We don't have to be at war with foreigners in order to spy on them. I'm also not sure what human rights were violated. I think we need the NSA a lot more then a base on another astrological body. If we ever got rid of the NSA, then the money saved should be returned to the people and not wasted on some scifi wet dream.
Oh yea, I'm not comfortable with the NSA's domestic spying either so don't construe my response as supporting it..
No one was really taken. The alternative could very well have been no jobs and no taxes (even if they are at lower rates).
Generally tax incentives are either no certain types of taxes for X years or reduced amounts of certain types of taxes for X+ years. Most likely it is the later in which less taxes overall are paid for more years. Either way, it is a win for the state because there would be none of the taxes not covered by the incentives, none of the taxes after X years and none of the less taxes for X+ years if they couldn't convince the companies to set up shop there.
Granted, there might be a looser in the deal, it would be wherever looked attractive enough to locate these facilities has the tax incentives and other things not brought the location to where it is going to be. So if that was Columbus Ohio or something, then Columbus lost out. But had the tax incentives not been present, then Iowa would have lost out.
So no one got taken, they got more then they had and more then they likely would have had if those steps weren't taken.
It leads to a government of the people ignoring the will of the people as well as the limitations imposed in it's creation that were primarily in place to protect the people from this kind of intrusion.
In other words, you could be completely free of any illegal or wrong doing and still not want the government to put microphones or cameras in your home or some location considered free from their influence and control. The government needs to either have permission granted to them or have a reasonable and articulate suspicion that those being investigated have, are in the process of, or about to commit a crime. Unfortunately, the government seems to be going from "this person is a suspected criminal, we need more evidence" to everyone might break a law so we need to be able to know everything possible in case we want to go after them.
Not only is that reprehensible- it is exactly that the protections in the US constitution are supposed to prevent the government from becoming. The English troops and government used to enter wherever they saw fit and turn the place upside down attempting to find evidence of wrong doing without even the slightest bit of accusation and they often took innocuous things out of context making innocent people subject to punishment. It did not all the sudden become a good idea for that to happen back then nor did it happen now.
The downsizing has to do with the inefficiencies inherent with unions- one of the key factors in why GM needed bankruptcy and a government bailout.
The venture capitalist dismantling businesses was because the businesses were worth more closed and liquidated then open and producing. This was a product of poor management, high regional labor costs (unions) compared to globalized labor costs, and a high cost of business from regulation and market forces. It had little to do with capitol gains outside of changing the amount needed for profit. The change in the amounts needed for profit was minute compared to the other costs. People were liquidating businesses long before the capitol gains rate changed under Clinton. The real enemy you saw was globalization of the market place.
The vast majority of people experienced famine and/or pestilence at some point before the beginning of the last century, generally several times during their life.
And yet the vast majority survived. I never said there wasn't hardships, I said they got by.
The rest of what you say exists only in your mind. Discounting suicides, life expectancy increased during the great depression.
BTW, the great depression was largely caused by government interference within the free market (price controls and trade wars with Europe). I know that someone you find authoritative like your grandma might have told you different, but pick up a history book and get your information from a real source.
What on Earth are you talking about? Education in America has been handled by the (local) government going all the way back to the settlement of the new colonies.
Obviously, I forgot to spell it out.. federal and state government as in the government. Local governments dabbled in public education but it wasn't consistent or always available in every city.
Also, America is exceptional in that it always had high literacy rates, but in other countries, literacy has increased directly proportionally to the amount of involvement by the government, and higher standard of living is directly co-related to the participation of government with the "big-state" countries of Europe such as Germany and Scandinavian countries consistently outperforming the "small state" countries such as the US (yes, by developed world standards the US is a low taxes, small government country).
I'm not sure how higher standard of living is connected with adequate food, shelter, and education for the majority of the population. I'm sure with a base line, the rest will follow but you have missed the entire point.
