<<< The 5000+ Miles Ebike Club >>>

[ebinary]

Geez... breaking news... someone on the left apparently stole Sarah Palins Social Security number. This kind of behavior is going to backfire against them... dirty politics is now criminal...

I read it was a partial SSN for use in researching her. Dang, I wonder if the GOP has Obamas from when they illegally accessed his entire CIA file during the nomination. Yes, I agree... stop the party that is the worst at that type of thing.

 

[safe]

I read it was a partial SSN for use in researching her.

They released the SSN but left the last four numbers off. But they included enough other information (home address, date of birth and others) so that it would not be that hard to crack it if that was someone's goal. (it makes the criminals job easier)

The Democrats did this a few years ago to another Republican and they actually even went the next step and looked up the guys credit report. (Maryland's Michael Steele)

It's just not right that's all... here the democrats started off saying they wanted to be clean and now they are deep in the mud...

 

[ebinary]

next step and looked up the guys credit report.

Are you telling me that they actually researched someone who would have the authority to tax and spend everyone's money as thoroughly as every used car salesman in the world would research me in the first 5 minutes. Crazy!

I assume you are against the Patriot Act, correct?

 

[safe]

Are you telling me that they actually researched someone who would have the authority to tax and spend everyone's money as thoroughly as every used car salesman in the world would research me in the first 5 minutes.

The crime was that her private information was released to the general public. The used car salesman is supposed to protect your privacy, just as some company like Paypal protects your privacy. It would be one thing if someone broke into the democrats computer and stole their information against their will, but to publically offer private information about Sarah Palin online is where they did something wrong.

I have no problem with legal authorities accessing information under the right circumstances, but the line is crossed when the information is leaked to the public.

 

[ebinary]

The crime was that her private information was released to the general public. The used car salesman is supposed to protect your privacy, just as some company like Paypal protects your privacy.

A car salesman is making a monetary deal between you and him.

A politician is making a monetary deal between the public and him.

Credit reports should absolutely be made public on everyone asking for taxing authority. If a guy has never paid his bills, I certainly don't want to offer him a blank check on my earnings.

 

[safe]

:? Your logic is insane to me... but I'm a conservative.

Private information is private information. At no time should an authority with the duty of protecting your privacy ever release that to the general public because it invites misuse of that information. (identity theft is a serious crime these days)

The proper function of a free press is to ASK for information and if it is not freely divulged then suspicion about why it isn't can be made public. (that's a valid thing to do) But the choice to divulge information needs to remain in the hands of the private person or you effectively wipe away the separation of public and private life. Permission needs to be asked and the answer needs to be in the positive. Otherwise it's a crime... it's like Watergate... Nixon stole information from the Democrats back then and paid the political price for it... all he did was steal information.

You are ironically arguing that Nixon was a hero. :lol:

(I think his breaking of the privacy barrier was a clear error)

 

[ebinary]

:? Your logic is insane to me... but I'm a conservative.

I was a republican until Bush effectively redistributed a huge percentage of the nations wealth to his buds in a tiny period, while defecit spending worse than any other liberal in history.

However, I restate that - while information shouldn't be stolen - a credit report should be required for every position with taxing authority. It would seem to be a conservative position.

 

[TylerDurden]

The proper function of a free press is to ASK for information and if it is not freely divulged then suspicion about why it isn't can be made public.

The proper function of a free press is to report without restriction.

The press has the authority to demand, not ask. That is guaranteed by the first amendment and the Freedom of Information Act (FIOA). Personal privacy precedes as does national security unless the public's right to know supercedes, by court order; fifth amendment rights for individuals notwithstanding... but for that, there's immunity.

 

[safe]

...while defecit spending worse than any other liberal in history.

But not to the same level as Reagan. You see Ronald Reagans philosophy was that government can only do harm, so his strategy was to INCREASE the deficit so that government has to first pay off a big debt before it can create more social programs. Historically (if truth matters to you) Bush actually didn't live up to the "Reagan Ideal" because as a percentage he did not drive up the deficit as much. (in fact he didn't even increase it significantly )

Look at the year 1980... Reagan was the real hero!

