|
The SEC itself is relatively harsh on businesses and takes itself seriously--at least on the independent auditor level. However, they have the same problem that most government agencies have: they have a limited budget and they know that if they blow their budget on losers republicans wills ain't them as a 'failed agency' and defund them even more. So they're like prosecutors: they care about their win % and only pick fights they know they can win. The revolving door comes into play during the 'we admit no fault, here's some money' settlements *i am not at the SEC but some of my coworkers were there, so anecdotal
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
oh no joe biden run away from the captive bolt pistol!!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Who's the Oompa Loompa in that picture?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Who's the Oompa Loompa in that picture?  e: sorry, you failed the citizenship test and can no longer vote
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Who's the Oompa Loompa in that picture? Ernest Moniz, sec of energy and funny faces during SOTU
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
I know what he can do with that hair if he wants to run energy in NZ.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Not to Meg From Family Guy post, but he's not wrong. Doesn't seem like a valid exception to free speech protections, lovely as that speech is. I'm eager for a Klan group to test this with an ad of their own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm eager for a Klan group to test this with an ad of their own. The klan would blow it up too easily as hate speech. I'd rather see an anti-zionist/anti-Israeli group.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm eager for a Klan group to test this with an ad of their own. AA boycott the bus line. Right wing supports the MTA in droves a la Chic fil A, collects enough cash to get a few more improvements, then pull the ad. Just crazy enough to work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
The ad that prompted the ruling is nakedly hate speech as it is. Just have the Klan quoting some random black gang member about shooting white people, and the content would be identical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
Ted Cruz puff piece fails, shows he has always been an rear end in a top hat and easily rolled by anyone on the other side with some wit or understanding of the rulesquote:Mr. Cruz’s own attempts at humor sometimes missed the mark. In one debate, he proposed a method to detect infidelity, in which God should “give women a hymen that grows back every time she has intercourse with a different guy, because that will be a ‘visible sign’ of the breach of trust,” according to a recollection by David Kennedy published in a Harvard debate team reunion booklet in 2001. Mr. Kennedy’s debate partner mocked Mr. Cruz’s knowledge of the subject matter by contorting herself to see how the anatomy in question could be “visible,” according to the booklet. Murder of union organizers is a-ok under terms of trade deal, says White House. In case you wanted to see how Obama was handing over power to those big bully unions Continuing our discussion of the Iraq war, here is the National Review arguing it is the fault of everyone but Bush and the Republicans, and calls for the 2016 contenders to defend it as such David Frum argues that the ACA will be the core point of the 2016 election, and not in a way that will help the GOP. For all my mountains of criticism on everything else this hack says, he has been remarkably presentient about how re health care debate would turn out for the GOP. If anything I think he understates it, because if the SCOTUS sides with King, FL, NC, and PA will be some of the hardest hit states, and are also key swing states. Ralph Nader wrote Bush and Obama 105 letters, none of which ever got a response. So he is releasing them as a book. Obama, I get. But you would think Bush would show a little gratitude to the guy who made him president. Want to see a love letter from Ted Cruz to George W Bush?. Zoux will be disappointed, it's not that kind of love letter, more just about Cruz's contribution to a 2004 book praising Bush as part of the election. Given what happened since its kind of  Jeb is in favor of more and bigger NSA spying. So the debate between he and Rand will be fun Beanghazi continues I agree with Newt Gingrich, if anything my position is more extreme than his Congress to crack down on drunken Capitol parties
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The ad that prompted the ruling is nakedly hate speech as it is. Just have the Klan quoting some random black gang member about shooting white people, and the content would be identical. OK, well, no reason every weird group can't just do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Hillary's "evolution" on trade and the TPP. Your liberal champion is only for the workers until she gets elected, y'all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
"Additionally, any trade deal would need to pass two tests for Clinton to support it, the campaign said: (1) Protect U.S. workers and raise wages, and (2) strengthen national security." If she believes that the agreement does that then she's for it and there is no contradiction. I suspect that she honestly believes that it does enough considering as secretary of state she likely was involved in its authoring. That is a terrible article: "When running for president in 2007 and 2008, she spoke strongly against potential agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. Her positions on Colombia and South Korea changed, however, when she became secretary of state under President Obama, who ironically ran to Clinton's left in 2008 on trade." In general if I'm against a particular agreement, I will become for it if I'm the one writing the next draft of it hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Not to Meg From Family Guy post, but he's not wrong. Doesn't seem like a valid exception to free speech protections, lovely as that speech is. Since when does freedom of speech imply an obligation to provide a platform? That's dumb and stupid. I mean, if these people can find someone willing to display the ad, or want to display it on property they own, fine. Why should they be allowed to display it on public property if the public or their representatives would find it offensive? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:"Additionally, any trade deal would need to pass two tests for Clinton to support it, the campaign said: (1) Protect U.S. workers and raise wages, and (2) strengthen national security." It's Amergin, he's going to accuse you of moving the goalposts or some kind of mental gymnastics because your post explains a logically sound and consistent thought process which may have guided Clinton's change of mind on the trade deal, rather than nod in approval with a thick "amen, brother" in response. GlyphGryph posted:Since when does freedom of speech imply an obligation to provide a platform? That's dumb and stupid. I mean, if these people can find someone willing to display the ad, or want to display it on property they own, fine. Why should they be allowed to display it on public property if the public or their representatives would find it offensive? Pretty sure it has something to do with it being the MTA and not, say, a fully private entity. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
The MTA is a government entity. It's also not the first time they've lost a case like this and been forced to run offensive ads (not even the first time to Pamela Geller). Last time their solution was to put a disclaimer at the bottom of the ads, that'll probably happen again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Hillary's "evolution" on trade and the TPP. That's actually liberal as hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It's Amergin, he's going to accuse you of moving the goalposts or some kind of mental gymnastics because your post explains a logically sound and consistent thought process which may have guided Clinton's change of mind on the trade deal, rather than nod in approval with a thick "amen, brother" in response. Or the fact that liberals skewered Romney for "changing his mind" on things and didn't bother to listen to logically sound and consistent thought processes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
I'm not trying to talk to amergin with that post but to other democrats that will read that and be disillusioned with Hillary. Assuming Hillary is the democratic candidate she will need good turn out to win and that means no mass disillusionment with democrats. I mean, how ridiculous a paragraph that thing about South Korea is. She's against an unfair trade agreement with South Korea, but then as Secretary of State she negotiated a new deal with South Korea! What the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Or the fact that liberals skewered Romney for "changing his mind" on things and didn't bother to listen to logically sound and consistent thought processes. I'll bite to see you explain why he's pro-choice then pro-life, or the same for marriage, etc. Oh...state's rights. How consistent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Or the fact that liberals skewered Romney for "changing his mind" on things and didn't bother to listen to logically sound and consistent thought processes.  What exactly would those be?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
If someone believed that NAFTA would help American workers or believes that whatever super secret stuff is in the TPP will raise wages or make life better for the average person in this country they are too dumb to be president. On the other hand, if someone thinks that Hillary Clinton would refuse to sign on TPP out of principle they are too dumb to be a voter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I'm not trying to talk to amergin with that post but to other democrats that will read that and be disillusioned with Hillary. Assuming Hillary is the democratic candidate she will need good turn out to win and that means no mass disillusionment with democrats. Clinton in 2012: quote:This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. Campaign Clinton backing away in 2015: quote:"She will be watching closely to see what is being done to crack down on currency manipulation, improve labor rights, protect the environment and health, promote transparency and open new opportunities for our small businesses to export overseas." Let's see how this trade deal creates "free, transparent, fair trade"... Well, for one, it encourages ISPs to enforce copyright rules on you and makes NAFTA's patent laws more stringent.[url] Increased times on patents also means [url="http://www.msfaccess.org/about-us/media-room/press-releases/countries-must-fix-critical-access-medicines-flaws-trans-pacific"]big pharma can make more money for longer but keeping prices high. It also sneaks in SOPA. It will likely further increase job flight from the US and will discourage "buy local" movements. It also includes a ton of financial deregulation - something y'all clamor against all the time. And the cherry on top: the TPP would allow for the creation of tribunals stacked with private lobbyists and legal representatives from corporations to rule in complaints and fines levied against governments by other corporate entities. Not only will we be deregulating the financial industry and likely keeping them afloat during the next round of crises, we'll ALSO be fined further by those companies for being mean and possibly harming their future profits!  So yes Hobbes, Clinton is totally planning on getting elected and changing this plan for the better to totally show she's truly for the workers and not pulling wool over your eyes and using scare mongering arguments in the form of "I may be bad but at least I'm not a REPUBLICAN!!!" EDIT: Oh wait she doesn't need to use those arguments, people here are doing it for her. "But but but SCOTUS!!!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I'm not trying to talk to amergin with that post but to other democrats that will read that and be disillusioned with Hillary. Assuming Hillary is the democratic candidate she will need good turn out to win and that means no mass disillusionment with democrats. Democrats should be disillusioned with Hillary. She has always been a hawkish center-right politician and is not the kind of President we should want or need.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
