patrick.net

I agree that buying internet service is still a good deal from the cable companies. In today’s world, that’s really all you need. Netflix offers plenty of content to watch. And a cornucopia of sports and other programs can be reliably streamed from a Hulu subscription.
$100 for all that, and it’s far more than we ever used to get from cable at $150-200/month.

Hircus says

WineHorror1 says

Sorry to disappoint you but Tesla will not be allowed to fail. Book it.

Who do you think would save it?

It would be almost pocket change for a Google, Apple or Amazon. I believe Apple already made an offer a few years ago. This is a pretty balanced analysis on the current situation IMO.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/tesla-is-dying-and-this-is-how-it-will-end/

I am not a Musk fanboy, but always amazed at the Tesla/Musk haters.

When was the last time a new American car company came along? Saturn? How did those work out despite heavy GM involvement?

You all prefer to buy Korean, Japanese and German cars who have had at least a half century head start building up the infrastructure required to mass produce cars?

Huffington Post fails to realize that a lot of people in Georgia would love for all those CA liberals to move back to CA.

Netflix doesn't want Georgia to stop aborting black babies.

HeadSet says

Next step, eliminate these student loans completely. Watch college become affordable again.

I don't think student loans should be stopped. They truly are a lifeline for many people to make it into a good career. It's really hard to fully support yourself via working while going to college, and the loans help people who don't have parents financially capable of supporting them. It's a great way to help people help themselves....it's not even a handout - it's a loan.

I do think the loans should be changed. We need to stop, or greatly reduce, how much money we loan to people who study for majors unlikely to lead to financial success, like gender studies or art history etc...


1) I think loans should require students to complete a course + test that makes them realize how likely it is for them to succeed / fail in various majors & professions. They need to see what life is like w/ a student loan debt burden over them. They need to see that reality, and be told that they aren't special snowflakes. If the salary range for their planned job as a Gender Studies major is $20-$80k per yr, they need to understand they are not special like their parents told them, and they almost certainly will not be making the $80k part of that range.
2) I think loan funding should be increased for majors likely to lead to a good salary, like STEM.
3) I think the private sector could be used well here, so that the govt doesn't need to worry about the politics of deciding which majors get more/less funding. The govt can supply the bulk of the loan money. The private sector could get involved in the loans, and help determine how much gets allocated to each major (and, what the max loan for ppl in each major is capped at), and what the interest rates are. The idea being, if maybe investors could put up part of the money for the loans, so that they have skin in the game, they would be incentivized to efficiently and accurately determine rates and allocation. That way, money is still available for an art degree, but not as much, and not at very favorable rates. Students will see the high rates for art major loans, and it will teach them how little faith investors have in that major. OTOH, STEM majors would probably get rock bottom rates, and large funding, helping funnel students into careers that the job market currently needs, as determined by the markets.


Right now, we have way too many ppl who take loans just so they can party for 4 yrs. They take an ez major and "hope for the best", but later complain about their financial predicament. They game the system. Free market driven loans would stop that junk quickly. We would still have gender studies and art majors, but people would see it for what it is - luxury topics that you study for the hell of it, not a practical job.

Netflix is posturing, because logically again their business isn't about abortions. But if they want to tell others what to do, that means others will turn around and tell CA what to do. They'd flip the lid if Georgia said they'll stop trade with CA until CA stops murdering babies.

Netflix is done. Hulu is going to obliterate them after the Disney deal. Now they want to alienate half their userbase?

This is the problem with letting stupid ass libtards on your board. Get woke, go broke.

Goran_K says

Netflix is done. Hulu is going to obliterate them after the Disney deal. Now they want to alienate half their userbase?

This is the problem with letting stupid ass libtards on your board. Get woke, go broke.

This shit pisses me off, because I own stocks. And I don't want businesses getting involved into social political issues like that. That alienates customers, that leads to bad outcomes. Literally, just fucking stupid no business sense. Started with a great idea, were smart, built a business. But once they get into politics, it's a fucking nose dive. I guess it happens when they live in the Bay Area where there is a bubble of left wing propaganda in the air, to a point where they don't realize there are other ways to live that is not like SF.

I assume Netflix will stop offering their streaming services in Georgia's now as well, heh? Hypocrisy much?

