StrangeSox

(Mildly) entertaining and good are not the same thing. This guy provides a pretty detailed breakdown of how bad the plot in E1 really is: http://mrpopo.hubpages.com/hub/In-a-Galaxy...many-plot-holes

Riveting battles over TRADE TARIFFS! Long-winded SENATE SPEECHES! Non-sensical PLOT HOLES! What's not to love?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/24/...E81N1CC20120224

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 04:00 PM) An affirmative defense is basically an excuse. It's not the same as making the act legal, but it can excuse culpability entirely in some cases. In other cases, it only partially does so and is a mitigating factor. this is why I'd want to clarify with administration and possibly district attorneys or the local prosecutors' office after learning about this case and the statute. Is this, assuming knowledge or good suspicion of sexual contact, something that's potentially criminal and that you should report? Or would the police say it's not a crime and you're wasting their time? Not the same situation but this would lead me to believe that, no, your mandatory reporting duties are not alleviated: http://www.bsc-cdhs.org/mr/pdf/abndn_infnt.pdf But I wouldn't consider knowledge of a 16yo and an 18yo dating to be sufficient to report to police.

Jeb Bush:

shack (or anyone else with law history), is there a difference between "affirmative defense" and "not illegal?" Could the 18 year old still be charged with a crime?

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 03:41 PM) We have these conversations twice annually. he always says "if we are not sure, report it to the police." Again you are asking professionals to risk their careers based on them playing lawyer and cop. I'd clarify if a situation that falls under that statute's affirmative defense clause is something that should be reported. Would you report a 16 and 18 year old who are married?

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 03:38 PM) From the Texas Attorney Website and the training I have had Again, why would I risk my career, reputation, and income? I am not an attorney. If I knew a minor was dating an adult, I would report it, not play cop or attorney. I ONLY LOSE IF I FAIL TO REPORT. Again, if I fail to report that is the same as covering it up in the public's eyes. I only risk my job if I fail to report. What are you reporting? Not illegal activity or suspicion of abuse. Just that two people who are legally allowed sexual contact are dating.

That's a fascinating just-so story. I'm glad we didn't try that experiment, though, since an overwhelming number of economists believed and still believe it would have resulted in a collapse and hundreds of thousands if not millions of job losses.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 03:14 PM) I know you want to cover your own ass, and that's great...but you need to put yourself in context of what actually happened here...all you've heard is that a 16 year old may be dating an 18 year old. No, you locked a 16 year old in a room and pressured her to admit that they were dating but nothing more.

I'd also point out that they clearly say that going to the admin isn't enough, so trying to use this to excuse your position on Penn State fails. And, since these coaches went to the parents, they double-failed.