I was just laughing at him calling Hillary a liberal champion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Democrats should be disillusioned with Hillary. She has always been a hawkish center-right politician and is not the kind of President we should want or need. And yet she is better than the alternatives
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Clinton in 2012: She can't say anything concrete on it because the text of the agreement is not public. Those articles all speculate about the agreement based on what other free trade agreements say. Hell, as an insider for part of the negotiations she probably shouldn't say anything about it until that stage is concluded anyways. Also those courts don't actually appear to do anything, the US has judgements against it for banning internet gambling but literally nothing has happened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:And yet she is better than the alternatives No, there are several primary candidates who would be better presidents than her.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Maarek posted:No, there are several primary candidates who would be better presidents than her. Only if you don't care about race or anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Go on, name some declared candidates who would be better presidents than Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Only if you don't care about race or anything like that. How do you mean?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:She can't say anything concrete on it because the text of the agreement is not public. Those articles all speculate about the agreement based on what other free trade agreements say. Hell, as an insider for part of the negotiations she probably shouldn't say anything about it until that stage is concluded anyways. Also those courts don't actually appear to do anything, the US has judgements against it for banning internet gambling but literally nothing has happened. From this discussion with more info here. LORI WALLACH, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch posted:And the thing is, we’ve got a passel of those kind of agreements already. Folks remember, under NAFTA, we’ve had some horrible cases. Four hundred million dollars has already been paid out to corporations, even under NAFTA, where the system is narrower than what’s proposed for TPP. But there are very few companies from the countries we’ve had the past agreements with, because it’s mainly been developing countries. So there are 9,000 existing companies in all 50 agreements we have with this system. Just with TPP alone, we have another 9,000, mainly companies from Japan, so countries with—companies with sophistication and wherewithal. Plus, if we did the European agreement, we’d quadruple our liability, so that it’s only a matter of time before our laws get sacked. Warning to everyone: Go look at the Sierra Club website. Recent case like this under NAFTA called the Bilcon case, Sierra Club has a great exposé on it. The actual one of the tribunalists, one of the corporate lawyers, steps back and says, "If we keep doing things like this—I have to break with the rest of you. If we keep doing this, this investor-state system is going to chill all our environmental laws." That’s what one of the tribunalists said. EDIT: Also the fact that this trade agreement is secret should be a big red flag. Most of the speculation here is based on leaks of drafts of the agreement via WikiLeaks, not necessarily based on past trade agreements.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Hillary's "evolution" on trade and the TPP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Quote of the morning, "Politics is in my blood, unfortunately. It's something I've seen and I've loved. I'm not sure what I'd do, or what capacity I'd run in, but I'm definitely looking to it." ~ Josh Romney
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:How do you mean? Bernie Sanders Doesn't Care About Black People / 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:How do you mean? At least one of them is explicitly a Southern Democrat with all of the connotations that has and even Bernie Sanders has a "let's talk about anything but race" theme going on in his campaign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Quote of the morning, "Politics is in my blood, unfortunately. It's something I've seen and I've loved. I'm not sure what I'd do, or what capacity I'd run in, but I'm definitely looking to it." ~ Josh Romney  Romney 3.0 This is the liquid metal version, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Or the fact that liberals skewered Romney for "changing his mind" on things and didn't bother to listen to logically sound and consistent thought processes. Please explain the "logically sound and consistent thought processes" on flip flopping from opposing employment discrimination against gays to being ok with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
Its the most wonderful time of the election cycle, where obsessive party partisans try to convince people that a guy who got a 97% rating from the NAACP is a racist and the lady who said 'more white people will vote for me' in 2008 is the champion of people of color everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 16:49
|
|