The people who should be taking responsibility for stopping quotas are the defense attorneys. Every time they put a cop on the stand, ask him if he had made his quota yet. Because the policy exists in writing and there is a disciplinary record associated with it he can't dare deny he has a quota. It will make him look like a real piece of crap in front of the jury.
I don't think the policy does exist in writing. If it did, we would be able to hold the people who implement it responsible. Techshares is right, the policy is immoral as it incentivizes the police to write tickets or make arrests they might not otherwise. The public would not tolerate a system where an arrest stems not from breaking the law, but because a cop is trying to get a bonus or meet some arbitrarily set quota that has to do with revenue generation, not upholding the law. |
|
|
|
Not that he doesn't deserve it, just not for this.
Obama attaching his name to net neutrality was guaranteed to have this result. First, I seriously doubt his commitment to the issue, or even understanding of it, and second, it just brings the nutjobs out of the woodwork. Net neutrality is at its fundamental level simply about treating similar traffic similarly. The idea of metered access with fees for various types of services and degradation of quality of services based on type of traffic is the problem. Sort of like if you got charged more for electricity based on some arbitrary criterion, or if you only were ALLOWED to have rationed electricity, unless you were a business partner with the electric company. Now, you might say there's no real problem with metered access and charging differently and making deals, but remember, if you look at this on the protocol level, to have this kind of differentiation, you need to be able to identify both the source of data and its destination, as well as what kind of data it is, in order to differentiate between types of traffic. By definition, any kind of anonymous traffic is going to obscure this data, and any non-neutral scheme of access is going to assign that kind of traffic the lowest possible priority. In other words, either kiss your anonymity goodbye or get used to it being slow as fuck, because ISPs if allowed to do so will either simply drop such traffic on the floor or shunt it off the highway onto an ungraded dirt road. Only packets that can "show their papers" will get enough bandwidth to be functional, and you can expect service to be deliberately degraded even when the infrastructure is entirely sufficient to carry it, simply to extort more fees out of you. Needless to say, the protocol-level changes that would make it easy to meter traffic like this would also substantially help the government spy on us even more than it is already doing. I almost wish Obama had denounced net neutrality as a right-wing scheme of some sort, then the same gibbering wackos currently attacking it would love it. Exactly, and I think you pick up an interesting point. I don't think Obama is embracing net neutrality out of principal or because it's the right thing to do, but out of political considerations. Kind of the same way he did with gay marriage: even though it was clear what is right and what his liberal leanings would dictate would be obvious, he waited several years before he started to really talk about it, once it began gaining critical mass with the people. Both times, his actions are cowardly. He's afraid of the political ramifications if he embraces something that might be unpopular, even if they're the right course of actions, so he waits until the widespread public support is apparent, then comes in like a hero.  If you want credit for embracing things because they're the right thing to do, do it before it's obvious the public is with you. Do it because it's right. |
|
|
|
My Lord, #1 cause of collapse is the people are dumb socialists! It befuddles me how at least 40% of the people think the problem is the solution. Read several my posts upthread from that one as well... Sigh... I see no solution except to crash and burn the global economy. Megadeath is always the end game of snowballing Socialism. If he fails on this the internet as you know it is dead. This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.
Wait, so are you saying that if he does not get his way that the internet as we know it will die and our freedoms will be gone? You think that having the government regulate (control) the internet is going to save us? Kinda like how the Chinese, Iranian and North Korean governments are ensuring a protected internet for its citizens by controlling their access?... It would mean the loss of net neutrality. What you see on the internet could be whatever your ISP decides. Let's say your ISP is Charter.com... Good on you for keying in on the most important point, which I bolded in your comment. Everyone who is against it is spinning this as government regulating the internet. It's more accurate to say that it's government regulating the companies that give you internet access. Hey you fucking dumbass dolt, Here's a free tip on how to get someone to read your post: Don't start it with "Hey you fucking dumbass dolt." When you learn how to make a point without being a douche nozzle, come back and have a debate with the adults. As it is, I can't stomach to read past a few words you type because you're the type of person who can't read a response without getting so pissed off everyone isn't bowing down to your 'superior' internet debate skills that you immediately begin with attacks. Welcome to my ignore list. Not a single word you write is worth reading. You're so typical, I sure hope you'll be able to afford the fast lanes when net neutrality fails so you can keep up your crusade, Oh Mighty Keyboard Warrior. |
|
|
|
If he fails on this the internet as you know it is dead. This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.
