Wrath of Dagon

Actually I do have a daughter, but when we're going to hell in a hand basket it's strikes me as ludicrous to think about who makes the best role model to take us there, not that teens pay any attention to whoever's the chair of the Fed, it's doubtful they even know the Fed exists. And if she's not going to print money (and I don't know from what you draw that conclusion, since that's exactly what the Fed has been doing, and she's reported to be a big fan of QE), how exactly is she going to create jobs in her role at the Fed?

But aren't a lot of the radicals preachers actually non-citizens? For citizens there's always sending money to terrorist groups and conspiracy, or whatever the British equivalent is.

I hear deportation works wonders. The poor dears may be mistreated in their own countries though.

I don't buy it. Jim Rickards makes some very good points about the Fed, but I just don't see Yellen being different than Bernanke at all. In fact she has a better economics background than him. The idea that she will just flip on the printing presses full time has little evidence to support it. She is a very shrewd economist, she is a women and she predicted the housing crisis back in 2007. She is an excellent choice for the job http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/02/yellen-federal-reserve/2636541/ http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/janet-yellen-chair-federal-reserve-woman-summers Bernanke is said to be concerned about the risks of the unconventional, unproven monetary policy they've been pursuing. Yellen according to all reports is full steam ahead on the printing presses. And may be she did predict the housing crisis, she (or anyone else) did squat about it. I predicted the housing crisis in early 2000's, way before 2007, the difference is I wasn't in a position to do anything about it, she was. Edit: Btw, here I have to comment on the idiocy of considering someone's gender when selecting someone for the most important position in government.

May be because your government looks the other way while they recruit and operate freely (not that ours is any better).

I'm quite concerned about the appointment of Yellen as the Fed chair. At least Bernanke had some qualms about helicopter money.

Yeah, as Kgambit pointed out, this is total bull, done by comparing the year of the financial crisis (2008) which included TARP and everything else to the more normal spending patterns of later years. The actual slow down in the rate of growth in the last couple of years is attributable solely to the sequester, the first real cuts in decades, that the Democrats love so much. I thought the Vitter amendment was to the current CR, and the original one was by Grassly, but I may be confused here. Also there is a legal question, the ACA did not authorize a subsidy for the premiums, Obama implemented that by executive order.

Plenty of money to pay the interest, but the rest of government would have to be cut by something like 25%, more than the entire defense spending! They could cut Social Security and Medicare payments by 50%, then a zombie-like horde of old people would descend on Washington and eat Congress alive, which would be pretty cool I guess. And the Republican demands are really a joke, they want to stop subsidizing Congressional health insurance premiums, which probably isn't even worth 1 point of the stock market, and they want to repeal the medical device tax, which would only add to the deficit. And over trivial crap like that they want to wreck the entire economy and national security! So yeah, Republicans have finally completely flipped out and really are a bunch of crazed deluded yahoos just like the Democrats were claiming all along.

The best argument against democracy is to talk to the average voter for 5 minutes.

History of the twentieth century says otherwise. These "people" are just particularly bestial, but so were the nazis.

Real life light sabers : http://gizmodo.com/scientists-created-a-new-form-of-matter-and-its-like-a-1387420181/1391676580/@jesusdiaz

Apparently some fairly unsuccessful plastic surgery he's had.

Obama is a rank amateur. It just takes a little longer for some people to realize it than others (kind of like that Mass Effect series was horrible). That's what you get for electing a guy whose only real experience was "community organizing" (and voting "present", which is what he's still doing).

If we give up on the Middle East, what would happen to the Hobbits?

The common denominator here is the idiocy of the Obama administration. Still, he's not as much of an idiot as John McCain.

Check out these screens from CMBN : Market Garden - http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=325&Itemid=560

In Syria we have extremists on both sides. On Assad's side we have Iran and Hezbollah, on the rebel side we have MB and Al Qaeda (MB is indigenous btw, and if you think there's an iota of difference between them and AQ, you only have to consider that AQ leader Zawahiri's brother was just arrested fighting for the MB in Egypt). So there are no good options, it's kind of like The Witcher.

I wrote my rep once about insane people not being placed on the FBI gun check list, and all I got back was a bunch of platitudes and a pretty clear indication he wasn't going to do anything. Since then we had Virginia Tech and a bunch of other mass shootings. Politicians don't try to solve problems, they only try to give the impression they're solving problems. And yes, we're just a bunch of bleating sheep, at least people in other countries will go out and riot once in a while.

It's you who's confused, I already explained that to keep them out would be discrimination under this law, just like if you told black girls they could use the facilities but not while white girls were there. But I think at this point we're just talking past each other.

The question I have is why The Guardian, an anti-American Marxist rag, would pay the travel expenses of their reporter's boyfriend (who doesn't work for them) to travel to Germany.

I'm in favor of a universal gun check, but the argument against it is that it's ineffective. The criminals will just buy the guns illegally, and the mentally ill are not being reported. Still, it would help in a few cases.

What news sources, I'm reading the law you yourself posted, the comments from the schools really don't address anything specific, so no way to tell if they're lying or not. For example, are they allowing boys into girls locker rooms and showers or not? No way to tell from those statements.

They couldn't have been "implementing" the law because the law is only a few days old. Just because you believe the law should produce certain results, does not mean that is what's legally required. A law is not a suggestion, it takes away rights from some and gives them to others. In a few months you should be able to see what the actual "implementation" looks like. The do-gooder Western liberal, who will not rest until the world as we know it is wiped out. I blame lobbying. With enough money and resources you can convince the public of anything. A Gallup survey (I believe on a 20000 strong sample) found that Americans believe that over 30% of their countrymen are gay (actual numbers go from 1% to 3.6%). Its beyond incredible. Strong media presence managed to convince people of something that can be refuted by simple observation made by a person of less than average intelligence. A public so overwhelmingly easy to convince of anything, will, eventually, support anything. Yes, it was an all out push, politically, in the news media, and most importantly in the entertainment media.

I think you're wrong in the way you're interpreting the law. What you're describing was possible before the law, now if you try that they can claim discrimination, since they're being segregated from the gender they claim to be. Also if the law means the facility has to be empty, then it really wouldn't matter which facility they were using, so why have the law in the first place? The do-gooder Western liberal, who will not rest until the world as we know it is wiped out.

Fine, since you're such an expert, are you denying that the new law allows any boy who claims he feels like a girl to use the girl's locker room? Most of my knowledge comes from the education side, since that is my background. I am no expert on the medical side. But to answer your question directly: no, it allows a transgender student to use the locker room of the gender they identify with. It reads as follows: Now that sounds rather vague, and it is easy to understand why some people might think that means boys will be jumping in the showers with girls on a regular basis. But there are a couple of reasons that will not happen. 1. Becoming a legitimate transgender student is a difficult process. This isn't Bosom Buddies, these kids go through years of counselling and, as I said, my wife who has been teaching for a decade has only had 3 students who actually meet this definition. The law doesn't say anything about "legitimate transgender" whatever that means, it says "consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records", so whatever you say your identity is, that's what it is, there's no requirement to have a finding from an external arbiter. Yes it does, it allows them to use the same facilities, it says nothing about finding other accommodations or leave any discretion to the school, they now have the absolute right under the law to use either gender's facilities.