|
This is a weird departure from standard practice. Any speculation as to why they would deliberately do this?
|
|
|
|
The Blaze.  Journalistic integrity at its finest. The blaze tried to mike brown you too?  Haha!  No, I'm just not high on blogspam (on either side) that takes a story and repackages it into inflammatory material to feed a particular base's rigid mindset. The Blaze is certainly one of those. The left has their share of them too. They're just obnoxious articles that add very little, if any, value to what are important conversations. |
|
|
|
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/07/25/st-louis-county-police-officer-charged/This is also troubling. The same prosecutor had no problem filing charges against a black cop who struck a metro rider on the hand with his baton during an argument earlier this year. I wouldn't draw a conclusion from this alone, but with everything else, this is worth taking into consideration. The contrast is stark: prosecutor fails to win a slam dunk indictment against white cop for shorting black teen 7 times, files criminal charges against black cop for hitting someone on the hand with a baton. It doesn't seem right to me in the context of the other legitimate questions raised. You forgot to mention the time between each time that Brown was shot. You also forgot to mention that up until Brown was shot for the 7th time that he was still actively moving and attempting to attack a police officer. The list of things you ignore is a lot longer than that, so suffice it to say that I'm not interested in a story that justifies your pre-conceived opinion of what happened, but what actually happened. Your speculation as to what happened therefore has very little value to me. |
|
|
|
Hyperinflation is happening right now, look at the stock markets, prices are how you measure inflation there isn't really any other way, the stock markets have been artificially pumped by the central banks to stay at the heights they are, If that isn't enough you should be looking at charts of the amount of currency currently in circulation. http://ycharts.com/indicators/us_currency_in_circulationIn the alternate realities other people live in there is only no hyperinflation if they choose to ignore the data or if they haven't seen the data. Yes, prices are how you measure inflation, and there are no prices undergoing hyperinflation for consumers or investors. The S&P is trading on the high side of historical PE, but within the normal range. The stock markets are up reflecting the profitability of the securities underlying the companies that trade there. Because they're still trading in the normal historical range, you can't even say it's been very inflationary, let alone HYPERinflationary. You do understand what hyperinflation is, right? Because I don't see any instances or data that would warrant the use of that word. The chart you posted shows a 7% annual rise in the currency in circulation, and increasing at a steady clip. Hyperinflation would be a much greater increase, and a rapidly accelerating increase. By contrast, Germany in 1920 had inflation of 50% per month, and by 1923 it was 29,000% per month. The largest monthly inflationary rate was hit by Hungary in the 1940's at over 40 quadrillion percent per month. I've never seen anyone refer to an inflationary rate below 40% per month as hyperinflation, and you're talking about a 7% annual rise? For me, that's nowhere close to hyperinflation. If month over month it starts increasing from there at ever faster rates, you could maybe make the case that it is beginning, but the data doesn't support that conclusion right now. It seems a hyperbolic. |
|
|
|
The Blaze. Journalistic integrity at its finest. |
|
|
|
It's because gold as well as silver is not only seen as a safe haven from inflation it was what was used as a currency before the federal reserve came along, so what that means is that if the price goes up then that's usually an indicator of how much currency the central banks are printing, like with Zimbabwe where you have billion dollar notes and stuff this is why I'm predicting if Bitcoin hits $10000 like some people think it's going to be due to hyperinflation rather than the currency being extremely valuable.
If you also compare the prices between Bitcoin and Gold directly, you'll see that actually it looks incredibly stable, it's only the dollar price that's rising massively, hell, even though the pound and euro is going to be severely messed with soon they're still doing better right now but obviously that will change soon as they all start panicking.
I understand the argument and gold's historical role as a hedge against inflation, but it's been trading very high over its inflation-adjusted historical value for quite awhile. The price spikes aren't indicative of hyperinflation, but people piling into a bubble, constantly expecting hyperinflation that never materializes. I believe 1980 is the inflation-adjusted historical high point, what would be about $2400 in 2014 dollars. Gold is nowhere near reaching that again, and it is still trading above its historical average value. I don't view price rises now evidence of a failing monetary system any more than they've been in the last 30 years, which is to say not at all. |
|
|
|
Holy shit! Is this real and recent? We are so fucked! Good think I've been preparing for this kind of move! Next year guys we're going to have a crash, count on it!
The crash has already started. Look at the price of oil. The price of oil is reflective of the Saudis trying to crush the shale producers in the US since it's more expensive to produce. They've let the price fall to the point where shale production cost is higher than the price of oil. When they've done their damage, the price will recover, like it always does. To be honest, that's true, oil isn't really an indicator of hyperinflation, now gold on the other hand I have been keeping an eye on that's crawling it's way up to the $1200 mark and I vaguely remember it being at these levels before the crash, we just need it to hit $2000 and then It will be there. Wasn't gold in the 1600-1700 range recently? (By recently, I mean post-recession). It hardly seems to be an indicator of inflation, let alone hyperinflation. To answer my own question, it was around 1600 in Feb 2013. |
|
|
|
Holy shit! Is this real and recent? We are so fucked! Good think I've been preparing for this kind of move! Next year guys we're going to have a crash, count on it!