Of course Thomas Jefferson first had the idea that more government was a "bad thing". (third president) But Reagan mutated the idea into it's present form as a reaction against socialism. Jefferson was actually able to reduce government which these days is impossible, but you can make it so people do not get a positive experience out of paying taxes and so you get the same outcome. Reagan was smart enough to realize this and so he used it.

Once you comprehend the brilliance of Reagan you respect him... many do not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

 

[ebinary]

reduce government which these days is impossible, but you can make it so people do not get a positive experience out of paying taxes and so you get the same outcome.

Wow... that is a brilliant thing to do with my money - make me pay it, but make it do nothing. If that is what the GOP stands for, then I was a republican far too long.

 

[lostcoyote]

well, since this topic has diverged from the 5000 mile club to current events...
are we there yet?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/90892-the-great-consumer-crash-of-2009?source=front_page_most_popular_articles

 

[safe]

Wow... that is a brilliant thing to do with my money - make me pay it, but make it do nothing. If that is what the GOP stands for, then I was a republican far too long.

If you didn't know you... well... how could you not know? :?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

The idea is to create a perfect balance with the Laffer Curve so that taxes are low, government just barely is able to cover all it's debts and there is no possible way to raise taxes and increase social programs without damaging the economy. (you get stagflation if you try)

How could you not understand this and have been a Republican? (were you just clueless?)

Very strange...

It's a great strategy... low taxes... a sluggish government that people don't like... and no easy way to pay back the debt while expanding social programs. Very smart in a Thomas Jefferson kind of way. (our hero by the way... who you were supposed to know if you were a Republican... yikes )

 

[TylerDurden]

15. Because the originators of virtually all loans to consumers were immediately selling the loans off, they had no incentive to follow any guidelines or due diligence when issuing the loans. Anyone with a pulse could get a mortgage, car loan, or credit card. Unscrupulous mortgage brokers popped up everywhere, luring uneducated and willing people to join the party. Greedy appraisers went along with the scam by overvaluing houses to whatever the banks desired. ( http://seekingalpha.com/article/90892-the-great-consumer-crash-of-2009?source=front_page_most_popular_articles )

The only guy waving a big red flag on securitization was the guy who invented it:

• ...a tiny few were sounding the alarms early, such as Lewis Ranieri, the "godfather" of securitization. Ranieri helped create the process of packaging loans into pools and selling them as bonds to investors while working on Salomon Brothers' mortgage-trading desk in the late-1970s, and is given credit for coining the word "securitization." It was a wonderful concept, allowing banks to lend far more than their balance sheets could support-and to spread the risks of those loans-by tapping investors from around the world. Government policy makers, intent on home ownership, loved the idea. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac thrived as conduits for those securities.
  
  But by 2005, a good idea was showing signs of abuse, and Ranieri, then head of his own investment firm, warned of impending disaster. Growing numbers of people who shouldn't have qualified for mortgages got them anyway. An explosion of subprime, alt-A, no-doc and other specious loans got underway-well over $800 billion in 2006 alone, according to newsletter Inside Mortgage Finance-often underwritten on the basis of teaser rates that reset in two or three years. Perhaps worse, those loans were pooled into collateralized debt obligations, often without adequate disclosures.

http://www.americanbanker.com/usb_article.html?id=200808255729RACU&pagenum=1&numpages=4&showallpages=true

 

[John in CR]

15. Because the originators of virtually all loans to consumers were immediately selling the loans off, they had no incentive to follow any guidelines or due diligence when issuing the loans. Anyone with a pulse could get a mortgage, car loan, or credit card. Unscrupulous mortgage brokers popped up everywhere, luring uneducated and willing people to join the party. Greedy appraisers went along with the scam by overvaluing houses to whatever the banks desired. ( http://seekingalpha.com/article/90892-the-great-consumer-crash-of-2009?source=front_page_most_popular_articles )

The only guy waving a big red flag on securitization was the guy who invented it:

• ...a tiny few were sounding the alarms early, such as Lewis Ranieri, the "godfather" of securitization. Ranieri helped create the process of packaging loans into pools and selling them as bonds to investors while working on Salomon Brothers' mortgage-trading desk in the late-1970s, and is given credit for coining the word "securitization." It was a wonderful concept, allowing banks to lend far more than their balance sheets could support-and to spread the risks of those loans-by tapping investors from around the world. Government policy makers, intent on home ownership, loved the idea. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac thrived as conduits for those securities.
  