So offensive appellations are okay if enough people (who are not the people being referenced) use it?
I know you were making a different point but your wording leaves me to point out that it isn't ok. Otherwise the terms wetback, niggar, spic, would all be common and acceptable in today's society.
The fact of the matter is that the term Teabagger is a derogatory term and only caught on after someone went to a protest with the intentions of degrading people calling them teabaggers and those protesters had no clue about what the term meant.
What you say should be paid attention too. But the problem is that most Americans no longer know their history or the reasons is happened. We constantly find people claiming the constitution is a 200 year old document that has no relevance to modern time (this usually comes out when talking gun control).
The founding of the country, the whys and whatnot simply aren't being taught in any significant ways in schools now. When they are, they are brushed over with political slants mostly leading to conclusions used to shape the next generation of voters for a political party.
People claim the federalist papers are meaningless but they go a long way in explaining a lot of the hows and whys the constitution of the government was in such a way. After all, it was a public discussion that expressed the concerns of people as well as explaining the intent and reasons of some parts of the constitution. Yet, I'm not aware of any high school that has it as part of the curriculum and people who bring it up are often dismissed as kooks.
I guess my question is how long will this continue before something is done and if and when something is done, will anyone like the results. A lot of political power is spent making the state we are in today and a lot of power will be spent on keeping it that way.
Congratulations on finding your little safe corner of the world. I have never felt unsafe in the US and while I do own firearms and encourage everyone possible to carry, I actually do not carry a weapon myself.
I've been to Compton, NYC, Chicago, Miami, as well as many Midwest areas and never once felt unsafe. There was one time in Compton CA where a gang gunfight broke out near me, but I ducked behind a car with 2 or 3 others and waited for the shooting to stop. They weren't shooting at me, I didn't feel unsafe. It wasn't like I was in a war or anything.
I'm not sure why people get scared because guns happen to be around or they go off. But I have learned that people are different all across this country and some are completely scared of the idea of guns while others like me could care less.
I think you miss his point. Homosexuality is ancillary to the problem it was just an example, it's that something- anything- could be discovered and used against the politician or anyone else for that matter. Replace homosexuality with a stay in a mental hospital, a car accident that killed people, a juvenile crime of some sort (property damage or perhaps assaulting someone in high school), an affair with a biographer or anything that the politician thinks will make him unelectable. That is what the point was about, having some sort of dirt over the person that was discovered through this cache of information that was thought to be personal and private.
lol.. Hoffa was the leader of the teamsters union that allowed the mob to be part of it. It helped in their so called fight against the big corporations to have a little mob backup. The mob would in turn use the retirement funds to launder money.
Anyways, the senate started investigating the mob connections and the unions and Hoffa disappeared without a trace. No one has found a body, he is presumed to be dead. Several mobsters have claimed they killed him and lead investigators on wild trips looking for the body but it has never been found to date. There is a lot more involved and is actually a somewhat interesting story if you find yourself bored one of these days. Hoffa was one of the original anti 1%ers so to say, but he did most of his work attempting to unionize America in the 70's which more or less lead to all the downsizing in the 80's and outsourcing in the 90's. Most of what the unions demanded back then has been codified into laws now making them more or less a bullying arm for wages and benefits.
I hate to bring this up but the idea that government provides adequate food, shelter, and education for the majority of the population is really one reason why a government fails to do so.
Seriously, in the US, before the government handed things out or got involved in education, people received enough education from the local communities to function in society. Before government got involved in providing housing and food, the vast majority of people were able to find it and live- even if they were working just for subsistence. Now enter education- kids graduate from high school knowing less about more things then a high school graduate in 1860. I spoke with someone just today who told me that going off welfare and working has actually cost him an average of $40 a week in income because he now has to pay for his transportation to work and childcare. Of course he expects this to be made up within 6 months when he gets his evaluation and raises.
