according to source, US based hi-tech communication firms lost up to $180 billion in foreign sales due to privacy concerns since snowden's outing of the NSA. of course everything now is privacy.... privacy .... privacy ..... in order to get those markets back. when corporate America gets upset... congress listens.

http://www.thenation.com/article/205953/privacy-and-profit-motive#

SS,
I respect your contribution.
But as a literalist, I'm not in step with your approach.

"Words mean things." Rush Limbaugh

If all we can do to dismiss Bloomberg is to post lies about him, then he's probably a pretty good guy.

I'd rather annihilate an opponent by speaking the truth, then giving him a pass by switching from topic to ad hom.

Bloomberg is a self-made $Billionaire.
I don't think stupidity is his problem.

I don't think so.
I thought "stop-&-frisk" was a staple of "New York's Finest" since the 1970's if not before.

I believe you believe that.
I don't.
I've been profiling people, including politicians for decades. I do get surprised once in a while. But usually I'm pretty close.

But if you want an example of the "Gestapo" scenario you cite; can anyone come up with a better example than U.S. President Bush (younger)?
His father, President Bush, was head of the CIA before he became VP, and then P.
The sky did not fall.

It was his son, Dubya, ran afoul of:

FISA, TSA, and a whole bunch of other matters of wire-tap, etc; new unprecedented ground in undermining the rights of U.S. citizens.

I surely don't think portion control on corrosive beverages is as far out of line as Bush's "roving wire taps".

Looks to me like you've put the bogus in boogeyman.

It's silly to pretend Bloomberg is trying to "control".
What he says he's trying to do, and what he appears to be doing is promoting public health.

If Bloomberg wants the maximum size Pepsi to go from 32 oz to 16 oz, all a restaurant diner need do is order two.

For those drinking Pepsi at home, it can be purchased in any jumbo-sized container it's marketed in.

The public health aspect:
a) Both obesity, and diabetes are common among our population, particularly (ironically) among the poor.
The statisticians determined that the health affects of this portion control measure would pay for itself in city services saved, due to reduced obesity and diabetes.

While I enthusiastically share t8's libertarian leanings, I don't think Bloomberg's actual position is so persuasive that we have to lie or distort about it, just to make our position look better.

I'm all for free will, Liberty, and all the rest of it.
But the amount of refined sugar and or other harmful contents in these factory manufactured beverages is not natural. The human body isn't designed to handle it. I think either water, or even beer would be more healthful than soda-pop.

b) Is it really any secret what these soda-pop marketers are doing? They addict pop drinkers, and then keep them buying these beverages that can mar an automobile's finish (you don't want it on your car paint, but you're willing to drink it by the liter?!).

The history of this addiction is unmistakable.
The original recipe for Coca-Cola included cocaine. OF COURSE those that drank it got addicted.
So the "this guy doesnt understand what the word "free" means. he thinks every thing should be regulated" crowd said that's it: no more cocaine in soda-pop.
So the product addiction engineers switched to substitutes like sugar and caffeine. And sales remain brisk.

We seem to be in accord on meta-data.

But I'm not so casual about U.S. national security, and international relations.

How does it benefit the People of the United States to know that our government was spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel; listening in on her phone calls?

We may never know the details of the harm caused.

I've never seen a one-sided coin.

A large sandwich?

On the meta-data issue, perhaps.

You're not concerned about the harm done to our security?

I don't know much about it.

But some experts, head of Homeland Security for example, have suggested what some of what Snowden did set us back 20 years.

Germany to host G-7 summit, Obama to attend, 17,000 "police officers" for the alpine meeting

a) 17,000 police officers? Are they expecting to need to repel an invasion?

b) Some in the E.U. think Chancellor Merkel wields too much power. Is Germany hosting this G-7 playing into that?

c) It's G-7, not G-8? Does that mean they're keeping Putin out? Punishing him for Crimea, and Ukraine?

d) What do you think the G-7 should concentrate on? If they discuss China, should the argue to more wary of China, due to things like the recent hack of the U.S. government's computer, obtaining personal information of as many as 4,000,000 U.S. government employees?

- or -

Should we do as Secretary Paulson recently suggested, and try to solidify a more constructive relationship with this emerging global power?

Alright.

But neither Brooks, nor Biden have suggested that.

Instead, they can continue to hate one another to kingdom come.

BUT !!

a) When the Sunni in the upstairs apartment plays Muslim call to prayer too loud on the stereo, the Shi'ah in the apartment below needn't slit the upstairs guy's throat. He can bang on the ceiling with a broomstick.

b) ISIL absolutely routed the Iraqi military.
Why?
Because Iraqi confidence in central government has eroded, and the Iraqi military members didn't think the weak federal leadership was worth dying for.

BUT !!

If instead of being a single federal force, the Iraqi military were regional militias:
- One for Sunni,
- One for Shi'ah, &
- One for Kurds
instead of cut & run, they'll stand and fight; SO WE WON'T HAVE TO!!

It was never about: " a magical solution to end the sectarian hatred ".

Brooks does a tidy job of summing up what's wrong in Iraq.

But then Brooks mentions a plan Senator Biden (now bereaved Vice President) had to decentralize control; give Iraqis a greater stake in the welfare of their territory.



The embarrassing rout by ISIL of the Iraqi military was exceedingly costly to the U.S.

Some say a quarter of the U.S. lives lost in our War in Iraq were lost battling for Iraq territory now under ISIL control.

The equipment the Iraqi military abandoned there $cost $U.S. $huge. And now it's in ISIL's hands. Thus it's now costing us $millions $more to blow it up with costly air strikes.

Was Biden right all along?