  But by 2005, a good idea was showing signs of abuse, and Ranieri, then head of his own investment firm, warned of impending disaster. Growing numbers of people who shouldn't have qualified for mortgages got them anyway. An explosion of subprime, alt-A, no-doc and other specious loans got underway-well over $800 billion in 2006 alone, according to newsletter Inside Mortgage Finance-often underwritten on the basis of teaser rates that reset in two or three years. Perhaps worse, those loans were pooled into collateralized debt obligations, often without adequate disclosures.

http://www.americanbanker.com/usb_article.html?id=200808255729RACU&pagenum=1&numpages=4&showallpages=true

Post 9/11 all this improperly stimulated the economy, and now the piper must be paid. Real economic growth is the only way out of it, and the coming energy revolution can easily provide that. If the US is only a consumer in this revolution instead of taking the bull by the horns and being leader in it, then it's a good as sunk. A service economy can only go so far, and that limit is long past. Look at the prosperity the computer revolution brought, because the US lead the way. The energy revolution will dwarf that by a wide margin.

 

[TylerDurden]

Real economic growth is the only way out of it, and the coming energy revolution can easily provide that. If the US is only a consumer in this revolution instead of taking the bull by the horns and being leader in it, then it's a good as sunk. A service economy can only go so far, and that limit is long past. Look at the prosperity the computer revolution brought, because the US lead the way. The energy revolution will dwarf that by a wide margin.

I don't think so. This country uses so much energy that it will always be an energy importer.

Economic growth can't take place in the US until workers have jobs that produce goods that they can afford to buy (a-la Henry Ford). That ain't gonna happen until the cost/time of overseas shipping are greater than running a factory in the US.

 

[safe]

First, the world is now in a slowdown... so it's not just America that has slowed down recently. Commodity prices are actually falling (another bubble) and so everything is now leveling out. All the activity stretching things in different directions (oil bubble, real estate bubble, commodity bubble) are now all gone.

So now what?

We have a sort of stagnant economy... it's not falling, but it's also not rising... if you raise taxes it will make things even more sluggish. Raising the federal runds rate (Bernancke) would also be a mistake. Inflation is moderate. Oil prices have actually come down.

So the "bottom line" (I love that phrase) is there's nothing to panic about now.... maybe a year ago before we resettled at this slower pace people might have panicked, but there's no reason today.

The secret for the future will be low taxes and encourage the new "Green Jobs".
Most importantly people need to realize that those college degrees that aren't technical in nature are a waste of time. It's just tragic the number of phoney majors in the social sciences that exist where people get into serious student loan debt (for life) and then expect to be rich after they get out. :lol:

It ain't going to happen!!!

...there's nothing that government has ever done to make people's lives better. All you can do is get govenment on a tight leash and let the technical people expand the economy. We need more scientists and engineers in the colleges.

Being "politically correct" might make your emotions "feel good" but the real world will never reward you because of it. Being deeply invested in the bizarre logic of the left is a way to cripple you in the real world. If everyone just gave up on their idealism about fictional "dream governments that save people" then they can start to address reality. (all that emotional/idealistic crap hurts peoples ability to think clearly... it's almost like a disease of the mind)

Government can't help you... Thomas Jefferson realized this long ago and he was a Founding Father... (so the wisdom goes all the way back to Declaration of Independence)

Thomas Jefferson used to rant and rave against all the crazy dysfunctional idealogies that existed back in his day. This seems to be a constant for humanity... it's the measure of a society to be able to dispel the illusions and get back to reality. We need to be "down to earth" and practical...

