What you linked is not scientific study but opinion pieces, and you want a true scientific study to be returned? You gave a Google search which returns lots of opinions about how those programs help, but no studies. Hell, the articles you linked don't even consider an alternative opinion or point of debate. Kind of the state we are in today, nobody can give alternative opinions.
How would you devise such a study? Think about that rationally for a minute and let that question sink in. A "study" is quite impossible! Who's country do we use as the bench mark, the study case, and the "normal"?
Max Kaiser, Milton Friedman, and countless others would have as many pretty graphs as what you see today backing the alternative opinion.
I can't really cite all of Friedman's books. He gives very credible arguments on why Government run social programs may seem to help, but in reality don't. Friedman also gives numerous examples in his books on where these policies have failed. The book to start with would be "Capitalism and Freedom".
In that book, Friedman lays out arguments against even Social Security. The better method explained is to protect citizens so that they can save on their own. As stated above, this is a rare program that may have worked if not for politicians taking all the money from the coffers. Friedman would use that exact fact as one of many reasons why the Government can not handle social welfare programs of any sort and I would concede to his wisdom.
Nothing Friedman said has been shown to be wrong. Yet Keynesian policies have been shown to be wrong to some degree at least. We can verify the wrongness by looking at a few simple statistics in Countries that have maintained the Government as the energy for economic growth (Keynesian policy). Statistics such as wealth disparity, median income vs. inflation, poverty rates, etc...
As stated above, Economics is not simple. Other factors such as taxes, regulated monopolies, etc.. all play roles. If you want a link to harm of social policies in the News recently, look at the recent articles regarding how being unemployed for too long hurts your prospects for a new job. Here is one of many links.
Economic analysis shows that government spending, especially on safety nets has a net positive effect (each dollar spent increases economic activity by more than a dollar) on the economy.
That was what I responded to. It is absolutely false in a general sense, subjectively we could discuss merits. Your Google search returns gems like claims that spending in this way can is an "Economic Multiplier", which it is not.
You could look up the Clapper testimony, where he claimed in front of a Congressional hearing that they did not get personal data and if they did it would be expunged/ignored (can't remember the exact verbiage). Google with this string "NSA claims metadata harmless" and you will find plenty.
Apparently, we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about economic analyses that clearly show that government spending on the social safety net (unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.) generates more economic activity in real terms than the money invested in those programs. And yes, stimulating demand is a Keynesian idea. The search results I posted bear out the validity of those policies.
We are not talking about two different things, they are the same. Friedman gives very compelling arguments on why these policies are plain old wrong. Wealth disparity is an indicator that Friedman was correct.
We won't get to an agreement on such a complex topic in a thread. We could probably debate for a week pulling source data from various locations. That said, it was not the point of my post. The point of my post was to show that what we are doing is not right, and that you are not right to claim that government spending fixes everything.
There are millions of various programs to question and debate. Social Security for example I find interesting, because if politicians had not been pilfering from the coffers since the early 1970s it may have worked. Today, just like the rest of our economy in the US it's teetering on the edge of a cliff. Governments can not, and should not ever teeter that way. Governments are supposed to be the one stable part in our lives.
Then you have not listened to much of the debate. Clapper and others in offices have stated that metadata is completely anonymous and therefor not a risk. They have also said what you note. This is a campaign of denial and deceit trying to cover all possible ground. Additionally, TV media has been pretty silent on the issues so they are trying to keep things quiet and away from the masses.
Look at wealth disparity for the US (and in fact any "Western" Nation). This is freely available for all nations since 1970s which is a fair benchmark, but the data goes back further. Go ahead and look at what the great levelers "Keynesian" and "trickle down" have done. If you really claim that these two sets of policies work, I'd hate to see what you call failure. I hope you don't need me to Google that for you.
So you are telling me that the US is on some great economic boom? The EU is magically transformed into a bastion of wealth in places like Italy and Greece? Is it more than possible that these links contain tremendous amount of fabrication? Is it possible that wealth disparity has increased exponentially under these programs?
