thing is, that kind of "freedom" is what allowed groups of businesses, typically entire towns worth, to entirely shutout an entire race of people from public life, from any goods and services, which was a major driver of the mass migration of those people from the rural areas, particularly the south, into cities. cities where they often still were excluded from goods and services, but by the larger concentration of the group there at least some among them able to create their own businesses (assuming laws weren't made to prevent them from creating businesses of their own, which also happened, especially in the south, or business licenses were simply denied).
point is it sucked. there's a reason we got rid of it and created the doctrine of 'public accommodations'.
and it happened before bathroom rights too. so what? the rate of these crimes hasn't increased even though these laws and policies have been in force for some time. its not like pervs or predators were just waiting for an access law before breaking the law.
Personally, I figure everyone should just go into any restroom. IE, all restrooms should be neutral gender.
It's part of being an adult: go in, close the stall, do your business, and get the hell out. This 17th century prudishness over a basic human bodily function is stupid.
Assault and peeping are still crimes regardless and still entirely enforceable regardless. This fear that this will somehow make them more common, as if the lack of bathroom access is the reason pervs don't commit those crimes in greater numbers (the complete and polar opposite of the gun rights crowd's arguments, even though its the same people most the time!), is moronic.
Gun laws don't work because criminals just ignore laws*. *Except sexual predators; they'll wait for transgendered bathroom rights to be recognized. -
BTW, the answer to the question is 0. 0 have been assaulted as a result. And, clue, it's still a crime, even if person just "claims to be transgendered", because assault is assault. Which is a far smaller number than the number of transgendered persons who HAVE been assaulted in the bathroom.
No, it's not a public safety issue. And you're trying to frame it as one just makes you another one of the bigots.
Yes, federal law does override, except where the law doesn't cover. Still, a state legislature willing going backwards and saying all discrimination is ok is a bad thing.
Somehow I'm not surprised that even the whitehouse is victim to the bureaucracy and slow speed of the GSA (or whomever administers theirs systems) and its IT contractors.
We just got "new" computers in my lab. 64bit Athlon's running at 1.5GHz, and a whopping 3GB of RAM. It absolutely screams compared to what it replaced: a 1.2GHz Athlon 32bit that had only 2GB of RAM.
As to printers, we're still using some b/w HP laser workhorses that are ~20 years old. Near as I can tell the maintenance has never been performed on them. They jam regularly, hang daily. We might get replacements in the next year they tell us. But they said that 5 years ago too.
so absurd that they can "successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean." ?
Again: Nothing to do with socialism, and no, taxes are not socialism.
Again: You are ignorant. and just throwing out words you heard that sound cool to your feeble mind to sound smart, such as socialism and control systems and political structures, doesn't actually make you smart.
Climate change is a scientifically factual phenomena. It's impossible for it to be socialist (-points for over use of the word). and I assure you the ignorance is fully yours.
There are Hindu chaplains. I've not heard of Buddhist ones, but then that religion doesn't seem like one that would lend itself to having chaplains. The only one I know of being rejected is a Humanist (atheist) who is currently suing the navy over that rejection.
Though I believe his rejection had to do with the lack of an endorsement. Remember that Chaplains are volunteers , and the military does not actively recruit them (and in a sense, cannot). They must apply for service as a chaplain. Then the military can evaluate their fitness to serve in the military. But the military cannot itself be the one to determine whether or not a person is really Catholic/Jewish/whatever, as that's a violation of the Separation of Church and State (military deciding what qualifies as a particular religion) clause. So therefore they must be endorsed by an outside religious order. Catholic priests are usually endorsed by their Archdiocese, etc. The first Muslim chaplains, lacking their own body to endorse them yet, were actually endorsed by various Christian orders.
There's also the tenet that Chaplains are expected and trained to administer to -ALL- service members regardless of which religion they may be a member, at least so much as they can between different religions. But then much of ministering isn't just religious in nature, but simply advise or counsel on matters of ethics or morale. Example: an Imam would not be expected to hold a Catholic service and administer the Communion, but he would be expected provide advise and counsel to anyone who asks. And it's impractical, and impossible, to have a Chaplin from every religion attached to every unit. For a while we had an LDS chaplain.
Chaplains occupy a gray zone in the military structure. They're afforded officer rank, but have no really command authority over anyone besides other Chaplains. They do get some training, such as basic survival training as well as first aid and medical training (allowing them to assist in triage and field hospitals), but naturally not combat training.
