Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
d-usa wrote: The difference is that many of us are arguing that they should be mandatory, and others are pretending that we are saying this is a federal issue.
I'm not saying it should be federally mandated. I think it should be state mandated, but I also think that federal organizations (such as the CDC) are probably the best resource for establishing guidelines regarding the "what vaccines when" questions.
I also think that politicians at any level pandering to anti-vaxxers for personal gain during a significant public health event is very irresponsible.
d-usa wrote: The difference is that many of us are arguing that they should be mandatory, and others are pretending that we are saying this is a federal issue.
I'm not saying it should be federally mandated. I think it should be state mandated, but I also think that federal organizations (such as the CDC) are probably the best resource for establishing guidelines regarding the "what vaccines when" questions. .
So the current CDC guidelines are not good enough?
And you seem to be implicitly saying it should be a Federal issue when you state all states need to make it mandatory, because if you believed it was a state issue (as it currently is) you would be happy to allow the states to choose how they implement the CDC guidelines (as they currently do).
But if I am misunderstanding your's and other's position, and in fact you are happy with CDC guidelines and allowing the states the freedom to implement them as they see fit, then I apologize. But I suspect you are not happy, and in fact you do think the Federal Gov't should mandate (because that is the only way to ensure all states are on the same sheet of music). And there have been calls for Federal punishments like taking away tax credits and other measures voiced in this thread. That again indicates at least some of you DO consider it a Federal issue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 19:23:44
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
d-usa wrote: The difference is that many of us are arguing that they should be mandatory, and others are pretending that we are saying this is a federal issue.
I'm not saying it should be federally mandated. I think it should be state mandated, but I also think that federal organizations (such as the CDC) are probably the best resource for establishing guidelines regarding the "what vaccines when" questions. .
So the current CDC guidelines are not good enough?
And you seem to be implicitly saying it should be a Federal issue when you state all states need to make it mandatory, because if you believed it was a state issue (as it currently is) you would be happy to allow the states to choose how they implement the CDC guidelines (as they currently do).
But if I am misunderstanding your's and other's position, and in fact you are happy with CDC guidelines and allowing the states the freedom to implement them as they see fit, then I apologize. But I suspect you are not happy, and in fact you do think the Federal Gov't should mandate (because that is the only way to ensure all states are on the same sheet of music). And there have been calls for Federal punishments like taking away tax credits and other measures voiced in this thread. That again indicates at least some of you DO consider it a Federal issue.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Not sure what part of wanting to use refusal of federal tax credits to punish folks would indicate folks consider this to be a state issue. I'm also not sure how demanding all states have the same solution (immunization mandatory for all because the CDC says so) rather than the current system where they have decided their own how to impliment CDC standards is different that wanting a federal solution for all the states. I guess I am too stoopid to understand how advocating those things indicates you think it is a state issue.
For gaks and giggles, how would you want it handled if one state decides to keep allowing waivers you don't approve of? I'm guessing your proposed solution involves the federal government in some way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 23:52:32
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Medium of Death wrote: I take it the problem is that the amounts of money required to enter the political spectrum at this point are so ridiculous as to be an effective barrier to anything fresh?
Pretty much... and some states makes it impossible I think. d-usa, if I remember right, tried to participate in a new party in Oklahoma...
And, let's face it, the two-party system basically relies on the stupidity of the American voter (perhaps "laziness" may be a more apt word in this example). By keeping it a binary choice of R vs D on the ballots, voters don't have to actually do any research or critical thinking in deciding who to vote for. You just make your way down the ballot checking everything in the column of your choice. And how does the average voter decide between the red column or the blue column (there is a Matrix joke to be made here)? Well, that's what all the lovely scaremongering attack ads are for.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/05 02:04:59
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
CptJake wrote: That again indicates at least some of you DO consider it a Federal issue.
When responding to someone you should focus on talking to a single person, rather than a nondescript group of people. Using the phrase "some of you" does not help your case here.
That said: it probably should be subject to a Federal requirement. And I think you agree, given your up-thread comments; though the hurdles and consequences of getting there make that rather undesirable and nearly impossible.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/05 02:16:50
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
The public tends to accept the opinions of academics with more credence than editorial boards, Carmichael said.
Funny that, it's almost as if people acknowledge that it might be possible to actually be knowledgeable about something and therefore have a good or better understanding of a subject.
The bill prohibits the use of university titles in newspaper opinion articles only when the subject matter concerns a current elected official, a candidate for office or a matter pending before the Legislature or another public body in the state.