PS

This is the suspect LEO claimed charged at them with a knife, and after failing to ground his weapon, was shot dead.

Is the cemetery out of line in this case? Has the deceased been convicted of anything?

I also note, this portion of the report I found does not mention Islam, but does use the word "terror".

Former NSA contractor Snowden had access to lots of delicate information within the U.S. National Security Agency.
Some reports indicate Snowden escalated his concerns to his NSA supervisor, but Snowden's concerns were dismissed.

So Snowden went public with some information that might have been OK; perhaps somewhat akin to The Pentagon Papers.

Is Snowden right, that the next gen thought we'd given up too much liberty* for security, and have backlashed? Or is the timing coincidental?

And while it seems Snowden seems to consider himself a hero, what he doesn't mention is, in addition to some legitimate concerns; Snowden also needlessly released much more classified information, that doesn't do individual citizens any good, yet severely harmed our intelligence gathering.

Is Snowden a hero?

Flattering, but I doubt LTme is the cause of unrest in the Middle East.
My comment was both contemptuous and insulting.
Deliberately so.
I don't think mass decapitations, fomenting global terrorism, and burning a man alive while he's trapped in a cage is constructive.

ISIL are metaphorically knuckle-dragging barbarians.
And I strongly suspect they could achieve a geo-political objective more efficiently without the primitive sadism.

I'm a U.S. citizen, but not a xenophobe. I have lived abroad for years; and felt welcome in the foreign lands I lived in.
True to the ancient Latin legal maxim, generally think the best of persons, unless I have a reason to think otherwise.

Having contempt for the contemptible is no shame.
ISIL are thugs.
They rob banks, steal oil, kidnap, destroy priceless irreplaceable artifacts, and murder.

FDR had his hands full. There were megalomaniacs in Europe trying to conquer the planet.
Japan put a big fat dent in our Naval inventory.
The quotation you've posted might have settled some nerves back then.
And I'm not advocating fear.
But I don't think self-defense; protecting ourselves and our allies and trading partners is that far out of line.

Do you?

I realize not everyone that wears a turban is an ISIL member.
If my comment offended non-terrorist turban wearers, my apology.
My comment was intended as directed to the bad guys, and I know not every Muslim is in that group, BUT !!!

When a cartoon was published depicting a bomb in Mohammed's turban, the rioting in Islam was so fierce that human life was lost.
Because of a cartoon.
But when the attacks of 09/11/01 occurred, resulting in the mass murder of thousands of innocents; pan Islam took it quite sedately.

Doesn't that seem just about precisely backward to you?

I know of two possible explanations for this.

a) Either Muslims as a group just aren't that fussy about the loss of human life, and think a cartoon is vastly more important.

- or -

b) Many Muslims are rational human beings, but are so terrorized by the numerous terrorists among them, that they cower in silence, despite their humanitarian objection.

Which of those two explanations would you prefer U.S. to accept?

Many Islamist terrorists are quite well educated; some holding advanced degrees, some even doctorate level.
And among these, some are willing to undertake suicide murder missions.

Is that a sensible perspective on how to handle an asset as valuable as a college education?

Have you checked Australia? I think they've got several over there.

IV is right.
We're not going to solve a $500 $Billion $problem w/ $1.2 $M.

Don't hunt bear with a fly swatter.

It's an "interesting" history.
NYC wasn't much interested in "Mayor" Bloomberg.

In his campaign to be elected to the office of Mayor of NYC (a political dead-end) his advisors told Bloomberg how much he'd need to spend to get elected.
They told him.
He did it.
And while I haven't confirmed it, one news report I caught of it indicated Bloomberg spent ~$37.oo per vote to obtain the office.

And it seems, he might not have been that horrid a mayor.

Would he be a good president?

- good question -

Yep.

"Wahhabism is very very very different than your average Sunni." iV
So much so that; ostensibly in adherence to the Holy Qur'an:

That Sunni, Shi'ah, and Wahab not only slay atheists.
They'll slay one another; Sunni treating Shi'ah as infidels, etc.

What a cesspool!

NO WONDER they wear diapers on their heads!

It's a sobering regret that as the good book warns, "the love of $money is the root of all evil".
This depraved preoccupation with spamming us blocks us from contacting one another.

Circumventing their greed is fairly easy.
I could spell it out here; but don't want to clear the way to a whole new level of scamming.

BUT !!

Simply posting that should give legitimate e-mailers the necessary insight to evade the obstacles the scammers have created.

We'll, we're doing a horrid job of it.
We spent $hundreds of $billions if not $Trillions in Iraq, and lost thousands of our troops there; all for the "benefit" of severely destabilizing the region; handing substantial parts of Iraq over to ISIL.

Did we get so much as a toaster out of the deal; the way we could here by opening a bank account?
And get a look at all the plunder we're getting from Pakistan & Yemen, the locus of our up-tempo predator drone strikes.

The U.S. military invasion / occupation of Iraq was one of the worst U.S. foreign policy blunders in history.

btw:
The Bush administration originally planned to call their U.S. military invasion & occupation of Iraq "Operation Iraqi Liberation".
But when they figured out the acronym, they kept quiet about it.

What a BUFFOON !!!

How many thousands of innocent U.S. citizens have died as a result of these ostensible lies you assert Obama has made?

The Bush administration misrepresented the facts.

How can there be "no doubt" (Bush's exact words) about something that was not true?

And Bush was speaking not merely on behalf of his own administration, but on behalf of multiple allied governments as well.

Bush expressed it as a certitude. And it could not possibly have been.

HOW WOULD YOU SUCCEED AT MARRIAGE?
Tell your wife she looks pretty, even if she looks like a truck hit her.
-- Ricky, age 10