FOIA being different from the requirement for White House employees to use the White House communications system so they can be archived. FOIA is the right to get the info, not how it must be stored.
And the only text of the FOIA relating to the states involves not releasing information if it could reveal a confidential state source. I just searched. But I personally know a federal FOIA official, so I'll ask since you may be right on precedent instead of the text of the law.
BTW: Don't do FOIA just because you can, have a real serious reason. It clogs the system and costs you more tax dollars as they hire extra people to process requests, and the hiring lags at least a year behind the request volume. A lot of requests are just nuisances and delay response to serious requests.
Finally, someone comes up with a law. But I still don't see anything here that would make her Yahoo account illegal. It looks like if a citizen wanted any public business she conducted on her Yahoo account disclosed, she would have to do so. Failure to do so would only result in a court order enjoining her from preventing access. Personally, I think it should be at least a misdemeanor and/or ineligibility to hold public employment to obstruct a citizen's access to public records.
Still not illegal. Good, no, but not illegal.
People seem to think because there are federal records rules concerning White House correspondence, that it applies to the states. It's probably because peoples' only experience with it in the news are the escapades of Clinton and Bush.
In liberal-leaning forums I tend to see people think only Republicans do wrong, especially this president. I like to remind liberals their heroes are just as bad, or worse.
But back to that Alaska state law making what Palin did illegal.
Such a law exists for the executive branch of the federal government, but so far nobody's shown whether there is such a law for the executive of Alaska. Not a good idea, certainly. Illegal, I'm waiting for a law that ways it is.
"oops! we lost that backup tape..." like the current White House did.
Sort of like what Clinton did, except those were targeted losses to duck subpoenas for Lewinsky and the FBI files. Even better, they threatened contractors with jail should they tell about the missing files. The whistleblower's office was even burglarized.
It's an extra freebie given to those who buy the game in the primary market. It's incentive to buy on the primary market.
If they're sold separately to those in the secondary market pricing can be set to be an incentive. For example, $50 game with freebies included, $30 buy it used pay $20 for the freebies. You might as well buy it new, but it's the buyer's choice.
Copyright holders have been trying to destroy the secondary market for decades. They've used various tactics, but if that is the goal this one is the most benign tactic I've seen.
Like I said, if a secondary market purchaser can buy the extras I'll be convinced this is not about destroying the secondary market. If not, I can see the slippery slope where eventually the game will be practically useless to the secondary market purchaser as most of the game is now for primary market buyers only. In the end you get a useless stub of a game, practically just a demo, when you buy, the rest unlocked only for the initial purchaser.
When it comes to government policy, absurd-sounding jokes tend to come true. Somewhere out there, some bureaucrat or aspiring politician would think that is a good idea.
We are the ones responsible for any damage to the planet. Fewer of us means better for the planet. There are actually people out there getting sterilized so they won't produce offspring that would produce more CO2. Personally, I applaud their efforts and wish more like-minded people would do the same.
Too much of the Global Warming (sorry, "Climate Change" so they can always be right) environmentalism these days is more anti-human than pro-environment, that is when it's not about pure greed. The ones who try to strike a balance tend to get denounced by the environmental movement.
And, yes, I'm an environmentalist (recycling, CFL in the house where it works, small-engine cars, responsible hunting, etc.), but the current quasi-religious movement of environmentalism would probably denounce me as a heretic or even apostate for not subscribing to the established dogma.
Mine stays on 24/7 because I do Folding@Home. Or should I refrain from using energy that can help find cures for disease because our environmental overlords say that's a bad thing?
If I don't fold I use less energy. If I don't fold more people will die since cures won't be found. Fewer people equals less CO2. It's a win-win for our environmental overlords if I don't fold. But it's a win for the human race if I do.
You sound like a standard partisan: If you don't like it then it is "propaganda."
I know, the truth hurts when you're trying to get Obama elected by blaming only the Republicans. You must distract from the left's blame on this, you must distract from the fact that Democrats received the most protection money from FM/FM, you must distract from the fact that Democrat race-baiting policies created this mess.