In fact 9 Chaplains have received the Medal of Honor. Two especially worth reading about are Lt. Comdr. O'Callahan (took command of the USS Franklin after it was crippled and nearly sunk, successfully leading the ship out of danger and back to port) and Capt. Angelo J. Liteky (shot multiple times, yet stood up in the face of enemy fire directing medevac helos into and out of a landing zone, and personally carried (and saved the lives of) over 20 men through that gunfire to the helos), are especially worth reading about. The latter one went on to become a war protestor, renouncing his both his medal and priestly vows.
Then on the other side of the spectrum, you have people like Gordon Klingenschmitt, who sued and protested while serving as a Chaplain, because he felt the military was restricting his freedom of religion by not allowing to proselytize to service members, or be more coercive in getting them pray, or the requirement that all prayers outside of chapel services be non-sectarian. He was eventually court-martialed and kicked out, whereupon he returned to Colorado where he became a rabidly anti-gay radio personality and preacher, and now recently managed to get elected to Congress where he makes the loonie Louie Gohmert of Texas look sane.
at no time in the history of labor in industrialized nations has the minimum wage risen on its own. (and considering many ancient ones had these laws too, it really goes back even further) its always only been through force of law, because without force of government compulsion all power lies in the employers hands. that's why a minimum wage needed to be enacted in law in the first place!
he described a post scarcity world. in a post scarcity world where people work because they want to rather than have to, they can work on the things that DO give them purpose. a purpose more fulfilling than working simply because otherwise you will be homeless/starving.
so no, he is not absolutely wrong. he's absolutely right: a post scarcity world SHOULD be the goal.
the minimum wage sets a floor that every other job in the company is effectively linked to. For Moderately Hard Job B to attract workers from Easy Job A, it has to pay more. raising the minimum wage increases the value of everyone's labor.
and raising the minimum wage doesn't cause inflation. inflation happens on its own in a growing economy as more and more value is added continually. rather, its the other around: the minimum wage is raised in order to keep buying power on pace with inflation. not raising it reduced everyones buying power.
therefore the race to the bottom is when you pay people starvation wages, which lowers the value and buying power of everyone else's labor too.
You never read what you link, do you? The authors argument is that the Tesla deal is worse because Tesla succeeded, but the government (and therefore taxpayers) is making no money off of Tesla's success.
On the basis of the loan itself, and the purpose behind the loans of fostering innovation, it succeeded. Tesla succeeded, and paid the loan back. Early even. On the basis of making money like a VC would, yes, the taxpayer got no shares or equity or other gain from that success, and Tesla now stands to profit immensely from that loan.
However, that is not "worse than solyndra" or in any way a failure. -
VCs do lose money all the time. But when they win, they win big. That's why they can lose 2 out of 3 deals regularly and still be successful. --
Ignoring your continual confusion of communism with socialism, your continued lack of education as to what caused the failure of the USSR or Venezuela, or how you ignore Europe, Canada, and Australia continued lack of failure*....
If capitalism works, why does it need socialist elements to keep from self-destructing?
The fact is your black and white binary viewpoint is infinitely ignorant of reality and history. Essential services and natural monopolies work best as utilities, aka social owned/controlled. That's roads, police, fire, military, electricity, water, etc, as well as the social programs that prevent capitalism from leaving anyone behind and shift the economy from benefiting an ever shrinking number of people to benefiting everyone. What works is a blended mix of both, as evidenced by the nearly the entire western nation.
*This is the part where you state the they are capitalist. Then you get reminded that they operate strong social programs aka socialized democracy models aka democratic socialism, which you also confuse with socialism/communism/etc. Then you state you never any such thing. Then you get reminded that you continually call Sanders a communist contrary to all evidence. Then you'll call that a lie. Then we'll begin laughing at you anew.
Consider this scenario, from my time in the service:
Often at large ceremonies, like changing command, or pass in reviews, or etc, a chaplain will offer a brief prayer at the start.
As one of the bodies in the formation (ugh...the worst duty ever, I swear! standing there in dress or service uniform, sweating/freezing, trying to pay attention and not fall asleep, or ignore the bug biting....sorry...went on tangent)......at some point the command is given "Let us pray". Now this is not intended as a religious command, rather its part of the drill manual directing the formation to respectfully bow heads*; sign of respect, not an expectation of participation.