Is it possible that Friedman is right?
What I take issue with is that you present one side of the debate, and present it as fact. When it is not fact, and the benefits don't line up with the claims. I'm sure that there is middle ground here to debate, but your side is absolutely not proven.
The Boston Marathon demonstrates without question that he is not correct. This program has been running illegally for quite some time, and it has not prevented anything. Making it "legal" or trying to make it acceptable won't change that.
I expect this from a shill, but not from an educated person. Governments can not be the whole of economy, it does not work that way. As the old saying goes "when something appears to be too good to be true, it probably is" comes to mind. A Government has no money of it's own. A Government's money is based entirely on the productivity of society. It is therefor impossible for a Government to "multiply" money by spending money. It is a logical contradiction at every level, often dressed up to appear "good" to someone uninformed.
In short, a Government is not and can not be a producer. A Government is a taker, and can only take from society.
This is not _my_ opinion, this opinion comes from countless economists. Read and Comprehend what Milton Friedman says about the same subject. Mr. Friedman was kind enough to also explain to the uneducated how people gamed systems with things like Keynesian principles, and why those principles are wrong (even giving examples of failures due to those policies).
You were asked to quote anything I stated where I implicated anyone. You never could, you maintain a lie. Just like you resort continually to ad hominem instead of addressing the point. If you wish to show where ae911truth.org is wrong with scientific data I'll listen. You won't look at it, because it "dishonors the dead". Now fuck off troll.
Apparently you have no idea how the committee system in Congress works. That would seem to invalidate many of your comments about Congress.
So now that you were shown to be a liar, you move the goal post. Sorry, it does not work that way. If you wish to rephrase what you originally stated and apologize for writing an untrue statement, we'll talk.
Claiming that Saddam had no choice about invading Kuwait is rubbish.
Ahh, the ole "I can't read" gag. Go back and read it again.
If you want to claim that the text I posted is "incorrect," please indicate where.
Is finding the complete text from a President's speech that difficult? Let me highlight the two portions you decided to omit. You can easily find the complete text at numerous archives.
The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings [...] For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice.
[...] It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned [...] no secret is revealed. [...] That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.
What people like you do, is tend to pick and choose what you want to from the text instead of reading the complete text and understanding the messages the President had within. Claiming he didn't mean what he wrote and said is asinine, don't bother trying.
It is more accurate to say that people claim I'm a "shill" since that is far easier to do than to confront facts and arguments that have them at a disadvantage
Confront what exactly? Someone that misquotes text, refuses to debate points, continually moves the goal post, and flat out lies? There is nothing a rational person can confront, a rational person can only point out the repeated actions in the 2nd sentence and correct the lies.
This! It is not a difficult process to dial 911 today. Finding a panic button, or using a panic button, is not going to save anyone time or effort. If the panic button is unprotected, we will have a rash of false 911 calls from these phones and of course who pays the bill? The user who had their phone locked and went to the rest room? If the panic button is protected, the user still has to unlock their screen to get to said panic button.
There is no "my conspiracy" you liar! What I pointed you to ages ago was a group of architects and engineers who state, with scientific certainty, that what the 911 commission put out can not be true. They provide scientific models, experiments, mathematics and physics to back that position on nearly every event dealing with the 9/11 attacks. The thousands of architects and engineers, nor myself, claim to know what really happened, therefor your claim of conspiracy is a pure fabrication. The request from the scientific community is that the case be reopened to find "who done it".
You refused to review any of the scientific data, and lied repeatedly during the discussion with such gems as "we have no other plane crash data to compare the 9/11 attacks to" then refused to look at exactly that data because you claimed "it dishonors the dead to investigate".
Not only do you refuse to read and study facts, you change the definition of "conspiracy" to maintain your delusion. Now go fuck yourself and stop trolling my posts!
If not all members, and in fact very few members, have knowledge then don't pretend that Congress has oversight and authority as you falsely claimed.
