Rend Pawl Offers Free Eye Exam With Deportation
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Zero Hedge[1] is a batshit insane Austrian economics-based finance blog run by a pseudonymous founder who posts articles under the name "Tyler Durden," after the character from Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk.Non of this matters anymore, were fucked
Sorry to spam the thread but its important.
Still confused? Then read “90% Of Gazprom Clients Have “De-Dollarized”, Will Transact In Euro & Renminbi” for just how Gazprom set the stage for the day it finally would push the button to skip the dollar entirely. Which it just did.
Tyler claims to be a "believer in a sweeping conspiracy that casts the alumni of Goldman Sachs as a powerful cabal at the helm of U.S. policy, with the Treasury and the Federal Reserve colluding to preserve the status quo." While this is not an entirely unreasonable statement of the problem,[2] his solution actually mirrors the anatagonist in Fight Club in that Tyler wants, per Austrian school ideas, to lead a catastrophic market crash in order to destroy banking institutions and bring back "real" free market capitalism.[3]
The site posts nearly indecipherable analyses of multiple seemingly unrelated subjects to point towards a consistent theme of economic collapse any day now, and has accurately predicted 200 of the last 2 recessions. Tyler seems to repeat The Economic Collapse Blog's idea of posting blog articles many times a day and encouraging people to post it as far and wide as humanly possible. Tyler moves away from the format of long lists to write insanely dense volumes[4] filled with (often contradicting) jargon that makes one wonder if the writers even know what the words actually mean.[5] The site first appeared in early 2009, meaning that (given Tyler's habit of taking a shit on each and every positive data point), anyone listening to him from the beginning missed the entire 2009-2013 rally in the equities market.
The only writer conclusively identified is Dan Ivandjiiski, who conducts public interviews on behalf of Zero Hedge.[6] The blog came online several days after he lost his job at Wexford Capital, a Connecticut-based hedge fund (run by a former Goldman trader). And proceeded to choose his pen name from a nihilistic psychotic delusion.
Zero Hedge is not quite the NaturalNews of economics, but not for want of trying.
About the author
Ivandjiiski's history is a little odd, since he moved to the United States from Bulgaria to study at the University of Pennsylvania in order to pursue molecular biology (then go on to med school). Instead he took a job as a junior investment banker at Jefferies & Company in Los Angeles, and continued in finance. It is interesting to note that in 2005, while working for Miller Buckfire, he was barred from working in the broker-dealer business due to insider trading amounting to $780.
Dan denies that he founded the site, but he claims no other profession and to be the primary author of a number of the articles. He claims he writes with a staff of up to 40 other writers that work for Zero Hedge. However, secrecy is paramount in case They find out.
"Creative" journalism is apparently not out of place in the Ivandjiiski family either. His father Krassimir Ivandjiiski runs a cranky tabloid called Bulgaria Confidential; it received brief notoriety in the US after publishing a story about massive drug trafficking and corruption in Montana, picked up by an independent US rag Free Speech Newspaper.[16] There Krassimir and Free Speech claimed that the governor was an alcoholic drug abuser that helped turn his state into one of the pits of drug trafficking in the US.[17] The governor fired off complaints about slander, while many wondered why a state hundreds of miles from any major population center and one small highway[18] could have more drug runners than the West Coast.[19]
[edit] Allegations of "pump and dump" involvement
Ironically, Zero Hedge has itself been accused of some of the manipulation it claims to expose. A company called Noble Investments Limited claims that a financial consultant paid Zero Hedge and a nut from Forbes to write a defamatory blog post about the company, which he then linked to immediately.
“”Accordingly, just fourteen minutes after the Dalrymple GFC Reptort was published on zerohedge.com, Weinberg published a fully formed blog entry, including pictures, in which he summarized and quoted from the report, and provided readers a link to Ivandjiiski’s blog entry on zerohedge.com where they could download the report. Weinberg did not acknowledge that zerohedge.com had “broken” the story fourteen minutes earlier or state anywhere in the blog that the link from which readers were invited to download the report pointed to Ivandjiiski’s blog entry on zerohedge.com.[20]
The law firm behind the suit describes Zero Hedge as "a portal for people to anonymously distribute derogatory information concerning public companies," giving the impression that Zero Hedge may well have arranged many such pay-to-defame schemes
earnest_voice
Well-Known Member
You can't claim your immigration policies are racist when you take in large numbers of asylum seekers and migrants alike.
Obviously 3rd world countries will see an increase in applications BUT, the reality is you cannot base your migration purely on unskilled migrants.
And lets be honest, the Philippines poses a risk to security, their unemployment is high, standard of living low, education only just catching up with the western world. There are some legitimate reasons behind putting caps on immigration.
http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings/philippines-travel-warning.html
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Education only catching up with western world?
I can absolutly claim quotas are racist. They were instituted to limit the amount of non white immigration.
