Quote :

"Oh please, its a simply a business trying to make its product more competitive. Its just making a small effort to target readers in specific regions - North America and the everywhere else. Sales and ad revenue are the only things that affect what goes on the cover of TIME magazine."

Is that why the covers are the same for every region except America? Wouldn't your theory consist of a different cover for every region?

Failed hypothesis.

[Edited on November 27, 2011 at 11:58 PM. Reason : .]

11/27/2011 11:57:34 PM

They only have the money to produce two magazines, one for the U.S. and one for the rest of the world.

11/28/2011 12:30:25 AM

Haaa. Good joke, man. Good joke.

You are joking, right?

11/28/2011 3:53:59 AM

I'm still waiting your logic on absolute freedom of speech (death threats, 'fire' in a crowded theater, etc)

11/28/2011 4:16:44 AM

I always found this point fascinating. Death threats are perfectly legal. So is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. Both are protected speech, such as a play about someone yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater being performed in a crowded theater.

What is illegal is reckless endangerment. Identical to how driving a car is perfectly legal, but driving a car through a crowded theater will get you arrested.

11/28/2011 10:24:33 AM

Need a reason to occupy? Look here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html

Secret Fed Loans Gave Banks Undisclosed $13B

11/28/2011 11:03:39 AM

Quote :

"Wouldn't your theory consist of a different cover for every region? "

No it wouldn't. It makes vastly more sense than Time magazine trying to stifle thoughts of "Revolution" in the USA. They have nothing to gain by doing that.

11/28/2011 12:32:45 PM

I was about to agree that Time was a news organization and would love to have more news to report, as a more revolutionary U.S. would produce. Then I thought about it further. Time is a magazine which comes out up to 30 days after the dramatic news story of the day has occurred. As such, no, Time definitely has a strong incentive to make the U.S. calm down enough for people to wait for next month's issue rather than grabbing a newspaper or going on the web.

11/28/2011 5:57:15 PM

^^^ More like a reason to elect Ron Paul.

11/28/2011 6:14:24 PM

Quote :

"No it wouldn't. It makes vastly more sense than Time magazine trying to stifle thoughts of "Revolution" in the USA. They have nothing to gain by doing that."

Perhaps the material they release is being governed by a bigger entity.


Nope, that's too far fetched.


The black out of Ron Paul is too far fetched too

11/28/2011 6:18:48 PM

Still waiting

11/28/2011 6:27:53 PM

Can't you figure out what I'm going to say without me having to say it? It's common sense. If you don't got common sense, you don't got common sense.




Let me illustrate the answer for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4xaWMKBlw4

[Edited on November 28, 2011 at 7:03 PM. Reason : .]

11/28/2011 6:59:48 PM

That video does nothing to show why it's ok to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater (if there is no fire) or why death threats should be legal...

so, still waiting.

11/28/2011 7:08:28 PM

Does it answer what happens when you yell fire in a place with a real fire?

11/28/2011 7:12:54 PM

That's not the issue, the issue with that building was building exits and pyrotechnics.

Tell me why someone should be able to walk into a crowded building and scream 'FIRE' and why someone can make death threats....and go.

11/28/2011 7:16:04 PM

Because it's just a word.


What you do with that word is your decision.

11/28/2011 7:18:17 PM

Bahahahaha, that's the best you got?

11/28/2011 7:24:22 PM

Define "is that the best"

[Edited on November 28, 2011 at 7:25 PM. Reason : .]

11/28/2011 7:25:08 PM

Words are just words so we should allow slander, libel, blackmail, death threats, threats of violence, shouting 'fire' to incite a panic if there is no fire is A-OKAY!!!

FRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

11/28/2011 7:29:22 PM

You have a problem with it?

11/28/2011 7:30:19 PM

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

11/28/2011 7:31:26 PM

People shouting 'fire' when there hasn't been has killed people before...so yeah, sticks and stones.

11/28/2011 7:34:24 PM

Don't sit where you can get trampled. Simple enough.

11/28/2011 7:36:19 PM

Wait...so we're blaming the victims now? Some of which were children.

Let me get this straight, someone falsely yells 'Fire', people panic, children get crushed...we blame the children.

11/28/2011 7:38:12 PM

You're grasping for straws now

11/28/2011 7:39:22 PM

only repeating what you're saying troll.

11/28/2011 7:41:59 PM

bbehe: I'm still waiting your logic on absolute freedom of speech (death threats, 'fire' in a crowded theater, etc)

bbehe: I'm still waiting your logic on absolute freedom of speech (death threats, 'fire' in a crowded theater, etc)

bbehe: Still waiting

gxb: gave answer

bbehe: Bahahahaha, that's the best you got?

bbehe: troll response.

bbehe: troll response.

bbehe: only repeating what you're saying troll.
[/quote]

11/28/2011 8:48:38 PM

Your best answer was "words are words, and words don't hurt"

My answer "people have died because of false threats"

Yours: "Shouldn't have been in the way"

Me: "So you want to blame the victims, some of which were childreb"

Yours: zomg grasping at straws.