I'm not sure what you are referring to in regards to the first Gulf War - the one in 1991? What do you think was lied about there?
The pretenses for the first Gulf war were completely open and honest. I get that it's not as blatant as the 2nd Gulf war lies, but they are there in abundance before Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US and Saudi Arabia history of diplomacy between 1980 and 1989 is very telling. No, Saddam had no right to invade Kuwait by law. He did not see much choice however as can be found in the US negotiations between Saddam and Glaspie.
Don't throw around false accusations about me distorting his speech, when you decide to quote only a portion of what was stated. President Kennedy had several very clear messages, which you decided (oh surprise) to omit in your incorrect copy. Actions like this are why even if not true, you are seen as nothing more than a shill.
Somebody directly stated that Boeing lost due to NSA despite the fact it was unattributed, and no evidence was offered.
Google is not broken shill, so your return accusation is laughable. Both US and Brazil authorities have offered spying as at a minimum a "contributing factor". The actual weight is fair to question, but to claim it has no bearing is a lie plain and simple. To deny that other companies, like CISCO have lost money due to the same cause is more lies. I provided 5 links that claim losses due to spying. Your "nuh uh" answer does not suffice to discount the facts provided.
The response to the rest of your post is "You are a Shill", followed by "more Shilling", and finally a "Fuck off Shill". Go pound some sand, and have fun doing it.
Because all members of Congress have complete knowledge of what the NSA is doing? The NSA chief is held accountable for lying to Congress? Neither of those two things are true, so you are untruthful at best.
In theory, and by our original Constitutional law, you would be correct. Our Government is not acting within their Constitutional boundaries, and has not been for quite some time. Clapper is not the only one that should be in jail as a perjurer, you have to go back quite a ways to the first Gulf war at least.
This is why what JFK said was so very important. "The very idea of secrecy in a free and democratic society is repugnant." Secrets beget more secrets, and things begin to escalate in order to protect the secrets, and the secrets that protected the secret.
And don't try and blur the lines between giving away military hardware and the acts of espionage, as you have done in the past.
Question for you - If Boeing lost because of NSA, why did the French company Dassault lose? They were bidding on the same contract in competition with Saab. Saab won. Dassault had nothing to do with NSA.
I see this question as an absurdity, but you seem to somehow believe it's valid (or since we know who the author is, we can explain the whole of your post). We realize that France has been compliant with, and complicit with, the NSA spying ring correct (as has the UK, Germany, Italy, etc..). If the NSA was the reason for Brazil to boot the US company, France would surely be held to the same level of scrutiny.
As to an "unattributed comment about Boing", are you implying that there is no source of information that you can find which spells this out very clearly? That Boeing losing the Brazil deal due to NSA spying is only speculation? I think you can search and find proof that those allegations are false, just as easy as the next person. (don't answer the questions, they are rhetorical intended to display you are a liar)
Brazil has bought $1 billion in missiles from Russia, and yet they considered Russia a target for Brazilian spying, just like they spied on the US. And certainly you don't think that Brazil is free from Russian spies. So there is a mystery. Why would they buy from Russia if Russia is spying, but not the US?
Straw man, Red Herring, Straw man, reductio ad absurdum. Nothing to see in that whole paragraph, move alone.
You don't suppose it could be simply do to the quality of goods, the business terms, and the price, do you? Nah, that wouldn't indict the US!
Denying what Brazil stated as the reason is asinine. That is beyond delusional, it is a bold faced lie.
I can see through your fallacies pretty easily, take your shilling elsewhere.
In the US it depends on what type of clearance you get. Higher level clearances are tied to an employer, and will be suspended if you leave. A new employer can reactivate the clearance within 5 years, and of course a new more brief checking. Lower level clearances can be personal, and not tied to an employer. Those also expire in 5 years if not renewed (spend $$)
That said, the clearance by itself does not give you access to anything. Each assignment will have it's own rules, and you must be sworn in to each assignment. These assignments require X classification, but each is unique. I worked with agents at the DOD that left the room during certain times because they were not sworn on to the program. Even with a higher clearance, if they saw data on said project they would have to go through the normal debriefing process and it was reported as an incident. Incidents with DSS are not necessarily bad, and were somewhat expected during audits.