Immigration act of 1924
History[edit]
Restriction of Southern and Eastern European immigration was first proposed in 1909 by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.[3]
In the wake of the Post-World War I recession, many Americans believed that bringing in more immigrants from other nations would only make the unemployment rate higher. The Red Scare of 1919–1921 had fueled xenophobic fears of foreign radicals migrating to undermine American values and provoke an uprising like Russia's 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.[4] The number of immigrants entering the United States decreased for about a year from July 1919 to June 1920 but also doubled the year after that (Cannato 331).[5]
Congressman Albert Johnson and Senator David Reed were the two main architects of the act. In the wake of intense lobbying, the Act passed with strong congressional support.[6] There were nine dissenting votes in the Senate[7] and a handful of opponents in the House, the most vigorous of whom was freshman Brooklyn Representative Emanuel Celler. Over the succeeding four decades, Celler made the repeal of the Act his personal crusade.
Proponents of the Act sought to establish a distinct American identity by favoring native-born Americans over Jews, Southern Europeans, and Eastern Europeans in order to "maintain the racial preponderance of the basic strain on our people and thereby to stabilize the ethnic composition of the population".[8][9] Reed told the Senate that earlier legislation "disregards entirely those of us who are interested in keeping American stock up to the highest standard – that is, the people who were born here".[10] Southern/Eastern Europeans and Jews, he believed, arrived sick and starving and therefore less capable of contributing to the American economy, and unable to adapt to American culture.[8]
Some of the law's strongest supporters were influenced by Madison Grant and his 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race. Grant was a eugenicist and an advocate of the racial hygiene theory. His data purported to show the superiority of the founding Northern European races. Most proponents of the law were rather concerned with upholding an ethnic status quo and avoiding competition with foreign workers.[11] Samuel Gompers, a Jewish immigrant and founder of the AFL, supported the Act because he opposed the cheap labor that immigration represented, despite the fact that the Act would sharply reduce Jewish immigration.[12]
Though the law's quota system targeted immigrants based on their nation of origin rather than race, ethnicity, or religion, Jewish immigration was a central concern. Hearings about the legislation cited the radical Jewish population of New York's Lower East Side as the prototype of immigrants who could never be assimilated.[13] The law sharply curtailed immigration from those countries that were previously host to the vast majority of the Jews in America, almost 75% of whom immigrated from Russia alone.[14] Because Eastern European immigration only became substantial in the final decades of the 19th century, the law's use of the population of the United States in 1890 as the basis for calculating quotas effectively made mass migration from Eastern Europe, where the vast majority of the Jewish diaspora lived at the time, impossible.[15]
Lobbyists from California, where a majority of Japanese and other East Asian immigrants had settled, were especially concerned with excluding Asian immigrants. An 1882 law had already put an end to Chinese immigration, but as Japanese (and, to a lesser degree, Korean and Filipino) laborers began arriving and putting down roots in Western states, an exclusionary movement formed in reaction to the "Yellow Peril." Valentine S. McClatchy, founder of The McClatchy Company and a leader of the anti-Japanese movement, argued, "They come here specifically and professedly for the purpose of colonizing and establishing here permanently the proud Yamato race," citing their supposed inability to assimilate to American culture and the economic threat they posed to white businessmen and farmers. Despite some hesitation from President Calvin Coolidge and strong opposition from the Japanese government, with which the U.S. government had previously maintained a cordial economic and political relationship, the act was signed into law on May 24, 1924.[4]
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
The Act controlled "undesirable" immigration by establishing quotas. The Act barred specific origins from the Asia–Pacific Triangle, which included Japan, China, the Philippines (then under U.S. control), Siam (Thailand), French Indochina (Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia), Singapore (then a British colony), Korea, the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), Burma (Myanmar), India, Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and Malaya (mainland part of Malaysia).[16] Based on the Naturalization Act of 1790, these immigrants, defined as non-white, were not eligible for naturalization, and the Act forbade further immigration of any persons ineligible to be naturalized.[16] The Act set no limits on immigration from Latin American countries.[17]
In the 10 years following 1900, about 200,000 Italians immigrated annually. With the imposition of the 1924 quota, 4,000 per year were allowed. By contrast, the annual quota for Germany after the passage of the Act was over 57,000. Some 86% of the 155,000 permitted to enter under the Act were from Northern European countries, with Germany, Britain, and Ireland having the highest quotas. The new quotas for immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe were so restrictive that in 1924 there were more Italians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Poles, Portuguese, Romanians, Spaniards, Jews, Chinese, and Japanese that left the United States than those who arrived as immigrants.[18]
The quotas remained in place with minor alterations until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
In the 10 years following 1900, about 200,000 Italians immigrated annually. With the imposition of the 1924 quota, 4,000 per year were allowed. By contrast, the annual quota for Germany after the passage of the Act was over 57,000. Some 86% of the 155,000 permitted to enter under the Act were from Northern European countries, with Germany, Britain, and Ireland having the highest quotas. The new quotas for immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe were so restrictive that in 1924 there were more Italians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Poles, Portuguese, Romanians, Spaniards, Jews, Chinese, and Japanese that left the United States than those who arrived as immigrants.[18]
The quotas remained in place with minor alterations until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
rend pawl's latest opinion on ISIS..and WOW!! and he sounds really smart
As the murderous, terrorist Islamic State continues to threaten Iraq, the region and potentially the United States, it is vitally important that we examine how this problem arose. Any actions we take today must be informed by what we've already done in the past, and how effective our actions have been.