And then the chaplain, who could be some form of Christian, Muslim, or Jewish (I've experienced all three), then gives his non-denominational prayer, usually for guidance or protection.
Now. Is that forced participation in a religious activity?
-- *in fact "let us pray" is not really a command; it doesn't come from the formation leader out in front, and isn't itself part of the drill manual, but from the chaplain. its not part of the usual command then action routine. its simply stated in the drill manual that when a chaplain begins to speak the formation will bow their heads out of respect, and the raise them when he's done. the phrases "let us pray" and "amen" simply being an unofficial means of signaling to the formation when he is starting and when he is finished. he could just as easily just start talking, and then hand the floor over to the next speaker, and the formation would still react appropriately.
there is a difference between witnessing others practicing their religion, and being forced to partake yourself. hence the implied freedom -from- religion as part of the deal.
though that concept is not applicable in your link. the guy in the article is a crank...but that doesn't mean hes necessarily wrong. from that article it seems the concepts at issue is two fold: -the participation of public officials in their official capacity participating in a religious activity, rather than as private citizens, while such participation is barred by law -public eyesore (will dismiss the safety hazard claim; unless its firing lasers or super bright spotlights at interstate traffic, the claim is likely a non-starter)
Not knowing the local laws regarding large display objects and eyesores, can't comment beyond noting that some localities zoning rules (or local HOAs) have rules regarding public displays, and it's possible the cross here breaks one. don't know, would have to look it up.
But the public officials side of it is a reasonable argument as the lawsuit is against their public office or official persona (eg, Mayor soandso), and not their private person. Ergo, they as private citizens are not being sued for practicing their religion. Rather they, as public officials, are being sued for using their official capacity to endorse a particular religion which is contrary to law.
I do think they could potentially defend themselves against such a lawsuit by claiming they would perform such actions for -any- religion that so requested it, ie that they would not discriminate, and did so viewing the cross as a economic/tourist attraction to the town (though that last part is probably a stretch). Followed with an apology that they intended no special favoritism. And in the future, they participate solely as private citizens to avoid any controversy.
No, Ann Coulter is not a walking piece of performance art. No, it is not just humor.
Whether she actually believes the racist c*** she says is irrelevant. She profits from saying it, from people who believe both what she says is true and that she is serious when she does so.
And no, they are not leftwing, or biased, any more than reality is. What people to stop getting rated liar? Then tell them to stop lying.
what weird bizarro world do you live in that up is down and false is true?
Our ruling
Solyndra's story is unfinished. FBI and congressional investigations continue, and more information about the loan guarantee program may yet come to light.
The TV ad says "(President Barack Obama gave) half a billion in taxpayer money to help his friends at Solyndra, a business the White House knew was on the path to bankruptcy." Some of this is correct, while some isn't supported by the existing evidence.
First, the money wasn't Obama's to give. Solyndra's request predated his administration, and career Energy Department officials handled the deal.
Second, e-mails so far don't show an administration pushing through a loan to help Obama's "friends at Solyndra." Rather, it appears the administration asked the Energy Department officials to hurry the regular process, so the administration could burnish its stimulus efforts.
Third, while e-mails raised doubts about Solyndra's liquidity as the Energy Department finalized the loan, those questions were answered by an official who argued investors would step in to protect the project — red flags, yes. But awareness in the White House the company would dissolve? No.
The government wasn't the only blindsided investor — private investors put up far more, and stand to lose more, than taxpayers.
The Solyndra story might be one of the poor design of the Energy Department's loan guarantee program — something the Government Accountability Office has pointed out since 2008. And with the congressional investigation ongoing, we may learn more about the Obama administration's role in the loan program — perhaps better supporting the ad's claims. For now, though, information in the public record does not support the ad's claim that the Obama White House is a pay-to-play cash machine for the politically well-connected. We rate this ad's claim Mostly False.
Slashdot Mirror
found the bigot.
thing is, that kind of "freedom" is what allowed groups of businesses, typically entire towns worth, to entirely shutout an entire race of people from public life, from any goods and services, which was a major driver of the mass migration of those people from the rural areas, particularly the south, into cities. cities where they often still were excluded from goods and services, but by the larger concentration of the group there at least some among them able to create their own businesses (assuming laws weren't made to prevent them from creating businesses of their own, which also happened, especially in the south, or business licenses were simply denied).
point is it sucked.
there's a reason we got rid of it and created the doctrine of 'public accommodations'.
found the scientifically illiterate bigot.
and it happened before bathroom rights too. so what? the rate of these crimes hasn't increased even though these laws and policies have been in force for some time. its not like pervs or predators were just waiting for an access law before breaking the law.
