Politics, Politics, Politics

Where in the world did you get this? You seem to not understand the difference between a law and a website's terms of service. You say this is how the "NEW privacy law" reads....then cut & paste what appears to be a website's terms of service. News flash....those website terms of service would still be in effect even if Trump didn't block the FCC privacy regulation. The FCC regulation only impacted your ISPs ability to do...exactly what that website could and can still do.

For your edification, the "New privacy law" is much more simple and straightforward than all that legalese you posted. The entire text of the new law is:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services” (81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016)), and such rule shall have no ******* or effect.
I am confused on this, just a bit.
I need to research it myself before i comment on it.
 
Polls.... I guess it's just who is saying it and how
I saw today that Rasmussen says more than a quarter of the people strongly approve of the president.... well a quarter is only 25%

and yet CBS just announced that the approval rating for trump is now 37% down 2 points from last month and the lowest redorded

no matter who puts it and how... he is not real popular.... but I think after the Syria thing it will go up some... he sees that and will want to bomb someone else to try and distract the Russian investigation

although I would think this would open Trump's eye... some.... P u t I n just denounced the bombing as rushing to judgment and yet I saw last night we have a vid of the plane taking off from that airfield and doing the bombing... pretty cut and dried!
he can say it was rebels all he wants the vid doesn't lie!
 
I am confused on this, just a bit.
I need to research it myself before i comment on it.
I don't know exactly where Mac copied that from, but it is pretty typical boilerplate language for many many websites. A simple google search of a few sentences in Mac's post turns up 10's of thousands of hits. Most have slight variations of the same language. The nutricost.com site privacy policy looks like a near perfect match for what Mac posted claiming to be "the NEW privacy law"

https://www.nutricost.com/tmpl/theme_nutricost/privacy.php

Check out that page and scan down to the "website information" "other information" and "disclosure and use of information" sections. Then look at Mac's post again.
 
I don't know exactly where Mac copied that from, but it is pretty typical boilerplate language for many many websites
It came from a medical website for prescription meds, h-h ... a lot of websites are starting to remove the option of honoring your request that your name and information not be shared ... that was the point of my posting that agreement. It was new to the website.
Just wait until your employer or prospective employer does a background check now and see's that you're bisexual and a member of racial adult websites ... you'll understand then, maybe.

pic_political-cartoon-InternetPrivacy.jpg
 
It came from a medical website for prescription meds, h-h ... a lot of websites are starting to remove the option of honoring your request that your name and information not be shared ... that was the point of my posting that agreement. It was new to the website.
Just wait until your employer or prospective employer does a background check now and see's that you're bisexual and a member of racial adult websites ... you'll understand then, maybe.

View attachment 1221960
Thanks for admitting...without saying it...that it wasn't the "NEW law" as you previously claimed. Rather it is the same boilerplate language ten's of thousands of websites use.

Excellent work then deflecting away from how ignorant your post was regarding Trump supposedly taking away our privacy.

Unwilling to come out and admit we're simply back to the status quo we had under Obummer???

Not interested in addressing how Obummer's FCC "privacy law" would have really just blocked ISPs from competing on targeted ad revenue with oh say....Google, who just happened to be the #3 donor to Obummer????
 
Last edited:
Privacy? What's that?
If you don't want to be tracked then head to the hills, live off-grid, don't use credit cards or get any type of loan. Pay for everything with cash -etc etc...

Those privacy statements were meaningless, Credit card companies got around them and sold/traded your personal info anyways. The fear mongering from 911 made it possible to listen in on every phone call we make. There is an interesting movie coming out soon called "The Circle", I suggest you go see it.It may be "just a movie" but it is based in truth.
 
New York State Just Passed a $163 Billion Budget and a Free College Tuition Plan
Reuters 8 hours ago

Travelers across New York state will get the chance to summon ride-sharing cars under a $163 billion state budget passed on Sunday that includes a free public college tuition program and ends imprisoning people younger than 18 with adults.