Mueller reiterates that they did not determine Trump committed a crime. But, then he spends much time explaining how it would be unconstitutional to charge the president w/ a federal crime while in office.

I feel like he's implying that they wanted to charge him, but couldn't. But, what's with the "did not determine Trump committed a crime" part then? Doesn't he need to determine there was a crime before he can charge someone with it, or do I not understand something here?

Let me be clear:
No President is going to be charged by Congress with a questionable process crime and have it stick.
Whether the Democrats will attempt policital theater is another matter. AG Barr and his deputy AG Rosenstein have already determined that Trump’s actions do not constitute criminal obstruction. It really matters not what Mueller thinks, or if he thinks Trump is “cleared.”

I understand there’s no evidence to exonerate the OP of being a goat fucker.
Therefore he’s probably one.
Right?

I don't think student loans should be stopped. They truly are a lifeline for many people to make it into a good career.

Without the loans, the colleges would have to make courses inexpensive enough for students to afford. Schools could use endowments to keep tuition low rather than build grand halls and other monuments to the Chancellor. Colleges would also be forced to cut costs in ways like making English classes available on-line, with well produced interactive learning videos, and tests proctored centrally. With lower costs, companies could afford to "sponsor." That is, if a firm like Apple needs engineers, it could pay a student's tuition with a 4 year commitment to work for Apple. Middle class families could afford to save for a kid's college. When the kid is born, the parents can start paying into a plan to cover the costs. Much easier to do if the college cost $40k instead of $120k. Also much easier for one working their way through school.

All the college loans did was run up the costs, indebt students, and promote worthless majors.

So a Trump hater makes up some new shit about Trump and that’s news?
Sad!

Could Mueller have said the words "We determined Trump committed a crime" while still respecting the policy to not actually CHARGE him with a crime?

It's really hard to fully support yourself via working while going to college

Hard, but this used to be common place. Like the "Order of the White Jacket" alumni club for the College of William and Mary. A group proud of working as waiters to pay for college.

Free market driven loans would stop that junk quickly

Perhaps we agree here. I am against the government backed loans of any kind.

There is no where in muellers speech where he said those words...

Hircus says

Could Mueller have said the words "We determined Trump committed a crime"

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

It's exactly what he did.

@patrick

Iomo2 is another bot. Not even a new rant.

2/3 of students use Adderall. ARREST ALL OF THEM!

Funny, Mueller did not recommend or even put forth that impeachment proceedings should be implemented. That is the bottom line. That is what he was hired to determine.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Hey, he took my line about Dahmer's culinary arts show!

Shameless plagiarism of AF copyrighted material.
If he mentions wedding dresses or Putin prolapses, it's litigation

I hear that LibbyFuck universities are now offering Creative Fake News Trump Bashing courses, but the content must be original. It is preferable and gets extra credit if it is false but completely convincing.

So the federal government produces no goods or services since it all comes from taxes. Without taxes they would cease to exist. Knowing that, you'd have to be a fucking moron to believe anything ANY politician(Trump, Obama, etc) ever says about taxes. That's like asking a banker how his predatory loans work...

@HeadSet : Now I've nuked that one too, thanks. IP address also from LA like the last one.

As they already take photographs and fingerprints. What’s the difference?

What's with the all caps?

They can't compel a private citizen to testify before Congress and perjury themselves. Makes sense.

At the San Ysidro border, DHS has setup booths on the US side to stop people crossing INTO Mexico. They are creating a giant jail.

Mueller did not recommend impeachment proceedings. That is the bottom line.

Tim Aurora says

Insufficient evidence, of course, is not a lack of evidence. Again, this distinction exists within the report, but it’s not how Trump or Barr presented Mueller’s findings.

In America, where we are allowed the presumption of innocence - a prosecutor can't go out and say he thinks his subject is kind of guilty and then decline to indict for lack of evidence. All it does is smear a person and not give them an opportunity in court to clear their name.

This is Banana Republic stuff.

Tenpoundbass says

They can't compel a private citizen to testify before Congress and perjury themselves. Makes sense.

Bingo!

Elections will continue to be influenced by Russia in particular much more strongly going forward with reemergence of operations observed already

Such as the phony Dossier? Clinton colluded with Steele and Russia to produce it.