Personally, I figure everyone should just go into any restroom.
IE, all restrooms should be neutral gender.
It's part of being an adult: go in, close the stall, do your business, and get the hell out.
This 17th century prudishness over a basic human bodily function is stupid.
Assault and peeping are still crimes regardless and still entirely enforceable regardless. This fear that this will somehow make them more common, as if the lack of bathroom access is the reason pervs don't commit those crimes in greater numbers (the complete and polar opposite of the gun rights crowd's arguments, even though its the same people most the time!), is moronic.
Conservative logic:
Gun laws don't work because criminals just ignore laws*.
*Except sexual predators; they'll wait for transgendered bathroom rights to be recognized.
-
BTW, the answer to the question is 0. 0 have been assaulted as a result.
And, clue, it's still a crime, even if person just "claims to be transgendered", because assault is assault.
Which is a far smaller number than the number of transgendered persons who HAVE been assaulted in the bathroom.
No, it's not a public safety issue.
And you're trying to frame it as one just makes you another one of the bigots.
Yes, federal law does override, except where the law doesn't cover.
Still, a state legislature willing going backwards and saying all discrimination is ok is a bad thing.
Somehow I'm not surprised that even the whitehouse is victim to the bureaucracy and slow speed of the GSA (or whomever administers theirs systems) and its IT contractors.
We just got "new" computers in my lab.
64bit Athlon's running at 1.5GHz, and a whopping 3GB of RAM.
It absolutely screams compared to what it replaced: a 1.2GHz Athlon 32bit that had only 2GB of RAM.
As to printers, we're still using some b/w HP laser workhorses that are ~20 years old.
Near as I can tell the maintenance has never been performed on them. They jam regularly, hang daily.
We might get replacements in the next year they tell us. But they said that 5 years ago too.
so absurd that they can "successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean." ?
Again: Nothing to do with socialism, and no, taxes are not socialism.
Again: You are ignorant. and just throwing out words you heard that sound cool to your feeble mind to sound smart, such as socialism and control systems and political structures, doesn't actually make you smart.
nope.
not flamebait.
Climate change is a scientifically factual phenomena.
It's impossible for it to be socialist (-points for over use of the word).
and I assure you the ignorance is fully yours.
there were plenty at work today, from people who shouldn't be making jokes.
Boss at weekly meeting: "and we're going home 5 hours early today....april fools!" .... NO. JUST NO. SHUT UP AND GET THIS STUPID MEETING OVER WITH.
That's what they need to ban: bad workplace April Fools "jokes".
There are Hindu chaplains.
I've not heard of Buddhist ones, but then that religion doesn't seem like one that would lend itself to having chaplains.
The only one I know of being rejected is a Humanist (atheist) who is currently suing the navy over that rejection.
Though I believe his rejection had to do with the lack of an endorsement. Remember that Chaplains are volunteers , and the military does not actively recruit them (and in a sense, cannot). They must apply for service as a chaplain. Then the military can evaluate their fitness to serve in the military. But the military cannot itself be the one to determine whether or not a person is really Catholic/Jewish/whatever, as that's a violation of the Separation of Church and State (military deciding what qualifies as a particular religion) clause. So therefore they must be endorsed by an outside religious order. Catholic priests are usually endorsed by their Archdiocese, etc. The first Muslim chaplains, lacking their own body to endorse them yet, were actually endorsed by various Christian orders.
There's also the tenet that Chaplains are expected and trained to administer to -ALL- service members regardless of which religion they may be a member, at least so much as they can between different religions. But then much of ministering isn't just religious in nature, but simply advise or counsel on matters of ethics or morale. Example: an Imam would not be expected to hold a Catholic service and administer the Communion, but he would be expected provide advise and counsel to anyone who asks. And it's impractical, and impossible, to have a Chaplin from every religion attached to every unit. For a while we had an LDS chaplain.