The passage completed a deal struck between lawmakers and Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, on Friday, nine days after the fiscal year began.

Key components raising the age of criminal responsibility and free tuition for students from families earning less than $120,000 a year were pushed by Cuomo and led to the longest budget delay since the Democrat took office in 2011.

To be phased in through October 2019, people under the age of 18 will no longer be housed in adult jails and prisons.
The measure, strongly embraced by Assembly Democrats, will leave North Carolina as the only state to automatically prosecute and imprison 16 and 17-year-olds as adults regardless of the crime.

Cuomo, considered a possible 2020 presidential contender, said in a radio interview that raising the age along with increasing the state’s minimum wage last year and legalizing same-sex marriages in 2011 are “really great lasting legacies.”

Republican lawmakers complained Cuomo incorporated social policy into the budget, but ultimately compromised.

“There’s a lot of things you like, a lot things you don’t like,” Senate Deputy Majority Leader John DeFrancisco, a Republican, said from the Senate floor.

State residents with household incomes under $100,000 will be able to enroll in state public colleges tuition-free. The income limit rises to $125,000 in three years.

The budget revives a tax cut program for New York City affordable housing developers and funds $2.5 billion of clean water infrastructure projects.

The spending plan won overwhelming support in the Assembly and Senate.

Legislators hailed the provision to permit Uber uber , Lyft lyft and similar ride-hailing services to operate beyond New York City.
Sen. Timothy Kennedy, a Buffalo Democrat, said upstate New York can now join the 21st Century.
For more on New York, watch Fortune’s video:

The $163 billion package also includes federal disaster aid for people impacted by 2012’s Superstorm Sandy hurricane and funds for health care reform.

The pact gives Cuomo’s budget director authority to plan spending cuts if the federal government slashes more than $850 million of funding to New York this fiscal year.

Cuomo called New York “a target for hostile federal actions” under Republican President Donald Trump and the Republican-led Congress, which could cut billions of Medicaid dollars to New York and other states by replacing the Affordable Care Act.

To help offset the state’s $3.5 billion deficit and fund income tax cuts for people making under $300,000, the budget extends for two years an 8.82 percent tax rate on individuals making more than $1 million a year.

Cuomo failed in his quest to compel giant online marketplaces such as Amazon to collect taxes on third-party transactions.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/york-state-just-passed-163-052118779.html
 
Thanks for admitting...without saying it...that it wasn't the "NEW law" as you previously claimed.
Excellent work then deflecting away from how ignorant your post was regarding Trump supposedly taking away our privacy.
...Listen, faggot breath, I wasn't meaning it was the new "federal law" ... but the new norm of websites now removing the option of asking its patrons to request that their privacy info not be shared.
...And if Trump signs it into law, it most assuredly IS Trump frik'n taking away our privacy. You can protect him all you wish, he's a frik'n loser as President ... far, far worse than any president that's ever served this country, and a habitual liar to boot. He's enjoying the simplicities of signing executive orders to reverse everything Obama did in office; do you really think he reads and comprehends any of them? If he did, he certainly wouldn't have proposed the Trumpcare as a far superior healthcare plan ... he simply took the Speaker at his word and signed onto that abortion. Anyone who gets his facts from Fox & Brite Bart ... is very dangerous. And when he gets a nuclear war started, you can defend him on that too, I imagine.
...So, why don't you take a bit of time away from your keyboard, here, and go find yourself a juicy cock to suck and "fuck off" ok? And try initiating a topic INSTEAD of looking for sentence fragments of other posters to criticize, "round mouth".
pic_FuckOff.jpg ..........gif_Yellowball-finger.gif
 
