You are working from a false premise. The US doesn't try to keep anyone out. Its a sovereign nation and can just stop them or anyone (even US citizens) from lawfully entering its borders. The guy is allowed in the US, he just got questioned first which seems more like political maneuvering to separate connections between him and the US so there is no doubt in his upcoming race. I think some drone put his name on a computer list and a supervisor thought beating their high score on solitaire was more important then clearing the list until he tried to enter the country.
First, this guy wasn't arrested. He was detained for a process that is normal at border crossings. I'm sure it happens in Pakistan just like a lot of other places too.
Second, this politician or government official was not on government business. He was going to a political fundraiser in another country. That country, just like any other has a right to ensure the people entering its borders are not a threat to it.
Reagan never trained Osama Bin Ladin. You lose all credibility on this by suggesting it. Bin Laden was considered an outsider and the mujaheddin rejected them except for when it was absolutely necessary. Bin Laden had his own money and resources and was fine with that.
I've seen you trot this is that all out several times now. Even if it is all, it seems alarming to me. But I notice how your always posting AC and don't offer any explanation to the detailed that would make the articles seem incorrect or anything.
I perhaps would take your word for it if you offered anything creditable in retaliation other then dismissal because of some secret belief or knowledge.
Do they, really? I thought that they permitted US drone strikes on their territory to help root out the terrorists.
It sure looks like they harbor terrorists. Bin laden had a pretty cozy compound set up with full protection and everything. Interestingly, not only where they pissed off at us taking Bin Laden out, after some people in the US bragged about all the details of the operation, Pakistan ended up imprisoning the guy who gave him up.
It's easy to say one thing to get money and aid. It's another to watch what happens.
you mean the guy who convince Obama and company it was all over some unfinished movies with trailers on youtube after he knew it was a terrorist attack in the rose garden speech?
I'm willing to bet that shooting then down would be considered an act of war and actually start one. Of course Pakistan is a nuclear power so it won't be pretty.
The drones he wants to shoot down are flying over his country and killing people from there too. Isn't he entitled to protect his countries boundaries?
Why yes he is entitled to protect his countries boundaries. But he is not entitled to go to the US. Upon determining he isn't a threat, he may or may not be allowed to pass into the US.
I wouldn't say less willing, I see a lot of people who truly believed it was wrong still bring it up. I suspect the less you are hearing about it has more to do with a lot of it originally being about Bush. They seem to care more about bush doing it then the fact it was done.
I would be pissed if I paid for something I could get for free unless I knew about it before hand.
I suppose you could offer a different jacket cover for the sale book and call it the "donation version". then offer a description detailing it was the same as the free version sans jacket.
But you might need to check with amazon. They rejected a few books before that were freely available on the internet. Those books were different though. IIRC, they were already available information collected and repackaged in book form. I'm not sure if they will see the difference though.
It's actually worse then that when you consider if there is a 50% turnout, a portion will vote for the losing side and with the elections being as close as they have been, that could be as much as 40 to 49 percent of those. So you could actually say the government we have is chosen by the majority representing less then 50% of the country and in reality, likely less then 30%.
If you mean a mess by wrestling with a pig in the mud, I'd agree. This will be my last post.
No, I meant with everything you have posted in this thread so far. But hey, whatever gets you off I guess. I'm not judging.
It wasn't about not enough focus on me, it was the presumption and self-centered, ignorant statement: "This is America, you are free to remain as willfully ignorant as you want. " Note the word "you" in there.
Oh, you magically forgot about your Sigh rant. Tis ok. I'm sure in a few hours I will forget all about what you said too.
I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. Using your example, Virginia has 11 representatives and 2 senators. If the feds do something damning to Virgina, at best the can remove and replace 13 people of the 536 elected members of the federal government (1 pres, 100 senators, 435 representatives). However, if the state screws itself, the people of Virginia can remove and replace all 150 or more elected state government officials and all their local officials.
State and local government are more accountable to the people they serve. It really is that simple.
In the US, there is a difference between those government and the feds. They are not one in the same or even controlled by each other. The jurisdictions of them differ and are sometimes even subservient to them. The biggest is that they are closer to the needs of the people they serve and are in a better position to serve them. But the most important is that they are a lot more accountable for their actions then the feds seem to be. If the feds piss an area off, the rest of the country might give them a pass. If that same area was pissed off by the state and or local governments, they will be replaced with new people more readily. These are big reasons why local governments have the potential to be more suited to handle these things.
