Tue, Oct 21, 2014, 9:48 AM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 6 hrs 12 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Message Board

durrett.scott 456 posts  |  Last Activity: 13 hours ago Member since: Aug 28, 2013
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    isis or isil?

    by fred357mag2000 Sep 15, 2014 5:05 PM
    durrett.scott durrett.scott Sep 17, 2014 7:30 PM Flag

    Ok - atleast you have finally realized this was predominantly Clinton's fault. Besides the CIA reports citing that slick Willie had not one but two chances to kill Bin Laden and told the military to stand down, he had all that intelligence while in office and did nothing. Good work...

  • durrett.scott durrett.scott Sep 17, 2014 7:27 PM Flag

    Newsflash - EVERYONE thought Saddam has WMDs hence the reason Congress authorized the military invasion of Iraq (something BO illegally neglected to do In Libya). Regardless of if you believe the intel was wrong, WMDs were moved to Syria or another neighboring country (my opinion), or the whole thing was fabricated so Cheney's Haliburton company could get a bunch of no bid contracts (love that one!), nobody outside of W's administration knows the truth.

    The whole point of the OP was to show that even liberal rags are starting to realize how counterproductive gun control is.

  • Reply to

    Bill Maher's shocking statements

    by durrett.scott Sep 12, 2014 6:51 PM
    durrett.scott durrett.scott Sep 16, 2014 8:20 PM Flag

    Sure - there is some violent stuff in the Bible. Nobody has disputed that. People aren't killed for infidelity, being homosexual, being promiscuous, etc in the name of Jesus like they are for Allah. Not sure how one could even argue that point.

  • Reply to

    Bill Maher's shocking statements

    by durrett.scott Sep 12, 2014 6:51 PM
    durrett.scott durrett.scott Sep 16, 2014 8:17 PM Flag

    Wow - that's what you got from my post? I said nothing of the sort. The point is that intolerance and bigotry is supported by Sharia law which you obviously have no problem with. This is supposed to be a 'religion of peace' which couldn't be any further from the truth. Contrast that with the teachings of tolerance, assisting the poor, love thy neighbor, etc, that Jesus preached and you have a big difference. Yet here in America Christianity is demonized by the mainstream media while we are bombarded with left wing propaganda in regards to Islam.

  • Reply to

    Bill Maher's shocking statements

    by durrett.scott Sep 12, 2014 6:51 PM
    durrett.scott durrett.scott Sep 16, 2014 7:02 PM Flag

    Happens all the time - but you think the news reports on Muslims killing family members for violating Sharia law? Google 'muslim man runs over daughter'.

    Your examples are off topic. I am sure even you know the difference between sick people like AP/Ray Rice or accidental deaths vs. people who murder or beat someone because their 'religion' tells them to. Try being homosexual or being a women who exposes too much skin in a Muslim country. I guess you're ok with that type of intolerance. To each his own I suppose.

  • Reply to

    Bill Maher's shocking statements

    by durrett.scott Sep 12, 2014 6:51 PM
    durrett.scott durrett.scott Sep 16, 2014 3:40 PM Flag

    The majority of Muslims support Sharia Law though. According to a new report released by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, most Muslims believe that Sharia Law should be adopted as “the law of the land”. Based on more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews with Muslims in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, the survey offers in-depth research about the lives and views of Islamic adherents across the globe. Even more disturbing is that many of the Muslims who want shariah law in a number of countries also embrace harsh penalties such as stonings for adulterers and thieves’ hands being cut off.

  • For years, anti-gun zealots have deliberately blurred the lines between military and civilian firearms in an effort to confuse the general public and rally support for banning "assault weapons." There are semiautomatic rifles, which fire one bullet for each trigger pull, and there are automatic rifles, which fire multiple rounds per trigger pull. The latter are military weapons, are considered "Class 3" firearms severely restricted for ownership under the 1934 National Firearms Act, and can properly be called "assault weapons." Legally owned automatic weapons were used in two murders since 1934. But rifles of any kind comprise less than 2% of guns used in any crime. The New York Times finally admits the "assault weapon" scare is a myth: "The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference" in crime. The truly amazing thing, however, is that the article's author discovers poverty, drugs and inner city violence are the real problem. It's probably too much to hope that evidence will sway the zealots, but it's a start.