Wait, so are you saying that if he does not get his way that the internet as we know it will die and our freedoms will be gone? You think that having the government regulate (control) the internet is going to save us? Kinda like how the Chinese, Iranian and North Korean governments are ensuring a protected internet for its citizens by controlling their access? All this will do is open the door for the government to be able to collect private data on citizens without having to get a search warrant first. Of course Obama is talking this up like he is doing us all a favor and that it's a good thing. And all the blind sheep are eating this deception up like Halloween candy. Obama: "All of your internets are belong to us!" It would mean the loss of net neutrality. What you see on the internet could be whatever your ISP decides. Let's say your ISP is Charter.com. They have a service called charter on demand. Well, they won't want you watching free videos or using some other service so they could throttle back your bandwith except for their movie service. They could also make it very hard to visit a site that does not make them money. Search for how to fix your car and you are directed to a car dealership that has paid charter to get you. Loss of net neutrality is probably the greatest threat to bitcoin as well. It really would be possible and maybe even profitable to block access to bitcoin. The days of going where you want on the net would be over you will see what is most profitable for your ISP. And the dark web? Why would your ISP let you see that? In fact if your ISP was religiously oriented why would they allow you to see anything that is not Godly? It is really up to them not you. Good on you for keying in on the most important point, which I bolded in your comment. Everyone who is against it is spinning this as government regulating the internet. It's more accurate to say that it's government regulating the companies that give you internet access. The government will not be regulating the internet for users any more that it's regulating your phone calls. The regulations apply to the companies that supply your phone calls. The reclassification for ISPs would essentially do to them what the government already does to phone companies. Curiously enough, you don't hear people complaining about how unfree and terrible the phone system is, but they make those arguments for the internet because they don't actually understand how it works now, how it will work if nothing is done, and how it will work if the FCC reclassifies ISPs. Anyone claiming the government is going to ruin the internet by regulating it is spreading FUD, either intentionally because they hate Obama or unintentionally because they just don't understand what is actually happening. I'd say that education is key, but reading some of these posts, it's becoming more and more clear people don't care about the situation, they're just looking for a reason to hate Obama. Not that he doesn't deserve it, just not for this. |
|
|
|
That's nice, but rather irrelevant. See: 59% of Americans Oppose NSA ProgramOr: 52% of Americans feel taxes are too highBeing in the majority of public opinion doesn't make it good policy. Further, it doesn't even suggest they understand the issue in the slightest. If you asked these same people if they wanted Comcast or Cox to have the power to slow down internet traffic to certain websites, you would not get 61% saying yes. It's all about the framing of the question, this one used the buzz word "government regulation." They sampled 1,000 people who may or may not be knowledgeable about the topic, framed the question as one about government regulation, and got this result. Meanwhile, the FCC site has over 4,000,000 comments asking the FCC to reclassify ISPs from people who are interested enough in the situation to educate themselves on the topic and then leave a comment on the FCC website on the matter. To me, the latter anecdote is far more significant than 1000 people who may not even understand the situation and are responding to the way the question is framed. So the people should trust this government now, more than ever based on its great trusted track record? You can do whatever you please. I'm backing the side that's the most right. |
|
|
|
Freedom of association is the freedom to associate with certain groups of your own will, not the freedom to pass laws governing the behavior of other people. You've got a really poor understanding of what freedom is.
By seeking to impose a universal prohibition of food sharing bans, you advocate destroying the freedom you claim to value. Double negative logic? How embarrassing for you! By restricting laws that restrict the freedom of people, you're infringing my right to belong to a group of people that passes laws that dictate what other people can do.  Haha, yeah, you're a real champion of freedom. I'm not embarrassed to agree with libertarianism; it's the most rational position available. And yes, I am a real champion of freedom, unlike you sophomoric black flag waving jokers who run around yelling "Help! Help! - I'm being repressed!" I suspect your malfunction is that you believe in anarchy, not intentional communities supported by the foundation of a minimal federal government. How dare you insist that like-minded individuals have no right to establish communal structures which they believe maximize their utility? If you don't want to live in a community that disallows bums begging/stealing/crapping/pissing all over the place, you are free to move to one that does. If you hate the state so much, pack up and go to Somalia. I'm sure the warlords will find your first-world whining about how oppressed you were by high standards of public sanitation and food safety very amusing!  I'm a minarchist, which is why I reject you attempting to use laws to dictate the actions of other people. If you want to have a community where no one is allowed to share food, that's fine. But you can't use the police to force other people not to do it. That's not libertarian, that's use of force, the opposite of libertarian. I suspect your malfunction is you don't know that you're a closeted republican. How dare you sully the flag of freedom with your police-state ideas about what people are allowed to do. If you hate freedom so much, why don't you move to Russia? They love to use the police to tell you what you can't do! |
|
|
|
|
This stuff happens because the individuals who implement and enforce these policies never face repercussions. The brass should be fired and forfeit their pensions. They were breaking the law.