I knew that people might not understand where we stand economically, but to look at the long chain of events that caused this mess and think that there should be more deregulation is really impressively blind.
The deregulation we need is to stop regulating finance with political correctness. There's a reason why you charge a higher interest rate to a poor family living on the wrong side of the tracks -- they are a higher risk. Seriously, duh. But Clinton put the CRA on steroids, highly pressuring banks to make loans in very risky areas just because they had black demographics.
But we do need more, or at least much better, regulation to prevent fraud and dangerously insufficient assets.
Exactly what is the debt that FM is saddled with currently that is bringing it down? Could it be people who met pre-1977 lending criteria? Or is it the sub-primes that Congress created? People are realizing that you don't lend money to bad credit risks for damn good reason, but that's exactly what the law and regulatory scheme mandated.
Seriously. How does the minority party in Congress and the Senate kill anything?
Nothing happens in an approximate 50/50 Senate unless one of the following situations exists: Both parties want it to happen, or approximately 1/3 of one party defects to the other side to create the supermajority needed for cloture.
Unless I'm mistaken, you would need bi-partisan opposition to kill it.
You only need one out of 100 senators to set the stage for the kill, then only 2/3 of his own party to go along in order to kill it. A filibuster isn't necessary, just threaten. None of this even counts committees. After the Democrats took over in 2006 they killed a McCain attempt to reform in committee.
It's irritating especial when this is blamed on Bush. The Bush administration has pressed Congress for reform of this system every year he's been in office except 2006, over a dozen pleas to Congress ignored.
Yeah.. because..you know.. when the seeds for this were sown in 1994.. the congress wasn't.. you know.. republican controlled
Yeah.. because..you know.. when the seeds for this were sown in 1977 the Congress was Democrat controlled and it was signed by a Democrat president. In 1995 President Clinton made regulatory changes (no need for the consent of the Republican Congress) that put the program on steroids, paving the way straight to our current crisis. It was after this that FM/FM started taking on the risky loans to comply with the heightened standards.
Bush tried to fix this in 2003, but the Democrats killed it. "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis." -- Barney Frank D-MA, while opposing stricter oversight.
You weren't reading. The initial cause was the government practically ordering financial institutions to loan money to bad credit risks, see the Community Reinvestment Act. That, coupled with HUD policies led to FM/FM getting neck-deep in these securities in order to stay within regulation.
It is these bad loans, forced by the government, that we're about to pay for. Deregulation did make things worse, but it couldn't have done anything had a well-intentioned Democratic congress not laid the foundation for the eventual collapse. The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes them again, but they will never learn because it's only our money they're playing with.
The problem here is that the government ordered them to bake too many cookies and loaves of bread and the government is pretending it has no fault in this.
Senator Obama, you know full well that the failed policies of a Democratic-run Congress created the sub-prime environment that led to the current financial crisis. You know that you and Chris Dodd are the two highest recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money in Congress since 1989, and you achieved that second place spot in only a few years in the Senate. You know that Barney Frank was a few years ago saying there is no problem with FM/FM, while Senator McCain said there was a problem and cosponsored legislation to prevent the current crisis. You also know that legislation was killed by the Democrats.
With all that in mind, how hypocritical do you feel when you blame the current crisis on the Republicans?
If the government treats this for what it really is, which was a kid who was curious to see if he could do this
That's wrong. The guy already said he did it in hopes of digging up useful dirt on Palin, the obvious only reason to do that being to influence an election, or maybe get in good with his dad who's a Democrat legislator and Obama supporter. They need to dig, dig, dig, threaten him with the max felony to see if he was put up to this by anyone.
I am trying to get you to actually back up your neocon talking points
The point works without the law. Moore grossly misrepresented what happened in Denver.
I don't want to see another reply from you.
I can see why. You seem to be avoiding actually discussing the lies in the movies and don't want to account for them.
Return it. Don't start watching his movies now, this one will only piss you off in the way that Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine likely would have - had you actually watched them.
Had I actually watched them? Which one of us is getting the bank scene wrong? I think I watched them and you are going off leftist talking points.
