HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » rhett o rick » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

rhett o rick

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Fri Apr 22, 2005, 01:05 PM
Number of posts: 55,981

Journal Archives

The Stock Market is a fool's game. In a good economy it may grow with economic growth but the

big money is made in the fluctuations of the bubbles. Some bubbles are small and some are large. Big money can manipulate the bubbles to their benefit and the loss of the fools that think they might get rich (or even make an honest gain).

The fools believe the propaganda that they are "investing" in the economy or in a company. That is a bald faced lie. If I buy General Motors stock today, the company will not see a dime of that money. They wont use my money to help their company. I am essentially laying my money down as a bet that the price will go up. It is like going to the window at the horse races and saying give me $1,000 on GM. I take my ticket and watch the "race" hoping to cash in with GM in the lead.

Company executives have learned that they can make more money by manipulating their companies stock price and cashing in.
Alan Greenspan, who is so out of touch with reality that he was shocked when he learned that company executives would put their personal gain ahead of the health of their company. Idiot.

The Stock Market is one way to transfer the wealth in retirement funds from the 99.99% into the pockets of the 0.01%.

I think when Obama ran the first time he thought he needed the left's help.

As soon as elected, he jumped toward the right. I think he decided he no longer needed to be concerned with the left as they had no where to go and he concentrated on winning the hearts of the New Democrats (converted Republicans).

The strategy was smart. As I see it, if you convince a non-voter to vote for you, that's worth one vote. In other words if the score was 10 votes to 10 votes and you got a non-voter to vote then the score would be 11 to 10. If you convince an opponents voter to switch that is worth two votes. A 10 to 10 tie would change to 11 to 9. So if you piss off a left voter by nominating Penny Pritzker, for example, you might lose a left voter and gain a middle/right voter. So this would result in a 10 to 9 result. So losing a left voter and gaining a right voter is a smart strategy. In fact, I think statistics show that only about 25% of the pissed off left voters actually refuse to vote, meaning you would only be losing 0.75% of a vote by pissing off the left, leaving you with a 10.75 to 9 margin by wooing the right/center.
Posted by rhett o rick | Sat Nov 9, 2013, 12:34 PM (1 replies)

Here are some links to other NSA posts.

The Guardian: The NSA Files

How The NSA Deploys Malware: An In-Depth Look at the New Revelations

Feinstein’s Phony Excuse for NSA Spying

Attacking 'Tor': How the NSA Targets Users' Online Anonymity...

NSA director admits agency trawls Twitter/Facebook but insists they are NOT building personal files-

NSA stores metadata of millions of web users for up to a year, secret files show

N.S.A. Gathers Data on Social Connections of U.S. Citizens (NYT)

N.S.A. Examines Social Networks of U.S. Citizens (Decision Made In Secret 2010)

Dianne Feinstein Accidentally Confirms That NSA Tapped The Internet Backbone

NSA Employee Spied on Nine Women Without Detection, Internal File Shows...

Sen. Ron Wyden: NSA "repeatedly deceived the American people"

I also dont have patience for bigotry but realize that when these issues

that are very emotional come along, some times in the fervor to rid ourselves of bigots, innocent people get swept away by the mob. These issues are some times used by righteous bullies to attack others that they declare as bigots. I have seen cases where decent posters were falsely bullied out of DU under the justification of righteousness. Just a week ago a poster declared another poster as transphobic and proceeded to call her horrible names. He totally misinterpreted her post, either by accident or intent, and used the justification to say terrible things. His post was hidden but not before it did it's damage.

Your post 104 dont sound like the rationale of an open-minded Democrat. Sounds like a mob call. We have methods of dealing with bigots here and dont need to panic. Instant PPR sounds like something a tyrant would love, not Democrats. And we must never, ever censure a juror for how they vote.

Some times it's obvious who the bigots are and some times it's subjective. We need to avoid the rush to judgement that the conservatives love so much. We must not allow the bullies to ruin DU.

I am glad you posted this. I welcome a discussion of authoritarianism.

So let’s chat about authoritarianism. I recommend the book, “The Authoritarians,” by Bob Altemeyer. I think it important for further discussions re. authoritarianism.

Common definitions of authoritarian include:

“Characteized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.
Of or relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite.”

When Snowden stepped forward to expose possible violations of law and our Constitution he was greeted by those that immediately wanted him arrested and punished. They made it clear that they supported the “authority” of the NSA. They, at that time, derided those (anti-authoritarians) that cried for investigations and further discussion. They disparaged those calling for open-mindedness and skepticism. They did not want further investigations or oversight. So at that time there were two basic points of view.

One point of view wanted to blindly believe that the “authorities” were not violating the law. In fact some actually came out and said, “The NSA is not violating the law.” This is important because this point of view was convinced that the “authorities” were above the need for review. It characterized those calling for investigations and transparency as having “hair on fire” and were racist among other ridiculous labels, seemingly desperate to stifle discussion. This point of view clearly meets the definition of authoritarianism.

The “anti-authoritarian” point of view (as labeled in the OP) believed that the revelations of Snowden indicated that review and more transparency was needed. This is not blindly following authority; in fact this view was skeptical of authority as open-minded people know that authority can be corrupted, especially if operating in secrecy.