|
|
|
|
That's nice, but rather irrelevant. See: 59% of Americans Oppose NSA ProgramOr: 52% of Americans feel taxes are too highBeing in the majority of public opinion doesn't make it good policy. Further, it doesn't even suggest they understand the issue in the slightest. If you asked these same people if they wanted Comcast or Cox to have the power to slow down internet traffic to certain websites, you would not get 61% saying yes. It's all about the framing of the question, this one used the buzz word "government regulation." They sampled 1,000 people who may or may not be knowledgeable about the topic, framed the question as one about government regulation, and got this result. Meanwhile, the FCC site has over 4,000,000 comments asking the FCC to reclassify ISPs from people who are interested enough in the situation to educate themselves on the topic and then leave a comment on the FCC website on the matter. To me, the latter anecdote is far more significant than 1000 people who may not even understand the situation and are responding to the way the question is framed. |
|
|
|
Freedom of association is the freedom to associate with certain groups of your own will, not the freedom to pass laws governing the behavior of other people. You've got a really poor understanding of what freedom is.
By seeking to impose a universal prohibition of food sharing bans, you advocate destroying the freedom you claim to value. Double negative logic? How embarrassing for you! By restricting laws that restrict the freedom of people, you're infringing my right to belong to a group of people that passes laws that dictate what other people can do. Haha, yeah, you're a real champion of freedom. |
|
|
|
Can't share food in public, what do you think this sis, a free country? if you think this ordinance is about sharing food and not criminalizing homelessness, you're a bit naive not to see the politics of it. This is a free country, which entails something called freedom of association. That means we are free to choose whether or not to live in communities which have rules about sharing food. We may even vote to change those rules!  Isn't democracy amazing?  There are plenty of cities where you may feed the homeless, but that's not good enough for your bleeding heart, which desires to enforce a universal uniformity and hypocritically call such homogeneous altruism-at-gunpoint "freedom." You hate people having the freedom to choose rules for their own local community, because you want everyone to be forced to subsidize the homeless and be forced to accept the (literally shitty) externalities that giving away free food to people without their own bathrooms/toilets/sewage systems/water bills creates. That's taking the 'Free Shit Army' to a whole new level!  The law/rules is not about the ability to share food, it is a question about food safety. The old man was sharing/giving away food in a way that would require him to meet certain food safety guidelines which he was not following. Someone already answered this pretty effectively. Come on, you believe that's true? I guess any little league teams in that city should stop distributing snacks after the game because they aren't in compliance with the law, right? I mean, the law is there to keep people safe from people who distribute food that can't be trusted because it doesn't have the city's stamp of approval on it that it's safe.
That's not at all the case. If a cop saw one of the parents distributing the team snack and some guy giving a homeless man the same snack, only one of them is getting arrested for violating the law, because only one of them is the intended target of the law.
I agree with the assessment that the law has nothing to do with food safety. It's about targeting the homeless. |
|
|
|
This is a technical problem that needs a technical solution not a political one or the internet will look the same from now on until 2116...
