[CA renter]

[quote=gogogosandiego]Was the original post amended? Pretty sure this wasn’t known to the OP on Dec 14th 2016 as it was pointed out to her later in this thread.

“They quietly passed it as part of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.”

Now why would someone do that?[/quote]

No, it was not amended, but you can ask Rich to confirm. Your lack of reading comprehension skills are on full display again, though.

Nobody else pointed out new information regarding the dates, titles, or the manner in which this was passed. I’m the one who originally wrote about this topic, and included the relevant text and information in both my original post, along with additional links and information in the comments section.

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=harvey][quote=ucodegen][quote=harvey]
1st Amendment protects the speech of US residents.

It doesn’t protect foreign governments.
[/quote]

That is where it kind of gets interesting.. some of the protections of the constitution have been extended to non-citizens as well as non-residents via Supreme Court. Non-residents and non-citizens which happen to be citizens of foreign nations.
[/quote]

Lol, that’s complete bullshit.

You’re clearly more concerned about the imaginary First Amendment rights of Vladimir Putin than you are about a real US president that tells the American people that we can only trust the White House as source of information.

They’ve got you. Hook, line, sinker.[/quote]
You know, I have been civil here without dropping down to using ad hominem attacks (use of logic fallacies). When logic fails, you seem to resort to insults.

The pushing of constitutional rights to foreign persons is not a fallacy. Its true. The issues of ‘sanctuary cities’ demonstrates some of it. That many people being in the US illegally can somehow get assistance from SSI (which was formed to help the citizens of this nation). That people in the country illegally (non-citizens) have the right to the first amendment as shown by public demonstrations by Mexican nationals.

I make no differentiation between whether a person here illegally is Mexican or Russian. That would be racist.

I make no differentiation between whether a person making posts is Mexican or Russian. That would be racist.

Your post sounds almost McCarthy-ist.. ie. The Red Scare. You are also not paying attention to what I have posted which states that I do not like any law that puts some governmental official (ie White House) in charge of determining what it true fact or what if fake news. As I said – It is “Kind of Orwellian” – see 5th post on this thread.

Also see my last line to the comment that you responded to:

As for the gov’s “Trust Me”, I prefer to trust but always be able to verify.

Maybe it would be better to read for comprehension before popping off.[/quote]

Ucodegen, you know what your talking about, as usual, and you’re able to read and comprehend what’s going on. I agree with you about activists being labled as “terrorists,” and have seen evidence of it myself, like when law enforcement was using facial recognition cameras to videotape and photograph people at both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street protests. They’ve also been actively trying to pass “domestic terrorism” laws aimed at those who oppose certain government actions (which is precisely what the First Amendment is all about).

Pri/Harvey has a regular habit of intentionally twisting the words of other posters, redirecting conversations to unrelated topics, and using ad hominem attacks at every turn instead of actually addressing any of the issues in an intelligent manner. This, along with his habit of spouting propaganda, line-by-line, has made me wonder if he is a troll, with a strong possibility that he might be a paid troll.

Note that he’s not been able to refute a single point I’ve made throughout this entire thread; instead, chosing to redirect the conversations to completely unrelated issues and make personal attacks.

I can prove everything I’ve said here, and have posted link after link directly to the sources who’ve been working on this legislation, which is what makes him launch into his nonsensical personal tirades. He’s completely incapable of using facts and logic to make his points.

Posters like Pri/Harvey have made it difficult to have intelligent conversations and debates about some of the most important issues of our time. The level of discourse has declined dramatically because of a handful of posters who do nothing but post political party talking points and make personal attacks when challenged by informed, educated posters.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9MjWBInGZ0[/quote]

Which point, precisely, were you disagreeing with, and what facts do you have to back up your opinions?

Throughout this thread, I’ve listed fact after fact. You? Nothing by unrelated rants and personal attacks.

[CA renter]

As to the story of “Russian hacking” of the DNC’s servers…

The DNC refused to turn over their server(s) to the FBI and other intelligence agencies when they discovered their server(s) were hacked. Instead, they hired a private company, CrowdStrike, to do the research. The DNC paid this company to say what the DNC wanted them to say. It is this company’s reports and conclusions that the intelligence agencies have relied on to determine that “the Russians did it.”

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

Dmitri Alperovitch is the CTO and one of the co-founders of CrowdStrike. “Dmitri Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow with the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security.”

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/people/dmitri-alperovitch

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/experts/list/dmitri-alperovitch

From Wikipedia:

“The Atlantic Council is a think tank in the field of international affairs. Founded in 1961, it provides a forum for international political, business, and intellectual leaders. It manages ten regional centers and functional programs related to international security and global economic prosperity. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

It is a member of the Atlantic Treaty Association.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council

The Atlantic Council is a staunchly globalist, capitalist, pro-Western, pro-NATO think tank. They are very anti-Russian (that’s essentially why they were founded).