Last edited:
...Listen, faggot breath, I wasn't meaning it was the new "federal law" ... but the new norm of websites now removing the option of asking its patrons to request that their privacy info not be shared.
...And if Trump signs it into law, it most assuredly IS Trump frik'n taking away our privacy. You can protect him all you wish, he's a frik'n loser as President ... far, far worse than any president that's ever served this country, and a habitual liar to boot. He's enjoying the simplicities of signing executive orders to reverse everything Obama did in office; do you really think he reads and comprehends any of them? If he did, he certainly wouldn't have proposed the Trumpcare as a far superior healthcare plan ... he simply took the Speaker at his word and signed onto that abortion. Anyone who gets his facts from Fox & Brite Bart ... is very dangerous. And when he gets a nuclear war started, you can defend him on that too, I imagine.
...So, why don't you take a bit of time away from your keyboard, here, and go find yourself a juicy cock to suck and "fuck off" ok? And try initiating a topic INSTEAD of looking for sentence fragments of other posters to criticize, "round mouth".
View attachment 1222472 ..........View attachment 1222471

Yeah, of course you weren't meaning it was the new federal law....why would anyone ever think such a thing.....all you did was post "Here goes our privacy on the internet ...", followed by links about Trump signing the FCC privacy law, followed by a post starting: "Here's how the NEW privacy law reads:".

Ahhh the sweet sounds that tell you when you've won a debate with ole Sweet & Cordial Mac.....when he starts in with the name calling and insults! :bounce:
 
payback is a bitch

Crowd shouts 'You Lie' at Joe Wilson, who shouted at Obama

GRANITEVILLE, S.C. (AP) — The South Carolina representative who shouted "You Lie" at President Barack Obama during a joint session of Congress was on the receiving end of the same words in his district this week.

U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson heard plenty of boos and chants of "You Lie" during a town hall Monday in Graniteville.

Wilson drew yells from the crowd of about 200 people when he spoke about health care and violence against women. He said he supports local prosecutors in domestic violence cases, but he voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act in 2013.
Wilson said after the town hall that he always learns a lot from a back-and-forth with constituents. His spokeswoman said too much attention was being paid to the brief yelling.

"The clip being circulated of Congressman Wilson's town hall last night shows less than a minute of a positive event that lasted nearly two hours where the Congressman engaged with his constituents both in a town hall format and one-on-one after the official program ended, Wilson spokeswoman Leacy Burke said in a statement.

Many GOP lawmakers have run into protests during similar meetings during the Easter recess.

Wilson shouted "You lie!" when Obama unveiled the details of his health care proposal before Congress in 2009. Though he was later reprimanded for his lack of decorum, he won re-election in 2012 with 53 percent of the vote, compared to 44 percent for his Democratic challenger. This is his 16th year in the U.S. House.

Not everyone at the town hall was angry with Wilson. Bob Sullivan drove 60 miles from Columbia to Aiken County to attend the event.
"I wanted to get a feel for where people are coming from," he told The Post and Courier of Charleston. "I think he handled himself well. You've got to give him credit. It's not an easy thing to do."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-rep-joe-wilson-receiving-end-lie-170015344.html
 
well HH looks like you guys squeeked another out by hook or by crook!... should have been an esay win in a red area... and yet had trouble?
just shows mental disabilities and money prevail over logic ....
the state went red after the left proposed raising taxes..... and yet what are some of your friends proposing now to pay for Reaganomics?
 
Maybe this is why they don't feel they have to follow the wish of the people


Congressman tells angry constituents the idea that they pay his salary is ‘bullcrap’

An Oklahoman congressman is under fire after he seemingly dismissed the notion that his constituents pay for him to go to Congress, calling the idea “bullcrap” in a viral video making the rounds on social media. Markwayne Mullin, speaking at a town hall Tuesday in Jay, Oklahoma, was responding to a question from the audience when he responded to a claim that constituents pay for him to work in Congress.
“You say you pay for me to do this. Bullcrap. I pay for myself. I paid enough taxes before I got there and continue to through my company to pay my own salary. This is a service. No one here pays me to go,” said the 39-year-old Republican who represents Oklahoma’s second district, which covers ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/2e34e903-47e6-3016-b4f0-31d957bf567a/ss_congressman-tells-angry.html


just a note.... he has cancelled all the rest of his town halls... claiming threats of violence... just another typical tea party asshole!
 
My two cents worth... If you are silly enough to believe you can go freely about the internet and not be noticed then you truelly are in trouble.To cover your tracks and keep all your data and history safe you really need to do the following.

1. Download a 2048 bit encryption programme...They are out there for free.

2. Download a VPN programme such as hotspot shield, MD5 to hide your point of origin IP address.

3. Download a password locker or crypt programme to protect your passwords.

4. EMPLOY ALL THE PROGRAMMES WHEN EVER YOU GO ONLINE. Simple and effective.

Programmes you can use.

Bitlocker
Hotspot shield
Vera crypt
7zip
Axcrypt
Tor browser
cyberghost
MD5
Kryptonite


Word to the wise... IF YOU EMPLOY the security software INCORRECTLY then you will be at RISK.... Do it right. Do it right the first time. Do it right EVERYTIME.
 
we approved the lottery here to help fund education.... didn't make it!
we have teachers here making the same money as a clerk at QT
those republican governors can NOT mange money and never have been able to... facts show that... same with republican pres also!... they can't manage money!
Hardly unique to your state or to any political party. Being a school teacher is one of the lowest paying jobs that require a bachelors degree or better. One thing that doesn't often get taken into account is that a teachers work year is about 180 days while most full time jobs are around 250 days a year
 
once more your opinions do NOT match the facts
the aca has slowed the rising costs of health care

ACA Impact on Per Capita Cost of Health Care
Rep. Chris Van Hollen claims the Affordable Care Act “has resulted in significantly reducing the per capita cost of health care.” To be clear, the per capita cost of health care is rising. Van Hollen’s office says he meant that the ACA has significantly reduced the growth in health care costs. That’s different.
Per capita health care costs have been rising at just under 3 percent a year over the last four years, but that’s less than half the average annual growth in the preceding eight years. Economists say the recession is the biggest reason for the dip — though many also credit the ACA for a bit of the decline.
Van Hollen based his claim largely on a report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers, which claims health care costs would be 0.5 percent higher per year if not for the ACA. That’s a matter of some debate in the economic community. But if accurate, the CEA says that translates to $135 per person in the U.S. in 2013. CEA and Van Hollen say that’s “significant.” The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services calls the effect of the ACA on the slowdown “minimal.”
Ultimately, though, that’s a subjective call, and not one on which we take a position. But with the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, shaping up as a focus of the 2014 elections, the law’s effect on health care costs is a critical political issue, and we recommend readers seek some perspective when judging comments like Van Hollen’s.
Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, made his comment about the per capita cost of health care in an interview with Chuck Todd on MSNBC on Feb. 12 (at the 3:14 mark).

The per capita cost of health care expenditures in 2012 was $8,915, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It was $8,170 in 2009, $8,411 in 2010 and $8,658 in 2011. In other words, it’s rising year after year.


View attachment 1200128

However, when broken down by the percentage increase, it is also clear that the growth in the per capita cost of health care has dramatically slowed in recent years.