We have gotten away from a large agrarian society and a lot of the gold old past simply isn't practicable or applicable any more. But expecting government to provide something is really harsh on someone trying to provide for themselves. That is how a country becomes wealthy- when the population provides for themselves and the government only keeps the social economic environment that makes it possible to do so.
Please, try not to be such an idiot. They are worth whatever the seller is willing to sell them for.
No, They are worth whatever the seller can sell them for.
I wrote a little hello world program and I am willing to sell it for $2 million dollars. If my shop catches fire, the insurance definitely will not cover that amount and likely I would be arrested for insurance fraud. If people were actually paying that price, it would be a different story. It is worth whatever I can sell it for.
copying is/can be a copyright violation too. Receiving a copy that has been copied and distributed to you is not which is what I think you were going for.
That's true. In some areas, they even sell fake drugs (represented as real drugs) in order to get purchasers on tape then arrest them a few blocks away.
And example of entrapment would be a cop asking you to hold a bag, then the cop right beside him arresting you because it had a bunch of drugs and a loaded handgun in it.
China has to play lip service to copyright laws of other countries else they won't get the economic advantages membership in WIPO and WTO. China is members of both and have signed treaties (although I'm not sure how many are ratified) for both. Those two organizations attempt to set rules other countries have to follow in order to avoid trade penalties with member states.
So while it might not be a big concern, they will attempt to make it appear that way. Remember when China fork a version of linux and made it their official operating system? That was to get around complaints about copyright and pirated software that threatened to sanction them through WIPO.
Not only taxes on the sale, but differences in income taxes between states or nations can explain a lot on it too. Suppose area A has an income tax of 10% and area B is 12%. Suppose area B also has a digital tax of 5% on media storage like Canada does and the US partially does.
Now, if I want to make $10 profit per unit sold, I would price my widget differently in area A then I would in area B. Companies don't reach in their pockets to pay taxes, they pass the costs onto consumers for the most part. In the US, this can be seen by multi state fast food chains. I have noticed differences in prices of Mcdonalds and Wendy's in different states when I visit them and it all has to do with the local economies and taxing structures. If you travel, seriously look at that. You will be surprised at how much different the prices can be.
My memory is not short at all- even if I weed through your unsupported claims. I said before the IRS scandal was known to be true, it was brushed off as conspiracies and other kook claims.
I suspect that the reason you posted AC is because you know you're full of it but had to reply and attempt to defend your hero. Something your rush to post failed to notice is that I did not blame or even mention Obama- yet you think he is guilty enough to jump in ans try to blame bush..
The federal government was never designed or intended to be the will of the people. It has always been about regulation commerce between the states, settling disputes between the states, and providing a unified face to foreign affairs for the United States as well as protection from enemies. That's why the state department deals with international and foreign matters rather then the state.
Within those bounds, the house of representatives are supposed to represent the people and commerce in their districts (not their political party). The senate is supposed to represent the state's interest (not their political party's), and the president is supposed to represent the country itself which at times absolutely means going against the will of the people but generally following it (not the party line). In all that, the economic health and well being of the country and states are part of the duty- even if it seems to not be what the people want.
This all started to change after the civil war and has been eroded ever since to the point that no one is happy with the federal government all the time, nor do they understand its intended role. Most of the will of the people is beyond the scope of the federal government- yet pandering for reelection seems to muddle that fact.
There is a minor difference between when Bush did it and now. When bush did it, government agencies being used to squash political speech and to punish political enemies or to aid political oppositions was relegated to wild conspiracy theories and disgruntled campaigns looking to blame their losses on something other then their message. Now we know it to be fact, at least with the IRS.
Had we known what we know now when bush did it, i doubt the support would be the same.
I'm wondering if the poll would have had different results if the questions were framed more like is it acceptable to ignore constitutionally protected privacy rights like being secure in your person, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures as long as its used to fight terrorism.
Like you said, losing some personal privacy means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Narrowing it down a bit might display a more accurate sentiment of what is acceptable.