Let's promote having a flat-rate tax without exemptions. Then we'll see the working-poor and the super-rich squeal.

tovarichpeter says

As they already take photographs and fingerprints. What’s the difference?

Allowing DNA of the non-convicted to be entered into a database is getting close to having a DNA database of the entire population. Seems like a 4th Amendment violation.

With fingerprints, the matching system is direct-match only. (i.e.: does this fingerprint at crime scene match a specific person on file).

If you have a large enough DNA database, you can work out strong correlations to other relatives who are not in the system. (i.e.: a DNA sample from a crime scene could be used to prosecute persecute any and all relatives) Further, this correlation can be completely handled by a computer. A computer can automatically spit out information about a crime-scene DNA sample: "DNA looks to be 2nd generation removed from so-and-so and 3rd generation removed from this other known sample; looking at hospital birth records, here are your 3 automatic suspects..."

jazz_music says

forcing South Korean concessions on steel in exchange for fewer restrictions on U.S. car exports to Korea (cars that South Koreans do not want to buy)

Complete Lie.

South Korea was practicing "Non-Tariff Trade Barriers". After GM/Ford cars were loaded onto RO/ROs, South Korean lawmakers would change the safety regulations for cars, making them unsellable after offloading in Pusan. US Makers were either forced to reload the vehicles or have them modified to meet the surprise new standards by Korean Automakers - which made them less competitive after these costs were added.

It's also a lie because KIA models were often Ford Designs, right up to the Autobody. KIA was partially owned by Ford.

jazz_music says

Overall, the number of South Koreans who trust Trump shot up 17 percent in 2018 following his decision to engage in diplomacy with Kim Jong Un.

Hehehehe. B-B-B-But, it could change.

Just goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished.

Over 30,000 Americans died protecting the South Korean ingrates from Stalinist Communist hell in the North. Then we spent another half century putting our troops in harms way as a buffer to keep them free so the South Koreans could finally get their shit straight and become and economic powerhouse they are now.

socal2 says

Just goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished.

Over 30,000 Americans died protecting the South Korean ingrates from Stalinist Communist hell in the North. Then we spent another half century putting our troops in harms way as a buffer to keep them free so the South Koreans could finally get their shit straight and become and economic powerhouse they are now.

Why would they want Kim's dick up their asses? The article makes no sense.

Mueller has botched up big cases like this before. He literally used the same stupid line on a man suspected of sending the 2001 anthrax letters, who turned out to be innocent, but Mueller “couldn’t clear him.”
Here is an excerpt from the RealClearPolitics article about it:
“In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium. (Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters – including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI). So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d “alerted” on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

You’d think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who’d been convicted -- and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who’d tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution’s dog handler “as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen.”

Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell – the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was “absolutely certain” they weren’t making a mistake.

Such certitude seems to be Comey’s default position in his professional life. Mueller didn’t exactly distinguish himself with contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill – and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement – Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case’s resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. “I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,” he said, adding that it would be erroneous “to say there were mistakes.”

OccasionalCortex says

What a bunch of crap.

Technially, Netflix does not film/produce its own stuff. Independent studios do and sell them to Netflix just like the networks have done for some time. In fact, that idiot being quoted saying 'we have women working in Georgia' could get the company in trouble by the Feds as he just said that they were employees of the company when in fact they are not. Think of the back FICA taxes Netflix will owe by admitting as such.

Georgia should also threaten to pass a law slamming a $5 surtax on Netflix monthly subscriptions of Georgians unless there is an immediate retraction and public apology for being Pro-Baby Murder.

Netflix only exists because they are skating free on the backbone that companies like cisco and juniper built and they are clogging the web with their "content". If they had to pay their fair share they would be out of business soon but instead they have the gall to "warn" states. Muh net neutrality is only supported by them so they can avoid paying extra for clogging the tubes.

If they don’t want to sell in Georgia it’s a great way to start that going. Fucking stupid.

I wonder if they live in a cloud and think everyone is just begging them to come there and grace them with their presence. Reminds me of MySpace and China story where Murdoch has to go wear knee pads to get MySpace unbanned in China after one of those remarks.

Foreign powers interfere in each others' elections. Like, DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Yeah, I pay the legal whores big bucks to hear that.

I'm glad the United States has never done that.