View attachment 1200129

The slowing started before the implementation of the health care law and has remained steady at just under 3 percent in each of the last four years. It was growing much more quickly — at a rate of more than 6 percent a year on average — in the eight years prior to that. In fact, the per capita cost of health care is now growing at the slowest rate in 50 years. The question then is: How much is the ACA responsible for that slowing? On that point, there is much speculation and debate.
In a Jan. 6 article in the journal Health Affairs, CMS — whose nonpartisan economists and statisticians have tracked health care spending since 1960 — noted that health care spending in the U.S. (which generally tracks the trend in per capita health care costs) rose 3.7 percent in 2012, and stood 15.8 percent higher than it did in 2008, the year before Obama took office. That’s moderate growth by historical standards. But when the White House quickly claimed credit, we cautioned that CMS said that the ACA had only a “minimal” impact on the slowdown in spending. The reasons CMS economists cited instead were:
 The economic slowdown and subsequent sluggish recovery
 Drops in some prescription ******* costs brought about by the expiration of patents on several costly medications including Lipitor, Plavix and Singulair, which are now available in low-cost generic versions, and
 A one-time reduction in Medicare payment levels to skilled nursing facilities.
The authors of the Health Affairs article suggested the slowdown in health spending may only be temporary, as has been the case after past recessions.
“[T]his pattern is consistent with historical experience when health spending as a share of GDP often stabilizes approximately two to three years after the end of a recession and then increases when the economy significantly improves,” the authors said.
To conclude that the slowdown is permanent, they said, would require “more historical evidence.”
Meanwhile, the White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in November 2013 acknowledging that while the ACA is not the sole — or even most important — driver of the slowdown, it is a “meaningful” contributor.
CEA, November 2013: The slowdown in health care cost growth is more than just an artifact of the 2007-2009 recession: something has changed. The fact that the health cost slowdown has persisted so long even as the economy is recovering, the fact that it is reflected in health care prices – not just utilization or coverage, and the fact that it has also shown up in Medicare – which is more insulated from economic trends, all imply that the current slowdown is the result of more than just the recession and its aftermath. Rather, the slowdown appears to reflect “structural” changes in the United States health care system, a conclusion consistent with a substantial body of recent research. …
To be sure, the ACA is not the sole cause of the slowdown. Health care spending growth had slowed somewhat even before the ACA was passed … the recession and other changes in the health system have certainly played contributing roles … and, in any case, many of the ACA’s reforms are still coming online.
Nevertheless, the ACA’s reforms aimed at driving out waste and improving quality are contributing to these trends in a meaningful way.
Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, told us in a phone interview that one of the biggest drivers in the ACA affecting per capita cost are reforms that trimmed payments to Medicare. The CEA notes that 2010 Congressional Budget Office cost estimates for the ACA “estimated that its reforms to Medicare would save $17 billion in fiscal year 2013, attributable primarily to reductions in payments to private insurers that provide coverage through Medicare Advantage and adjustments in annual updates to Medicare provider payment rates.” That alone has reduced health care spending by 0.6 percent in 2013, or 0.2 percentage points over the 2010-2013 period, the CEA report states.
The CEA points to several recent studies that concluded reductions in Medicare spending are also having a “spillover effect” on overall health care spending.
CEA, November 2013: Recent research implies that reforms to Medicare will have “spillover effects” that reduce costs and improve quality system-wide. In economic terms, this suggests that efforts to reform Medicare’s payment system are “public goods.” Accounting for “spillovers” implies that the ACA’s effect on health care price inflation may be much larger than previously understood. The direct effect of ACA provisions that reduce Medicare overpayments to private insurers and medical providers has been to reduce health care price inflation by an estimated 0.2 percent per year since 2010. Accounting for the “spillover effects” discussed above raises this estimate to 0.5 percent per year, which represents a substantial fraction of the recent slowdown.
CEA estimates that a 0.5 percent reduction in health care expenses in 2011, 2012 and 2013 would amount to a savings of about $135 per person in the U.S. in 2013 (though the CEA allows that the actual savings may be somewhat smaller because there’s some evidence lower prices may cause people to receive more care).
Whether that’s a “significant” slowing in the growth of per capita health care cost is in the eye of the beholder.
“I think that is significantly slowing it,” Furman told us. “I think significant is a reasonable adjective for it.”