Or find the package of crack that a former owner or such left there and you didn't know about it.
I purchased a used car cheap from someone who owns a towing company. Shortly after owning it, I find a paper in it detailing and arrest and impound order from the police. Turns out the former owners were caught dealing drugs and were driving the car at the time of arrest. It was impounded and by the time they got out of jail to claim the car, the storage fee was more then they wanted to pay so they signed the title over to get personal belongings out of it.
Finding drugs they left in the car during a traffic stop or something is one of my biggest fears. I tried to get the sheriff to run the drug dog through the car for piece of mind but they refused. I even offered to pay for it. They said that if certain drugs (didn't name them) got dropped and ground into the carpet or seat or drugs had been smoked in it, the dog could key off on it years later no matter how many cleanings I gave it. They said it would be a waist of time because of that.
So I guess if I get pulled over driving the former drug dealer car and they run the drug dog by the car, I could be searched anyways. At least I have records of the previous owners and my attempts at trying to get it searched properly. But I guess I could be in for a ride if they find something the former owner left in it.
You've given no argument why this is so, you simply repeat it over and over as if this would make it so. Let's go back to facts and see who else thought that SOFA wouldn't be implemented:
If you call claiming Obama's withdrawal followed Bush's SOFA rules exactly with a change in naming not an argument, then you would be correct. However, the truth is that you would also be delusional which I had already pointed out.
As for Gates' prediction, it didn't follow the SOFA and Gates was not in a position to change it. The Army planners are also in the same position. But here is something you don't seem to realize, the military plans for multiple scenarios and contingencies then acts on the most appropriate one for the time. What you are saying is that since the military planned for something that didn't happen, it would have happened had Obama not been elected. That's complete rubbish as the military has also planned the invasion of England and other allied countries and they did not happen before Obama was even thought of as being a viable candidate for president.
I swear, your premise is illogical. People have said many of things about Iraq in the past that has turned out to be false, some have turned out to be true too. But in this one situation, we know for a fact that the Status of Forces Agreement spelled out what Obama followed and it was in place before Obama was president. Saying that Obama created it or deserves credit for it defies all logic. Obama had no other choice legally without making another agreement with Iraq.
If you want to credit Obama with following the law and what his predecessor created, then fine. But don't pretend it is any more then that because it isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't have to be at war with foreigners in order to spy on them. I'm also not sure what human rights were violated. I think we need the NSA a lot more then a base on another astrological body. If we ever got rid of the NSA, then the money saved should be returned to the people and not wasted on some scifi wet dream.
Oh yea, I'm not comfortable with the NSA's domestic spying either so don't construe my response as supporting it..
No one was really taken. The alternative could very well have been no jobs and no taxes (even if they are at lower rates).
Generally tax incentives are either no certain types of taxes for X years or reduced amounts of certain types of taxes for X+ years. Most likely it is the later in which less taxes overall are paid for more years. Either way, it is a win for the state because there would be none of the taxes not covered by the incentives, none of the taxes after X years and none of the less taxes for X+ years if they couldn't convince the companies to set up shop there.
Granted, there might be a looser in the deal, it would be wherever looked attractive enough to locate these facilities has the tax incentives and other things not brought the location to where it is going to be. So if that was Columbus Ohio or something, then Columbus lost out. But had the tax incentives not been present, then Iowa would have lost out.
So no one got taken, they got more then they had and more then they likely would have had if those steps weren't taken.
It leads to a government of the people ignoring the will of the people as well as the limitations imposed in it's creation that were primarily in place to protect the people from this kind of intrusion.
In other words, you could be completely free of any illegal or wrong doing and still not want the government to put microphones or cameras in your home or some location considered free from their influence and control. The government needs to either have permission granted to them or have a reasonable and articulate suspicion that those being investigated have, are in the process of, or about to commit a crime. Unfortunately, the government seems to be going from "this person is a suspected criminal, we need more evidence" to everyone might break a law so we need to be able to know everything possible in case we want to go after them.