That's rhetoric that in no way helps solve the question of how the ISPs should be treated. The fundamental question of what is an ISP needs to be settled before you can do anything else. The FCC regulates phone companies in such a way that it doesn't matter who built the phone lines. The owner of a phone line is required to rent out their lines to a competitor if the competitor wishes to offer service over those lines. This is not the case with ISPs. The FCC made the conscious decision to allow ISPs to completely own the lines they build. Their reasoning was that if the companies could build and own their own lines, and weren't required to let a competitor use the lines, the profit motive would be high enough to incentivize a lot of competition, and speed would increase and prices would drop as a result. We now see that this has not been the case. It's very expensive to build and maintain the lines, and so very few ISPs are available in most markets. They are able to use their lines exclusively for themselves, which means there is no competition on price or innovation because few firms can raise the capital required to break into the market, either locally or at large. Now that ISPs have become part of large conglomerates with wide-ranging business interests, they can profit by snuffing out traffic to competitors, which makes the internet a very un-free place, only open to the deepest pockets willing to pay to have their sites accessible by the public. The point in reclassifying ISPs to be like phone lines would be to create the competition that did not arise out of a more laissez-faire approach, as is done with phone companies and is commonly regarded as the best practice. England, for example, has ISPs that are regulated like phone companies, and they have no problem with competition in their markets. There are plenty of ISPs to choose from everywhere. The bottom line for the FCC is answering the question what is an ISP? If the ISP is a series of 'pipes' that are property owned by private companies, they can be operated for profit in the manner that so many people are objecting to. (This is the current FCC decision of what an ISP is.) If the ISP is a utility analogous to a phone company, they cannot discriminate against customers based on how they use it and must allow competitors use their lines like phone companies, which would eliminate the ability for any ISP to shake down a competitor to guarantee access to the web through competition. I would just ask that you listen to this podcast on the subject before responding: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/04/04/299060527/episode-529-the-last-mileIt does a good job of explaining the history of the FCC decisions, and why they're considering changing it now. Its the best source I've found for explaining the issue without political bias. If anything, they let the FCC off the hook by failing to explain how the guy who was running the FCC when it decided not to regulate ISPs like phone companies was an industry insider who then left the FCC after this decision and went to work for the very cable companies his decision so beneficially impacted. It's that initial decision advocates for a free and open internet want reversed. |
|
|
|
Why don't they just create new bloody regulations for new technologies? This is just like what's been happening with Bitcoin except I seem to remember the internet was created first, politicians and bureaucrats really know nothing about technology do they?
Part of the reason is the legal precedent. When they were trying to create regulations for the internet the first time around, they essentially said that the internet functions differently than the phone lines, which is why it's governed differently. Essentially, the problem is they did create new regulations for the new technology, and the result is it makes charging for faster service permissible, which makes possible all manner of predatory abuses now that ISPs are part of major conglomerates with wide-ranging business interests. The uproar is that people now want them to treat ISPs like phone utility companies instead of treating the internet differently, to take away the power of ISPs to discriminate internet traffic and stifle competitors. |
|
|
|
Can't share food in public, what do you think this sis, a free country? if you think this ordinance is about sharing food and not criminalizing homelessness, you're a bit naive not to see the politics of it. This is a free country, which entails something called freedom of association. That means we are free to choose whether or not to live in communities which have rules about sharing food. We may even vote to change those rules! Isn't democracy amazing? There are plenty of cities where you may feed the homeless, but that's not good enough for your bleeding heart, which desires to enforce a universal uniformity and hypocritically call such homogeneous altruism-at-gunpoint "freedom." You hate people having the freedom to choose rules for their own local community, because you want everyone to be forced to subsidize the homeless and be forced to accept the (literally shitty) externalities that giving away free food to people without their own bathrooms/toilets/sewage systems/water bills creates. That's taking the 'Free Shit Army' to a whole new level! Freedom of association is the freedom to associate with certain groups of your own will, not the freedom to pass laws governing the behavior of other people. You've got a really poor understanding of what freedom is. |
|
|
|
Obama Flashback: ‘If you don’t like my policies, go out there and win an election.’The following clip is from October 17, 2013. The government shutdown, during which Obama’s government had locked veterans out of their own memorials and shut down self-sufficient businesses in national parks, had just ended. President Obama reacted by challenging his opponents to win elections. And we responded: Challenge accepted! The 2014 midterms saw Republicans capture the Senate, take over the entire government of the state of Nevada, and sweep Democrats out of state legislatures across the country. The GOP victory is so sweeping that it may damage Democrats for years, even decades, to come — according to the leftists at Vox. On October 17, 2013, President Obama said: “You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don’t break it. Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That’s not being faithful to what this country’s about.” Obama’s threat to carry out a unilateral amnesty for millions of illegal aliens threatens the system that he claimed to defend just over a year ago. And he is well aware of that. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/06/obama-flashback-if-you-dont-like-my-policies-go-out-there-and-win-an-election/ I guess they did that. Too bad Republicans are the only other choice. While both parties are somewhat similar as neither party wants to have any kind of radical changes to the US they are different on many issues and there are also many public officials that do not affiliate with either party On the biggest issues, I don't see much difference. Pro-war, anti-privacy, pro-Big Government, pro-deficit spending. Also, not many lawmakers on the national level that do not affiliate with either party. If you can name 5 Congressmen (out of 535!) who aren't Democrats or Republicans, I'd consider that a lot! Bernie Sanders calls himself an "independent" doesn't he? Even though he mostly sides with democrats. I guess that would leave four more... |
|
|
|
|
Hey MZ, any word on payment? We're now several days late. Everything going OK?
