[dumbrenter]

[quote=CA renter] However you want to interpret that is up to you.[/quote]

Or the agent reading this thread.

I think all those quants who lost jobs after their math brought about the housing bubble & bust are now gainfully employed….doing analytics on your phone calls/ texts. So sleep well my friends, these quants are protecting you from the bad guys, just like they helped out with the housing.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Car, if I understand you well, you’re saying that citizens need guns and assault weapons because there comes a time when citizens need to kill the agents of the government.

That’s a very subjective call depending on who you are.[/quote]

I think you just summarized the 2nd amendment.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Integration is a myth. Prior to the television age and the interstate highway system, America was very fragmented in ethnic communities.

One of the reasons immigrants intergrated before is because they lost touch with their home countries and their relatives. There was nothing but network TV. Now you can order foreign cable channels and there’s the Internet. Remember when you could not even call your relatives back east because long distance was super expensive? The commoditization of jet travel and telecom changed all that.[/quote]

good observation. we are in uncharted territory as far as how new americans and native born americans view each other with the advances in travel and communications. The new immigrants are very comfortable with their identities and given the choices now available, those who do not like it here will move (back) to where they like it.

For now, I am least worried about my throat being slit when i walk the immigrant infested doyle community park. My biggest fear is with mostly native borns who refuse to “follow the law” and do not properly leash their badly trained dogs.
Don’t these people understand that this a country of laws? 🙂

[dumbrenter]

Note: this post has nothing to do with the murder in london.

You guys are seeing this all wrong.
It is not the state policy (welfare or not) or multiculturalism.
It is simply about how people are taught values and how they perceive the world.

An average American is a friendly, outgoing fellow who will do business with you if there is good business to be done with you. your national origin means nothing here. The fact that you dress differently or have a thick accent is not really a bar once it comes to doing business. Folks open up about politics in person only when they feel comfortable with you. There is no expectation to integrate and conform. You have the option of being economically productive (and rich) while not needing to conform.

An average european or australian or japanese is very tribal. He wants to classify you and fit you into his preconceived notions. While his state may be immigration friendly, he definitely is not. His view of the world is pretty racist (as in race based), he is taught to conform from his childhood and he expects the same later. He will be dying to know your national origin and background much more than wanting to do business with you. More than business value, how you look & act is more important though it hurts his own interests. His society has gone thru a lot of churn to make sure there is homogeneity in his lands, so he is simply not setup to accept you in his society. Get to know him, make him comfortable, and out come the racist views on some other ethnicity.

My point is: while european states look very immigration friendly, the european people are simply not willing to accept immigrants. The same does not hold in the United States. And this is a key difference.

My source: personal experience as somebody who does not look either european or american. Obviously highly subjective, but more accurate than what you hear the talking heads on tv or the politicians say.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]FIH: No, the government has no business nosing into any of our business. I am adamantly opposed to the National Security State, and all of its attendant functions.

The various legislative components, including the Patriot Acts, AUMF, NDAA, continue to erode our rights and liberties and we need to roll them back and reclaim our rights.[/quote]

Amen.

Now, how do we go about getting this done? Is it even possible?[/quote]

Step 1: Never ever, I mean ever vote for the representative/senator that voted for or extended the Patriot act. If enough folks do that, the message will be delivered. I don’t care about the party or political ideology, but a vote for the fellow who did his part in extending that act is a vote for evil.
Step 2: Complain loudly about these laws, if you can get five of your family/friends to make this a single point of issue for voting, you have done an awesome job. Learn from Obama campaign on how they used technology and statistics in their favor. Classic grassroots democracy. You can do the same too.
Step 3: Start with a default NO on all new laws when you vote unless you really feel a YES is in your interests. Make your rights (of freedom, privacy, property, bear arms) the foundation of all your voting decisions. Things like abortion, unions, foreign stuff, economy can come later after the core issues are satisfied. I am anti-union, but I will vote for a person who satisfies the rights criteria even if he is pro-union. Unfortunately, most people vote emotionally and give away their rights in return.

Wonder at what point will Americans figure out that these draconian laws are not made for some arab terrorist boys who families are related to our political establishment anyway. These laws are meant for you and you voted for them yourself. The politicians have used your tribalism (we’ll get those foreign terrorists with these laws), your insecurity (these laws will keep you safe) and your laziness (you don’t need those guns when we are here to protect & serve).

[dumbrenter]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dumbrenter: Wow. Great post and you nailed it. It’s also cool that you can maintain your optimism, and that’s not said sarcastically. In a conversation with an Army buddy, he said it’s the first time in his life that he’s actually worried about the potential future of the US.

