This nonsense again? Those are Treasury Bonds, not IOU's. If the U.S. up and declares trillions of bonds to be null and void, what do you think is going to happen to it's fiat currency? The USG would rather deal with an invasion than let that happen.
I'd believe that, if I were born yesterday. "State's rights", like "small government", are mere marketing terms for agendas, and go out the window the second they conflict with said agenda. In this case, helping the big business of car dealerships.
Then either all this talk of you owning a business is just that, talk, or you've never faced closure due to a gigantic, "terrible" corporation setting up shop where you do business.
A Walmart that isn't allowed into a city because of zoning issues (the usual reason) hasn't invested money in building and stock and hiring people.
Or because they offer terrible service and cheap products while killing wages and smaller businesses.
The obvious. What's going to be better for a local economy: a rich person spending $100 million to build themselves a Downton Abbey castle, or hundreds of working class families spending $90 million to build thousands of homes? What's going to have a bigger impact on an economy: some Facebook exec dropping a couple mil on a Bugatti, or a bunch of working class people buying 70 Honda Civics?
The Richie Rich might be "consuming" more in terms of dollars, but the consumption of the working class has a broader impact and creates more jobs.
If I operated a company and was looking at moving into an area, and found out that the local government had the power to shut down companies based on some arbitrary definition of "terrible", I'd think more than twice about going there.
Sure about that? If you wanted to opened a store featuring goods carried at your typical Wal-Mart, would you be more or less interested in moving to a jurisdiction that refused to let them in? If you wanted to start an ISP, would you be more or less interested in moving into a town that kept out a huge city monopoly like Comcast?
Next you should point out where there's an actual connection between those two dots. Keeping out a huge, shitty, monopolistic company would make other companies more interested in moving in, not less, no? Like opening a store in a town that refuses to let Wal-Mart in.
Didn't think there were many of you left - you must have epic Twister competitions with Obamabots in contorting yourselves into rationalizing this stuff.
"Bush Lied People Died", while they went around having tourettes fits if you mentioned anything good about the man.
Have you sued Obamabots for ripping off the Bushie "criticism must first be balanced by acknowledging accomplishments" shtick? They've been shamelessly ripping you guys off for years.
You could point out that President Clinton bombed Iraq first to stop the WMD program there
You could also point out there's no comparison between that an invasion that ended up with a million dead Iraqis and thousands of American deaths, but that would sail over your head.
The most mind boggling thing is apparently both sides are singularly polarized on the current president who has been implementing the exact same policies as his predecessor.
Not the same - Bush got Congressional authorization for his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama, not so much for his wars in Libya or Syria. Make sure and taunt the Obots with that factoid at your next Twister game.
Albeit, a Republican president might have permanently stationed troops in Iraq and prevented ISIS.
Obama wanted to extend the Iraq occupation, but had to follow Bush's SOFA with Iraq when, for some odd reason, the Iraqis refused to grant continued immunity to U.S. forces for war crimes.
That and chemical weapons degrade over time. That warhead that could have killed hundreds of people in 1980 might give the same population a bad skin rash 20 years later. It's not a weapon of mass destruction if it's not capable of mass destruction.
Which is why even some of the Bushies are poo-pooing this latest Foxbait.
"If you give us the password and let us prove you're innocent we'll let you go. If there's anything in there that would prove you guilty we'll reduce the sentence. If you don't give us the password and we have to crack the encryption ourselves and we find out you're guilty, you're going away for a very long time."
If they were able to send you away for a very long time then they would have sent you away for a very long time. Prosecutor isn't cooperating with your defense, why would you cooperate by slipping the noose around your neck?
Cheaper means only one thing. How much is my electricity bill at the end of the month.
You're forgetting your bill on April 15th to support the petrodollar and Exxon making 20-40 billion per quarter. Or did you think maintaining economic dominance over the world's gas stations was free?
obviously, because it damaged their ability to lock people in
Apple had no interest in locking people into formats when the company was making their money on hardware. If they wanted to force people into buying from the iTMS, why allow MP3's at all or build cd-ripping into the iTunes application itself?
Er, no. Apple's cash cow was selling hardware, not music. DRM wasn't at their insistence, but the pushing industry's. If they wanted to "lock" you into using the iTMS, they wouldn't have supported mp3's in the first place, or included CD ripping with the iTunes program itself.