The crash has already started. Look at the price of oil. The price of oil is reflective of the Saudis trying to crush the shale producers in the US since it's more expensive to produce. They've let the price fall to the point where shale production cost is higher than the price of oil. When they've done their damage, the price will recover, like it always does. To be honest, that's true, oil isn't really an indicator of hyperinflation, now gold on the other hand I have been keeping an eye on that's crawling it's way up to the $1200 mark and I vaguely remember it being at these levels before the crash, we just need it to hit $2000 and then It will be there. Wasn't gold in the 1600-1700 range recently? (By recently, I mean post-recession). It hardly seems to be an indicator of inflation, let alone hyperinflation. |
|
|
|
women who play games are whores, who cares if they get offended
This was such a lazy troll attempt, why even bother? |
|
|
|
Holy shit! Is this real and recent? We are so fucked! Good think I've been preparing for this kind of move! Next year guys we're going to have a crash, count on it!
The crash has already started. Look at the price of oil. The price of oil is reflective of the Saudis trying to crush the shale producers in the US since it's more expensive to produce. They've let the price fall to the point where shale production cost is higher than the price of oil. When they've done their damage, the price will recover, like it always does. |
|
|
|
Quoting Ron Swanson = automatic victory. lol, I love Ron. My favorite was when he was talking about his mysterious wealth. " I don't know how MUCH money I have, but I know how many POUNDS of money I have." He is a gold bug for sure The real question is does Ron have Bitcoins? |
|
|
|
Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare. President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges. Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover. The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market. “If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.” A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/So when Republicans finally take control over both the House and Senate in January, we can expect a prompt repeal of Obamacare, right? Because they've spent so much time and energy talking about how terrible it is for America, citizens, the free-market, IRS power, etc., and have already voted so many times to repeal, that it should be a given that this is one of the first things they do, no? Well, it's either they repeal it now that they have the ability or they are finally exposed as frauds and liars, as a party that's only voted for repeal so many times because they knew they had no chance of actually repealing it; that this has all just been a charade and political posturing to whip their supporters into a furor so they donate all that money and go on internet forums and post stuff like this: When Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare, will you become a partisan apologist, or will you hold them accountable for failing to act? Will you be as critical of them as you are of Obama, or are you just posting pictures like this because you hate Obama, not because of Obamacare? I'm asking earnestly because if you're not going to hold Republicans accountable for not repealing what you consider to be a terrible law when they finally have the power to, then what is the utility of constantly railing against Obama because of Obamacare? |
|
|
|
I am not going to nitpick too much, but I would like to suggest regarding [1]: You falsely assume that everyone is behaving rationally when anyone who has lived a little knows that people are a bit more complex than that.
And regarding [2]: I hate to break it to you but that is kind of the point of a state. The state is the monopoly of violence within a given geographical area. Its role is to force through its decisions, that is why it is so important that the people take part in the democratic processes of the state so that the state doesn´t morph into a tyrannical entity. But the idea that simply forcing the unwilling is in itself tyrannical is inconsistent with the idea of a state. That does not mean that everything the democratic compact agrees to can´t be tyrannical. But if you look at the consequences of not being covered by health insurance, the fine for not buying health insurance, and the benefits of having sufficient coverage, you would be hard pressed to find this particular policy tyrannical.
Thanks for your intelligent response. Usually when people disagree, it goes straight to name calling and hyperbole. Then someone invokes Godwin.  I'm not necessarily assuming everyone is not behaving rationally, but I am assuming that people have the right to decide things for themselves. If your sole basis for a conclusion of "irrationality" is that someone elects not to have health insurance, I dispute that. You don't have enough information about specific people to make a general conclusion with that being the sole factor. But irrationality is not relevant to my point. If we take as given that someone not buying health insurance is irrational, they should be free to be irrational. The list of who gets to decide what is best for an individual should read like this: 1) The individual; 2) anybody else. Obviously, #2 is a distant, distant entry. As for the purpose of the state, I don't disagree that that's how the state operates. The state is a monopoly on force, and the adjudicator of when force used by others is inappropriate. But how the state operates now doesn't mean it's optimal. And I agree that forcing the unwilling is inconsistent with the concept of a state, but that doesn't mean that forcing the unwilling isn't tyranny. [1] Using force on the unwilling is literally the definition of tyranny, because what is deemed "oppressive" is subjective. No government thinks it's tyrannical! Tyranny is always defined by the people subject to the state's rule, and in every case of tyranny ever charged, the people supplying the charge of tyranny had only one thing in common: they objected to the state's use of force and they were unwilling. That's not to say I am an anarchist. I believe the state is necessary. But the state's role is not to make individual decisions for people, as is being done with requiring everyone to have health insurance. It's to protect everyone's natural rights: [2] life, liberty, and property they justly derive. Anything more than this is when the power of the state corrupts the individuals wielding it to believe they have the moral authority to force their will upon the unwilling. I do not accept this conclusion. And thank you as well for your civil responses! It is nice when someone actually gives what one writes some thought. I am not going to offer any real counter argument other than identify a couple of issues that may lead to the basis of our disagreement. [1] In order to make such a claim you need to view the world in far more relativistic terms than I am willing to concede. [2] I believe it is insufficient to view this particular right as a purely negative right. It needs to be a positive right as well, ie. if your life is at risk the state/society should be obligated to help you. Ah yes, to point two, I think that succinctly states our difference of opinion. I won't offer much else but to justify my opinion a little more. I don't believe you can force someone to help another, or that you can impose a burden on them for another's circumstances. The reason I believe this is because if everyone is created equal, you do not owe anything to another, so their burden cannot be assigned to someone who doesn't have it. That's not to say that not helping someone in need doesn't make you a bad person; it absolutely does. But the state forcing you to help others is wrong because the initiation of force is wrong. |
|
|
|
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/07/25/st-louis-county-police-officer-charged/This is also troubling. The same prosecutor had no problem filing charges against a black cop who struck a metro rider on the hand with his baton during an argument earlier this year. I wouldn't draw a conclusion from this alone, but with everything else, this is worth taking into consideration. The contrast is stark: prosecutor fails to win a slam dunk indictment against white cop for shorting black teen 7 times, files criminal charges against black cop for hitting someone on the hand with a baton. It doesn't seem right to me in the context of the other legitimate questions raised.