The problem might not have been solved, the motivation may have instead been mitigated.
You see, just because a crook doesn't rob your house does not mean it's burglar proof. The crooks could have just as easily all gotten gainful employment or the laws could have increased the penalties and they will either skip it for more lucrative opportunities (risk verses reward) or could be incarcerated and not able to visit. It could also be a simple probability and random chance that they skipped over rather then your house being burglar proof.
What we do know is that there is thought to be an incentive to hijack or blow planes up now when there might not have been as much of one before. Whether that is right or wrong, unless someone admits to being thwarted by the measures after 9/11, we won't know either way.
10% of a $1000 item is $100. Haul ten of those items out in a day and that's a pretty good salary. And of they get caught, well, they may be locked up, but look on the bright side, they get to meet and date people with names like Bubba and have 3 hot meals a day and a warm dry cot to lay their heads on at night.
In the US, a good portions of the towns were actually built and created by businesses due to capitalism. Capitalism needs productive worker. This seems counter to your concept and ideals. Of course there are those who will attempt to abuse their positions, but that's not really a common thing.
No, it was quite obvious. If you weren't such a self-centered prick, it wouldn't be seem like such a leap.
Perhaps if you did put some thought into your postings, you wouldn't be in this mess.
And my point was that the US sub-thread started about a Canadian topic, a relevant example that the discussion is international, and a claims of "This is America, you are free to remain as willfully ignorant as you want" is self-centered ignorance.
So you knew my comments were about American policy and political activity, that I was discussing something completely about America and Americans, and you had to remind me in my place because I didn't focus enough on you? Get over yourself.
If you act like a dick and somebody calls you a dick, it's a poor excuse to claim the other person is being a dick for calling you out on it.
I didn't call you a dick, I said there is no reason for you being a dick that I can't. Of course I might have commented my first error there and assume you were trying to be a dick by the way you are trolling the thread and commenting on the insignificant portions because "Sigh" offended you so much and you couldn't be assed to read past it but were so outraged you had to make it known.
Again, Aren't you self absorbed. Yeah- Good luck with that. lol.
So? I've had numerous discussions about American politics on Slashdot with non-Americans. You also might note you're commenting in a story about Canadians. Your "This is America, you are free to remain as willfully ignorant as you want" comment is a demonstration of self-centered ignorance.
I bet you thought long and hard on that and actually think you have a point. However, you couldn't pierce a wet paper bag with it. The thread is about a situation that happened in the US with a response the US mad and was correcting the interpretations over these US (not centric) actions. Please excuse me for not being impressed with your reasoning or logic as it fails. Perhaps if you weren't ignoring everything because it comes off as offensive to you, you might have a little knowledge concerning these things and not appear to be a clueless idiot at times.
Instead of acting like a know-it-all dick, you could just state your argument. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. That's the point of discussion.
I'm sorry, what is your point? That you can be a dick and I can't? Aren't you self absorbed. Yeah- Good luck with that. lol.
This is Slashdot, which has an international readership.
This is America where I'm at. You made a comment about my comment, I said you have a right to be an ignorant fool. What's the problem, you have demonstrated it twice? Oh I see, you are practicing that right.
And you're free to not start your posts with "Sigh..", which is pretentious and condescending.
Yes, This was as intended because in this day and age, the necessity to address ignorant people who seem to follow highlights of politicians attempting to swing things in their favor is tiresome. Now go back to whatever preoccupied you before my expression of dismay distracted you. I'm sure it is more important then trolling the interweb or tubes or whatever you hipsters are calling it now..
There's nothing in the CRA which forces any lender to make a bad loan. Basically, it said that banks couldn't deny people based on the fact that they lived in black neighborhoods.
You are correct. however, there is items in it halting the ability to make loans if their ratings aren't at certain levels which encouraged bad loans to meet a standard of operation. And no, it was more then banks not being able to deny loans because of certain neighborhoods. There was a rating system attached to it in 1995 that regulated a certain percentage of all loans had to be to these neighborhoods to prove compliance. This ratio necessity changed depending on the ratings issues by the OCC.