Not only is that reprehensible- it is exactly that the protections in the US constitution are supposed to prevent the government from becoming. The English troops and government used to enter wherever they saw fit and turn the place upside down attempting to find evidence of wrong doing without even the slightest bit of accusation and they often took innocuous things out of context making innocent people subject to punishment. It did not all the sudden become a good idea for that to happen back then nor did it happen now.
Sigh.. Reagan raised, not cut capitol gains.
The downsizing has to do with the inefficiencies inherent with unions- one of the key factors in why GM needed bankruptcy and a government bailout.
The venture capitalist dismantling businesses was because the businesses were worth more closed and liquidated then open and producing. This was a product of poor management, high regional labor costs (unions) compared to globalized labor costs, and a high cost of business from regulation and market forces. It had little to do with capitol gains outside of changing the amount needed for profit. The change in the amounts needed for profit was minute compared to the other costs. People were liquidating businesses long before the capitol gains rate changed under Clinton. The real enemy you saw was globalization of the market place.
And yet the vast majority survived. I never said there wasn't hardships, I said they got by.
The rest of what you say exists only in your mind. Discounting suicides, life expectancy increased during the great depression.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290.full
BTW, the great depression was largely caused by government interference within the free market (price controls and trade wars with Europe). I know that someone you find authoritative like your grandma might have told you different, but pick up a history book and get your information from a real source.
Obviously, I forgot to spell it out.. federal and state government as in the government. Local governments dabbled in public education but it wasn't consistent or always available in every city.
I'm not sure how higher standard of living is connected with adequate food, shelter, and education for the majority of the population. I'm sure with a base line, the rest will follow but you have missed the entire point.
I know you were making a different point but your wording leaves me to point out that it isn't ok. Otherwise the terms wetback, niggar, spic, would all be common and acceptable in today's society.
The fact of the matter is that the term Teabagger is a derogatory term and only caught on after someone went to a protest with the intentions of degrading people calling them teabaggers and those protesters had no clue about what the term meant.
What you say should be paid attention too. But the problem is that most Americans no longer know their history or the reasons is happened. We constantly find people claiming the constitution is a 200 year old document that has no relevance to modern time (this usually comes out when talking gun control).
The founding of the country, the whys and whatnot simply aren't being taught in any significant ways in schools now. When they are, they are brushed over with political slants mostly leading to conclusions used to shape the next generation of voters for a political party.
People claim the federalist papers are meaningless but they go a long way in explaining a lot of the hows and whys the constitution of the government was in such a way. After all, it was a public discussion that expressed the concerns of people as well as explaining the intent and reasons of some parts of the constitution. Yet, I'm not aware of any high school that has it as part of the curriculum and people who bring it up are often dismissed as kooks.
I guess my question is how long will this continue before something is done and if and when something is done, will anyone like the results. A lot of political power is spent making the state we are in today and a lot of power will be spent on keeping it that way.
Congratulations on finding your little safe corner of the world. I have never felt unsafe in the US and while I do own firearms and encourage everyone possible to carry, I actually do not carry a weapon myself.
I've been to Compton, NYC, Chicago, Miami, as well as many Midwest areas and never once felt unsafe. There was one time in Compton CA where a gang gunfight broke out near me, but I ducked behind a car with 2 or 3 others and waited for the shooting to stop. They weren't shooting at me, I didn't feel unsafe. It wasn't like I was in a war or anything.
I'm not sure why people get scared because guns happen to be around or they go off. But I have learned that people are different all across this country and some are completely scared of the idea of guns while others like me could care less.
I think you miss his point. Homosexuality is ancillary to the problem it was just an example, it's that something- anything- could be discovered and used against the politician or anyone else for that matter. Replace homosexuality with a stay in a mental hospital, a car accident that killed people, a juvenile crime of some sort (property damage or perhaps assaulting someone in high school), an affair with a biographer or anything that the politician thinks will make him unelectable. That is what the point was about, having some sort of dirt over the person that was discovered through this cache of information that was thought to be personal and private.
lol.. Hoffa was the leader of the teamsters union that allowed the mob to be part of it. It helped in their so called fight against the big corporations to have a little mob backup. The mob would in turn use the retirement funds to launder money.
Anyways, the senate started investigating the mob connections and the unions and Hoffa disappeared without a trace. No one has found a body, he is presumed to be dead. Several mobsters have claimed they killed him and lead investigators on wild trips looking for the body but it has never been found to date. There is a lot more involved and is actually a somewhat interesting story if you find yourself bored one of these days. Hoffa was one of the original anti 1%ers so to say, but he did most of his work attempting to unionize America in the 70's which more or less lead to all the downsizing in the 80's and outsourcing in the 90's. Most of what the unions demanded back then has been codified into laws now making them more or less a bullying arm for wages and benefits.
I hate to bring this up but the idea that government provides adequate food, shelter, and education for the majority of the population is really one reason why a government fails to do so.
Seriously, in the US, before the government handed things out or got involved in education, people received enough education from the local communities to function in society. Before government got involved in providing housing and food, the vast majority of people were able to find it and live- even if they were working just for subsistence. Now enter education- kids graduate from high school knowing less about more things then a high school graduate in 1860. I spoke with someone just today who told me that going off welfare and working has actually cost him an average of $40 a week in income because he now has to pay for his transportation to work and childcare. Of course he expects this to be made up within 6 months when he gets his evaluation and raises.
We have gotten away from a large agrarian society and a lot of the gold old past simply isn't practicable or applicable any more. But expecting government to provide something is really harsh on someone trying to provide for themselves. That is how a country becomes wealthy- when the population provides for themselves and the government only keeps the social economic environment that makes it possible to do so.
I guess Irony means a description of a Ferric object right?
No, They are worth whatever the seller can sell them for.
I wrote a little hello world program and I am willing to sell it for $2 million dollars. If my shop catches fire, the insurance definitely will not cover that amount and likely I would be arrested for insurance fraud. If people were actually paying that price, it would be a different story. It is worth whatever I can sell it for.
copying is/can be a copyright violation too. Receiving a copy that has been copied and distributed to you is not which is what I think you were going for.
That's true. In some areas, they even sell fake drugs (represented as real drugs) in order to get purchasers on tape then arrest them a few blocks away.
And example of entrapment would be a cop asking you to hold a bag, then the cop right beside him arresting you because it had a bunch of drugs and a loaded handgun in it.
China has to play lip service to copyright laws of other countries else they won't get the economic advantages membership in WIPO and WTO. China is members of both and have signed treaties (although I'm not sure how many are ratified) for both. Those two organizations attempt to set rules other countries have to follow in order to avoid trade penalties with member states.
So while it might not be a big concern, they will attempt to make it appear that way. Remember when China fork a version of linux and made it their official operating system? That was to get around complaints about copyright and pirated software that threatened to sanction them through WIPO.
Not only taxes on the sale, but differences in income taxes between states or nations can explain a lot on it too. Suppose area A has an income tax of 10% and area B is 12%. Suppose area B also has a digital tax of 5% on media storage like Canada does and the US partially does.
Now, if I want to make $10 profit per unit sold, I would price my widget differently in area A then I would in area B. Companies don't reach in their pockets to pay taxes, they pass the costs onto consumers for the most part. In the US, this can be seen by multi state fast food chains. I have noticed differences in prices of Mcdonalds and Wendy's in different states when I visit them and it all has to do with the local economies and taxing structures. If you travel, seriously look at that. You will be surprised at how much different the prices can be.
When it means the difference between primary coverage of parris hilton, the kardashians, britany spears, and who ever else or covering news.