Employees could still use their titles when opining on other topics.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
It's good that he's backpeddling. But credit for that goes to the speed and clarity of response from the medical community. I wouldn't for one second give credit to a politician who said something dangerously stupid, got slapped on it, and then tried to pretend he never said it.
It's interesting because many, include those in this thread, advocated vehemently that it must be mandatory.
Ah fair enough. Personally, I don't think mandatory is necessary, if the message is kept clear, nor do I think mandatory would be politically viable anyway. So when I saw the comments that it shouldn't be mandatory I just shrugged, I didn't think about lack of outrage from people who actually think it should be mandatory.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
So Rand Paul is demanding that the Federal Reserve be audited. Presently the Federal Reserve is audited by the GAO, the Office of the Inspector General, independent private auditors, and it publishes a summary of its balance sheet every single week. And its role in the GFC already underwent a special audit as part of Dodd-Frank. So Rand Paul is either an idiot who knows nothing about how his own government works, or he’s a liar playing up to the idiots who have no idea how their own government works.
It doesn’t stop there, because Rand Paul also claimed that the Fed’s liabilities are 4.5 trillion while its assets are only $57 billion, which makes it leveraged more than Lehman Brothers. First up, the guy doesn’t even understand basic accounting, if assets were only $57 billion then it would have net equity of negative 4.45 trillion – that wouldn’t be highly leveraged, it would be extremely insolvent. In fact the assets of the Fed are 4.487 trillion, which means with liabilities of 4.430 trillion means its equity (assets minus liabilities) is 57 billion.
But more importantly, the Fed is part of government and therefore looking at its balance sheet in isolation of the rest of government is complete nonsense - the reason it is so tightly leveraged is because it recently transferred $500 billion to treasury, and a transfer back to the Fed of an equal or greater amount could happen at any time. And the biggest point is that trying to assess the Fed for solvency is gibberish – exactly what happens that would cause a run on the Fed? Its liabilities are the cash that’s printed and put out in to the economy. If tomorrow the Fed transferred another 500 billion to the Treasury and people panicked exactly what would they do? Bang on the doors of the Fed and demand what in exchange for their dollars?
The kind of whackjob idiocy like the above is always around, in every country. Mostly we just get to laugh at them. But this guy isn’t just an elected representative, he’s got a major following, and he isn’t alone. Paul Ryan says insane nonsense like this all the time, and people keep pretending he’s mainstream.
I think the actual, sensible Republicans are showing way too much patience by this point, you guys need to start working hard to get control of your party back. This is serious, you can’t let people who refuse to understand how government works continue to drive the political debate, and even set policy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/11 02:22:40
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The public tends to accept the opinions of academics with more credence than editorial boards, Carmichael said.
Funny that, it's almost as if people acknowledge that it might be possible to actually be knowledgeable about something and therefore have a good or better understanding of a subject.
Wait, so you mean to tell me that Bill O'Reilly is an "academic" now? Or Bill Maher? Or whoever else does ridiculous talking shows?
I mean, among the Television that I personally watch, I would most definitely say that James, Jeremy and Richard are most definitely academics.
the Fed is part of government and therefore looking at its balance sheet in isolation of the rest of government is complete nonsense
Interesting statement. The Federal Reserve Banks are quasi government. The Board Of Governors for the Banks is a federal agency, though the banks themselves are not.
As Wiki puts it:
The Federal Reserve Banks have an intermediate legal status, with some features of private corporations and some features of public federal agencies. The United States has an interest in the Federal Reserve Banks as tax-exempt federally created instrumentalities whose profits belong to the federal government, but this interest is not proprietary. In Lewis v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that: "The Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." The opinion went on to say, however, that: "The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes." Another relevant decision is Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, in which the distinction is made between Federal Reserve Banks, which are federally created instrumentalities, and the Board of Governors, which is a federal agency."
And as for being subject to audits by the GAO? Yep, but:
The banks are also subject to two types of external auditing. Since 1978 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted regular audits of the banks' operations. The GAO audits are reported to the public, but they may not review a bank's monetary policy decisions or disclose them to the public. Since 1999 each bank has also been required to submit to an annual audit by an external accounting firm, which produces a confidential report to the bank and a summary statement for the bank's annual report. Some members of Congress continue to advocate a more public and intrusive GAO audit of the Federal Reserve System, but Federal Reserve representatives support the existing restrictions to prevent political influence over long-range economic decisions.
So SEN Paul wanting more transparency may not be that unreasonable in the view of quite a few folks.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/11 02:54:21
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
sebster wrote: So Rand Paul is demanding that the Federal Reserve be audited. Presently the Federal Reserve is audited by the GAO, the Office of the Inspector General, independent private auditors, and it publishes a summary of its balance sheet every single week. And its role in the GFC already underwent a special audit as part of Dodd-Frank. So Rand Paul is either an idiot who knows nothing about how his own government works, or he’s a liar playing up to the idiots who have no idea how their own government works.