I’ll admit that the last 10+ years have been rough, especially when one considers how much our essential rights and liberties have eroded.

And, no, I don’t blame Obama. He’s a symptom of the overall disease. As Lord Acton put it, “Power corrupts; absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.”
[/quote]

So do you want to end the state of perpetuatal war and come back to some normalcy? Or would you rather expand the security state ever more?

The war on terrorism is what allows the government to review every person’s movements for potential threats.

As dumbrenter says, technology allows the governemrnt to run routine data through vast databases looking for exceptions. With Interpol data and border entry and exit passport scans, governments can already easily track passenger movements.

Does our government have any business tracking where we go?[/quote]

My point is that the same technology allows you, the person who has put this government in place to avoid the same tracking methods. It allows you to organize with other folks with same opinion, make it hard for the government to do things they do and allows for coordinated action with others.
That is assuming you can read, are aware of your rights, and have stomach for a fight.
Unfortunately, it is amazing on how much the above qualities are lacking in people I interact with it. If the first two check out, the last does not.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]FIH: You also have companies like Google willingly handing private information over to the government with nary a complaint.

Taken as a whole, we’re seeing an imperial presidency, combined with a National Security State and aided and abetted by a compliant and docile media.

Some, including formerly active Obama sycophants, are starting to wake up to the larger/wider ramifications.

When Ron Fournier at National Journal flips sides, you know something’s up.[/quote]

It is technology that enables the googles and imperial presidencies to do what they want to do. It would not have been possible even as recent as 8 years ago.
At the same time, it is the same technology that folks concerned about their privacy can exploit to protect their privacy.

The State has a tendency to grab more power as techniques to grab more power is made available. On the balance side, a well educated and aware populace can provide a counterweight using the same techniques to assert their rights. It is just that the well-aware populace that is willing to assert their rights is fast becoming a small minority in this one man one vote system where emotions, looks and stupid shit like israel, abortion, gays etc. rule, while bit by bit the rights of life and property are being taken away.

I believe it is just temporary and the balance will eventually be restored. My optimism is based on the inventive capacity of the people who will find any means to communicate in private, and to secure their life & property.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=bearishgurl]WOW, it looks like we have overarching gubment at all levels and/or who have the (dangerous) “power of subpoena” without any arrests already made.

Just, wow.

Now I know why I don’t use the Chrome browser, don’t engage in social networking, opted out of all e-mail lists, set my browsers and shopping lists to “private,” heavily control online “cookies,” opted out of junk snail mail, keep my nos updated on the “Do Not Call” registry and have always had an unlisted phone number.

What happened? Did Fourth Amendment rights fly out the window?

I don’t have any Big Brothers, don’t need any and don’t want any … for good reason.[/quote]

You are doing all the right things but to be very safe from the evil brother, you have to go one step further. If you do not use the internet, there is no way they can track you. no way at all. Then go further and do not use USPS or make telephone calls.

But seriously, the ultimate evil one is ‘you’. You expect to use the google services for free, you want to go shop to get lower prices in exchange for your shopping information and then turn around to complain about it.
How do you think these services come for free? And why don’t you want to pay for it?

[dumbrenter]

[quote=flyer]Interesting analysis, and I’m sure there are pros and cons to both perspectives. I’ll leave that dissertation to the other financial experts on this board.

As someone who is now in their 50’s, I agree that young people should pursue whatever path leads them to complete financial independence at least by the time they are 50. That is the path my wife and I pursued, and it has worked out well. We have encouraged our children to do the same.

IMO, in today’s extremely volatile economy, it would seem to be even more important for young people to plan their finances well, since now, more than ever, employers seem to be replacing older workers with a newer model–unless, of course, you have union protection–and that is an entirely different conversation.

Making a lot of money is not nearly as difficult as sustaining it for the duration of your lifetime. I can’t tell you how many people I have known who “used to be millionaires.”[/quote]

Second that. And very good point about how hard it is to sustain than making the money.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=dumbrenter][quote=SK in CV]Ok, so I just got around to reading the linked article and this part stood out to me:

“I guess the liberal media get annoyed when Senators listen to their constituents and think for themselves, rather than doing the media’s bidding,” Bill Kristol, the editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard, told POLITICO.

The odd thing about this, is that the Senators didn’t listen to their constituents. If they had, the vote would have been a landslide to pass at least some of the background check proposals, which are resoundingly favored across the country.

