These gentlemen are generally part of a business which has the goal of selling stock to people. Their employers often receive a lot of business from the companies they cover.
It a business full of potential and actual conflicts of interest. Their overall accuracy is proven to be worse than simple coin flips or dart throwing in various academic research studies.
They have a long history of issuing far more positive or buy recommendations than sell recommendations.
I would NOT trust anything from one these individuals, especially one making a buy recommendation.
Social behavior requires more intellectual power. Dog brains have evolved to be larger than cat's brains in order to facilitate interactions with people.
The Taliban was definitely NOT friendly with the US. The were hosting a variety of terrorist organizations including those who had made attacks on US embassies. the Cole and the first WTC bombing in 1993.
While the US had funded guerrilla operations in Afghanistan, the idea that this grew into the Taliban is patently false.
The Taliban's roots are in Pakistan, where thousands of children of refugees from Afghanistan were educated in radical Islamic schools. It is why the Taliban is also strong in parts of Afghanistan.
Compared to most of the world, they are definitely about average in the spectrum from say Norway which probably has the best democracy to North Korea which is probably the furthest from democracy.
That is definitely better than the average for the middle east which is the worst region in the world overall.
> Missions into these countries were already planned before September 11, 2011.
Any competent military will have contingency plans for a wide variety of scenarios in place. The idea that there were pre-existing plans means anything is bat shit crazy.
I do agree with your comments about torture though. There is no evidence that it is useful.
Are you saying that relations between the US and Iraq and the Taliban regime were just fine prior to the 9/11 incident?
Such an analysis cannot be defended.
Many wars in Europe were triggered by events far more minor than the destruction of the World Trade Center. One of the participants in this thread pointed out that the removal of a single ear was a cause of war in the past.
The claim that is the first time that the trigger of destruction of nations was such a small incident is obviously ridiculous to anyone with even a passing knowledge of history.
Using torture is a war crime. It is not acceptable nor is it productive. Senior US military command is on record stating it is immoral and counter-productive. It should never happen and those who engage in it, foster it or approve it should be prosecuted.
This is why we have a process called 'rule of law' which constrains these opinions.
The body of legal thought in the United States includes a basis on natural law:
In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the United States Supreme Court:
The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."
Where do these people come from? Is there some ban on actually READING the Constitution?
Here's a clue. The word SPECIFICALLY does NOT appear in the 10th Amendment. It was considered but was rejected because the founders did not want it to be that limiting.
So the stuff you are complaining about is NOT unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone really want to work for Best Buy? Or for matter Yahoo?
These are companies that are 20 years behind the leaders. Go to work for them and you will always be sitting around waiting for the defenestration.
These new polices are just a message to the wise - time to find a better employer.
These gentlemen are generally part of a business which has the goal of selling stock to people. Their employers often receive a lot of business from the companies they cover.
It a business full of potential and actual conflicts of interest. Their overall accuracy is proven to be worse than simple coin flips or dart throwing in various academic research studies.
They have a long history of issuing far more positive or buy recommendations than sell recommendations.
I would NOT trust anything from one these individuals, especially one making a buy recommendation.
This sort of story is NOT reliable information.
Social behavior requires more intellectual power. Dog brains have evolved to be larger than cat's brains in order to facilitate interactions with people.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101127105348.htm
The asocial behavior of cats is not due to intelligence. It's a mark of limited intellect.
Anyone who is familiar with Border Collies would find the idea that cats are smarter than dogs ridiculous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Collie
One of the most creative SF novels ever. If you are a fan of the genre it's a great read.
Operational plans are very different from advocacy positions taken by members of a political think tank.
It is lunatic to conflate the two.
You are just making crap up.
The Taliban was definitely NOT friendly with the US. The were hosting a variety of terrorist organizations including those who had made attacks on US embassies. the Cole and the first WTC bombing in 1993.
While the US had funded guerrilla operations in Afghanistan, the idea that this grew into the Taliban is patently false.
The Taliban's roots are in Pakistan, where thousands of children of refugees from Afghanistan were educated in radical Islamic schools. It is why the Taliban is also strong in parts of Afghanistan.
Compared to most of the world, they are definitely about average in the spectrum from say Norway which probably has the best democracy to North Korea which is probably the furthest from democracy.
That is definitely better than the average for the middle east which is the worst region in the world overall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
What the heck does that have to do with the fact that both a standing army and navy are specifically authorized in the Constitution?
> Missions into these countries were already planned before September 11, 2011.
Any competent military will have contingency plans for a wide variety of scenarios in place. The idea that there were pre-existing plans means anything is bat shit crazy.
I do agree with your comments about torture though. There is no evidence that it is useful.
Are you saying that relations between the US and Iraq and the Taliban regime were just fine prior to the 9/11 incident?
Such an analysis cannot be defended.
Many wars in Europe were triggered by events far more minor than the destruction of the World Trade Center. One of the participants in this thread pointed out that the removal of a single ear was a cause of war in the past.
The claim that is the first time that the trigger of destruction of nations was such a small incident is obviously ridiculous to anyone with even a passing knowledge of history.
WWI killed how many ? 8-10 millions?
Don't forget the defenstration of Prague leading to the 30 years war.
Nonsense. Article I section VIII of the Constitution of the United States of America gives Congress the enumerated power:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
One of the first military acts of the Republic was to establish a standing Navy in order to protect trade. cf the Naval Act of 1794.
One of the ships built from funds thereby appropriated is still in service. I had the chance to visit her a few years ago.
Using torture is a war crime. It is not acceptable nor is it productive. Senior US military command is on record stating it is immoral and counter-productive. It should never happen and those who engage in it, foster it or approve it should be prosecuted.
Baloney.
WW I was based on the assassination of a single individual.
How about revealing which glass house you are throwing bricks from so we don't just have to take your word for it?
I don't think they care if it's a dictatorship or not. The key word is friendly.
For example Turkey has been a staunch ally since the Truman Doctrine and has the highest Democracy Index in the region excluding Israel.
It's like finding out that your BMW M5 comes with a factory installed speed limiter.
There is a 1758 flintlock in my family. Used during the French and Indian wars by a brother of one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
I doubt if it has been fired for 200 years. Probably nobody has touched it without gloves for 100 years.
They will have some serious talking to do before getting it.
Opinions vary considerably on what is 'ethical'.
This is why we have a process called 'rule of law' which constrains these opinions.
The body of legal thought in the United States includes a basis on natural law:
In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the United States Supreme Court:
The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."
Supposedly the House of Representatives is responsible for spending bills so why should petitioning the President mess that up?
....it seems to me that's where this is heading unless the Canadians get some backbone.
> Powers not SPECIFICALLY.....
Where do these people come from? Is there some ban on actually READING the Constitution?
Here's a clue. The word SPECIFICALLY does NOT appear in the 10th Amendment. It was considered but was rejected because the founders did not want it to be that limiting.
So the stuff you are complaining about is NOT unconstitutional.
I've had lots more failures due to UPSs going tits up than through data loss on SSDs.
It isn't a 5% budget cut. 85 billion is more like 9%.
Add in the fact that some 66% of the budget is untouched SS, Medicare and debt payments it is in fact about a 25% cut on the rest of the budget.
That's a pretty decent whack.