That's rebutting his point, that's repeating it with different words:
I agree to drive you to the airport and although I don't know you personally my friend introduced us and I trust him, and you agree to reimburse me and pay me a profit for the journey.
releasing national security secrets that can very realistically results in the deaths of americans and their supporters, financial losses to us corporations, and threatening national security? I would not hesitate to pull the trigger on this guy. His life isn't worth the lives and losses he has likely caused.
Then you're a willfully ignorant nazi shitbag using talking points that turned out to be BS when they were first used against Manning.
Anyone who has followed European opinions over the last 50 years (as I have, in person) knows that Europeans also have a rather profound lack of trust in America. Both sides could fairly claim "With friends like that, who needs enemies?" Indeed, well-educated people on both sides of the pond have claimed this.
Again with the "both sides" canard. How many military bases does the EU have stationed across the United States? Has the EU been busted for spying upon the communications of every person living in the United States?
I didn't believe Manning or Wikileaks had conducted themselves in an ethical manner in their activities related to one another
Was this new job as a professional Tone Troll? When the state has made legal whisteblowing impossible, the only way to reveal government lawbreaking is "illegally". Manning didn't exactly have his own staff to go over documents, but WikiLeaks did, going out of their way to as the USG for help with reactions.
Am I the only one that is still wondering why these "snowden leaks" are still coming out in the way that they are? I mean, are we all going to be sitting around 30 years from now, still hearing about these leaks?
No, but you might get sued by some of the other concern trolls for infringing on their conspiracy theories.
Seriously, it all seems like the information that we're getting is being spooled in a prefabricated way
Seriously, as another poster pointed out, it's because a massive dump will be ignored by the media, as WikiLeaks found out years ago. Any more Concerns?
Europeans are our allies: we have some shared goals. We aren't militarily hostile to each other. But they certainly also compete with us, and they pull no punches. Their governments engage in anticompetitive behavior and protectionism, make secret agreements, and sell weapons across the globe. European leaders also widely use anti-Americanism for their domestic political gain, and European populations have been predominantly anti-American for most of the past two centuries.
By that reasoning, the Vatican guards are in the same league as the U.S. Marine Corps, because they have firearms. Funny how all these "nothing to see here, move along" defenses of the American Empire require shutting off one's sense of proportion.
The first part of your post would seem to contradict the second part. When one cop out of thousands is writing 80% of the citations for a single type of infraction, that's a bit of a flag that something is off.
yes, the USSR was imperialist Russia in many senses
No, it was Bolshevik communism, in every sense. No one suffered more under Stalin than Russians. It does make for a nice slight of hand, though, swapping the word "communist" for "Russian". It is what lets politicians in the old Soviet block, who were themselves members of the Communist Party and were enthusiastic participants in the 'Iron Curtain', swap hats and rail against Russians today.
But even that pales in comparison of the United "we'll bomb 7 countries and launch two major illegal invasions out of four illegal wars in 15 years" States throwing stones at Russia's "imperial" ambitions.
None of which does anything to change the fact that slavery was written into the Constitution, or that you're blatantly ignoring everything else I mentioned: protection of business interests outside slavery and making sure the common people had no say in their governance. Right after starting a war with the slogan "no taxation without representation".
Slashdot Mirror
This nonsense again? Those are Treasury Bonds, not IOU's. If the U.S. up and declares trillions of bonds to be null and void, what do you think is going to happen to it's fiat currency? The USG would rather deal with an invasion than let that happen.
I'd believe that, if I were born yesterday. "State's rights", like "small government", are mere marketing terms for agendas, and go out the window the second they conflict with said agenda. In this case, helping the big business of car dealerships.
Then either all this talk of you owning a business is just that, talk, or you've never faced closure due to a gigantic, "terrible" corporation setting up shop where you do business.
Or because they offer terrible service and cheap products while killing wages and smaller businesses.
The obvious. What's going to be better for a local economy: a rich person spending $100 million to build themselves a Downton Abbey castle, or hundreds of working class families spending $90 million to build thousands of homes? What's going to have a bigger impact on an economy: some Facebook exec dropping a couple mil on a Bugatti, or a bunch of working class people buying 70 Honda Civics?
The Richie Rich might be "consuming" more in terms of dollars, but the consumption of the working class has a broader impact and creates more jobs.
Sure about that? If you wanted to opened a store featuring goods carried at your typical Wal-Mart, would you be more or less interested in moving to a jurisdiction that refused to let them in? If you wanted to start an ISP, would you be more or less interested in moving into a town that kept out a huge city monopoly like Comcast?