It doesn’t stop there, because Rand Paul also claimed that the Fed’s liabilities are 4.5 trillion while its assets are only $57 billion, which makes it leveraged more than Lehman Brothers. First up, the guy doesn’t even understand basic accounting, if assets were only $57 billion then it would have net equity of negative 4.45 trillion – that wouldn’t be highly leveraged, it would be extremely insolvent. In fact the assets of the Fed are 4.487 trillion, which means with liabilities of 4.430 trillion means its equity (assets minus liabilities) is 57 billion.
But more importantly, the Fed is part of government and therefore looking at its balance sheet in isolation of the rest of government is complete nonsense - the reason it is so tightly leveraged is because it recently transferred $500 billion to treasury, and a transfer back to the Fed of an equal or greater amount could happen at any time. And the biggest point is that trying to assess the Fed for solvency is gibberish – exactly what happens that would cause a run on the Fed? Its liabilities are the cash that’s printed and put out in to the economy. If tomorrow the Fed transferred another 500 billion to the Treasury and people panicked exactly what would they do? Bang on the doors of the Fed and demand what in exchange for their dollars?
The kind of whackjob idiocy like the above is always around, in every country. Mostly we just get to laugh at them. But this guy isn’t just an elected representative, he’s got a major following, and he isn’t alone. Paul Ryan says insane nonsense like this all the time, and people keep pretending he’s mainstream.
I think the actual, sensible Republicans are showing way too much patience by this point, you guys need to start working hard to get control of your party back. This is serious, you can’t let people who refuse to understand how government works continue to drive the political debate, and even set policy.
CptJake wrote: Interesting statement. The Federal Reserve Banks are quasi government. The Board Of Governors for the Banks is a federal agency, though the banks themselves are not.
Yeah, this is where relying on something like wiki can set you astray – the facts are there but you lack the context to see how it all fits together. The independence of the Fed is about its political independence – that it can set its policy to control interest rates, inflation and employment without interference from Congress. But as an accounting entity it’s part of government – did you read the bit about the transfer of funds between Treasury and the Fed? That’s what the Fed does each year – revenue above expenditure is transferred to Treasury. How anyone can understand that basic part of the Fed and think it isn’t part and parcel of government is beyond me.
And as for being subject to audits by the GAO? Yep, but:
An audit is exactly what the GAO undertakes. Anything more than that, such as a review of policy, that’s not an audit.
When a listed company gets its financial report audited each year, the audit is exactly what the GAO does, review the financial controls, confirm assets and liabilities, all that audit stuff. The idea that the audit of Apple would involve auditors examining Apple’s business decisions and reporting on whether they were right or not is comical.
And this is where we get to the heart and soul of Rand Paul’s bs. When he says he wants an audit, he is using that word as code for what he really wants, or possibly he just doesn’t understand what ‘audit’ actually means. What he actually wants is Congressional power to review, question and challenge the decisions of the Fed. He wants to remove their independence, take power away from non-political experts, and place it in the hands of people like him. He wants to take power away from the people who correctly predicted what Fed actions would do in the wake of the GFC, and place it in the hands of people who were completely wrong in predicting hyperinflation, and who continue to be wrong to this day.
So SEN Paul wanting more transparency may not be that unreasonable in the view of quite a few folks.
It isn’t unreasonable in the view of quite a few folks. Those people have no idea what they’re talking about. That’s the problem.
whembly wrote: Okay... I've read this like 4 times and I'm still lost.
Are you talking about criticism to the fiat monetary system?
Not really. I mean, the Fed’s role can more or less be described as managing the (fiat) monetary system, and there’s definitely an overlap between people supporting Rand Paul’s latest silliness and people who get freaked out about fiat money, I guess fiat money is a strongly connected issue.
But basically what we have is Rand Paul saying he wants an audit of the Fed. But the Fed is already audited by the actual meaning of that word, what he actually wants is the ability to review, question and challenge Fed policy as it is being formed. He wants to take power away from the technocrats and put it in the hands of politicians.
The problem with this was highlighted rather strongly by Rand Paul’s own speaches. He wants more control over the organisation, but doesn’t even have the knowledge of exactly how the Fed interacts with government. And he didn’t even have the knowledge to understand what assets, liabilities and equity are, and how you measure leverage.