Anyway, too late. I just finished watching Sicko. My faith in Moore has been somewhat restored. It was very good. The evils that the insurance companies are allowed to perpetrate were well-exposed. I completely agree with criticism of overprescribing medicine, it's obscene how drug crazed we are and how hard drugs are pushed (I like my doctor, he hates big pharma). Moore's also right that the prescription drug act was just a big money flow to the industry without really helping anyone, and yes I know Bush pushed that and I criticized him for it back then. The film exposed some real problems in this country.
And he's right about big pharma paying off our government. You see, countries with nationalized health care put price caps on what the systems will pay for drugs. So the pharma companies that spent billions developing drugs sell in those countries below cost, and they make it up by jacking the prices here. Basically, the American people subsidize the nationalized health care systems of many countries. Big pharma has paid Congress to keep importing cheap drugs from those companies illegal because that would dry up their major means of profit.
In any case, I could have added to the list of evils of big pharma in the film. He went kind of light on them.
There are a few minor points where he didn't give a complete story, like our libraries that were in large part founded by private funds (Andrew Carnegie), but that's minor and they are considered government today. Then there's the fact that the NHS has some of its own problems (I know quite a few Brits), but I won't count that as a deception. He's giving his side of the story, it's up to others to give the other side.
The only real deception I can think of right after viewing it is that Cuban hospital. I'll give a pass as dramatic effect on the supposed spontaneity of the visit, as nothing like that could happen in Cuba without prior party approval. But to the meat, that hospital is for foreigners and party fat cats. The average Cuban does not get to go to the nice hospital, and often ends up in a rank deteriorating hell hole (people have had, uh, "legal troubles" in Cuba for trying to get those photos out). It may be rumor, but I heard that Sicko got banned in Cuba because Castro didn't want the people to know how good the elite have it. Either Moore was deceptive, or he got deceived.
There is the first thing you've said that I agree with! Congratulations!
Except he did carry it out in the movie, contrary to your assertion. Oops.
You know what? I'll concede this issue. You win. As far as this debate is concerned there is no law that covers the NRA's incorporation, no by-laws that state the terms of their meetings. Happy?
Now, the NRA did have the meeting planned far in advance, the meeting was NOT in response to Columbine as Moore insinuated. The NRA did cancel almost all of the events, worth a lot of money, out of respect and sympathy. Moore did chop up two different speeches to completely change the tenor of the actual Denver speech. Michael Moore gave an absolutely deceptive portrayal of the events in Denver.
I see further avoidance of the other issues. Quite pathetic. You were grasping onto this one minor, almost inconsequential issue, in order to pretend that this lie, and the rest of Moore's lies, don't exist.
And just for you I rented Sicko today. I'll tell you how it goes.
In particular, this section [findlaw.com] states that a corporation for that law is a for-profit. The NRA is listed as a non-profit.
I gave you the wrong one, but I'm sure it was difficult to figure out how to click one back on the breadcrumb, click the statutes link and select the non-profit section instead. But you apparently found the NRA listing, so you must be competent enough to do it and thus are again being obtuse in order to distract.
I notice you don't respond to any of the issues of Moore's film. Therefore you are purposely doing a distraction maneuver, tacitly admitting Moore lies in his films, and you either haven't seen them or can't remember enough about them to debate them properly.
Do you even remember what we had started out discussing?
You can add certain liberal propaganda films such as Moore's to the list of a liberal-biased media.
Still trying to harp on the law when it is one very small part of the overall discussion. You read the Rocky Mountain News reporting on it, they were required.
But since you can't seem to do what took me 10 seconds with Google, start here. If you'd like to show yourself further inept at researching anything on the Internet, maybe you can also ask for the NRA bylaws that this refers to.
Of course Moore was still deceptive even if that law didn't exist, purely on the facts that the meeting had been scheduled far in advance, and that the NRA did make massive concessions out of sympathy.
And I notice you refuse to actually address the proven lies and deceit in Moore's films that I listed. Can I take that as your admission that Moore lied and deceived several times?