The Russian Plot against Europe

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/events/upcoming-events/detail/ukraine-20162017-progress-opportunities-and-challenges

There is no way anyone could describe CrowdStrike as a neutral source of information regarding “Russian hacking.”

[CA renter]

Here’s some investigative news about the anonymous (and, at the time, brand-new) organization that got front-page coverage on the Washington Post. This is the organization that sparked the “fake news” narrative.

Our FB pages and groups were inundated with their spam when they went live.

By George Eliason

A little over a year ago, the deep state graced the world with PropOrNot. Thanks to them, 2017 became the year of fake news. Every news website and opinion column now had the potential to be linked to the Steele dossier and Trump collusion with Russia. Every journalist was either “with us or against us.” Anyone who challenged the Russiagate narrative became Russia’s trolls.

Unpacking the Shadowy Outfit Behind 2017’s Biggest Fake News Story

[CA renter]

Ah, I see that pri’s pocket poster made another visit in September.

‘Russians Bots’ Is Latest Smear Campaign Against Sanders Progressives

BTW, a $100,000 advertising budget on FB won’t even win you a city council race in a podunk town. And most of those ads never even mentioned a candidate, with many of those “ads” being videos of puppies, kittens, etc.

Here are some of the most salacious “ads” on Facebook:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/russian-facebook-ads-examples-election_us_59fa16d1e4b01b474047d7a5

I also happen to know the person who started the “Russian bot on FB” myth and can confirm that he was lying about his credentials (he was never an admin on any of the FB pages he mentions in his stories) and his entire story has been refuted by the actual admins of the FB groups and pages that he cited as being “overrun by Russian bots.”

‘Russians Bots’ Is Latest Smear Campaign Against Sanders Progressives

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd]Depends on which mankind you’re talking about and which standards: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WOmtFN1bfZ8%5B/quote%5D

Some people (ahem…Brian) don’t worry about the damage we cause in other countries. They often tout the “benefits” of constantly upgrading things (especially electronics)…replacing sometimes new-ish items that will find their way to landfills and dumps.

Some people think that planned obsolescence is a good thing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3049457/Where-computer-goes-die-Shocking-pictures-toxic-electronic-graveyards-Africa-West-dumps-old-PCs-laptops-microwaves-fridges-phones.html

[CA renter]

Could not agree more. Great idea, gzz.

I’ve always thought that Prop 13 should only apply to a single primary residence, and possibly one single commercial property that is owner-occupied. This would help small businesses who own their own properties, and would help shift commercial property ownership to those who do the actual work and who give value to the properties, instead of enriching landlords who, as gzz states, are often out-of-state/country commercial landlords.

The Prop 13 benefit for owner-occupied business properties could have a higher cap; instead of the 2% for residential properties, it could be 3 or 4%, though that’s not necessary. That being said, business properties are less likely to be affected by speculative activity, since rents are used to determine mortgage lending parameters for most of these properties (please correct me if I’m wrong here, HLS or other informed Piggs), so property taxes are less likely to be skewed by artificially high prices.

[CA renter]

[quote=gzz]It was a double bottom if I remember right, first at the bottom of the crash in 2009, then a false bull market caused by tax incentives to buy in 2010, then a second bottom in 2011.[/quote]

Yes. The lower-end properties bottomed in ~2008/2009, but the higher-end properties (higher-mid to high) held on pretty well until 2011. That’s when we bought our house, too, as did many other Piggs.

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=spdrun]I’m aware. I’m also aware that typical pressure tanks only have 50-100 gal capacity, some of which can’t be used once the pump stops due to pressure drop in the tank as water is used.[/quote]
True, but there is also the main storage tank which is often as large as 500gal or more. Add a gas powered pump and you have a reasonable ability to deal with some of the brush fires. Fire trucks carry around 250 to 500 gal of water on board. Water trucks from the fire department carry more.

https://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_200418131_200418131

On a related note: I have been watching the growth of the Thomas Fire. I have relatives in the middle of it. I am really surprised at its spread. The fire even doubled back on itself, which makes me wonder what is going on. Fire does not like to burn or ‘re-burn’ over area that it has already burned. Fire started at Santa Paula and headed west.. then about 5 days into it, reversed direction going back through Santa Paula… here is the fire map for the still burning Thomas Fire.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1CePU2TdEh86nmBDBfPOAXf8Hp7NlpVpA&ll=34.53306454088723%2C-119.29924313999027&z=10%5B/quote%5D

You probably know this already since it’s been a week since you’ve posted, but I checked into this a bit, and the reason the fire appeared to double back was due to a shift in the winds. Oftentimes, the fire might just burn one side of a hill, etc., leaving fuel on the other side, or there will be patches of unburned fuel left behind after a fire has passed through. This is what might make it appear as though the fire is burning over an already burned-out area.