People who know absolutely nothing outside of their ideology but are certain they have simple, common sense solutions to complex systems are real problem.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/02/11 04:20:28
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
CptJake wrote: Interesting statement. The Federal Reserve Banks are quasi government. The Board Of Governors for the Banks is a federal agency, though the banks themselves are not.
Yeah, this is where relying on something like wiki can set you astray – the facts are there but you lack the context to see how it all fits together. The independence of the Fed is about its political independence – that it can set its policy to control interest rates, inflation and employment without interference from Congress. But as an accounting entity it’s part of government – did you read the bit about the transfer of funds between Treasury and the Fed? That’s what the Fed does each year – revenue above expenditure is transferred to Treasury. How anyone can understand that basic part of the Fed and think it isn’t part and parcel of government is beyond me.
And as for being subject to audits by the GAO? Yep, but:
An audit is exactly what the GAO undertakes. Anything more than that, such as a review of policy, that’s not an audit.
When a listed company gets its financial report audited each year, the audit is exactly what the GAO does, review the financial controls, confirm assets and liabilities, all that audit stuff. The idea that the audit of Apple would involve auditors examining Apple’s business decisions and reporting on whether they were right or not is comical.
And this is where we get to the heart and soul of Rand Paul’s bs. When he says he wants an audit, he is using that word as code for what he really wants, or possibly he just doesn’t understand what ‘audit’ actually means. What he actually wants is Congressional power to review, question and challenge the decisions of the Fed. He wants to remove their independence, take power away from non-political experts, and place it in the hands of people like him. He wants to take power away from the people who correctly predicted what Fed actions would do in the wake of the GFC, and place it in the hands of people who were completely wrong in predicting hyperinflation, and who continue to be wrong to this day.
So SEN Paul wanting more transparency may not be that unreasonable in the view of quite a few folks.
It isn’t unreasonable in the view of quite a few folks. Those people have no idea what they’re talking about. That’s the problem.
whembly wrote: Okay... I've read this like 4 times and I'm still lost.
Are you talking about criticism to the fiat monetary system?
Not really. I mean, the Fed’s role can more or less be described as managing the (fiat) monetary system, and there’s definitely an overlap between people supporting Rand Paul’s latest silliness and people who get freaked out about fiat money, I guess fiat money is a strongly connected issue.
But basically what we have is Rand Paul saying he wants an audit of the Fed. But the Fed is already audited by the actual meaning of that word, what he actually wants is the ability to review, question and challenge Fed policy as it is being formed. He wants to take power away from the technocrats and put it in the hands of politicians.
The problem with this was highlighted rather strongly by Rand Paul’s own speaches. He wants more control over the organisation, but doesn’t even have the knowledge of exactly how the Fed interacts with government. And he didn’t even have the knowledge to understand what assets, liabilities and equity are, and how you measure leverage.
People who know absolutely nothing outside of their ideology but are certain they have simple, common sense solutions to complex systems are real problem.
After doing some research... I'm inclined to agree with you Seb.
I think Rand is playing fiddle with his dad's supporters here.
What he wants would put undue political pressure on Fed Reserve.
whembly wrote: After doing some research... I'm inclined to agree with you Seb.
I think Rand is playing fiddle with his dad's supporters here.
What he wants would put undue political pressure on Fed Reserve.
Exactly. We’ve had central banks following government directives before, and it’s been disastrous.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Myabe I just don't understand how foundations "work" and how the Clinton are "paid" by said foundation...
I mean, I get the arguments that foreign governments donating to a foundation led by a potential U.S. president can create (or at least the perception) of unacceptable conflicts of interests.
Myabe I just don't understand how foundations "work" and how the Clinton are "paid" by said foundation...
I mean, I get the arguments that foreign governments donating to a foundation led by a potential U.S. president can create (or at least the perception) of unacceptable conflicts of interests.
I just don't see it here...
It looks like there are some concerns over the running of the foundation; it receives millions of dollars in donations but it is running a deficit
It also appears that there are some concerns that the charitable causes supported by the foundation are being used as a way to open the door for private, for profit, ventures from those who run the foundation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/23 13:01:15
BOISE, Idaho — An Idaho lawmaker received a brief lesson on female anatomy after asking if a woman can swallow a small camera for doctors to conduct a remote gynecological exam.
The question Monday from Republican Rep. Vito Barbieri came as the House State Affairs Committee heard nearly three hours of testimony on a bill that would ban doctors from prescribing abortion-inducing medication through telemedicine.
Dr. Julie Madsen was testifying in opposition to the bill when Barbieri asked the question. Madsen replied that would be impossible because swallowed pills do not end up in the vagina.