My memory is not short at all- even if I weed through your unsupported claims. I said before the IRS scandal was known to be true, it was brushed off as conspiracies and other kook claims.
I suspect that the reason you posted AC is because you know you're full of it but had to reply and attempt to defend your hero. Something your rush to post failed to notice is that I did not blame or even mention Obama- yet you think he is guilty enough to jump in ans try to blame bush..
The federal government was never designed or intended to be the will of the people. It has always been about regulation commerce between the states, settling disputes between the states, and providing a unified face to foreign affairs for the United States as well as protection from enemies. That's why the state department deals with international and foreign matters rather then the state.
Within those bounds, the house of representatives are supposed to represent the people and commerce in their districts (not their political party). The senate is supposed to represent the state's interest (not their political party's), and the president is supposed to represent the country itself which at times absolutely means going against the will of the people but generally following it (not the party line). In all that, the economic health and well being of the country and states are part of the duty- even if it seems to not be what the people want.
This all started to change after the civil war and has been eroded ever since to the point that no one is happy with the federal government all the time, nor do they understand its intended role. Most of the will of the people is beyond the scope of the federal government- yet pandering for reelection seems to muddle that fact.
There is a minor difference between when Bush did it and now. When bush did it, government agencies being used to squash political speech and to punish political enemies or to aid political oppositions was relegated to wild conspiracy theories and disgruntled campaigns looking to blame their losses on something other then their message. Now we know it to be fact, at least with the IRS.
Had we known what we know now when bush did it, i doubt the support would be the same.
I'm wondering if the poll would have had different results if the questions were framed more like is it acceptable to ignore constitutionally protected privacy rights like being secure in your person, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures as long as its used to fight terrorism.
Like you said, losing some personal privacy means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Narrowing it down a bit might display a more accurate sentiment of what is acceptable.
I purchased a used car cheap from someone who owns a towing company. Shortly after owning it, I find a paper in it detailing and arrest and impound order from the police. Turns out the former owners were caught dealing drugs and were driving the car at the time of arrest. It was impounded and by the time they got out of jail to claim the car, the storage fee was more then they wanted to pay so they signed the title over to get personal belongings out of it.
Finding drugs they left in the car during a traffic stop or something is one of my biggest fears. I tried to get the sheriff to run the drug dog through the car for piece of mind but they refused. I even offered to pay for it. They said that if certain drugs (didn't name them) got dropped and ground into the carpet or seat or drugs had been smoked in it, the dog could key off on it years later no matter how many cleanings I gave it. They said it would be a waist of time because of that.
So I guess if I get pulled over driving the former drug dealer car and they run the drug dog by the car, I could be searched anyways. At least I have records of the previous owners and my attempts at trying to get it searched properly. But I guess I could be in for a ride if they find something the former owner left in it.
If you call claiming Obama's withdrawal followed Bush's SOFA rules exactly with a change in naming not an argument, then you would be correct. However, the truth is that you would also be delusional which I had already pointed out.
As for Gates' prediction, it didn't follow the SOFA and Gates was not in a position to change it. The Army planners are also in the same position. But here is something you don't seem to realize, the military plans for multiple scenarios and contingencies then acts on the most appropriate one for the time. What you are saying is that since the military planned for something that didn't happen, it would have happened had Obama not been elected. That's complete rubbish as the military has also planned the invasion of England and other allied countries and they did not happen before Obama was even thought of as being a viable candidate for president.
I swear, your premise is illogical. People have said many of things about Iraq in the past that has turned out to be false, some have turned out to be true too. But in this one situation, we know for a fact that the Status of Forces Agreement spelled out what Obama followed and it was in place before Obama was president. Saying that Obama created it or deserves credit for it defies all logic. Obama had no other choice legally without making another agreement with Iraq.
If you want to credit Obama with following the law and what his predecessor created, then fine. But don't pretend it is any more then that because it isn't.