|
|
|
|
Quoting Ron Swanson = automatic victory. It must be all us vegans who are to blame for these astronomical healthSCAMcare costs !  Keep chewing on that carcass, buds.. If you stay healthy, what will the health scam pros do for a living ? Pretty classic example of why no one takes vegans seriously. |
|
|
|
People are more interested in scoring political points and getting free electronics. A review of the evidence in order to form a reasoned opinion sounds too much like work. Thanks for posting the link though. There are over 6,000 pages of evidence released to the public now. All I'm asking is that unless you have reviewed it all (not you personally, but anyone), at least be open to the idea that perhaps your opinion of what transpired is based on incomplete and media-manipulated information. And you're right, both sides just want to use this to prove their political points, without regard for the truth. Interesting. The grand jury is not there to decide whether or not someone is innocent or guilty. They are judging whether or not there is enough evidence or a case to be made such that it should go to trial. When I was on a grand jury there were 21 of us, a yes vote by 18 people was required to send it on to trial. Of all of the cases presented to us only one did not reach the 18 vote (I voted against many drug related crimes). The only case that did not get the 18 votes was when the attorney general actually said "I don't feel confident about this one, I think I should probably go back and rework this case before bringing it forward again", basically telling us to vote against it. The thing is, the attorney general can come back and present the case later to another grand jury. This is not a double jeopardy thing. And when it comes to the grand jury, the attorney general basically decides whether it should go to trial or not. With 6000 pages of evidence, I would have ruled that there was enough evidence to have a trial. It is not up to the grand jury to decide guilt, just if it is worth the taxpayer money necessary to find out. Yes, the grand jury is not a trial to determine guilt, just a procedure to determine if a trial should be had. The thing is, the bar is incredibly low to indict because the important question of guilt or innocence is determined by a trial. Fivethirtyeight.com published a statistic that shows just how low the bar is: in 2010, US attorneys prosecuted 162,000 cases, and only 11 times did a grand jury NOT return an indictment. These things are a slam dunk, so much so that if a grand jury does not return an indictment, you really have to wonder if the prosecutor didn't want them to. Fivethirtyeight's article is really worth reading, but take it in context: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/Also, I'm loathe to quote MSNBC or Fox News because of how blatantly partisan they are, but MSNBC's legal expert has a valid point about how the St. Louis County prosecutor did not Officer Wilson on cross examination, and his testimony was rife with inconsistencies that should have been explored if the prosecutor was interested at all in taking this case seriously. (read the tweets here: http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/25/7285265/darren-wilson-grand-jury) These two things together are starting to make me think that the prosecutor wasn't interested in getting an indictment, he was prosecuting this case out of political necessity. Perhaps that's why he did such a poor job. Indictments are easy. Either he's completely incompetent or he didn't want an indictment. Not sure that one is better than the other. |
|
|
|
Quoting Ron Swanson = automatic victory. |
|
|
|
it's kind of ridiculous to say that if you don't like something, uproot your life, livelihood, friends and family.. and then go live somewhere else, where you have nothing established. it's like saying "if you don't like this meal, then maybe you should just stop eating."
That's not a great analogy. If you don't like that meal, you should stop eating it. "Just say no to bad meals." -Jaysabi, 11/25/2014 |
|
|
|
People are more interested in scoring political points and getting free electronics. A review of the evidence in order to form a reasoned opinion sounds too much like work. Thanks for posting the link though. There are over 6,000 pages of evidence released to the public now. All I'm asking is that unless you have reviewed it all (not you personally, but anyone), at least be open to the idea that perhaps your opinion of what transpired is based on incomplete and media-manipulated information. And you're right, both sides just want to use this to prove their political points, without regard for the truth. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