The committee approved the bill 13-4 on a party-line vote. Barbieri, who sits on the board of a crisis pregnancy center in northern Idaho, voted in favor of the legislation.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
BOISE, Idaho — An Idaho lawmaker received a brief lesson on female anatomy after asking if a woman can swallow a small camera for doctors to conduct a remote gynecological exam.
The question Monday from Republican Rep. Vito Barbieri came as the House State Affairs Committee heard nearly three hours of testimony on a bill that would ban doctors from prescribing abortion-inducing medication through telemedicine.
Dr. Julie Madsen was testifying in opposition to the bill when Barbieri asked the question. Madsen replied that would be impossible because swallowed pills do not end up in the vagina.
The committee approved the bill 13-4 on a party-line vote. Barbieri, who sits on the board of a crisis pregnancy center in northern Idaho, voted in favor of the legislation.
Please tell me there is a video of Dr. Madsen's reaction to the question
"What? Pardon me, but are you on drugs or just stupid?"
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Myabe I just don't understand how foundations "work" and how the Clinton are "paid" by said foundation...
I mean, I get the arguments that foreign governments donating to a foundation led by a potential U.S. president can create (or at least the perception) of unacceptable conflicts of interests.
I just don't see it here...
I don't think there's really much concern over the foreign agent angle. It's more that the Clinton brand is used to drawn in giant pots of money, and that money is then being spread around through the weird kind of professional not for profits that the Clintons have championed for years.
There's no clear smoke there that the money is being mishandled or squirreled away, but given the scale of the organisation, the nature of these kinds of operations, and the really narrow group of people controlling each portion, I can pretty much guarantee that at least one person in there is misappropriating the money somewhere.
This isn't good obviously. The core of the issue, to me, is that nature of these kinds of brand charities, where money is drawn in just based on a celebrity name. It is certainly a highly effective way of drawing in money, but there's an issue that there isn't an immediate pressing cause for the funds to go to. It seems that as the charity becomes institutionalised, and often lacking a clear, motivating single cause, then misappropriation seems inevitable.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
That's not quite what I said. There's nothing political here, unless something gets found. But in terms of quality charity organisations, I've got doubts about what the Clintons have set up.
*shrugs*
I'm telling ya... the Clintons are teflons.
Yeah, you keep saying that. The alternative is that if there was actually a scandal deep in the heart of the Clintons, the Republicans would have found it by now. They've been trying for 20 years. It may be that nothing has ever stuck because there isn't actually anything to stick to them. When all you find is, oh my god, a politician is an adulterer, then maybe there isn't anything real to find?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/24 03:50:06
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
So, I heard some noises about Bernie Sanders in Iowa rallying up his base. Is he actually contemplating a run?
If so, I can not see him actually expecting to win. Maybe his plan is to simply try to pull the Democratic Primary process to the left just like the Tea Party types did to the R's primary process?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Easy E wrote: So, I heard some noises about Bernie Sanders in Iowa rallying up his base. Is he actually contemplating a run?
If so, I can not see him actually expecting to win. Maybe his plan is to simply try to pull the Democratic Primary process to the left just like the Tea Party types did to the R's primary process?
But man... that ought to be a gloriously entertaining primary... eh?
A "it's my turn" Hillary coronation is boring.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry seb, missed this:
Yeah, you keep saying that. The alternative is that if there was actually a scandal deep in the heart of the Clintons, the Republicans would have found it by now. They've been trying for 20 years. It may be that nothing has ever stuck because there isn't actually anything to stick to them. When all you find is, oh my god, a politician is an adulterer, then maybe there isn't anything real to find?
Teflon dude.
It's reported that Bill Clinton flew with Phil Epstein, a convicted pedophile, to Epstein's private island where he reportedly kept sex slaves.
The media?
YAWN!
See?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/02/25 21:58:20
This isn't good obviously. The core of the issue, to me, is that nature of these kinds of brand charities, where money is drawn in just based on a celebrity name. It is certainly a highly effective way of drawing in money, but there's an issue that there isn't an immediate pressing cause for the funds to go to. It seems that as the charity becomes institutionalised, and often lacking a clear, motivating single cause, then misappropriation seems inevitable.
And if not misappropriation, then simple mismanagement. When it seems you can raise money at will there is less incentive to be discerning in how its spent, particularly if your endowment is very large.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd love to see Bernie Sanders as pres, personally. He's a really interesting guy.
Yeah, I agree... While I don't necessarily agree with all of his policies (I do tend to lean a little more Libertarian, but realistically I'm all over the map), The few times I've heard quotes from him I haven't been left thinking "what a gakker"... Such as that quote floating around of him reportedly saying, "If you cannot afford to care for your Veterans after a war, then you cannot afford to go to war"