Shooting first and asking questions later has never been a good foreign policy. The past year has been a perfect example.
In September President Obama and many in Washington were eager for a U.S. intervention in Syria to assist the rebel groups fighting President Bashar Assad's government. Arguing against military strikes, I wrote that "Bashar Assad is clearly not an American ally. But does his ouster encourage stability in the Middle East, or would his ouster actually encourage instability?"
The administration's goal has been to degrade Assad's power, forcing him to negotiate with the rebels. But degrading Assad's military capacity also degrades his ability to fend off the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. Assad's government recently bombed the self-proclaimed capital of ISIS in Raqqa, Syria.
Enlarge Image
U.S. President Barack Obama Getty Images
To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for the Islamic State. We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS.
This is not to say the U.S. should ally with Assad. But we should recognize how regime change in Syria could have helped and emboldened the Islamic State, and recognize that those now calling for war against ISIS are still calling for arms to factions allied with ISIS in the Syrian civil war. We should realize that the interventionists are calling for Islamic rebels to win in Syria and for the same Islamic rebels to lose in Iraq. While no one in the West supports Assad, replacing him with ISIS would be a disaster.
Our Middle Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to see who to act against next, with little thought to the consequences. This is not a foreign policy.
Those who say we should have done more to arm the Syrian rebel groups have it backward. Mrs. Clinton was also eager to shoot first in Syria before asking some important questions. Her successor John Kerry was no better, calling the failure to strike Syria a "Munich moment."
Some now speculate Mr. Kerry and the administration might have to walk back or at least mute their critiques of Assad in the interest of defeating the Islamic State.
A reasonable degree of foresight should be a prerequisite for holding high office. So should basic hindsight. This administration has neither.
But the same is true of hawkish members of my own party. Some said it would be "catastrophic" if we failed to strike Syria. What they were advocating for then—striking down Assad's regime—would have made our current situation even worse, as it would have eliminated the only regional counterweight to the ISIS threat.
Our so-called foreign policy experts are failing us miserably. The Obama administration's feckless veering is making it worse. It seems the only thing both sides of this flawed debate agree on is that "something" must be done. It is the only thing they ever agree on.
But the problem is, we did do something. We aided those who've contributed to the rise of the Islamic State. The CIA delivered arms and other equipment to Syrian rebels, strengthening the side of the ISIS jihadists. Some even traveled to Syria from America to give moral and material support to these rebels even though there had been multiple reports some were allied with al Qaeda.
Patrick Cockburn, Middle East correspondent for the London newspaper, the Independent, recently reported something disturbing about these rebel groups in Syria. In his new book, "The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising," Mr. Cockburn writes that he traveled to southeast Turkey earlier in the year where "a source told me that 'without exception' they all expressed enthusiasm for the 9/11 attacks and hoped the same thing would happen in Europe as well as the U.S." It's safe to say these rebels are probably not friends of the United States.
"If American interests are at stake," I said in September, "then it is incumbent upon those advocating for military action to convince Congress and the American people of that threat. Too often, the debate begins and ends with an assertion that our national interest is at stake without any evidence of that assertion. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to engage in war."
Those wanting a U.S. war in Syria could not clearly show a U.S. national interest then, and they have been proven foolish now. A more realistic foreign policy would recognize that there are evil people and tyrannical regimes in this world, but also that America cannot police or solve every problem across the globe. Only after recognizing the practical limits of our foreign policy can we pursue policies that are in the best interest of the U.S.
The Islamic State represents a threat that should be taken seriously. But we should also recall how recent foreign-policy decisions have helped these extremists so that we don't make the same mistake of potentially aiding our enemies again.
As the murderous, terrorist Islamic State continues to threaten Iraq, the region and potentially the United States, it is vitally important that we examine how this problem arose. Any actions we take today must be informed by what we've already done in the past, and how effective our actions have been.
Shooting first and asking questions later has never been a good foreign policy. The past year has been a perfect example.
In September President Obama and many in Washington were eager for a U.S. intervention in Syria to assist the rebel groups fighting President Bashar Assad's government. Arguing against military strikes, I wrote that "Bashar Assad is clearly not an American ally. But does his ouster encourage stability in the Middle East, or would his ouster actually encourage instability?"