The OP states that the anti-authoritarian point of view tried to stifle honest discussion (looks like projection to me). Well, it’s not too late. I would love to have an honest discussion. I would love to see the arguments of those that don’t agree with the anti-authoritarian point of view. I posted an OP that laid out what I thought was the non-anti-authoritarian’s arguments and the non-anti-authoritarians tried to get it locked. I can see that maybe I didn’t make a good case for the non-anti-authoritarians. So please lay out your arguments.

In a Democracy it is the people’s responsibility to be skeptical of authority. Authoritarianism and democracy don’t mix.

Below are the arguments of those that support the NSA over Snowden's revelations*.

There is no spying, Snowden's girl friend is a pole dancer.

There is no spying because Snowden broke the law.

There is no spying because a warrant is required (and we know the NSA wouldn’t try to get around that).

This might reflect badly on Pres Obama, therefore Snowden, Greenwald, Ms. Valerie Plame, and Sen Wyden are racists.

The NSA isnt really looking at the data, only collecting it. And it's only meta-data after all.

Snowden isnt telling us anything we didnt know. (so he should be thrown in prison?)

Gen Clapper didnt really lie, well maybe just a little lie. When he said the NSA wasnt spying he really meant they werent looking thru keyholes. Collecting and analyzing data isn’t really spying. Pres Clinton could have taken a lesson from Gen Clapper on how to lie to Congress and get away with it.

Pres Obama says they arent reading emails. (“they” refers to him and Bo)

Snowden is a traitor because he is giving China and Russia all our secrets but he doesnt have enough to prove the NSA is spying. (I know that sounds confusing but trust me I know I know the truth, I got it from CNN)

The Constitution no longer applies because we have new technologies. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t even mention e-mails.

The NSA says we are reading emails but only of foreign suspects.

Warrants arent necessary for meta data, phone logs, Google searches, library reading lists, or anything else so deemed.

We need the spying to assure our safety. Dog bless Generals Clapper and Alexander.

The NSA says we are reading emails but only of foreign suspects and those in America they correspond with.

The NSA doesn’t do anything w/o a warrant. And the warrant they have authorizes spying on everything, anytime, on anyone. (At least it’s legal)

The President says that America needs the discussion that Snowden brings to daylight. (not sure he actually mentioned Snowden by name) He added that "we" still arent spying on Americans. (not sure who he included with his “we”, maybe he and Bo again)

The $100 billions we pay to Booz-Allen is worth the secret "something" that might make us safer.

The NSA says they are reading emails but only of foreign suspects, those they correspond with and those they correspond with. Sorry, lost track of how many "bumps" the NSA has admitted to spying on but I think it’s like 100 million persons and 20 million dogs.

The President says we are lucky to live in America where we can freely speak of possible Constitutional violations by our government. And he would gladly demonstrate such if he could only get his hands on Snowden. There is no greater reward than a lifetime of solitary confinement.

The President says “they” (he, Gen Clapper, Gen Alexander, and Gen [redacted]) will investigate and take the proper actions in secret, of course. And when it’s all over, he will be able to assure us that “they” aren’t spying on us. (can you spell déjà vu?)

Did I mention Snowden dated a girl that was a pole dancer.

* Subject changed as advised.

The court hasnt had a chance to rule on what Booz-Allen is doing today. We arent even sure.

We need to find out. Or I guess we could pretend it's ok and concentrate on Snowden.

I dont care about whether the OP is facts or not, because it has nothing to do with the major issue that the Republicans want to hide and Democrats want to investigate.

I dont care if it's a fact that Snowden wears boxers and not briefs. His character has absolutely nothing to do with what we need to be doing now.

Who is collecting personal data on Americans?

How much data is being collected?

What are the sources of the data?

Is all of the data being compiled and analyzed?

Who has access to the data?

Is the FISA court providing honest oversight?

Is Congress providing meaningful oversight?

These are a few of the questions we should be discussing, not what kind of a person Snowden is.

Maybe I miss it, but seems to me that one of the big elephants in the room is Booz-Allen.

Why arent we looking closer at them. It appears that one of their lower level employees had access and stole a very large amount of data. Why did he have unrestricted access? Why has his supervisor not been questioned? Just what is the relationship between Booz-Allen and those that are in charge of our intelligence agencies? Who owns Booz-Allen? Do they do business with foreign governments? Do they store data or just have access?

The American Dream – Used to be an average American family wanted

a 40 hour per week job for the bread winner with two weeks vacation, a couple of kids, a modest house to own in 20 years, money for the kid’s college, and a modest retirement allotment.

That dream started to die in the 1970’s with the rise of the Conservative Conspiracy (please forgive the use of the C-word but it’s true, but that’s another OP).

Today the American dream is to win the lottery and be one of the 1%. One of the beautiful people we are bombarded with every day on Corp-Media.

Lotteries are the most repressive form of taxation. They get their money from those who can least afford it.

The new American dream – If you want to escape poverty, buy a lottery ticket and pray.

But a lot of people are suggesting that we need to take a hard look at this.

And stop fussing about Snowden and Greenwald.







This is clearly no longer based on Snowden's paranoid fears. The list is getting longer and longer.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »