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 (901864)	11/19/2015 11:01:55 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1587633

Then Obama is your guy ... he hates Republicans too. But he doesn't hate ISIS or the Muslim Brotherhood.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (901864)	11/19/2015 11:04:25 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1587633

Sitcom mocks stereotypical liberal NPR listener: 'Fresh Off the Boat' Hilariously Skewers Bleeding Heart NPR Listeners By Alexa Mouteveli... \| November 18, 2015 \| 4:12 AM EST In the Fresh Off the Boat episode "Huangsgiving," recurring gay character Oscar Chow brings his new boyfriend Michael to the Huangs' Thanksgiving dinner. He excitedly introduces him to Jessica, saying, "Michael listens to NPR!" -- and he proudly displays the tote to prove it. (The show is set in the 1990s.) Later, Michael is alone with Jessica's mom and he starts tearing up over an NPR story he heard on the plight of almonds, in what could be the most hilarious stereotype of a bleeding-heart liberal NPR listener ever: [iframe width="640" height="360" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/141506" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""][/iframe] -Michael: So, I was listening to the most fascinating story on NPR this morning about almonds. I was on the train, tears streaming down my face. You know, and Oscar says, "What's wrong?" [Voice breaking] And I sa-- sorry. I said, "The almonds are in trouble, and we're doing nothing." -Ma: Connie! [In Chinese] Come take me away from this man. Will no one save the almonds?! Oh, the humanity! The mom's reaction is pitch perfect. - See more at: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/alexa-moutevelis-coombs/2015/11/18/fresh-boat-hilariously-skewers-bleeding-heart-npr#sthash.9pqRiXrF.dpuf

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (901864)	11/19/2015 11:06:11 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1587633

Hey, why haven't I seen bragging about the 30 man Muslim march against ISIS in Paris?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (901864)	11/19/2015 11:07:39 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1587633

The Big Lie that liberals care about gays By Tom Trinko Liberals apparently hate gays, or at the very least, they don't care about gay health – so much that they've made it legal in California for an HIV-positive gay man to have sex with without disclosing to his partner that he has the disease. [ Could be good legal news for Charlie Sheen. ] ........... Additionally, the fact that California gays haven't fought this law tooth and nail – it is, after all, literally a life-and-death issue for them – tells us just how sex-addicted sexually active gays are. We know that most gays live massively promiscuous lifestyles, so the gay acceptance of this law means that they are okay with risking their life for sex. That in turn is a strong example of why the gay lifestyle is not a good one, and hence why it's good to encourage people suffering from same-sex attraction to live a chaste lifestyle. Another sign that the liberal lawmakers don't care about gays is that the law applies only to "unprotected" sex. However, while condoms can reduce the probability of transmitting HIV, they don't eliminate that possibility. Apparently, liberals have no problem with gay men unknowingly being forced to play HIV roulette with their sexual partners. The California law further says that even if one had the intent to transmit HIV, so long he uses a condom, it's perfectly legal. By empowering gays to effectively kill each other, California liberals show that when the rubber meets the road, they don't really care about gays. After all, one could support so-called gay marriage yet still make it a crime for someone to knowingly conceal his HIV status from his partners. Use this law to help explain to your low-information friends why liberals don't really care about gays, while conservatives do. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/the_big_lie_that_liberals_care_about_gays.html#ixzz3rwcCUdtQ Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter \| AmericanThinker on Facebook

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (901864)	11/19/2015 11:09:44 AM
From: Brumar89	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB locogringo TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1587633

FLASHBACK: 26 percent of young US Muslims okay with suicide bombings But remember, Rat, says Republicans are worse than bombers. November 19, 2015 \| BPR Wire \| 1 Comment \| Print Article The ongoing debate over the Obama administration’s plan to welcome tens of thousands of Syrians into the U.S. has heavily revolved around the danger that Syrian refugees may end up turning to terrorism in the future. As such, it’s worth remembering a survey of Muslims from several years ago which found widespread support for suicide terrorism, even among Muslims in Western countries. In 2007, Pew Research Center took an in-depth look at the attitudes of American Muslims and how they compared with the rest of the world. Notably, the survey asked respondents whether it was ever acceptable to make suicide attacks on civilians for the purposes of defending Islam. Fortunately, Pew found the vast majority of American Muslims were opposed to suicide attacks. Unfortunately, there was still a substantial group of Muslims who disagreed, and that group was disproportionately clustered among those most likely to be involved in terrorist plots. Among American Muslims (surveyed on page 53 of the report), 8 percent told Pew that suicide attacks on civilians in defense of Islam were often or sometimes justified. Another 5 percent said such attacks were rarely justified, and 78 percent said they never were. In other words, 13 percent of American Muslims, nearly one in seven, conceded that suicide bombings against civilians could be morally acceptable. With about 3 million Muslims in the United States, even 13 percent amounts to nearly 400,000 people. The numbers were even more worrisome elsewhere. Among French Muslims, 35 percent said suicide attacks could potentially be acceptable, as did 24 percent of British Muslims. In the Islamic world itself, the numbers were far higher. In Jordan, Nigeria, and Egypt, a majority of respondents were willing to admit suicide attacks to defend Islam could be justified. Support for suicide bombings was particularly high among young Muslims. In the U.S. a full 26 percent of Muslims aged 18-29 admitted they could see justifications for suicide bombing, nearly triple the rate of older Muslims. Similar degrees of extremism were visible in the other Western countries Pew interviewed Muslims in. In France, an astonishing 42 percent of young Muslims said suicide attacks could be justified. Young Muslims were more radical in other ways as well in Pew’s survey. They were more likely to have a favorable view of Al Qaeda, and were also more likely to believe conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks. Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/11/19/flashback-26-percent-of-young-us-muslims-okay-with-suicide-bombings-275610#ixzz3rwpkf4vS

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (901864)	11/19/2015 11:15:33 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1587633

Oops! Smarter lefties realize they have a losing hand on Syrian 'refugees' By Thomas Lifson Dems had better be hoping ISIS isn't able to keep their promise to attack DC and NYC before the next election. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones is an old hand on the left and has seen enough politics that he realizes what a big loser of an issue the Syrian “refugee” inflow is for the Democrats and the left. He cautions his fellow progs: Over the past 24 hours, almost half of the nation's governors [ It's more than half now, last I saw it was 32 states ] — all but one of them Republicans — have said they plan to refuse to allow Syrian immigrants into their states in the wake of the Paris attacks carried out by the Islamic State....That stance has been greeted with widespread ridicule and disgust by Democrats who insist that keeping people out of the U.S. is anathema to the founding principles of the country. ....Think what you will, but one thing is clear: The political upside for Republican politicians pushing an immigration ban on Syrians and/or Muslims as a broader response to the threat posed by the Islamic State sure looks like a political winner. I pointed out this out a couple of days ago, in fact. And Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post agreed: The political upside for Republican politicians pushing an immigration ban on Syrians and/or Muslims as a broader response to the threat posed by the Islamic State sure looks like a political winner. The Pew Research Center did an in-depth poll looking into Americans' view on Islamic extremism in the the fall of 2014 — and its findings suggest that politicians like Cruz have virtually nothing to lose in this fight over how best to respond to ISIS's latest act of violence. Fellow progs are not reacting well to this does of reality (but then, when has reality ever been a major factor in prog thinking?) Ryan Cooper, writing in The Week, goes for outright denial of the threat of Islamic terrorism. Islamist terrorism is a fairly minor threat. Yes, the Paris attacks (like 9/11, Madrid, Mumbai, and countless atrocities in Iraq and Syria) were a terrible tragedy. But we need to be realistic about how strong ISIS really is. It's true that decently organized young men with simple explosives and cheap automatic weapons can easily massacre hundreds of civilians and terrorize millions. But that is not even close to a "an organized attempt to destroy Western civilization," as Jeb Bush ludicrously claimed. Compared to Nazi Germany, or the Soviets with their hundreds of long-range nukes, ISIS is pathetically weak. I suppose this falls under the “acceptable damage” school of thought, though it ignores dirty bombs and the delivery system of suicide jihadis. Radioactive contamination of the hearts of half a dozen or a dozen American cities, for instance. Others, like somebody who calls himself BooMan, double down on the insults while wrapping themselves in virtue: if we're compelled to take the losing political argument because it's the right thing to do, then we should at least point out that our opponents are bedwetters who become incontinent every time they think of a Muslim terrorist- even when that Muslim terrorist is shackled in Guantanamo and being fed orange-glazed chicken, rice pilaf and two kinds of fruit. Oddly enough, BooMan joins Rush Limbaugh in seeing Gitmo as a pretty spiffy prison, not a hellhole of torture, as is leftist dogma. Still others, like Charles P. Pierce of Esquire attempt to distinguish good (i.e., liberal or blue state) concern from bad (i.e., conservative) concern over the dangers. We can dismiss Governors Greg Abbott of Texas, and Robert Bentley of Alabama, and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and Phil Bryant of Mississippi, all of whom went quickly for the chest-pounding end of the xenophobic scale. (snip) Charlie Baker is not a bigot. Neither is Maggie Hassan. Their concerns are not posturing. They are not for show. Still others stress how rigorous the screening will be. Yeah, trust the federal government, because we can see how well the TSA does catching bombs and weapons every time a test is run. The voting public will react to “Trust us: we’re the feds” in an entirely appropriate fashion, I believe. I say, let the circular firing squad form up on the left. Keep emphasizing, like Obama, that we need to feel good about ourselves as enlightened people, and let in potential jihadis. The Tsarnaev brothers were once youngsters who passed screening. How did that work out? Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/oops_smarter_lefties_realize_they_have_a_losing_hand_on_syrian_refugees.html#ixzz3rwlECN4h Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter \| AmericanThinker on Facebook

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (901864)	11/19/2015 11:17:19 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1587633

Tsarneav's: Poster children for the Democratic party

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (901864)	11/19/2015 11:28:47 AM
From: Brumar89	6 Recommendations Recommended By Bonefish dave rose FJB locogringo Tenchusatsu and 1 more member Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1587633

I recall when the Boston marathon bombing occurred, the psycholeftists at the View thread decided the bombings were the work of rightwingers and worked themselves up into a froth of rage. Cause it happened on Patriots Day or something. Koan said he was ready to Invade The South. As soon as they learned it was a couple of young Muslims, the anger went away and Koan said they were just mixed up kids.