 

[ebinary]

...there's nothing that government has ever done to make people's lives better.

How do you expect people will believe you are thoughtful and analytical with ridiculous comments like this.

Build roads

Build sewers

Kick Nazis out of Europe

Most people would say those things made life better.

 

[TylerDurden]

How do you expect people will believe you are thoughtful and analytical with ridiculous comments like this.

It's called delusion. :lol:

 

[safe]

Build roads... Build sewers.

The work is done by the people and by companies that are hired by the government through a bidding process. The smaller the town the thinner the layers of bureaucracy that are needed and government can be mostly elinimated.

Cities...

The reason there is a difference between "city people" and the rest of the country is that only in the cities will the government be seen as a "good thing". This is because it's the rest of the country that SUPPORTS the cities. History has always been like this. So when the government gets stronger it translates into more power for the cities and less for people not in cites.

This is the root of this election... red state (non-city) verses the highly populated urban (city) blue states.

I used to live in California... it's practically a city everywhere you go... out here in the midwest the compression of people doesn't exist and so the "affection" for "big government" isn't there. Missouri is 7 points in favor of McCain and Kansas is a full 16 points in favor of McCain... we hate the city people here. :x

City people LOVE government because it robs the people to make their city lives better. This has always been true throughout history... it will never change...

Hey I remember... I lived in San Francisco for some time... I know the bias...

Sarah Palin being from Alaska is the perfect reformer because she comes from "outside the bubble" of city culture. It's the perfect way to "get outside" and be able to attack the "beast" of the overbearing cities and corrupted Washington political culture.

 

[TylerDurden]

The reason there is a difference between "city people" and the rest of the country is that only in the cities will the government be seen as a "good thing".

If it weren't for "Big Government" your shitfer computer would have no power to post your retarded drivel:

Rural electrification is the process of bringing electrical power to rural and remote areas. Electricity is used not only for lighting and household purposes, but it also allows for mechanization of many farming operations, such as threshing, milking, and hoisting grain for storage; in areas facing labor shortages, this allows for greater productivity at reduced cost. The most famous such program was the New Deal's Rural Electrification Administration in the United States, which pioneered many of the themes still practiced in other countries.

 

[safe]

There are some cases where "Big Government" can have value. Those cases are rare. The most obvious is National Defense... we need to keep a strong military.

It's when money starts being taken from the people who are not in the cities and given to people in the cities that the term "corruption" takes over.

I know... I lived in San Francisco and I used to hear and even say all those jokes about "stupid people outside the city". There is a natural arrogance that develops as a city person because (unless you are an idiot) you realize that the city maintains it's existence on the backs of the people. The city people "ride" the common people... this was true in Roman times and is true today... it's a universal human condition.

Only when times are hard does the "common man" begin to rise up against the corrupted city people and demand reform.

FDR actually did a lot of things for common people and so that's why he was well remembered. Obama is 100% city, he doesn't even bother to pretend to care about things outside his urban core. Obama is from Chicago politics... I mean come on! :lol:

 

[TylerDurden]

People move to the country for three reasons:

• Fear of people of color
  You can have sex with children and not get caught
  You can abdicate the responsibilities that participating in society requires

 

[safe]

Well Obama thinks it's about wanting to own guns, practice religion and be bitter...

Your attitude kind of proves my point... the reformers are gaining strength...

The city people might not win this election after all.

 

[TylerDurden]

Your attitude kind of proves my point...

Safe's "Ignore list" is clearly just as much BS as everything else he posts. :lol:

 

[Link]

I know... I lived in San Francisco and I used to hear and even say all those jokes about "stupid people outside the city". There is a natural arrogance that develops as a city person because (unless you are an idiot) you realize that the city maintains it's existence on the backs of the people. The city people "ride" the common people... this was true in Roman times and is true today... it's a universal human condition.

Hey, safe, pass some of that $#!+ around, please.

WTF are you on about now? I've been living here my whole life and I've NEVER met anybody actually proud to live here. They complain about the cost of housing and overpopulation.