As the AC says below, this is not the only victim but the first major one to be published in detail with the exact verbiage because of the NSA. This should also make you question all of these reports claiming "economic recovery" in the US. It was reported back in June when the leaks first came out that CISCO lost numerous contracts due to the NSA. [snark]But of course we are all just crazy conspiracy theorists, so the facts below are nothing more than racist attacks against Obama [/snark]
You seem to lack some very basic knowledge of law to claim the DMV could have invalid information and it would have no legal bearing. At this point, you are arguing nothing related to the original point I made that you argued against so there is no point in continuing. No, neither of us can win because you are not on the same subject.
- It has obsolete information. 0.08% BAC is the presumed "drunk" level in all 50 states, and has been for almost a decade.
That is a silly statement, because if that were true every drunk driver in CA would have an easy out if they had a California Drivers license.
The same limitations and verbiage were used in the link I provided previously as there are on the CA DMV Driving test.
No, my point was that a chemical test is NOT required for a DUI conviction. It is only required for a violation of the 0.08 law, but that is a separate offence.
The exception could be stated that a person refusing a test can be used as a confession. The chemical test is still the tool used in this case, in a very literal sense.
Go back to my original point, which stated that a Police officer simply claiming "they smelled like alcohol" is good enough for conviction is wrong. That statement is still correct.
Slashdot Mirror
I see, so being pedantic for no real reason, except for perhaps ego.
What you linked is not scientific study but opinion pieces, and you want a true scientific study to be returned? You gave a Google search which returns lots of opinions about how those programs help, but no studies. Hell, the articles you linked don't even consider an alternative opinion or point of debate. Kind of the state we are in today, nobody can give alternative opinions.
How would you devise such a study? Think about that rationally for a minute and let that question sink in. A "study" is quite impossible! Who's country do we use as the bench mark, the study case, and the "normal"?
Max Kaiser, Milton Friedman, and countless others would have as many pretty graphs as what you see today backing the alternative opinion.
I can't really cite all of Friedman's books. He gives very credible arguments on why Government run social programs may seem to help, but in reality don't. Friedman also gives numerous examples in his books on where these policies have failed. The book to start with would be "Capitalism and Freedom".
In that book, Friedman lays out arguments against even Social Security. The better method explained is to protect citizens so that they can save on their own. As stated above, this is a rare program that may have worked if not for politicians taking all the money from the coffers. Friedman would use that exact fact as one of many reasons why the Government can not handle social welfare programs of any sort and I would concede to his wisdom.
Nothing Friedman said has been shown to be wrong. Yet Keynesian policies have been shown to be wrong to some degree at least. We can verify the wrongness by looking at a few simple statistics in Countries that have maintained the Government as the energy for economic growth (Keynesian policy). Statistics such as wealth disparity, median income vs. inflation, poverty rates, etc...
As stated above, Economics is not simple. Other factors such as taxes, regulated monopolies, etc.. all play roles. If you want a link to harm of social policies in the News recently, look at the recent articles regarding how being unemployed for too long hurts your prospects for a new job. Here is one of many links.
Gah! That last sentence horrible, hopefully you understand what I intended. Remove the "can" from the sentence.
Economic analysis shows that government spending, especially on safety nets has a net positive effect (each dollar spent increases economic activity by more than a dollar) on the economy.
That was what I responded to. It is absolutely false in a general sense, subjectively we could discuss merits. Your Google search returns gems like claims that spending in this way can is an "Economic Multiplier", which it is not.
You could look up the Clapper testimony, where he claimed in front of a Congressional hearing that they did not get personal data and if they did it would be expunged/ignored (can't remember the exact verbiage). Google with this string "NSA claims metadata harmless" and you will find plenty.