Will you admit that you lied about me not seeing the film and you having seen it since I am the one accurately portraying scenes, and you are the one who is not? I bet you don't even remember, or never saw, the KKK/NRA bit of Bowling where the KKK guy and the NRA guy walked hand-in-hand to a cross and the NRA guy poured gas on it so it could be set on fire. Yeah, the movie said nothing about the two organizations working together. What a crock!
Slashdot Mirror
Night Fever
FOIA being different from the requirement for White House employees to use the White House communications system so they can be archived. FOIA is the right to get the info, not how it must be stored.
And the only text of the FOIA relating to the states involves not releasing information if it could reveal a confidential state source. I just searched. But I personally know a federal FOIA official, so I'll ask since you may be right on precedent instead of the text of the law.
BTW: Don't do FOIA just because you can, have a real serious reason. It clogs the system and costs you more tax dollars as they hire extra people to process requests, and the hiring lags at least a year behind the request volume. A lot of requests are just nuisances and delay response to serious requests.
Finally, someone comes up with a law. But I still don't see anything here that would make her Yahoo account illegal. It looks like if a citizen wanted any public business she conducted on her Yahoo account disclosed, she would have to do so. Failure to do so would only result in a court order enjoining her from preventing access. Personally, I think it should be at least a misdemeanor and/or ineligibility to hold public employment to obstruct a citizen's access to public records.
Still not illegal. Good, no, but not illegal.
People seem to think because there are federal records rules concerning White House correspondence, that it applies to the states. It's probably because peoples' only experience with it in the news are the escapades of Clinton and Bush.
In liberal-leaning forums I tend to see people think only Republicans do wrong, especially this president. I like to remind liberals their heroes are just as bad, or worse.
But back to that Alaska state law making what Palin did illegal.
Such a law exists for the executive branch of the federal government, but so far nobody's shown whether there is such a law for the executive of Alaska. Not a good idea, certainly. Illegal, I'm waiting for a law that ways it is.
Sort of like what Clinton did, except those were targeted losses to duck subpoenas for Lewinsky and the FBI files. Even better, they threatened contractors with jail should they tell about the missing files. The whistleblower's office was even burglarized.
It's an extra freebie given to those who buy the game in the primary market. It's incentive to buy on the primary market.
If they're sold separately to those in the secondary market pricing can be set to be an incentive. For example, $50 game with freebies included, $30 buy it used pay $20 for the freebies. You might as well buy it new, but it's the buyer's choice.
Copyright holders have been trying to destroy the secondary market for decades. They've used various tactics, but if that is the goal this one is the most benign tactic I've seen.
Like I said, if a secondary market purchaser can buy the extras I'll be convinced this is not about destroying the secondary market. If not, I can see the slippery slope where eventually the game will be practically useless to the secondary market purchaser as most of the game is now for primary market buyers only. In the end you get a useless stub of a game, practically just a demo, when you buy, the rest unlocked only for the initial purchaser.
An option to buy the extra content if you are a second-hand owner would be nice. They get the money, the buyer gets the content, everybody's happy.
Doing that would show an honest monetary interest in the extra content rather than a plain desire to kill the secondary market.
I guess your church ran out of tin foil hats and Thorazine.
When it comes to government policy, absurd-sounding jokes tend to come true. Somewhere out there, some bureaucrat or aspiring politician would think that is a good idea.
We are the ones responsible for any damage to the planet. Fewer of us means better for the planet. There are actually people out there getting sterilized so they won't produce offspring that would produce more CO2. Personally, I applaud their efforts and wish more like-minded people would do the same.
Too much of the Global Warming (sorry, "Climate Change" so they can always be right) environmentalism these days is more anti-human than pro-environment, that is when it's not about pure greed. The ones who try to strike a balance tend to get denounced by the environmental movement.
And, yes, I'm an environmentalist (recycling, CFL in the house where it works, small-engine cars, responsible hunting, etc.), but the current quasi-religious movement of environmentalism would probably denounce me as a heretic or even apostate for not subscribing to the established dogma.
Mine stays on 24/7 because I do Folding@Home. Or should I refrain from using energy that can help find cures for disease because our environmental overlords say that's a bad thing?
If I don't fold I use less energy. If I don't fold more people will die since cures won't be found. Fewer people equals less CO2. It's a win-win for our environmental overlords if I don't fold. But it's a win for the human race if I do.
You sound like a standard partisan: If you don't like it then it is "propaganda."
I know, the truth hurts when you're trying to get Obama elected by blaming only the Republicans. You must distract from the left's blame on this, you must distract from the fact that Democrats received the most protection money from FM/FM, you must distract from the fact that Democrat race-baiting policies created this mess.
The deregulation we need is to stop regulating finance with political correctness. There's a reason why you charge a higher interest rate to a poor family living on the wrong side of the tracks -- they are a higher risk. Seriously, duh. But Clinton put the CRA on steroids, highly pressuring banks to make loans in very risky areas just because they had black demographics.
But we do need more, or at least much better, regulation to prevent fraud and dangerously insufficient assets.
Exactly what is the debt that FM is saddled with currently that is bringing it down? Could it be people who met pre-1977 lending criteria? Or is it the sub-primes that Congress created? People are realizing that you don't lend money to bad credit risks for damn good reason, but that's exactly what the law and regulatory scheme mandated.
Nothing happens in an approximate 50/50 Senate unless one of the following situations exists: Both parties want it to happen, or approximately 1/3 of one party defects to the other side to create the supermajority needed for cloture.
You only need one out of 100 senators to set the stage for the kill, then only 2/3 of his own party to go along in order to kill it. A filibuster isn't necessary, just threaten. None of this even counts committees. After the Democrats took over in 2006 they killed a McCain attempt to reform in committee.
It's irritating especial when this is blamed on Bush. The Bush administration has pressed Congress for reform of this system every year he's been in office except 2006, over a dozen pleas to Congress ignored.
Yeah.. because..you know.. when the seeds for this were sown in 1977 the Congress was Democrat controlled and it was signed by a Democrat president. In 1995 President Clinton made regulatory changes (no need for the consent of the Republican Congress) that put the program on steroids, paving the way straight to our current crisis. It was after this that FM/FM started taking on the risky loans to comply with the heightened standards.
Bush tried to fix this in 2003, but the Democrats killed it. "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis." -- Barney Frank D-MA, while opposing stricter oversight.
You weren't reading. The initial cause was the government practically ordering financial institutions to loan money to bad credit risks, see the Community Reinvestment Act. That, coupled with HUD policies led to FM/FM getting neck-deep in these securities in order to stay within regulation.
It is these bad loans, forced by the government, that we're about to pay for. Deregulation did make things worse, but it couldn't have done anything had a well-intentioned Democratic congress not laid the foundation for the eventual collapse. The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes them again, but they will never learn because it's only our money they're playing with.
The problem here is that the government ordered them to bake too many cookies and loaves of bread and the government is pretending it has no fault in this.
Senator Obama, you know full well that the failed policies of a Democratic-run Congress created the sub-prime environment that led to the current financial crisis. You know that you and Chris Dodd are the two highest recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money in Congress since 1989, and you achieved that second place spot in only a few years in the Senate. You know that Barney Frank was a few years ago saying there is no problem with FM/FM, while Senator McCain said there was a problem and cosponsored legislation to prevent the current crisis. You also know that legislation was killed by the Democrats.
With all that in mind, how hypocritical do you feel when you blame the current crisis on the Republicans?
The point works without the law. Moore grossly misrepresented what happened in Denver.
I can see why. You seem to be avoiding actually discussing the lies in the movies and don't want to account for them.
Had I actually watched them? Which one of us is getting the bank scene wrong? I think I watched them and you are going off leftist talking points.