  • Reply to

    Bill Maher's shocking statements

    by durrett.scott Sep 12, 2014 6:51 PM
    durrett.scott durrett.scott Sep 15, 2014 2:16 PM Flag

    Do the 'vast majority of Muslims' not believe in Sharia Law?

  • Among his first acts as president in 2009, Barack Obama pushed the so-called "stimulus" -- $800 billion in new spending to reinvigorate the economy after the recession. Predictably, it failed to do what he promised. But it did set a new, higher baseline for federal spending and jack up the federal debt. In selling his snake oil, BO promised "unprecedented measures that will allow the American people to hold my administration accountable," including Recoverygov, a website meant for tracking spending. Now, however, The Washington Post reports, "[B]y the end of the month, the ability to see which entities received contracts and grants through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is going to vanish from Recoverygov, officials say, making it impossible to track where the more than $800 billion ended up." That's because the government "is not renewing its license with Dun & Bradstreet, a major U.S. financial firm that assigns an identification number to all entities doing business with the federal government. When the license expires at the end of this month, those identification numbers -- and other associated data -- will no longer be available to the government. No numbers, no way to track the money." It's just the price of Hope 'n' Change

  • durrett.scott by durrett.scott Sep 12, 2014 6:51 PM Flag

    HBO's Bill Maher is a leftist atheist and has never been a friend of Christianity. But he came to the religion's defense in addressing Barack Obama's assertions regarding ISIL and Islam. "Vast numbers of Christians do not believe that if you leave the Christian religion you should be killed for it," Maher said, objecting to comparisons. "Vast numbers of Christians do not treat women as second class citizens. Vast numbers of Christians do not believe if you draw a picture of Jesus Christ you should get killed for it. So yes, does [ISIL] do Khmer Rouge-like activities where they just kill people indiscriminately who aren't just like them? Yes. And would most Muslim people in the world do that or condone that? No. But most Muslim people in the world do condone violence just for what you think. ... So to claim that this religion is like other religions is just naïve and plain wrong." For once, Maher is right on the money.

  • durrett.scott by durrett.scott Sep 12, 2014 6:48 PM Flag

    In his speech to the nation on ISIL Wednesday, Barack Obama declared, "[W]e will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. ... [W]e will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq." He claimed to be assembling a "broad coalition" in support of his mission so as to not, as he has previously put it, "go it alone" like George W. Bush in Iraq.

    Huh? Bush went with support from 37 countries and Obama has fewer than 10. And one of them is not Turkey, which announced Thursday it would not permit U.S. aircraft to conduct airstrikes from its air bases. That limits our options to carriers in the region or other NATO bases further away. Oh, and Great Britain and Germany also won't be helping with airstrikes. Behold, the results of "leading from behind."

  • Reply to

    BO’s Iraq timelines and statements

    by durrett.scott Sep 11, 2014 2:55 PM
    durrett.scott durrett.scott Sep 11, 2014 4:22 PM Flag

    I believe it is momma - I think Craigy is ashamed of himself and has changed screen names yet again. Since he's busy questioning actual quotes and/or stats, I think it must be him...

  • Reply to

    BO’s Iraq timelines and statements

    by durrett.scott Sep 11, 2014 2:55 PM
    durrett.scott durrett.scott Sep 11, 2014 3:10 PM Flag

    Sebastian Gorka, a counterterrorism specialist in the Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University, said of Obama's redo, "It completely lacks any serious counter-ideological component. Ultimate victory against such an enemy will only come when we delegitimize its motivating force -- the power it has to recruit terrorists and insurgents, just as we delegitimized the totalitarianism of the Cold War."

