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: Brumar89 who wrote (930528)	4/15/2016 8:06:55 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583503

Bernie's Wife: Asking My Husband What He's Talking About Is An Inquisition April 14, 2016 Daniel Greenfield Bernie Sanders' Daily News interview made him a laughingstock as he reminded everyone that A. He has no idea what he's talking about B. He pivots to robotic stump speeches whenever he's stumped So now Bernie sent out his wife to accuse the tabloid of an "inquisition" for asking him questions. No one expects the "explain how you would carry out your promises" inquisition... Bernie Sanders’ wife went to bat for the upstart Democratic presidential candidate Wednesday, calling her husband’s much-critiqued sit-down with the New York Daily News editorial board an “inquisition.” Jane Sanders told CNN that she and her husband discussed his performance after the April 1 meeting. She attributed the Vermont senator’s curt responses, which were considered vague by a number of critics, to the meeting’s quick pace and said a reading of the transcript alone wouldn’t lend itself to a fair assessment. “I was in that interview, listening, and it was a conversation,” Jane Sanders told CNN’s Brooke Baldwin. “When you see only words down, it doesn’t quite give the flavor of it. Here's the flavor of this mound of gibberish that Bernie Sanders was spewing... Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator. Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm not quite... Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up. Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program? Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that. Oh the inquisition. The horrible inquisition! Why did they torment Bernie by asking him how the hell he would keep his crazy promises... Then Bernie Sanders went on to say that despite not knowing the legal implications, he's sure something illegal went on... Sanders: I would suspect that the answer that some would give you is that while what they did was horrific, and greedy and had a huge impact on our economy, that some suggest that...that those activities were not illegal. I disagree. And I think an aggressive attorney general would have found illegal activity. Bernie Sanders has no idea what the law is. But he'll appoint someone who will find somehow that some laws were broken because he loves the Soviet and Cuban criminal justice systems. Daily News: Okay. But do you have a sense that there is a particular statute or statutes that a prosecutor could have or should have invoked to bring indictments? Sanders: I suspect that there are. Yes. Daily News: You believe that? But do you know? Sanders: I believe that that is the case. Do I have them in front of me, now, legal statutes? No, I don't. But if I would...yeah, that's what I believe, yes. Ladies and gentlemen, your next president. He believes stuff. Let's hang some people on his word. No, we don't need to bother looking at any laws. And yet Bernie Sanders is ironically the one whining about an inquisition... http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/262510/bernies-wife-asking-my-husband-what-hes-talking-daniel-greenfield

To: Brumar89 who wrote (930528)	4/15/2016 9:43:11 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1583503

You'd look good behind bars. Don't worry, tho. You're too small to count. They just mean the liars you post, like Watts and Goddard. “If I see One More Ignorant Comment, I’m gonna…” SNAP April 15, 2016 Polls tell us that real scientists from our leading universities and research institutions are still the most trusted sources on climate change information, which is why so many climate denial canards, and so much internet bullshit in general, starts with the phrase “..according to NASA.” See one hoary example above, of how a legit NASA study can be turned into a pesky climate denial meme. Anyway, somebody at NASA got tired of this. The Independent: Nasa has taken time out from its usual work of exploring the galaxy to call out climate change deniers on Facebook. Nasa’s comments were posted underneath an update from popular science educator Bill Nye, who posted an article about climate change denier Marc Morano refusing Nye’s $20,000 (£14,000) bet that the planet will keep getting hotter. One user, Fer Morales, took issue with the article’s assertion that human emissions are causing the planet to warm, writing: “Riiiiight, despite Nasa confirming that fossil fuels are actually cooling the planet’s temperature, and that there’s more ice than in the last century in the polar caps. And the fact that so-called rises of the sea levels have not materialised, and that any real scientist doesn’t back up man-made climate change at all, since it’s a cycle that has existed even before we did.” Huffington Post: “We invite you to comment on our page, but we ask that you be courteous and cite credible sources when sharing information.” That’s the disclaimer posted atop NASA’s Global Climate Change Facebook page. And judging from the normally staid government agency’s response to a handful of climate change deniers who ran amok this week under a post by media personality Bill Nye, they mean it. Nye, known as “the Science Guy,” shared a story on NASA’s page Monday about a climate change denier who refused to accept $20,000 in bets that the planet will continue getting hotter. The post inspired readers to share a torrent of poorly substantiated — yet fiercely defended — theories in the comments section, ranging from outright climate change denial to vitriolic attacks on NASA itself. After a couple days of the lunacy (as of Thursday evening, the comments section was still growing), whoever manages NASA’s climate change Facebook page finally had enough and decided to set the record straight. One reader, who referred to NASA as a group of “leftards,” but nevertheless claimed NASA has confirmed “that fossil fuels are actually cooling the planet’s temperature,” earned a clear rebuke: “Do not misrepresent NASA,” the agency responded. “ Fossil fuels are not cooling the planet.” That stone-cold retort appears to have since been deleted, but other similarly blunt replies remain: Most of NASA’s replies were informative, well-substantiated, and written with admirable restraint: climatecrocks.com