Furman and those on the White House Council of Economic Advisers aren’t the only ones who are convinced the ACA is slowing the growth of health care costs. In an op-ed in Politico, Drew Altman, CEO of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, made a case for the ACA helping to reduce the cost of health care, though he acknowledges it would be hard to prove.
Altman, Sept. 26, 2013: What is far less clear is how much Obamacare may also be contributing to the slowdown in costs. Proponents of the law say it is helping to control costs because the cost-containment provisions of the law are working as advertised. These include new limits on how much insurance companies can charge for administration and profits (with rebates to consumers if they charge too much), and state review of rates proposed by insurance companies.
There is solid evidence that these provisions are working as intended, but they mainly apply to the individual and small group markets, just a small slice of the overall health care marketplace. Obamacare also reduced the rate of increase in future payments to providers for Medicare. These reductions are projected to take more than $700 billion out of health spending over the next 10 years, but they haven’t had much effect yet. Other provisions of the law, such as the Medicare experiments in payment and delivery, are still just getting started. Critics of Obamacare, of course, dispute that the law is having any effect on costs because, well, there is basically nothing they like about Obamacare.
Altman said these direct effects on system-wide costs “may be limited so far,” but he believes the ACA may also be having “a significant indirect effect, although cause and effect and the magnitude are hard to prove.” Altman attributes the indirect effect to the fact that “[h]istorically, we have always seen the health-care marketplace respond by lowering costs when there is the threat of impending health reform legislation or government action on costs.” Now, he wrote, “we have not only the threat but the reality.”
Altman, Sept. 26, 2013: The cost slowdown preceded Obamacare, so there is no doubt that other forces have been at play as well. Cost-sharing has been increasing in the market for years, and we know it has a very real impact on the use of health services. The bad economy has had the biggest influence on health care utilization and spending, as our recent study and this month’s actuaries’ report both suggest.
But, history tells us that the health-care market has always responded to the threat (and now, for the first time, also the reality) of health reform. For this reason it is entirely likely that Obamacare has played and will continue to play a role in the slowdown in health-care cost growth and accelerating market change.
So what we have is informed speculation that the ACA may be contributing to the slower growth in health care cost. But comments like Van Hollen’s — that the Affordable Care Act “has resulted in significantly reducing the per capita cost of health care” — would surely lead most viewers to believe that he’s saying Americans are paying less for health care. That’s not the case. Per capita health care costs are climbing, albeit at a historically moderate pace. CMS economists peg the bulk of that slowdown to the recession.
But a reasonable case can be made that the ACA is also a (much smaller) contributing factor. We’ll leave it up to readers to decide whether the ACA’s role in slowing the growth is “minimal” — as the CMS put it — or “significant” — as Van Hollen put it. Or if it’s simply too early to tell.
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/02/aca-impact-on-per-capita-cost-of-health-care/
You have some really nice graphics and some long winded text but the reality is health care costs are rising faster than ever. We spend more money in terms of real dollars, percentage of individual income, percentage of GDP or any way you want to figure it than any other country in the world and the quality of that care is on a par with most third world countries
 
more of your Fox news talking again.... both are rated higher than your republican pres.... and the economy improved under both of them having just taken over a mess the right left them
and Obama didn't have any money... his book sold once he became pres and got money there.... with Clinton it was speeches!
You seen to have a bit of an obsession with using poll ratings to determine success. All poll ratings sometimes mean is that someone is a good salesman. Take a look at where the Democratic Party is today versus where it was when Obama took office. And Obama has very high approval ratings at least for now and the Democratic Party is so screwed.
 
Mmmmm health care not going well.....maybe some of those republicans are waking up.... they changed to please the freedom caucus... and now the moderates are not buying it
All the current plan is is Obamacare Version 2.0. At some point we will have to go to a single payer system
 
One thing that doesn't often get taken into account is that a teachers work year is about 180 days while most full time jobs are around 250 days a year

true but for the most part... they don't do 8 hour days either.... with no compensation for staying after or taking papers home to grade and etc
even though they are off 3 months in the summer... 2 weeks at Christmas and a week for spring break.... most work through some of that... a good dedicated teacher does... they rarely get all that time off.... some go to summer school themselves
what's the old saying "you get what you pay for"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top