    Former Vice President #$%$ Cheney aptly summarized the problem with Obama's foreign policy: "[Obama] has demonstrated his own distrust for American power as a force for good in the world. Five years ago this month, he put it this way to the United Nations: 'No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed.' This is one sample from a whole collection of such sayings that seem to regard American influence as a problem to be solved in the world, rather than a solution to be offered."

    Cheney continued, "While the president was claiming the tide of war was receding and core al-Qa'ida had been decimated, the threat is actually increasing. From Iraq, Syria and Yemen, over to Pakistan, all the way down to Somalia and Nigeria, in various places under various names, a whole new wave of jihadists was on the rise."

    National Review's Jonah Goldberg concluded, "It's obviously the case that he is doing this not because the facts on the ground convinced him he had to do what was necessary to protect America but because the polls and the political climate convinced him he had to plug a hole in the hull of his presidency."

    So here is my suggestion: Forget bombs -- we should drop Obama administration policy makers on Iraq and Syria. That would ensure the ruin of the Islamic State in no time!

  • Reply to

    BO’s Iraq timelines and statements

    by durrett.scott Sep 11, 2014 2:55 PM
    durrett.scott durrett.scott Sep 11, 2014 3:03 PM Flag

    Sebastian Gorka, a counterterrorism specialist in the Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University, said of Obama's redo, "It completely lacks any serious counter-ideological component. Ultimate victory against such an enemy will only come when we delegitimize its motivating force -- the power it has to recruit terrorists and insurgents, just as we delegitimized the totalitarianism of the Cold War."
    Former Vice President Dick Cheney aptly summarized the problem with Obama's foreign policy: "[Obama] has demonstrated his own distrust for American power as a force for good in the world. Five years ago this month, he put it this way to the United Nations: 'No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed.' This is one sample from a whole collection of such sayings that seem to regard American influence as a problem to be solved in the world, rather than a solution to be offered."
    Cheney continued, "While the president was claiming the tide of war was receding and core al-Qa'ida had been decimated, the threat is actually increasing. From Iraq, Syria and Yemen, over to Pakistan, all the way down to Somalia and Nigeria, in various places under various names, a whole new wave of jihadists was on the rise."
    National Review's Jonah Goldberg concluded, "It's obviously the case that he is doing this not because the facts on the ground convinced him he had to do what was necessary to protect America but because the polls and the political climate convinced him he had to plug a hole in the hull of his presidency."
    So here is my suggestion: Forget bombs -- we should drop Obama administration policy makers on Iraq and Syria. That would ensure the ruin of the Islamic State in no time!

  • Reply to

    BO’s Iraq timelines and statements

    by durrett.scott Sep 11, 2014 2:55 PM
    durrett.scott durrett.scott Sep 11, 2014 3:02 PM Flag

    BO: "I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven."

    Of course, all Obama has done is hesitate.

    BO: "This effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. ... American forces will not have a combat mission -- we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq. ... It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil."

    Well, unless you count the 1,043 service personnel now on the ground in Iraq and the additional 475 he just ordered up.

    BO: "So this is our strategy. ... This is American leadership at its best..."

    No, this is, and has been, American leadership at its worst.

    BO: "This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years."

    Few military and intelligence analysts would describe Obama's strategy in Yemen and Somalia as a "success."

    BO: "America is better positioned today to seize the future than any other nation on earth."

    No, Obama's domestic and foreign policies have greatly undermined our ability to "seize the future."

  • Reply to

    BO’s Iraq timelines and statements

    by durrett.scott Sep 11, 2014 2:55 PM
    durrett.scott durrett.scott Sep 11, 2014 2:59 PM Flag

    BO: "I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven."

    Of course, all Obama has done is hesitate.

    BO: "This effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. ... American forces will not have a combat mission -- we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq. ... It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil."

    Well, unless you count the 1,043 service personnel now on the ground in Iraq and the additional 475 he just ordered up.