Tex, Please ask your principle if you are mandated to report knowledge of a 16 year old dating an 18 year old. I don't think the s*** will ever hit the fan for a 16 and an 18 year old dating or even, gasp, having sex, because the statute specifically says that's a defensible act.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 03:15 PM) Right, so get too big to fail, the government will bail you out, a select few will get filthy rich in the process and the whole thing starts over again. Please note that, as a left/liberal, I strongly support the various bills meant to break up the big banks, limit executive pay and provide strong control over firms that accepted TARP money. It's been conservatives and libertarians fighting against those things the most, and a good dose of corporatist Dems (OBAMA!) as well.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 03:15 PM) Right, so get too big to fail, the government will bail you out, a select few will get filthy rich in the process and the whole thing starts over again. And btw, the whole GM being profitable could be a mirage. Wasn't there some big government contract they just signed in the last year or so? And aren't they shoving those Volts down their own employee's throats? Could have sworn I read stories just recently about that. Here was the 25 billion figure I read about....at the end of last year. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/17/good...s-14-3-billion/ that change appears to be entirely based on current stock value. It's a floating number until those shares are sold. GM's stock price is above $26 right now. The article indicates that a revised estimate was due December 30th. I'd be curious to see what the current estimates are and if Hot Air has continued its diligent reporting, even if subsequent reports were more positive.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 03:08 PM) I meant more the anti-protect the rich and entitled people/corporations angle that i'm in agreement with. Ok, but that's only a first-order agreement. The philosophical reasoning behind those ideas are likely very different. The problem here is that, much like ss2k5's posts, this is entirely an argument by assertion. It's not easy to find contemporaneous support for what you're saying, but it's very easy to find support for the idea that private equity simply was not available and that the result would be an unstructured liquidation. This support comes from all over the political and economic spectrum. You're also missing a key component in that paragraph: it's precisely because Ford, GM, Chrysler and I believe the rest of the manufacturers producing domestically (Toyota, BMW, etc.) relied on the same supplier network that this was such a critical situation. GM, and to a lesser extent, Chrysler, represented a large portion of their business, and if they were to go down, the suppliers would as well. This would have impacted the entire US domestic auto manufacturing industry. Ford certainly didn't have tens of billions to swoop in and buy up pieces of GM. All of the auto manufacturers were bracing for substantial downturn in demand. This would not have been a long, drawn-out process. GM and Chrysler had already gone to the well once in late 2008 because they were on the brink of being insolvent. There was not time for suppliers to slowly absorb a huge hit to revenues; there wasn't time for manufacturing plants to transition to other makes and models while still keeping people employed.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 03:09 PM) Whatever, same idea. Why on earth should I give GM credit for doing well AFTER such a debacle. ...because it's not an individual person, and GM now doing well, generating profits and employing tens of thousands of people should be considered a good thing irrespective of past management failures?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 02:50 PM) Yes, i'm being a bit extreme here, but it does seem hilarious to me that we've done nothing in this situation over the last few years but prop up s***ty business models/practices simply because they were too big to fail. If I start my own company and I make dumb mistakes, the government isn't gonna rush in to provide me with the necessary capital that no one else will give me just so I can keep going and possibly fix it. The collapse of jenks, inc. won't cause national unemployment to rise by several percentage points. I agree 100% that, at least in the financial sector, many people have undeservedly made or expanded vast personal fortunes off of bailout money and that no one is seriously being prosecuted for the crimes that caused this collapse. Far too much money was given out with little or no control. Rattner said in December that the deals will likely cost the government $14B, all told. Balance that against the tax receipts generated from not losing 1M+ jobs and corporate taxes.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 02:47 PM) "Well sir, I'm an AMAZING investment banker now. I mean, 3 years ago I lost all of my client's money, but now i'm back in the green!!" "GM" is not a person.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 02:46 PM) I have always agreed with certain aspects of the Occupy movement. Just like I agreed with certain parts of Tea Party movement. Both borrow heavily from the libertarian mindset. I feel pretty confident in saying that the #OWS movement as a whole strongly rejects libertarianism since it generally results in a propertarian minarchy and strict social stratification, at least according to liberal and leftist philosophy. I'd say it's better for society to make sure the economy doesn't completely collapse, putting millions out of work and leading to widespread suffering during a severe economic depression than it is to make sure a few people get punished for being "bad." But AFAIK, GM and Chrysler did clean house and the investors weren't the ones that were really bailed out, so you should be happy that a million jobs were saved. I'd also like to note that it was liberals and leftists pushing for tight controls on executive bonuses and compensation with the right (conservatives and libertarians) pushing back and decrying the end of capitalism.

I would have expected the above from someone more likely to be an #OWS supporter, not someone who has strongly supported the idea that America is a meritocracy and that people who are poor generally deserve it. edit: Is GM still a s***hole company now that's it is generating profits and has reclaimed the #1 spot? What do you estimate the overall impact of the entire domestic auto industry (GM, Chrysler, all of their suppliers and then bringing all domestic auto production down with it) collapsing to be on the economy as a whole? I'd guess that we'd still be above 15% unemployment.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 01:21 PM) All Presidents do it. Of course, Obama is smart enough to put the buffoons in places they can do little harm, like being an ambassador to Luxemborg or the Bahamas. Bush decided to put one in charge of FEMA, which was a special level of stupid. It's all stupid regardless of how much they mitigate that stupidity.

More propaganda

There's nothing illegal about a 16yo and an 18yo dating. These coaches corned the student and forced a confession which did not include any illegal revelations (even disregarding the less than 3 years clause) and then told her mother. McQuery saw physical sexual contact between a child and an adult and reported it to a prominent public figure who was his boss. These are not remotely the same thing, and I sincerely doubt every high school teacher who is knowledgeable of potential relationships between 16 yo's and 18 yo's are mandatory reporters. Like I said, this is a bit of a grey area and, if I were a teacher, I'd be asking my administrators about how to handle this situation. But I sure as hell wouldn't be comparing it to first-hand reports of actual child rape.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 12:31 PM) They couldn't possibly have thought that they would have that many people attend a primary campaign stop. Edit: Was he making a speech about the American auto industry or something at Ford Field? Make some excuse and change to a smaller venue or something. Less than 2000 people at a stadium that holds more than 60,000. Even a basketball stadium would look pretty sparse with 2000 people. He was making a general economics speech but I'd guess that the auto companies played a big role. Still, you have to think about the images that would come out.

This is pretty embarrassing: Romney campaign speech in Detriot