|
|
|
|
|
I have not been paid for my second week I was enrolled. First week's payment went through fine last week. Is there a delay in payments or another problem?
|
|
|
|
I'm not quite sure what you are saying. FACT. Obama has secreted away personal data to an extent unprecedented in the entire US POTUS history.
You can't deny that. I think what you are saying is "It doesn't matter." Well, that wouldn't quite qualify someone with your attitude to review backgrounds and qualifications of 20 people for a job in the private sector, or make either reasonable or best decisions on such a matter.
I'm saying you're ridiculous. FACT. See, just because you slap "FACT" on something doesn't make it a fact. For example, you stated an opinion: "Obama has secreted away personal data to an extent unprecedented in the entire US POTUS history." Justify this "fact" with sources and evidence, or just stop it. I have no idea whatever the rest of your response was about, it was wholly unrelated to everything else in this thread. From the WSJ in 2008: Barack Obama makes his first campaign visit today to his alma mater, Columbia University. Just don't ask the prolific self-diarist to talk about his undergraduate days in Morningside Heights. The Columbia years are a hole in the sprawling Obama hagiography. In his two published memoirs, the 47-year-old Democratic nominee barely mentions his experience there. He refuses to answer questions about Columbia and New York -- which, in this media age, serves only to raise more of them. Why not release his Columbia transcript? Why has his senior essay gone missing? Now in our view, the college years shouldn't normally be used to judge a politician's fitness for office. We're not sure the transcripts of Al Gore, John Kerry and George W. Bush -- which showed them to be C students -- illuminated much for voters. The McCain campaign won't release his records, but we know he graduated at the bottom of his Naval Academy class. But Mr. Obama is a case apart. His personal story, as told by him, made possible his rise from obscurity four years ago to possibly the White House. He doesn't have a long track record in government. We mainly have him in his own words. As any autobiographer, Mr. Obama played up certain chapters in his life -- perhaps even exaggerating his drug use in adolescence to drive home his theme of youthful alienation -- and ignored others. What's more, as acknowledged in "Dreams From My Father," Mr. Obama reconstructed conversations and gave some people pseudonyms or created "composite" characters. Voters and the media are now exercising due diligence before Election Day, and they are meeting resistance from Mr. Obama in checking his past. Earlier this year, the AP tracked down Mr. Obama's New York-era roommate, "Sadik," in Seattle after the campaign refused to reveal his name. Sohale Siddiqi, his real name, confirmed Mr. Obama's account that he turned serious in New York and "stopped getting high." "We were both very lost," Mr. Siddiqi said. "We were both alienated, although he might not put it that way. He arrived disheveled and without a place to stay." For some reason the Obama camp wanted this to stay out of public view. Such caginess is grist for speculation. Some think his transcript, if released, would reveal Mr. Obama as a mediocre student who benefited from racial preference. Yet he later graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, so he knows how to get good grades. Others speculate about ties to the Black Students Organization, though students active then don't seem to remember him. And on the far reaches of the Web can be found conspiracies about former Carter national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became the candidate's "guru and controller" while at Columbia in the early 1980s. Mr. Brzezinski laughs, and tells us he doesn't "remember meeting him." What can be said with some certainty is that Mr. Obama lived off campus while at Columbia in 1981-83 and made few friends. Fox News contacted some 400 of his classmates and found no one who remembered him. He had transferred from Occidental College in California after his sophomore year because, he told the Boston Globe in 1990, "I was concerned with urban issues and I wanted to be around more black folks in big cities." He got a degree in political science without honors. "For about two years there, I was just painfully alone and really not focused on anything, except maybe thinking a lot," he told his biographer David Mendell. Put that way, his time at Columbia sounds unremarkable. Maybe that's what most pains a young memoirist and an ambitious politician who strains to make his life anything but unremarkable. http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB122108881386721289------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The WSJ is not known for conspiracy theories. Maybe he was a very average student. Maybe not. What kind of financial aid did he get? Thousands of other questions. How come all those little details were VERY helpful and HISTORIC for every single president, but not him. All we know from him are what he told us from TWO autobiographies, from whom he won Two Grammy Awards! Fact: those documents are not available to the public a.k.a. they are sealed... A data point of one does not support your assertion that "Obama has secreted away personal data to an extent unprecedented in the entire US POTUS history." Don't forget, you preceded that opinion with "FACT." Fact is something objectively verifiable. You made a subjective statement. Let's ask the matter a different way. What if any US president, other than Obama, has sealed under court and presidental order, ANY of their personal history? ANY. ........ You're the one trying to prove your opinion is valid, the onus is on you to prove it. Saying 'I haven't looked it up, but name one thing that doesn't prove my opinion true' doesn't make your point valid. You want to convince someone, bring evidence. Lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence you are right. Also, it's not sealed under court order. The fact that it's not public does not mean it's "sealed under court order," which is why you're so confused. Your home address is not public. That doesn't mean it's sealed by court order. Sealed by court order is your phrase, not the WSJ's phrase, and it's not a description of the situation in reality. As for naming nonpublic details about other presidents: there is far more stuff about the personal histories of presidents that is not public than there is public. Literally everything you do not know about a president's personal life is secret, which is the gist of what you're asking for. It just lacks the "court order," which doesn't exist in your Obama example either. Further, your own source talks about how McCain wouldn't release his transcripts either. Also worth pointing out, that one is also NOT sealed by a court, but it's just as not public as the information you're seeking about Obama. To recap, non-public information does not equal "sealed by a court." So you have a data point of 1, factually misrepresented, ignoring all similar circumstances of candidates that were running in that same election, and also ignoring the fact that every detail of every other president's life is not in the public domain, which leaves you with nothing to prop up the opinion that Obama is the most secretive POTUS in US history. This is why I can't take anything you say seriously. You get a small factual detail, then blow it up and misconstrue it to be something it's not in an attempt to prove your conspiracy theory. Now it's the FACT that his college records are not public, which you have taken to mean it's under court-ordered seal (it's not) and therefore he's the most secretive POTUS in US history. (Opinion is based on something not true, which renders the opinion dismissable.) |
|
|
|
The Democrat party voted for the Iraq war all the same as the Republicans did, and the rank-and-file dems had access to the same intelligence files as Bush did.
Let's get real, shall we? 1. Party affiliation of POTUS during WW1. D. 2. Party affiliation of POTUS during WW2. D. 3. Party affiliation of POTUS during the Korean war. D. 4. Party affiliation of POTUS during the Vietnam war. D. I guess "get real" means trying to think things out from facts, or better still, from first premises, and not just spouting a party line spin. No, clearly "get real" means misconstrue as meaningful historical coincidence, and ignore all historical context so you can attempt to prove a shallow point. Huh? The basis of the argument was Repubs not Dems are Warniks, right? Fraid I am not seeing evidence to support that. Perhaps I misinterpreted the response. It seemed to me you were attempting to disprove it by just listing the party affiliation of the POTUS during four arbitrarily selected wars. This doesn't make sense because WWI and WWII had declarations of war, which means the party affiliation of the POTUS is irrelevant, because it's Congress that decided to go to send troops somewhere, not the President. Therefore, you're left with a list of party affiliations of the POTUS during a biasedly-picked sample of US wars, which ignores all historical context surrounding the wars in attempt to draw significance and a correlation from coincidence. In other words, the list doesn't prove what you want it to. Not to say I disagree with your point, I believe Democrats are just as war-happy as Republicans. My point was just your list doesn't support that conclusion because the party affiliation of the POTUS is not directly related to the war. |
|
|
|
Commercial banks does not create money, I mean base money, not some check book numbers in their database. When you ask for a loan, if commercial bank does not have base money, they can not give you a loan, that's a liquidity problem. Otherwise there will never be any bank failure, they could just loan to each other and create trillions of dollars
I'm afraid that's not right. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdfCommercial banks do create money. It may not be base money but base money is only a small fraction of total fiat money. They create a loan on their books and balance it with an asset which is the contract you sign for a loan, not any base money they may or may not have. Base money is only used for cash withdrawals, a very small value relative to their normal volume. If they run short they're allowed to run to the fed and borrow some. They don't over borrow from the fed because they have to pay interest. They can't just have base cash sitting in their vaults if they have to pay interest on it. Base money is small part of the total fiat money we use. He's right. The practice by which banks create money is called "fractional reserve banking." |
|
|
|
I'm not quite sure what you are saying. FACT. Obama has secreted away personal data to an extent unprecedented in the entire US POTUS history.
