One thing that is often talked about regarding "the most powerful people" is their ethnicity. For instance, a big deal was made regarding President Obama being the first (half-)black president.
So it's only fair that we do the same for the second most powerful person in the world.
Let's start around 1970 since there was a pivotal shift in the US around that time (starting in 1967 - read The Culture of Critique for more information).
1970-1978 - Arthur F Burns - Jewish
1978-1979 - George William Miller - WASP (note: that's when Carter was president; this tenure lasted only one year)
1979-1987 - Paul Volcker - Jewish
1987-2006 - Alan Greenspan - Jewish
2006-2014 - Ben Bernanke - Jewish
2014-20?? - Janet Yellen - Jewish
Considering Jewish people are around 2% of the US population this is a staggering coincidence, is it not? Can someone calculate the odds of this happening? I'm not that good with probability.
Yes, and if the police won't actively police every square foot where there are people, they could at least let citizens do so through concealed carry of a weapon.
And yet, somehow, there's a large group of people that is always for people meddling in other people's business by telling on them (including calling the police when they see a citizen legally open-carrying!).
It must be because laissez faire is not easy to spell.
They do it without asking (the Federal Reserve Act was passed Christmas Eve 1913 - around the same time the IRS came into being, what a coincidence) and most people do not understand the harm in it (even here on HN).
CP will only be remotely a good excuse to not do something once we have made spanking children illegal and punishable as assault. It's unbelievable the assault laws discriminate by age and don't protect the weakest. Spanking occurs MUCH more often than CP (there's no comparison) and the damages are enormous and long-lasting (including a lower IQ). So if you care about kids, help spread the word and hopefully more people will come to their senses and understand that assault should not be legal just because the victim is underage.
JoeAltmaier you are breaching the negativity rules.
You're just being negative here by willfully ignoring that said doctor is giving the drug away for free, which is not the usual modus operandi of quack doctors.
> run by private companies that sell their services to the government
If a company's sole paying client is the government (i.e. the public at large through government coercion) then that isn't a private company.
A private company is one where if all the potential voluntary clients give up on, it goes under.
Is a spy a (foreign) private company since it also sells its services to the government? Is a saboteur a private company? Is a privateer?
This service (keeping prisoners) only exists for one type of client, clients that have a monopoly on force, also known as governments. A private business may indeed sell solely to the government, but it can only be private if the service it offers exists for more than that one type of client. Failing that, such "company" is a Government Agency, whether the government admits and/or makes it official or not.
In days of yore the UK would also call privateers private. Do you see the pattern of governments trying to distance themselves from the evil they're doing by labeling unofficial government agencies "private companies"?
This is not about a person's preference for calling things a certain way. In a proper discussion we have to settle the meaning of words and phrases. And the phrase "private company" in no way encompass the work of government agencies whose product could not be sold to the general public directly.
Sorry DennisP, you're just wrong. "Call it what you want" is not an argument, much less a counter-argument to my arguments. You could have taken the normal route and just said "you're right", but instead you're choosing to keep pushing the "call it whatever" non-argument button. Be a good loser and admit you're wrong, or refute my arguments.
I can also tell you went through all my recent past comments and voted them all down, as I went from 0 to -10 immediately after our interaction. Very childish of you, but not surprising.
How do you hope to solve problems and disagreements if you're not willing to abide by the code of conduct that those who argue seeking to learn follow?
If you believe what Socialist Bernie Sanders thinks is "private" then you'll believe anything.
So whatever the "majority of the population wants" doesn't count, period.
Second of all, if you really believe the US isn't ruled by a secret cabal, like so many US Presidents and other important US politicians have warned us about since before Andrew Jackson, I'm sorry to say but it just makes you come across as ahistorical.
> Actually More permissive & lax gun laws -> More police militarization to preserve the competitive advantage
Are you sure your arrow there means causation?
Explain like I'm five, why do you think the police feels it needs to compete with law-abiding gun-carrying citizens?
I've never heard of this silly idea before, but maybe I'm silly and you have a great argument for that.
If you had said "the more guns in criminals' hands, the more police militarization to preserve advantage" then I'd agree with you but I'd ask to see how you know the number of guns in criminals' hands.
0.001% of law-abiding gun holders are a problem for the police. 100% of criminals are a problem for the police, whether they're carrying guns, knives, or a closed fist.
> I really don't understand why I can't be allowed to speculate/gamble on geopolitical events.
That would get people interested in geopolitical events. At least, more interested than the establishment would like them to be.
There'd be books on geopolitical spread betting, how to become informed, how reading unpopular economics blogs can actually help your understanding, and so on.
Lots of truth would come out if this were allowed. I'm just hypothesizing, feel free to disagree!
> Forensic "science" is definitely horseshit though.
Of course it is! Any adjectivized Science shall be horse shit. There's only one Science, the one individuals can try and reproduce the findings of others.
Forensic Science, also known as "Good enough for the courts' interests".
EDIT: rayiner:
> How are lay judges going to go and make the determination of when a seemingly legitimate "science" is legitimate enough for admissibility in court?
Shouldn't they have thought of that before they created the Courts and named themselves Judges?
How did that happen and no one asked themselves "but what if we're not experts in a scientific specialty and the decision requires knowing that field?"
It's kind of late to ask this question now. Goes to show what a sham this circus really is, that they don't have a method to cope with a daily occurrence.
So it's only fair that we do the same for the second most powerful person in the world.
Let's start around 1970 since there was a pivotal shift in the US around that time (starting in 1967 - read The Culture of Critique for more information).
1970-1978 - Arthur F Burns - Jewish
1978-1979 - George William Miller - WASP (note: that's when Carter was president; this tenure lasted only one year)
1979-1987 - Paul Volcker - Jewish
1987-2006 - Alan Greenspan - Jewish
2006-2014 - Ben Bernanke - Jewish
2014-20?? - Janet Yellen - Jewish
Considering Jewish people are around 2% of the US population this is a staggering coincidence, is it not? Can someone calculate the odds of this happening? I'm not that good with probability.