Further, all of the sub-prime mortgages put together added up to less than $180billion. The bailout was for over a $1trillion, reflecting all the leverage games being played.
It wasn't "too many loans to black people" that caused the financial meltdown in '07-'08, sumdumass. If it was, we could have paid off every one of those sub-prime loans and been in great shape. Instead, we made the bankers whole to the tune of 100 cents on the dollar for extraordinarily stupid deals they had made. It was actually suggested that maybe they could accept 99 cents on the dollar in the bailout but that was considered bad taste I guess.
I did not say the CRA was the reason for the bailouts or the reason for the economic collapse. I said it was an example that you asked for. It did contribution to those BTW. I guess you should tilt at windmills elsewhere. Your argument is basically trying to disprove something I never said. Good luck on that self importance problem buddy.
Slashdot Mirror
You are working from a false premise. The US doesn't try to keep anyone out. Its a sovereign nation and can just stop them or anyone (even US citizens) from lawfully entering its borders. The guy is allowed in the US, he just got questioned first which seems more like political maneuvering to separate connections between him and the US so there is no doubt in his upcoming race. I think some drone put his name on a computer list and a supervisor thought beating their high score on solitaire was more important then clearing the list until he tried to enter the country.
First, this guy wasn't arrested. He was detained for a process that is normal at border crossings. I'm sure it happens in Pakistan just like a lot of other places too.
Second, this politician or government official was not on government business. He was going to a political fundraiser in another country. That country, just like any other has a right to ensure the people entering its borders are not a threat to it.
Reagan never trained Osama Bin Ladin. You lose all credibility on this by suggesting it. Bin Laden was considered an outsider and the mujaheddin rejected them except for when it was absolutely necessary. Bin Laden had his own money and resources and was fine with that.
I've seen you trot this is that all out several times now. Even if it is all, it seems alarming to me. But I notice how your always posting AC and don't offer any explanation to the detailed that would make the articles seem incorrect or anything.
I perhaps would take your word for it if you offered anything creditable in retaliation other then dismissal because of some secret belief or knowledge.
It sure looks like they harbor terrorists. Bin laden had a pretty cozy compound set up with full protection and everything. Interestingly, not only where they pissed off at us taking Bin Laden out, after some people in the US bragged about all the details of the operation, Pakistan ended up imprisoning the guy who gave him up.
It's easy to say one thing to get money and aid. It's another to watch what happens.
you mean the guy who convince Obama and company it was all over some unfinished movies with trailers on youtube after he knew it was a terrorist attack in the rose garden speech?
Someone should hunt that guy down and fire him,.
Wow, you must be drinking the family pack of cool aid. simply amazing how far out thre you misrepresented that.
good thing that didn't happen here.
you have the right to free speech, just not to enter the US. I'm not sure why you have an issue with that.
I'm willing to bet that shooting then down would be considered an act of war and actually start one. Of course Pakistan is a nuclear power so it won't be pretty.
Why yes he is entitled to protect his countries boundaries. But he is not entitled to go to the US. Upon determining he isn't a threat, he may or may not be allowed to pass into the US.
I wouldn't say less willing, I see a lot of people who truly believed it was wrong still bring it up. I suspect the less you are hearing about it has more to do with a lot of it originally being about Bush. They seem to care more about bush doing it then the fact it was done.
I would be pissed if I paid for something I could get for free unless I knew about it before hand.
I suppose you could offer a different jacket cover for the sale book and call it the "donation version". then offer a description detailing it was the same as the free version sans jacket.
But you might need to check with amazon. They rejected a few books before that were freely available on the internet. Those books were different though. IIRC, they were already available information collected and repackaged in book form. I'm not sure if they will see the difference though.
Funding or being? Either way, I'm getting the impression that anything ultraliberal isn't as comforting as it sounds.
It's actually worse then that when you consider if there is a 50% turnout, a portion will vote for the losing side and with the elections being as close as they have been, that could be as much as 40 to 49 percent of those. So you could actually say the government we have is chosen by the majority representing less then 50% of the country and in reality, likely less then 30%.
No, I meant with everything you have posted in this thread so far. But hey, whatever gets you off I guess. I'm not judging.
Oh, you magically forgot about your Sigh rant. Tis ok. I'm sure in a few hours I will forget all about what you said too.