    BO: "So this is our strategy. ... This is American leadership at its best..."

    No, this is, and has been, American leadership at its worst.

    BO: "This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years."

    Few military and intelligence analysts would describe Obama's strategy in Yemen and Somalia as a "success."

    BO: "America is better positioned today to seize the future than any other nation on earth."

    No, Obama's domestic and foreign policies have greatly undermined our ability to "seize the future."

  • Reply to

    BO’s Iraq timelines and statements

    by durrett.scott Sep 11, 2014 2:55 PM
    durrett.scott durrett.scott Sep 11, 2014 2:57 PM Flag

    Predictably, Obama's "hope and change" strategy in the region left fertile ground for the resurgence of a far more dangerous incarnation of Muslim terrorism under the name Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, which has displaced Al-Qa’ida as the dominant asymmetric threat to our national security.

    BO: "Let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not 'Islamic.' ... And ISIL is certainly not a state."

    The fact is that more than a third of the Muslim trilogy (Koran, Hadith and Sira) is devoted to Islamic Jihad as instructed by Mohammed. And Obama needs a lesson on Jihadistan, that borderless nation of Islamic extremists that constitutes Muslim terrorist groups around the world.
    BO: "I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat."

    Well, if nine nations (not including Great Britain and Germany, by the way) constitute a "broad coalition," OK. But that is well short of the 37 nations that backed us in 2003.

    BO: "Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy."

    As noted by The Washington Free Beacon's Aaron MacLean, "Twice [last night], Obama stated that the nation’s strategy towards the Islamic State is to 'degrade, and ultimately destroy' it. ... The modifier 'ultimately' is a dodge of tremendous proportions."

  • In 2008, Obama campaigned on "ending the war in Iraq."
    In 2009, he upended our long-term military objectives to establish a forward military operating capability in Iraq in order to maintain stability in a region where we have very critical national interests, and he set a new course for retreat and withdrawal from the region.
    In 2011, having rejected the Bush strategy of establishing a status of forces agreement (SOFA) to secure our hard-won gains in Iraq and the region, Obama declared, "Everything Americans have done in Iraq, all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding, the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has led to this moment of success. ... We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq.”
    In 2012, amid the cascading failure of his domestic economic and social policies, Obama centered his re-election campaign on his faux foreign policy successes crafted around the mantras, "Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. I did," and, "al-Qa'ida is on the run."
    In the final 2012 presidential debate, Obama chastised his opponent, Mitt Romney: "You say that you're not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq, but just a few weeks ago you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now. And the challenge we have -- I know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong."
    Despite Obama's re-election, clearly Romney was right.

  • New York Times reporter Tim Arango took to Reddit to answer questions about his experience covering Iraq for the last two years. He accused the Obama administration of ignoring the stories coming out of the country. "[W]hen officials spoke about what was happening there, they were often ignorant of the reality," Arango wrote. "They did not want to see what was really happening because it conflicted with their narrative that they left Iraq in reasonably good shape. In 2012, as violence was escalating, I wrote a story, citing U.N. statistics, that showed how civilian deaths from attacks were rising. Tony Blinken, who was then Vice President Joseph R. Biden's national security guy, pushed back, even wrote a letter to the editor saying that violence was near historic lows. That was not true. Even after Falluja fell to [ISIL] at the end of last year, the administration would push back on stories about [then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-] Maliki's sectarian tendencies, saying they didn't see it that way. So there was a concerted effort by the administration to not acknowledge the obvious until it became so apparent -- with the fall of Mosul -- that Iraq was collapsing." In other words, Obama's failures are obvious even to the Leftmedia.

  • Reply to

    The FED can't fix the Economy

    by durrett.scott Sep 9, 2014 3:19 PM
    durrett.scott durrett.scott Sep 11, 2014 1:56 PM Flag

    'The absence of real corruption?'

    That is by far the funniest thing you've ever written. Keep your head buried in the sand if you believe that one...

ASTX
8.4950.000(0.00%)Oct 10 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.