Next you should point out where there's an actual connection between those two dots. Keeping out a huge, shitty, monopolistic company would make other companies more interested in moving in, not less, no? Like opening a store in a town that refuses to let Wal-Mart in.
Didn't think there were many of you left - you must have epic Twister competitions with Obamabots in contorting yourselves into rationalizing this stuff.
Have you sued Obamabots for ripping off the Bushie "criticism must first be balanced by acknowledging accomplishments" shtick? They've been shamelessly ripping you guys off for years.
You could also point out there's no comparison between that an invasion that ended up with a million dead Iraqis and thousands of American deaths, but that would sail over your head.
Not the same - Bush got Congressional authorization for his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama, not so much for his wars in Libya or Syria. Make sure and taunt the Obots with that factoid at your next Twister game.
Obama wanted to extend the Iraq occupation, but had to follow Bush's SOFA with Iraq when, for some odd reason, the Iraqis refused to grant continued immunity to U.S. forces for war crimes.
That and chemical weapons degrade over time. That warhead that could have killed hundreds of people in 1980 might give the same population a bad skin rash 20 years later. It's not a weapon of mass destruction if it's not capable of mass destruction.
Which is why even some of the Bushies are poo-pooing this latest Foxbait.
If they were able to send you away for a very long time then they would have sent you away for a very long time. Prosecutor isn't cooperating with your defense, why would you cooperate by slipping the noose around your neck?
Since it hasn't been spammed here enough: never talk to the police.
IOW the "baseload power" chestnut. Nevermind that energy demand is the highest on hot sunny days and cold, windy ones.
Less BS than pretending that the price of fossil fuels is what you pay at the pump or on your meter.
You're forgetting your bill on April 15th to support the petrodollar and Exxon making 20-40 billion per quarter. Or did you think maintaining economic dominance over the world's gas stations was free?
Apple had no interest in locking people into formats when the company was making their money on hardware. If they wanted to force people into buying from the iTMS, why allow MP3's at all or build cd-ripping into the iTunes application itself?
Otherwise known as Hatebois, since comparing RealPlayer to iTunes requires Hoekestranian levels of contortion.
You know Windows/Android/Linux users that have to deal with the Hatorade Distortion Effect?
Er, no. Apple's cash cow was selling hardware, not music. DRM wasn't at their insistence, but the pushing industry's. If they wanted to "lock" you into using the iTMS, they wouldn't have supported mp3's in the first place, or included CD ripping with the iTunes program itself.
That's rebutting his point, that's repeating it with different words:
I agree to drive you to the airport and although I don't know you personally my friend introduced us and I trust him, and you agree to reimburse me and pay me a profit for the journey.
Then you're a willfully ignorant nazi shitbag using talking points that turned out to be BS when they were first used against Manning.
Again with the "both sides" canard. How many military bases does the EU have stationed across the United States? Has the EU been busted for spying upon the communications of every person living in the United States?
Was this new job as a professional Tone Troll? When the state has made legal whisteblowing impossible, the only way to reveal government lawbreaking is "illegally". Manning didn't exactly have his own staff to go over documents, but WikiLeaks did, going out of their way to as the USG for help with reactions.
No, but you might get sued by some of the other concern trolls for infringing on their conspiracy theories.
Seriously, as another poster pointed out, it's because a massive dump will be ignored by the media, as WikiLeaks found out years ago. Any more Concerns?
By that reasoning, the Vatican guards are in the same league as the U.S. Marine Corps, because they have firearms. Funny how all these "nothing to see here, move along" defenses of the American Empire require shutting off one's sense of proportion.
The first part of your post would seem to contradict the second part. When one cop out of thousands is writing 80% of the citations for a single type of infraction, that's a bit of a flag that something is off.
No, it was Bolshevik communism, in every sense. No one suffered more under Stalin than Russians. It does make for a nice slight of hand, though, swapping the word "communist" for "Russian". It is what lets politicians in the old Soviet block, who were themselves members of the Communist Party and were enthusiastic participants in the 'Iron Curtain', swap hats and rail against Russians today.
But even that pales in comparison of the United "we'll bomb 7 countries and launch two major illegal invasions out of four illegal wars in 15 years" States throwing stones at Russia's "imperial" ambitions.
None of which does anything to change the fact that slavery was written into the Constitution, or that you're blatantly ignoring everything else I mentioned: protection of business interests outside slavery and making sure the common people had no say in their governance. Right after starting a war with the slogan "no taxation without representation".
Physician, heal thy biased elitist self.