Apparently, we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about economic analyses that clearly show that government spending on the social safety net (unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.) generates more economic activity in real terms than the money invested in those programs. And yes, stimulating demand is a Keynesian idea. The search results I posted bear out the validity of those policies.
We are not talking about two different things, they are the same. Friedman gives very compelling arguments on why these policies are plain old wrong. Wealth disparity is an indicator that Friedman was correct.
We won't get to an agreement on such a complex topic in a thread. We could probably debate for a week pulling source data from various locations. That said, it was not the point of my post. The point of my post was to show that what we are doing is not right, and that you are not right to claim that government spending fixes everything.
There are millions of various programs to question and debate. Social Security for example I find interesting, because if politicians had not been pilfering from the coffers since the early 1970s it may have worked. Today, just like the rest of our economy in the US it's teetering on the edge of a cliff. Governments can not, and should not ever teeter that way. Governments are supposed to be the one stable part in our lives.
Then you have not listened to much of the debate. Clapper and others in offices have stated that metadata is completely anonymous and therefor not a risk. They have also said what you note. This is a campaign of denial and deceit trying to cover all possible ground. Additionally, TV media has been pretty silent on the issues so they are trying to keep things quiet and away from the masses.
Look at wealth disparity for the US (and in fact any "Western" Nation). This is freely available for all nations since 1970s which is a fair benchmark, but the data goes back further. Go ahead and look at what the great levelers "Keynesian" and "trickle down" have done. If you really claim that these two sets of policies work, I'd hate to see what you call failure. I hope you don't need me to Google that for you.
So you are telling me that the US is on some great economic boom? The EU is magically transformed into a bastion of wealth in places like Italy and Greece? Is it more than possible that these links contain tremendous amount of fabrication? Is it possible that wealth disparity has increased exponentially under these programs?
Is it possible that Friedman is right?
What I take issue with is that you present one side of the debate, and present it as fact. When it is not fact, and the benefits don't line up with the claims. I'm sure that there is middle ground here to debate, but your side is absolutely not proven.
The Boston Marathon demonstrates without question that he is not correct. This program has been running illegally for quite some time, and it has not prevented anything. Making it "legal" or trying to make it acceptable won't change that.
I expect this from a shill, but not from an educated person. Governments can not be the whole of economy, it does not work that way. As the old saying goes "when something appears to be too good to be true, it probably is" comes to mind. A Government has no money of it's own. A Government's money is based entirely on the productivity of society. It is therefor impossible for a Government to "multiply" money by spending money. It is a logical contradiction at every level, often dressed up to appear "good" to someone uninformed.
In short, a Government is not and can not be a producer. A Government is a taker, and can only take from society.
This is not _my_ opinion, this opinion comes from countless economists. Read and Comprehend what Milton Friedman says about the same subject. Mr. Friedman was kind enough to also explain to the uneducated how people gamed systems with things like Keynesian principles, and why those principles are wrong (even giving examples of failures due to those policies).
Back then, we learned to dial 0 when all else failed.
You were asked to quote anything I stated where I implicated anyone. You never could, you maintain a lie. Just like you resort continually to ad hominem instead of addressing the point. If you wish to show where ae911truth.org is wrong with scientific data I'll listen. You won't look at it, because it "dishonors the dead". Now fuck off troll.
Apparently you have no idea how the committee system in Congress works. That would seem to invalidate many of your comments about Congress.
So now that you were shown to be a liar, you move the goal post. Sorry, it does not work that way. If you wish to rephrase what you originally stated and apologize for writing an untrue statement, we'll talk.
Claiming that Saddam had no choice about invading Kuwait is rubbish.
Ahh, the ole "I can't read" gag. Go back and read it again.
If you want to claim that the text I posted is "incorrect," please indicate where.
Is finding the complete text from a President's speech that difficult? Let me highlight the two portions you decided to omit. You can easily find the complete text at numerous archives.