You can't deny that. I think what you are saying is "It doesn't matter." Well, that wouldn't quite qualify someone with your attitude to review backgrounds and qualifications of 20 people for a job in the private sector, or make either reasonable or best decisions on such a matter.
I'm saying you're ridiculous. FACT. See, just because you slap "FACT" on something doesn't make it a fact. For example, you stated an opinion: "Obama has secreted away personal data to an extent unprecedented in the entire US POTUS history." Justify this "fact" with sources and evidence, or just stop it. I have no idea whatever the rest of your response was about, it was wholly unrelated to everything else in this thread. From the WSJ in 2008: Barack Obama makes his first campaign visit today to his alma mater, Columbia University. Just don't ask the prolific self-diarist to talk about his undergraduate days in Morningside Heights. The Columbia years are a hole in the sprawling Obama hagiography. In his two published memoirs, the 47-year-old Democratic nominee barely mentions his experience there. He refuses to answer questions about Columbia and New York -- which, in this media age, serves only to raise more of them. Why not release his Columbia transcript? Why has his senior essay gone missing? Now in our view, the college years shouldn't normally be used to judge a politician's fitness for office. We're not sure the transcripts of Al Gore, John Kerry and George W. Bush -- which showed them to be C students -- illuminated much for voters. The McCain campaign won't release his records, but we know he graduated at the bottom of his Naval Academy class. But Mr. Obama is a case apart. His personal story, as told by him, made possible his rise from obscurity four years ago to possibly the White House. He doesn't have a long track record in government. We mainly have him in his own words. As any autobiographer, Mr. Obama played up certain chapters in his life -- perhaps even exaggerating his drug use in adolescence to drive home his theme of youthful alienation -- and ignored others. What's more, as acknowledged in "Dreams From My Father," Mr. Obama reconstructed conversations and gave some people pseudonyms or created "composite" characters. Voters and the media are now exercising due diligence before Election Day, and they are meeting resistance from Mr. Obama in checking his past. Earlier this year, the AP tracked down Mr. Obama's New York-era roommate, "Sadik," in Seattle after the campaign refused to reveal his name. Sohale Siddiqi, his real name, confirmed Mr. Obama's account that he turned serious in New York and "stopped getting high." "We were both very lost," Mr. Siddiqi said. "We were both alienated, although he might not put it that way. He arrived disheveled and without a place to stay." For some reason the Obama camp wanted this to stay out of public view. Such caginess is grist for speculation. Some think his transcript, if released, would reveal Mr. Obama as a mediocre student who benefited from racial preference. Yet he later graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, so he knows how to get good grades. Others speculate about ties to the Black Students Organization, though students active then don't seem to remember him. And on the far reaches of the Web can be found conspiracies about former Carter national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became the candidate's "guru and controller" while at Columbia in the early 1980s. Mr. Brzezinski laughs, and tells us he doesn't "remember meeting him." What can be said with some certainty is that Mr. Obama lived off campus while at Columbia in 1981-83 and made few friends. Fox News contacted some 400 of his classmates and found no one who remembered him. He had transferred from Occidental College in California after his sophomore year because, he told the Boston Globe in 1990, "I was concerned with urban issues and I wanted to be around more black folks in big cities." He got a degree in political science without honors. "For about two years there, I was just painfully alone and really not focused on anything, except maybe thinking a lot," he told his biographer David Mendell. Put that way, his time at Columbia sounds unremarkable. Maybe that's what most pains a young memoirist and an ambitious politician who strains to make his life anything but unremarkable. http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB122108881386721289------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The WSJ is not known for conspiracy theories. Maybe he was a very average student. Maybe not. What kind of financial aid did he get? Thousands of other questions. How come all those little details were VERY helpful and HISTORIC for every single president, but not him. All we know from him are what he told us from TWO autobiographies, from whom he won Two Grammy Awards! Fact: those documents are not available to the public a.k.a. they are sealed... A data point of one does not support your assertion that "Obama has secreted away personal data to an extent unprecedented in the entire US POTUS history." Don't forget, you preceded that opinion with "FACT." Fact is something objectively verifiable. You made a subjective statement. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