The winds up there have been incredibly strong at various times since the fire started. We also have family and friends up there, and they’ve had to evacuate multiple times. We need rain!

[CA renter]

[quote=Hatfield]SDG&E was found liable for their power lines sparking the 2007 Witch Fire that burned 200,000 acres, destroyed 1600+ buildings and killed two people. I’d say cutting power to fire prone areas during Santa Ana conditions makes a lot of sense.[/quote]

Exactly. There are pros and cons with whatever decisions they make, but after the 2007 fires, they came up with new procedures.

Personally, my DH and I love the beauty of the more rural parts of the county, and we were seriously looking at houses on acreage, even making a few offers. Ultimately, when we looked around at all the beautiful hillsides, oak trees, etc. that we so enjoyed, we decided that it would really, really suck to be stuck there in a fire. That’s why we ended up buying in the suburbs again.

If people choose to live in the back-country, they should try to find a way to have an off-grid backup system in place. An large generator, solar system, etc. that can be used off-grid should be standard out there.

[CA renter]

You have a great sense of humor, Rich! 🙂

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=SK in CV][quote=flu]

I’m not so convinced all these tax increases, as annoying as they are, are really devastating.

[/quote]

I agree. Not devastating to any individuals, except in rare situations. Low income people can get hit with higher taxes. For those making $30K with 3 kids, losing $500 can be devastating. It could also be devastating to

The problem is not so much with itemized deduction changes. Outside sales people and W-2 truckers could get killed. I can think of a few others that will also.

A HUGE windfall for some wealthy and ALL uber-wealthy.

It could be devastating for what it portends, and what it holds for the economy down the line. It’s pretty similar to the tax cut from the late 20’s. Something bad happened after that.[/quote]

Agreed. Which is why I sort of chuckle at the irony here. I have a feeling the ones that are going to get hit the most, some of them probably voted for Trump and wanted this without really knowing about it…
(BG where are you?.. Lololol)

I mean how many senators actually read the 500 page tax reform before voting on it….just like how many read the actual ACA before folks voted on it. Maybe one of these days Congress can actually start doing things not out of spite for the other party. Lol.

I think the only positive.to come out of this is everyone this time feels a certain level of annoyance and financial pain such that next time, we.are a little more careful asking for “tax reform” or taxing more… And by financial pain, I mean almost Everyone.

Carenter, you were wishing for a repeal of prop 31 and felt people should be taxed more on their propety…. Well…wish granted… everyone is now…. Even folks with primary homes. Your property tax deduction is now capped. Lol…be careful what you wish for…[/quote]

The Prop 13 reform that I advocate for does the exact opposite of what this reform does — I believe it should only apply to owner-occupied residences (with a similar effect for owner-occupied commercial/industrial properties), with “capital” paying market rates on rentals and second homes, etc. I want the working/middle classes to benefit from reform, and these Republican tax reform bills do the exact opposite — massive windfalls for capital, and the middle class (what little is left of it) will take the hit for it…again.

It’s crazy to see how people still hang on to trickle-down economic theory, even though it’s proven to be a complete and utter failure at every turn. And, as some have already pointed out, the worst part is seeing very average working folks champion these bills. Idiocy at it’s finest.

[CA renter]

We are always looking for something to distract us from the thing(s) we fear most. Sometimes, those most frightening things come into clear focus, and we see how very vulnerable we are. Not fun. It’s easy to rush back into those distracting occupations that shelter us from reality and give us comfort. Whole industries (often, our most successful industries) are built up around this.

[CA renter]

Personally, I’m concerned about ALL state actors as well as independent groups and individuals who could use this type of technology in a nefarious way. I’ve been following these issues for a number of years as a non-tech, but politically active, observer. IMO, we should outright ban this type of technology and spend our resources on defending against it.

Many of our greatest “tech geniuses” have been warning against AI for a long time. While there are some benefits to AI, we need to balance those against the risks. IMHO, the risks are too great. There are plenty of people in the world who would like to use this technology in order to gain power and control over the world’s resources and human populations.

AI isn’t the only problem, though. Drone, surveillance, and weaponized technology (and miniaturization) is a problem in itself. People can be every bit as evil as a machine, so I think we need to work toward the defense against, and the elimination of, most intrusive or destructive technology because there’s no way to ensure that it will be used for benevolent purposes.

What do you think, ucodegen? You’re probably better informed than most people regarding this issue. I’ve always appreciated your input on a variety of topics. It’s long been obvious that you know very well what you’re talking about when you post; you’re not tooting your own horn. Thank you for your contributions to this site.

[Author]

Posts