I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. Using your example, Virginia has 11 representatives and 2 senators. If the feds do something damning to Virgina, at best the can remove and replace 13 people of the 536 elected members of the federal government (1 pres, 100 senators, 435 representatives). However, if the state screws itself, the people of Virginia can remove and replace all 150 or more elected state government officials and all their local officials.
State and local government are more accountable to the people they serve. It really is that simple.
In the US, there is a difference between those government and the feds. They are not one in the same or even controlled by each other. The jurisdictions of them differ and are sometimes even subservient to them. The biggest is that they are closer to the needs of the people they serve and are in a better position to serve them. But the most important is that they are a lot more accountable for their actions then the feds seem to be. If the feds piss an area off, the rest of the country might give them a pass. If that same area was pissed off by the state and or local governments, they will be replaced with new people more readily. These are big reasons why local governments have the potential to be more suited to handle these things.
The problem might not have been solved, the motivation may have instead been mitigated.
You see, just because a crook doesn't rob your house does not mean it's burglar proof. The crooks could have just as easily all gotten gainful employment or the laws could have increased the penalties and they will either skip it for more lucrative opportunities (risk verses reward) or could be incarcerated and not able to visit. It could also be a simple probability and random chance that they skipped over rather then your house being burglar proof.
What we do know is that there is thought to be an incentive to hijack or blow planes up now when there might not have been as much of one before. Whether that is right or wrong, unless someone admits to being thwarted by the measures after 9/11, we won't know either way.
10% of a $1000 item is $100. Haul ten of those items out in a day and that's a pretty good salary. And of they get caught, well, they may be locked up, but look on the bright side, they get to meet and date people with names like Bubba and have 3 hot meals a day and a warm dry cot to lay their heads on at night.
In the US, a good portions of the towns were actually built and created by businesses due to capitalism. Capitalism needs productive worker. This seems counter to your concept and ideals. Of course there are those who will attempt to abuse their positions, but that's not really a common thing.
Perhaps if you did put some thought into your postings, you wouldn't be in this mess.
So you knew my comments were about American policy and political activity, that I was discussing something completely about America and Americans, and you had to remind me in my place because I didn't focus enough on you? Get over yourself.
I didn't call you a dick, I said there is no reason for you being a dick that I can't. Of course I might have commented my first error there and assume you were trying to be a dick by the way you are trolling the thread and commenting on the insignificant portions because "Sigh" offended you so much and you couldn't be assed to read past it but were so outraged you had to make it known.
Again, Aren't you self absorbed. Yeah- Good luck with that. lol.
I bet you thought long and hard on that and actually think you have a point. However, you couldn't pierce a wet paper bag with it. The thread is about a situation that happened in the US with a response the US mad and was correcting the interpretations over these US (not centric) actions. Please excuse me for not being impressed with your reasoning or logic as it fails. Perhaps if you weren't ignoring everything because it comes off as offensive to you, you might have a little knowledge concerning these things and not appear to be a clueless idiot at times.
I'm sorry, what is your point? That you can be a dick and I can't? Aren't you self absorbed. Yeah- Good luck with that. lol.
This is America where I'm at. You made a comment about my comment, I said you have a right to be an ignorant fool. What's the problem, you have demonstrated it twice? Oh I see, you are practicing that right.
Yes, This was as intended because in this day and age, the necessity to address ignorant people who seem to follow highlights of politicians attempting to swing things in their favor is tiresome. Now go back to whatever preoccupied you before my expression of dismay distracted you. I'm sure it is more important then trolling the interweb or tubes or whatever you hipsters are calling it now..
You are correct. however, there is items in it halting the ability to make loans if their ratings aren't at certain levels which encouraged bad loans to meet a standard of operation. And no, it was more then banks not being able to deny loans because of certain neighborhoods. There was a rating system attached to it in 1995 that regulated a certain percentage of all loans had to be to these neighborhoods to prove compliance. This ratio necessity changed depending on the ratings issues by the OCC.
I did not say the CRA was the reason for the bailouts or the reason for the economic collapse. I said it was an example that you asked for. It did contribution to those BTW. I guess you should tilt at windmills elsewhere. Your argument is basically trying to disprove something I never said. Good luck on that self importance problem buddy.