The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings [...] For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice.
[...] It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned [...] no secret is revealed. [...] That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.
What people like you do, is tend to pick and choose what you want to from the text instead of reading the complete text and understanding the messages the President had within. Claiming he didn't mean what he wrote and said is asinine, don't bother trying.
It is more accurate to say that people claim I'm a "shill" since that is far easier to do than to confront facts and arguments that have them at a disadvantage
Confront what exactly? Someone that misquotes text, refuses to debate points, continually moves the goal post, and flat out lies? There is nothing a rational person can confront, a rational person can only point out the repeated actions in the 2nd sentence and correct the lies.
This! It is not a difficult process to dial 911 today. Finding a panic button, or using a panic button, is not going to save anyone time or effort. If the panic button is unprotected, we will have a rash of false 911 calls from these phones and of course who pays the bill? The user who had their phone locked and went to the rest room? If the panic button is protected, the user still has to unlock their screen to get to said panic button.
There is no "my conspiracy" you liar! What I pointed you to ages ago was a group of architects and engineers who state, with scientific certainty, that what the 911 commission put out can not be true. They provide scientific models, experiments, mathematics and physics to back that position on nearly every event dealing with the 9/11 attacks. The thousands of architects and engineers, nor myself, claim to know what really happened, therefor your claim of conspiracy is a pure fabrication. The request from the scientific community is that the case be reopened to find "who done it".
You refused to review any of the scientific data, and lied repeatedly during the discussion with such gems as "we have no other plane crash data to compare the 9/11 attacks to" then refused to look at exactly that data because you claimed "it dishonors the dead to investigate".
Not only do you refuse to read and study facts, you change the definition of "conspiracy" to maintain your delusion. Now go fuck yourself and stop trolling my posts!
If not all members, and in fact very few members, have knowledge then don't pretend that Congress has oversight and authority as you falsely claimed.
I'm not sure what you are referring to in regards to the first Gulf War - the one in 1991? What do you think was lied about there?
The pretenses for the first Gulf war were completely open and honest. I get that it's not as blatant as the 2nd Gulf war lies, but they are there in abundance before Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US and Saudi Arabia history of diplomacy between 1980 and 1989 is very telling. No, Saddam had no right to invade Kuwait by law. He did not see much choice however as can be found in the US negotiations between Saddam and Glaspie.
Don't throw around false accusations about me distorting his speech, when you decide to quote only a portion of what was stated. President Kennedy had several very clear messages, which you decided (oh surprise) to omit in your incorrect copy. Actions like this are why even if not true, you are seen as nothing more than a shill.
Somebody directly stated that Boeing lost due to NSA despite the fact it was unattributed, and no evidence was offered.
Google is not broken shill, so your return accusation is laughable. Both US and Brazil authorities have offered spying as at a minimum a "contributing factor". The actual weight is fair to question, but to claim it has no bearing is a lie plain and simple. To deny that other companies, like CISCO have lost money due to the same cause is more lies. I provided 5 links that claim losses due to spying. Your "nuh uh" answer does not suffice to discount the facts provided.
The response to the rest of your post is "You are a Shill", followed by "more Shilling", and finally a "Fuck off Shill". Go pound some sand, and have fun doing it.
Because all members of Congress have complete knowledge of what the NSA is doing? The NSA chief is held accountable for lying to Congress? Neither of those two things are true, so you are untruthful at best.
In theory, and by our original Constitutional law, you would be correct. Our Government is not acting within their Constitutional boundaries, and has not been for quite some time. Clapper is not the only one that should be in jail as a perjurer, you have to go back quite a ways to the first Gulf war at least.
This is why what JFK said was so very important. "The very idea of secrecy in a free and democratic society is repugnant." Secrets beget more secrets, and things begin to escalate in order to protect the secrets, and the secrets that protected the secret.
And don't try and blur the lines between giving away military hardware and the acts of espionage, as you have done in the past.