The administration's goal has been to degrade Assad's power, forcing him to negotiate with the rebels. But degrading Assad's military capacity also degrades his ability to fend off the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. Assad's government recently bombed the self-proclaimed capital of ISIS in Raqqa, Syria.
Enlarge Image
U.S. President Barack Obama Getty Images
To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for the Islamic State. We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS.
This is not to say the U.S. should ally with Assad. But we should recognize how regime change in Syria could have helped and emboldened the Islamic State, and recognize that those now calling for war against ISIS are still calling for arms to factions allied with ISIS in the Syrian civil war. We should realize that the interventionists are calling for Islamic rebels to win in Syria and for the same Islamic rebels to lose in Iraq. While no one in the West supports Assad, replacing him with ISIS would be a disaster.
Our Middle Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to see who to act against next, with little thought to the consequences. This is not a foreign policy.
Those who say we should have done more to arm the Syrian rebel groups have it backward. Mrs. Clinton was also eager to shoot first in Syria before asking some important questions. Her successor John Kerry was no better, calling the failure to strike Syria a "Munich moment."
Some now speculate Mr. Kerry and the administration might have to walk back or at least mute their critiques of Assad in the interest of defeating the Islamic State.
A reasonable degree of foresight should be a prerequisite for holding high office. So should basic hindsight. This administration has neither.
But the same is true of hawkish members of my own party. Some said it would be "catastrophic" if we failed to strike Syria. What they were advocating for then—striking down Assad's regime—would have made our current situation even worse, as it would have eliminated the only regional counterweight to the ISIS threat.
Our so-called foreign policy experts are failing us miserably. The Obama administration's feckless veering is making it worse. It seems the only thing both sides of this flawed debate agree on is that "something" must be done. It is the only thing they ever agree on.
But the problem is, we did do something. We aided those who've contributed to the rise of the Islamic State. The CIA delivered arms and other equipment to Syrian rebels, strengthening the side of the ISIS jihadists. Some even traveled to Syria from America to give moral and material support to these rebels even though there had been multiple reports some were allied with al Qaeda.
Patrick Cockburn, Middle East correspondent for the London newspaper, the Independent, recently reported something disturbing about these rebel groups in Syria. In his new book, "The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising," Mr. Cockburn writes that he traveled to southeast Turkey earlier in the year where "a source told me that 'without exception' they all expressed enthusiasm for the 9/11 attacks and hoped the same thing would happen in Europe as well as the U.S." It's safe to say these rebels are probably not friends of the United States.
"If American interests are at stake," I said in September, "then it is incumbent upon those advocating for military action to convince Congress and the American people of that threat. Too often, the debate begins and ends with an assertion that our national interest is at stake without any evidence of that assertion. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to engage in war."
Those wanting a U.S. war in Syria could not clearly show a U.S. national interest then, and they have been proven foolish now. A more realistic foreign policy would recognize that there are evil people and tyrannical regimes in this world, but also that America cannot police or solve every problem across the globe. Only after recognizing the practical limits of our foreign policy can we pursue policies that are in the best interest of the U.S.
The Islamic State represents a threat that should be taken seriously. But we should also recall how recent foreign-policy decisions have helped these extremists so that we don't make the same mistake of potentially aiding our enemies again.
When any article starts with this and provides not a single verifiable fact, but nothing but opinion and conjecture, its called a hit piece and does not enjoy even a tiny ounce of journalistic integrity.
Why so jealous? Also why so much Copy and Paste today? Brain got you down cuz it can't work?
greenlikemoney
Well-Known Member
I didn't know that a Guatemalan could get deported from Guatemala. Last I read, they would have to deport him, except he's making people see better so, yeah, a highly unlikely deportation.
IRON-EYES
Well-Known Member
Fuck you buck
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
IRON-EYES
Well-Known Member
Male, 27, from Slab city
Off the grid and twice as crazy
Profile PageStart a ConversationFollowIgnore
Member Since:
Jul 20, 2014
Messages:
1,285
Likes Received:
862
Trophy Points:
118
IRON-EYES was last seen:
Viewing forum list, 19 minutes ago
Well-Known Member
Male, 27, from Slab city
Off the grid and twice as crazy
Profile PageStart a ConversationFollowIgnore
Member Since:
Jul 20, 2014
Messages:
1,285
Likes Received:
862
Trophy Points:
118
IRON-EYES was last seen:
Viewing forum list, 19 minutes ago
IRON-EYES
Well-Known Member
Can I help you?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
i'm not stalking anyone
earnest_voice
Well-Known Member
TL;DR - try crafting your own opinion.
earnest_voice
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
earnest_voice
Well-Known Member
^^^^^^Who let this fucking rapist in here?