Anyway, too late. I just finished watching Sicko. My faith in Moore has been somewhat restored. It was very good. The evils that the insurance companies are allowed to perpetrate were well-exposed. I completely agree with criticism of overprescribing medicine, it's obscene how drug crazed we are and how hard drugs are pushed (I like my doctor, he hates big pharma). Moore's also right that the prescription drug act was just a big money flow to the industry without really helping anyone, and yes I know Bush pushed that and I criticized him for it back then. The film exposed some real problems in this country.
And he's right about big pharma paying off our government. You see, countries with nationalized health care put price caps on what the systems will pay for drugs. So the pharma companies that spent billions developing drugs sell in those countries below cost, and they make it up by jacking the prices here. Basically, the American people subsidize the nationalized health care systems of many countries. Big pharma has paid Congress to keep importing cheap drugs from those companies illegal because that would dry up their major means of profit.
In any case, I could have added to the list of evils of big pharma in the film. He went kind of light on them.
There are a few minor points where he didn't give a complete story, like our libraries that were in large part founded by private funds (Andrew Carnegie), but that's minor and they are considered government today. Then there's the fact that the NHS has some of its own problems (I know quite a few Brits), but I won't count that as a deception. He's giving his side of the story, it's up to others to give the other side.
The only real deception I can think of right after viewing it is that Cuban hospital. I'll give a pass as dramatic effect on the supposed spontaneity of the visit, as nothing like that could happen in Cuba without prior party approval. But to the meat, that hospital is for foreigners and party fat cats. The average Cuban does not get to go to the nice hospital, and often ends up in a rank deteriorating hell hole (people have had, uh, "legal troubles" in Cuba for trying to get those photos out). It may be rumor, but I heard that Sicko got banned in Cuba because Castro didn't want the people to know how good the elite have it. Either Moore was deceptive, or he got deceived.
Except he did carry it out in the movie, contrary to your assertion. Oops.
You know what? I'll concede this issue. You win. As far as this debate is concerned there is no law that covers the NRA's incorporation, no by-laws that state the terms of their meetings. Happy?
Now, the NRA did have the meeting planned far in advance, the meeting was NOT in response to Columbine as Moore insinuated. The NRA did cancel almost all of the events, worth a lot of money, out of respect and sympathy. Moore did chop up two different speeches to completely change the tenor of the actual Denver speech. Michael Moore gave an absolutely deceptive portrayal of the events in Denver.
I see further avoidance of the other issues. Quite pathetic. You were grasping onto this one minor, almost inconsequential issue, in order to pretend that this lie, and the rest of Moore's lies, don't exist.
And just for you I rented Sicko today. I'll tell you how it goes.
I gave you the wrong one, but I'm sure it was difficult to figure out how to click one back on the breadcrumb, click the statutes link and select the non-profit section instead. But you apparently found the NRA listing, so you must be competent enough to do it and thus are again being obtuse in order to distract.
I notice you don't respond to any of the issues of Moore's film. Therefore you are purposely doing a distraction maneuver, tacitly admitting Moore lies in his films, and you either haven't seen them or can't remember enough about them to debate them properly.
Didn't carry the gun out of the bank. LOL!
You can add certain liberal propaganda films such as Moore's to the list of a liberal-biased media.
Still trying to harp on the law when it is one very small part of the overall discussion. You read the Rocky Mountain News reporting on it, they were required.
But since you can't seem to do what took me 10 seconds with Google, start here. If you'd like to show yourself further inept at researching anything on the Internet, maybe you can also ask for the NRA bylaws that this refers to.
Of course Moore was still deceptive even if that law didn't exist, purely on the facts that the meeting had been scheduled far in advance, and that the NRA did make massive concessions out of sympathy.
And I notice you refuse to actually address the proven lies and deceit in Moore's films that I listed. Can I take that as your admission that Moore lied and deceived several times?
Will you admit that you lied about me not seeing the film and you having seen it since I am the one accurately portraying scenes, and you are the one who is not? I bet you don't even remember, or never saw, the KKK/NRA bit of Bowling where the KKK guy and the NRA guy walked hand-in-hand to a cross and the NRA guy poured gas on it so it could be set on fire. Yeah, the movie said nothing about the two organizations working together. What a crock!