Question for you - If Boeing lost because of NSA, why did the French company Dassault lose? They were bidding on the same contract in competition with Saab. Saab won. Dassault had nothing to do with NSA.
I see this question as an absurdity, but you seem to somehow believe it's valid (or since we know who the author is, we can explain the whole of your post). We realize that France has been compliant with, and complicit with, the NSA spying ring correct (as has the UK, Germany, Italy, etc..). If the NSA was the reason for Brazil to boot the US company, France would surely be held to the same level of scrutiny.
As to an "unattributed comment about Boing", are you implying that there is no source of information that you can find which spells this out very clearly? That Boeing losing the Brazil deal due to NSA spying is only speculation? I think you can search and find proof that those allegations are false, just as easy as the next person. (don't answer the questions, they are rhetorical intended to display you are a liar)
Brazil has bought $1 billion in missiles from Russia, and yet they considered Russia a target for Brazilian spying, just like they spied on the US. And certainly you don't think that Brazil is free from Russian spies. So there is a mystery. Why would they buy from Russia if Russia is spying, but not the US?
Straw man, Red Herring, Straw man, reductio ad absurdum. Nothing to see in that whole paragraph, move alone.
You don't suppose it could be simply do to the quality of goods, the business terms, and the price, do you? Nah, that wouldn't indict the US!
Denying what Brazil stated as the reason is asinine. That is beyond delusional, it is a bold faced lie.
I can see through your fallacies pretty easily, take your shilling elsewhere.
Almost, but a bit more involved.
In the US it depends on what type of clearance you get. Higher level clearances are tied to an employer, and will be suspended if you leave. A new employer can reactivate the clearance within 5 years, and of course a new more brief checking. Lower level clearances can be personal, and not tied to an employer. Those also expire in 5 years if not renewed (spend $$)
That said, the clearance by itself does not give you access to anything. Each assignment will have it's own rules, and you must be sworn in to each assignment. These assignments require X classification, but each is unique. I worked with agents at the DOD that left the room during certain times because they were not sworn on to the program. Even with a higher clearance, if they saw data on said project they would have to go through the normal debriefing process and it was reported as an incident. Incidents with DSS are not necessarily bad, and were somewhat expected during audits.
As the AC says below, this is not the only victim but the first major one to be published in detail with the exact verbiage because of the NSA. This should also make you question all of these reports claiming "economic recovery" in the US. It was reported back in June when the leaks first came out that CISCO lost numerous contracts due to the NSA. [snark]But of course we are all just crazy conspiracy theorists, so the facts below are nothing more than racist attacks against Obama [/snark]
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/how-nsa-mass-surveillance-hurting-us-economy
http://business.time.com/2013/12/10/nsa-spying-scandal-could-cost-u-s-tech-giants-billions/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/07/nsa-snooping-could-cost-u-s-tech-companies-35-billion-over-three-years/
http://www.storyleak.com/nsa-spying-us-companies-billions-american-job-loss/
http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/infrastructure-as-a-service/nsas-prism-could-cost-us-cloud-companies-$45-billion/d/d-id/1111178?
You seem to lack some very basic knowledge of law to claim the DMV could have invalid information and it would have no legal bearing. At this point, you are arguing nothing related to the original point I made that you argued against so there is no point in continuing. No, neither of us can win because you are not on the same subject.
- It has obsolete information. 0.08% BAC is the presumed "drunk" level in all 50 states, and has been for almost a decade.
That is a silly statement, because if that were true every drunk driver in CA would have an easy out if they had a California Drivers license.
The same limitations and verbiage were used in the link I provided previously as there are on the CA DMV Driving test.
No, my point was that a chemical test is NOT required for a DUI conviction. It is only required for a violation of the 0.08 law, but that is a separate offence.
The exception could be stated that a person refusing a test can be used as a confession. The chemical test is still the tool used in this case, in a very literal sense.
Go back to my original point, which stated that a Police officer simply claiming "they smelled like alcohol" is good enough for conviction is wrong. That statement is still correct.