Chaplains occupy a gray zone in the military structure. They're afforded officer rank, but have no really command authority over anyone besides other Chaplains. They do get some training, such as basic survival training as well as first aid and medical training (allowing them to assist in triage and field hospitals), but naturally not combat training.
In fact 9 Chaplains have received the Medal of Honor. Two especially worth reading about are Lt. Comdr. O'Callahan (took command of the USS Franklin after it was crippled and nearly sunk, successfully leading the ship out of danger and back to port) and Capt. Angelo J. Liteky (shot multiple times, yet stood up in the face of enemy fire directing medevac helos into and out of a landing zone, and personally carried (and saved the lives of) over 20 men through that gunfire to the helos), are especially worth reading about. The latter one went on to become a war protestor, renouncing his both his medal and priestly vows.
Then on the other side of the spectrum, you have people like Gordon Klingenschmitt, who sued and protested while serving as a Chaplain, because he felt the military was restricting his freedom of religion by not allowing to proselytize to service members, or be more coercive in getting them pray, or the requirement that all prayers outside of chapel services be non-sectarian. He was eventually court-martialed and kicked out, whereupon he returned to Colorado where he became a rabidly anti-gay radio personality and preacher, and now recently managed to get elected to Congress where he makes the loonie Louie Gohmert of Texas look sane.
nope. still not flamebait.
and maybe unicorns will fly out my bum.
at no time in the history of labor in industrialized nations has the minimum wage risen on its own.
(and considering many ancient ones had these laws too, it really goes back even further)
its always only been through force of law, because without force of government compulsion all power lies in the employers hands.
that's why a minimum wage needed to be enacted in law in the first place!
Bingo.
he described a post scarcity world. in a post scarcity world where people work because they want to rather than have to, they can work on the things that DO give them purpose. a purpose more fulfilling than working simply because otherwise you will be homeless/starving.
so no, he is not absolutely wrong.
he's absolutely right: a post scarcity world SHOULD be the goal.
also, nice racism.
not how it works.
not at all.
the minimum wage sets a floor that every other job in the company is effectively linked to.
For Moderately Hard Job B to attract workers from Easy Job A, it has to pay more.
raising the minimum wage increases the value of everyone's labor.
and raising the minimum wage doesn't cause inflation.
inflation happens on its own in a growing economy as more and more value is added continually.
rather, its the other around: the minimum wage is raised in order to keep buying power on pace with inflation.
not raising it reduced everyones buying power.
therefore the race to the bottom is when you pay people starvation wages, which lowers the value and buying power of everyone else's labor too.
You never read what you link, do you?
The authors argument is that the Tesla deal is worse because Tesla succeeded, but the government (and therefore taxpayers) is making no money off of Tesla's success.
On the basis of the loan itself, and the purpose behind the loans of fostering innovation, it succeeded. Tesla succeeded, and paid the loan back. Early even.
On the basis of making money like a VC would, yes, the taxpayer got no shares or equity or other gain from that success, and Tesla now stands to profit immensely from that loan.
However, that is not "worse than solyndra" or in any way a failure.
-
VCs do lose money all the time. But when they win, they win big. That's why they can lose 2 out of 3 deals regularly and still be successful.
--
Ignoring your continual confusion of communism with socialism, your continued lack of education as to what caused the failure of the USSR or Venezuela, or how you ignore Europe, Canada, and Australia continued lack of failure*....
If capitalism works, why does it need socialist elements to keep from self-destructing?
The fact is your black and white binary viewpoint is infinitely ignorant of reality and history.
Essential services and natural monopolies work best as utilities, aka social owned/controlled.
That's roads, police, fire, military, electricity, water, etc, as well as the social programs that prevent capitalism from leaving anyone behind and shift the economy from benefiting an ever shrinking number of people to benefiting everyone. What works is a blended mix of both, as evidenced by the nearly the entire western nation.
*This is the part where you state the they are capitalist.
Then you get reminded that they operate strong social programs aka socialized democracy models aka democratic socialism, which you also confuse with socialism/communism/etc.
Then you state you never any such thing.
Then you get reminded that you continually call Sanders a communist contrary to all evidence.
Then you'll call that a lie.
Then we'll begin laughing at you anew.
may have tipped my hand that I'm personally on the fence, and see both sides of the argument.
Consider this scenario, from my time in the service:
Often at large ceremonies, like changing command, or pass in reviews, or etc, a chaplain will offer a brief prayer at the start.