So the press coverage wasn’t so much partisan as much as it was reflective of listener opinion, including NRA members. Except for the gun lobby NRA members.[/quote]

Does it matter to you that it could be possible that Senators did their homework, actually listened to their constituents and are more accurate than some media sponsored polls?

If the senators listened wrong, they pay for it by losing the election. On the other hand, these media polls are setup by people who want to influence the agenda, the numbers they put out are a means for their agenda, not an end. Why would you want to trust them?[/quote]

Where have I heard that before? The polls are all wrong. Romney is going to win by a landslide.

No, it’s not possible the Senators did their homework, unless by homework, you mean opposing everything that the administration wants or voting the way the NRA tells them to. Some of them (at least 3) stated in public that they supported background checks, but still voted against the background check amendment that was supported by overwhelming majorities in their states. So what exactly is it that these Senators knew and failed to communicate to their constituency?[/quote]

SK, I don’t want to get into a partisan argument. My point is pretty simple:
The Senators have a motivation to get re-elected. If they communicated wrong, they get punished by their states.
The media polls are run by folks whose motivation is unknown at the very least.
If you believe that the senators can get away by voting against something that “overwhelming majorities” support, you essentially are saying we are not living in a democracy.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]Ok, so I just got around to reading the linked article and this part stood out to me:

“I guess the liberal media get annoyed when Senators listen to their constituents and think for themselves, rather than doing the media’s bidding,” Bill Kristol, the editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard, told POLITICO.

The odd thing about this, is that the Senators didn’t listen to their constituents. If they had, the vote would have been a landslide to pass at least some of the background check proposals, which are resoundingly favored across the country.

So the press coverage wasn’t so much partisan as much as it was reflective of listener opinion, including NRA members. Except for the gun lobby NRA members.[/quote]

Does it matter to you that it could be possible that Senators did their homework, actually listened to their constituents and are more accurate than some media sponsored polls?

If the senators listened wrong, they pay for it by losing the election. On the other hand, these media polls are setup by people who want to influence the agenda, the numbers they put out are a means for their agenda, not an end. Why would you want to trust them?

[dumbrenter]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
I cannot help but see the humor in a business owner and capitalist being called a socialist (which I am not) slash a communist (which is a very different thing). And I am fairly certain I worship nothing (except possibly PJ Harvey ).

Also, my business turns a profit and employs several.

How many do you employ?

I don’t know you personally (other than my deep longing for you, you beautiful creature) but I am guessing you are not a business owner.

Most (not all) people who deify the constitution and capitalism and Ayn Rand are worker bees. Often working for gov’t, gov’t contractors, or subsidized industries.

Think about the SAIC engineer with the Ron Paul sticker or the Realtor who holds forth about the gold standard.

Its pretty fucking funny really when you think about it.

But still not as good as your “history” lessons.[/quote]

Classic!
I noticed it too that the Ayn Rand fanboys/fangirls are typically worker bees, the less they understand business, the higher their fanaticism.
The SAIC comment is spot on!

Now, I’ll back away and enjoy the the shit flinging match from the sidelines.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=moneymaker]Perhaps Apple itself is selling stock to invest in production of new iphone5s. Don’t know, but a PE below 9 for Apple screams under valued to me.[/quote]

Question is if you believe AAPL will maintain the same level of earnings going forward? If so, where is it going to come from? How are they going to keep up the margins but still sell phones in Asia for lower prices?
If you can satisfy yourself to answering above, then it is a screaming buy.

[dumbrenter]

Isn’t the volatility defined relative to an index? If the market goes down 10% and your stock does the same, then there is no volatility at all.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=poorgradstudent]I just got pulled over this morning for “speeding” on the side street on my way to work. This is the third time in 2013 our extremely safe street has been targeted by SD Traffic Cops. There were TWO cops present. What a huge waste of taxpayer dollars!

I now officially support cutting San Diego’s Police budget in all forms, since obviously they have huge money to waste. I also am considering changing my position on the pension. My eyes have been opened that at least this PD, under this chief, are wasting Taxpayer dollars. Next time the city comes with their hand out in propositions, I’m voting No. Cut the police first.[/quote]

Interesting…while you are at liberty to change your political preferences based on personal experiences, has it ever occurred to you that the simplest solution is not to speed?
They could post a whole posse of SDPD and it would mean nothing to you since you are not speeding.
I live by a school in carmel valley and navigating stop signs near the school is a pain with obnoxious drivers who would rather kill me & my kid than actually stop at the stop sign. Can you direct some of that SDPD to my ‘hood? I keep asking for more…and if they get more money out of these idiots, even better.

[Author]

Posts