," the official said, though this official would not deny that Iranian inspectors will "play a role." It seems likely that IAEA staff would either be present or watching via video camera when the Iranians take samples from the site, a practice that the international nuclear agency has used in previous inspections agreements. A senior administration official, meanwhile, said that while Iranians may be taking the samples at Parchin, individuals from other countries will be a part of their analysis. The official noted that the arrangement satisfies the demands of the IAEA. The official stressed that the arrangement for Parchin is an entirely separate arrangement from investigations of other Iranian nuclear sites with possible military dimensions: They're a "totally different ballgame." The other sites that are part of the inspections regime under a deal between Iran and world powers reached in July -- with the IAEA as the instrument for determining the protocol and carrying out those inspections -- are open to inspectors 24/7, the official noted. The examination of Parchin is part of the agency's inquiry into past nuclear activity, as opposed to inspections of other nuclear sites under the deal, which are more focused on ongoing work. The specifics of the deal between the IAEA and Iran over the Parchin inspections are not included in the nuclear agreement, but Iran is required to satisfy the IAEA's concerns about its program under that deal. read more................... http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-inspections-parchin/

To: i-node who wrote (881341)	8/21/2015 12:18:16 PM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586616

This fool is reminding me more and more of Joe McCarthy. BTW wingers why are you recommending Dave's lying posts while ignoring the truth? Are you that corrupted? Tom Cotton puts bad information to good use 08/21/15 08:00 AM—UPDATED 08/21/15 12:03 PM By Steve Benen Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) issued a press release yesterday afternoon with a provocative headline, no doubt intended to raise eyebrows: “Cotton Statement on the Revelation that Iran will be Permitted to Inspect its Own Nuclear Facilities.” It quoted the far-right freshman saying: “Allowing Iran to inspect its own nuclear facilities is reckless and illustrates yet again that this deal is little more than a dangerous list of concessions made by the United States…. This revelation should be the last straw for any undecided Members of Congress. […] “Entrusting Iran to verify itself turns what is a bad deal into a farcical one. And the only ones laughing are the ayatollahs.” Well, not the only ones. Anyone who read Cotton’s press release who’s also aware of reality probably got a chuckle, too. All of this stems from an Associated Press report from Wednesday that, at least initially, claimed Iran had struck a side deal with the IAEA about Iranians inspecting its own nuclear site. The problem is the AP article turned out to include several key errors – an issue that became even more alarming when key paragraphs went missing from the AP piece without explanation. Some news consumers may not remember this, but we saw similar dynamics unfold in 2002 and 2003 – someone would leak misleading information related to national security to major news outlets; the news outlets would publish mistaken reports; and war proponents would exploit those reports to further an ideological cause. Referencing the AP’s flawed report this week, Borzou Daragahi, a reporter based in the Middle East, said the press is “ starting dangerous fires.” And in Tom Cotton’s case, politicians desperate to derail diplomatic solutions – and a little too eager to start yet another war in the Middle East – are only too glad to fan those flames. Look again at the Arkansas Republican’s press release. The senator states, simply as fact, that Iran “will be permitted to inspect its own nuclear facilities.” That’s demonstrably untrue. Cotton also says, again as if it were fact, that U.S. policy is “entrusting Iran to verify itself.” This, too, is plainly false. One could go out of their way to give the senator the benefit of the doubt. In the most generous interpretation of events possible, perhaps Cotton – a member of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, who sits on the subcommittees that focus specifically on the Middle East and terrorism – was simply confused by an Associated Press article that turned out to have important errors. The alternative explanation is that the Arkansan knew better, but exploited an AP report he recognized as wrong. At issue is the long-dormant Parchin facility, and Iranian officials’ request to take soil samples from the site. The Associated Press initially published a variety of striking claims – including the assertion that Iran would get the samples without IAEA monitoring – before deleting the offending paragraphs, later publishing the exact opposite, or both. Vox’s Max Fisher added yesterday, “The bottom line here is that this is all over a mild and widely anticipated compromise on a single set of inspections to a single, long-dormant site. The AP, deliberately or not, has distorted that into something that sounds much worse, but actually isn’t. The whole incident is a fascinating, if disturbing, example of how misleading reporting on technical issues can play into the politics of foreign policy.” And even without these important details, the Huffington Post reported that the original Associated Press piece should have set off alarm bells since it included claims about IAEA operations that simply didn’t make any sense. Thankfully, the misleading claims don’t appear to have changed any attitudes among congressional supporters of the international nuclear agreement. But among Republicans, a variety of notable GOP figures, including members of the House and Senate leadership, leveled serious accusations against U.S. officials, accusing the administration of dangerous negligence, all based on claims that turned out to be wrong. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), in particular, responded to the original AP article by saying, “The Obama administration has a lot of explaining to do.” We now know, however, that congressional Republicans pounced on misleading reporting, and so far, not one GOP official has acknowledged the flaws in their claims. It seems someone has a lot of explaining to do, but it’s not the Obama administration.