As one of the bodies in the formation (ugh...the worst duty ever, I swear! standing there in dress or service uniform, sweating/freezing, trying to pay attention and not fall asleep, or ignore the bug biting....sorry...went on tangent) ... ...at some point the command is given "Let us pray". Now this is not intended as a religious command, rather its part of the drill manual directing the formation to respectfully bow heads*; sign of respect, not an expectation of participation.
And then the chaplain, who could be some form of Christian, Muslim, or Jewish (I've experienced all three), then gives his non-denominational prayer, usually for guidance or protection.
Now. Is that forced participation in a religious activity?
--
*in fact "let us pray" is not really a command; it doesn't come from the formation leader out in front, and isn't itself part of the drill manual, but from the chaplain. its not part of the usual command then action routine. its simply stated in the drill manual that when a chaplain begins to speak the formation will bow their heads out of respect, and the raise them when he's done. the phrases "let us pray" and "amen" simply being an unofficial means of signaling to the formation when he is starting and when he is finished. he could just as easily just start talking, and then hand the floor over to the next speaker, and the formation would still react appropriately.
there is a difference between witnessing others practicing their religion, and being forced to partake yourself.
hence the implied freedom -from- religion as part of the deal.
though that concept is not applicable in your link.
the guy in the article is a crank...but that doesn't mean hes necessarily wrong.
from that article it seems the concepts at issue is two fold:
-the participation of public officials in their official capacity participating in a religious activity, rather than as private citizens, while such participation is barred by law
-public eyesore
(will dismiss the safety hazard claim; unless its firing lasers or super bright spotlights at interstate traffic, the claim is likely a non-starter)
Not knowing the local laws regarding large display objects and eyesores, can't comment beyond noting that some localities zoning rules (or local HOAs) have rules regarding public displays, and it's possible the cross here breaks one. don't know, would have to look it up.
But the public officials side of it is a reasonable argument as the lawsuit is against their public office or official persona (eg, Mayor soandso), and not their private person. Ergo, they as private citizens are not being sued for practicing their religion. Rather they, as public officials, are being sued for using their official capacity to endorse a particular religion which is contrary to law.
I do think they could potentially defend themselves against such a lawsuit by claiming they would perform such actions for -any- religion that so requested it, ie that they would not discriminate, and did so viewing the cross as a economic/tourist attraction to the town (though that last part is probably a stretch). Followed with an apology that they intended no special favoritism. And in the future, they participate solely as private citizens to avoid any controversy.
That is such absolute bull.
No, Ann Coulter is not a walking piece of performance art.
No, it is not just humor.
Whether she actually believes the racist c*** she says is irrelevant.
She profits from saying it, from people who believe both what she says is true and that she is serious when she does so.
And no, they are not leftwing, or biased, any more than reality is.
What people to stop getting rated liar?
Then tell them to stop lying.
what weird bizarro world do you live in that up is down and false is true?
Our ruling
Solyndra's story is unfinished. FBI and congressional investigations continue, and more information about the loan guarantee program may yet come to light.
The TV ad says "(President Barack Obama gave) half a billion in taxpayer money to help his friends at Solyndra, a business the White House knew was on the path to bankruptcy." Some of this is correct, while some isn't supported by the existing evidence.
First, the money wasn't Obama's to give. Solyndra's request predated his administration, and career Energy Department officials handled the deal.
Second, e-mails so far don't show an administration pushing through a loan to help Obama's "friends at Solyndra." Rather, it appears the administration asked the Energy Department officials to hurry the regular process, so the administration could burnish its stimulus efforts.
Third, while e-mails raised doubts about Solyndra's liquidity as the Energy Department finalized the loan, those questions were answered by an official who argued investors would step in to protect the project — red flags, yes. But awareness in the White House the company would dissolve? No.
The government wasn't the only blindsided investor — private investors put up far more, and stand to lose more, than taxpayers.
The Solyndra story might be one of the poor design of the Energy Department's loan guarantee program — something the Government Accountability Office has pointed out since 2008. And with the congressional investigation ongoing, we may learn more about the Obama administration's role in the loan program — perhaps better supporting the ad's claims. For now, though, information in the public record does not support the ad's claim that the Obama White House is a pay-to-play cash machine for the politically well-connected. We rate this ad's claim Mostly False.
+1 Casablanca reference