RealGM

Continued from here

nate33 wrote:Continued from here

Huh. I’m confused. Who does create jobs then?

…. “Don’t let anybody tell you that its corporations and businesses that create jobs.” …..
Hillary Clinton

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/10/ ... eate-jobs/

popper wrote:

nate33 wrote:Continued from here

Huh. I’m confused. Who does create jobs then?

…. “Don’t let anybody tell you that its corporations and businesses that create jobs.” …..
Hillary Clinton

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/10/ ... eate-jobs/

I am less concerned that she said it than if she believes it. I think that Obama truly believes it - I think Hillary/Bill are smart enough to know it isn't true. At least, I very much hope that is the case.

Don't be so sure DCK, remember Al Gore "invented the Internet". Then when pressed went on to claim policies he championed "helped to create it".

Really odd way of looking at things. He also invented an entire industry and multiple businesses around global warming, wonder if that had the same effect on the mammoth "climate change" industry in his mind.

Huh. Well it's not the government, that's for damn sure.

"Job creation" is an economically meaningless term anyway. What we really mean is "high paying jobs."

There will always be exactly as many jobs as people who are willing to work. Job creation is a complete fantasy.

Induveca wrote:Don't be so sure DCK, remember Al Gore "invented the Internet". Then when pressed went on to claim policies he championed "helped to create it".

Really odd way of looking at things. He also invented an entire industry and multiple businesses around global warming, wonder if that had the same effect on the mammoth "climate change" industry in his mind.

I didn't vote for Al Gore. He was a horrible candidate.

Still, I am among those people who think that the "invented the internet" label amounts to a lie. Here, from the transcript of the interview with Wolf Blitzer, is the quote that started it all:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ ... ript.gore/

Maybe not perfectly worded, and maybe taking undue credit regarding the internet initiative, but I don't see him claiming to have invented the internet. I like sticking to facts where possible.

I hear you but it was an ignorant comment.

The Internet was created in the late 60s/early 70s. Gore had zero to do with it....

Induveca wrote:I hear you but it was an ignorant comment.

The Internet was created in the late 60s/early 70s. Gore had zero to do with it….

His ignorance and poor communication skills contributed to his loss, but as a congressman in the 1970s he was a promoter of government investment in and greater accessibility to the internet, and while the internet was started in the 60s/70s, it certainly developed quite a bit beyond the model I encountered in 1975 in math lab. Gore seems in that quote to be trying to take credit for some of that development (distinct from invention).

Just as government investment in computer systems in the 1950s greatly contributed to their development, so government investment in other information technologies have contributed to their development. They are a big customer, with frequently very unique needs requiring large scale innovation, and they have a huge budget to pay for it (apparently they can just print money).

Article in St. Louis dispatch claiming autopsy report confirms Wilson's version of events was a complete fabrication:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/2 ... s-It-Does#

popper wrote:Virgin Gives Birth, Scientifically Confirmed


http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/27/giant ... gin-birth/

No room in the Inn for "Thelma", apparently.

popper wrote:Virgin Gives Birth, Scientifically Confirmed


http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/27/giant ... gin-birth/

Leathery, constantly peeling skin. Sexy. Can't believe she can't get any.

Zonkerbl wrote:Article in St. Louis dispatch claiming autopsy report confirms Wilson's version of events was a complete fabrication:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/2 ... s-It-Does#

First there was the "leaked" the store video (must have been a one-man crime wave). Then there was the "leaked" stories from witnesses who corroborated Wilson's version (all apparently friends or colleagues repeating Wilson's version). Then was "leaked" positive test for marijuana (obviously Brown was a stoned killer). I can't remember a comparable case that had so much "leaked" through official channels.

^They're trying to manage expectations and the inevitable reaction if there will not be an indictment.

Benjammin wrote:^They're trying to manage expectations and the inevitable reaction if there will not be an indictment.

Yes, they leaked that rationalization as well. Manipulating the information flow and the emotional responses, and tacitly admitting to it. Brilliant, in a really not so brilliant way. Maybe the original shooting was stage managed as well. SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

See, this is how conspiracies look in real life - poorly managed and transparent.

But just because there have been managed leaks does not mean ultimately they are untrue.

How many blatant lies do you have to see before you are convinced that Wilson's defenders are lying?

1) The leak that Wilson had a broken jaw? Absolutely untrue.

2) Wilson is now saying that he knew Brown had robbed the store earlier. Lie.

3) Autopsy report confirms Brown was reaching for Wilson's gun. Lie.

Zonkerbl wrote:How many blatant lies do you have to see before you are convinced that Wilson's defenders are lying?

1) The leak that Wilson had a broken jaw? Absolutely untrue.

2) Wilson is now saying that he knew Brown had robbed the store earlier. Lie.

3) Autopsy report confirms Brown was reaching for Wilson's gun. Lie.

Zonk you should lend your palantir to the MO court system! It would surely save them so much time.

If the kid hadn't roughed up a store owner and robbed a store for marijuana rolling cigars a few minutes before, I'd likely care much more.

As it is, these shootings happens about 400 times a year in the US. A problem that needs to be addressed on a much larger level than the media cashing in on viewership by micro-analyzing a specific case about an unfortunate/avoidable death of a violent, reckless young adult.

Induveca wrote:

Zonkerbl wrote:How many blatant lies do you have to see before you are convinced that Wilson's defenders are lying?

1) The leak that Wilson had a broken jaw? Absolutely untrue.

2) Wilson is now saying that he knew Brown had robbed the store earlier. Lie.

3) Autopsy report confirms Brown was reaching for Wilson's gun. Lie.

Zonk you should lend your palantir to the MO court system! It would surely save them so much time.

If the kid hadn't roughed up a store owner and robbed a store for marijuana rolling cigars a few minutes before, I'd likely care much more.

As it is, these shootings happens about 400 times a year in the US. A problem that needs to be addressed on a much larger level than the media cashing in on viewership by micro-analyzing a specific case about an unfortunate/avoidable death of a violent, reckless young adult.

What do you mean palantir? Are you saying I'm guessing? Which one of these is baseless speculation?

Facts are annoying things. You can spin them all you want but they remain facts.

Yes, this is one of those mini-battles that will determine the outcome of thousands and thousands and thousands of other interactions with the police.

There are several other police interactions under public discussion right now that are similar, and the associated police departments are similarly whitewashing what happened.

What we have uncovered this year is that police departments have been executing young black men with impunity and thought they were going to get away with it forever. Ever since Rodney King cops know that it is impossible to be punished for killing a young black man. All you have to do is invoke a few key racist cue words - "marijuana in the bloodstream," "violent thug," and "young black man" and you can basically murder anyone with impunity.

Is this acceptable? Are we going to let them get away with it? Should the police motto be changed to "We serve and protect... white people"?