11/28/2011 8:51:33 PM

give it a rest.


I like 100% freedom of speech.

You don't.

Agree to disagree.

11/28/2011 8:57:08 PM

So you're supporting the pointless death of children? Sweet.

11/28/2011 9:06:24 PM

You like the complete control by the government over everyone's speech for the safety of children

11/28/2011 9:34:55 PM

failed sarcasm

[Edited on November 28, 2011 at 9:45 PM. Reason : a]

11/28/2011 9:36:57 PM

So these children aren't going to be adults one day. The people that you don't give two fucks about.

11/28/2011 9:37:56 PM

It's not complete control if it's just threats of violence/harm or something meant to incite a panic. You know shit that can get people hurt?

11/28/2011 9:51:06 PM

How many people have died in false fire alarms that it's worth losing our freedom for?


Compare that number to say.... cigarette related deaths.

11/28/2011 10:10:27 PM

For fucks sake, get the fuck out of Soap Box with this petty bullshit. The both of you.

11/28/2011 10:17:31 PM

banning speech would not save anyone. Stick with the current regulatory regime of free speech, it has served us well.

11/28/2011 10:35:22 PM

Quote :

"Need a reason to occupy? Look here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html Secret Fed Loans Gave Banks Undisclosed $13B"

Did I read correctly that TARP's approximate $0.7 trillion is dwarfed in comparison to the Fed's approximate $7.7 trillion TAF?

What kind of brutal police reaction could be expected if people were to occupy the Fed?

11/28/2011 11:02:43 PM

^

http://youtu.be/swkq2E8mswI


Watch from 2:52 to 4:10.

[Edited on November 28, 2011 at 11:14 PM. Reason : .]

11/28/2011 11:14:19 PM

sticks and stones break bones, but words break hearts

11/29/2011 1:04:10 PM

Henry Paulson warned his Goldman Sachs buddies

Quote :

"After a perfunctory discussion of the market turmoil, the fund manager says, the discussion turned to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Paulson said he had erred by not punishing Bear Stearns shareholders more severely. The secretary, then 62, went on to describe a possible scenario for placing Fannie and Freddie into “conservatorship” -- a government seizure designed to allow the firms to continue operations despite heavy losses in the mortgage markets. Stock Wipeout Paulson explained that under this scenario, the common stock of the two government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, would be effectively wiped out. So too would the various classes of preferred stock, he said. The fund manager says he was shocked that Paulson would furnish such specific information -- to his mind, leaving little doubt that the Treasury Department would carry out the plan. The managers attending the meeting were thus given a choice opportunity to trade on that information. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-29/how-henry-paulson-gave-hedge-funds-advance-word-of-2008-fannie-mae-rescue.html


Technically, what he did wasn't illegal, apparently.

11/30/2011 3:55:03 AM

hey GeniuSxBoY and bbehe, take your bullshit argument out of this thread. PM each other or create another thread. Stop shittin on this one...

Thanks.

11/30/2011 4:04:35 AM

This guy's got some balls:

Quote :

"Taking a broad swipe at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s practice of allowing companies to settle cases without admitting that they had done anything wrong, a federal judge on Monday rejected a $285 million settlement between Citigroup and the agency... ...In his decision, Judge Rakoff called Citigroup “a recidivist,” or repeat offender, for having previously settled other fraud cases with the agency where it neither admitted nor denied the allegations but agreed never to violate the law in the future. "

He blocked a Citigroup settlement with the SEC and is actually going to try and force the SEC to take Citigroup to court. Yeah, that's right. The SEC does not want to take financial institutions to court for cases where they have documented fraud. The SEC would rather the banks settle and pay a small fine than go to court against them


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/business/judge-rejects-sec-accord-with-citi.html?_r=1


[Edited on November 30, 2011 at 4:16 AM. Reason : ]

11/30/2011 4:08:59 AM

Occupy Protesters Mobilize for Obama’s Visit

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/occupy-protesters-mobilize-for-obamas-visit/

Quote :

"More than 100 Occupy Wall Street protesters marched to a Midtown hotel on Wednesday night to protest a fund-raising event for President Obama. Escorted by police vehicles as they helped snarl traffic across the Times Square area, beginning at Bryant Park, the group settled in front of barricades on the northwest corner of 53rd Street and 7th Avenue, in view of the Sheraton hotel at which Mr. Obama was expected to appear by 9 p.m. Demonstrators held signs that leveled some of the Occupy protest’s most pointed criticism to date of the president. “Obama is a corporate puppet,” one said. “War crimes must be stopped, no matter who does them,” read another, beside head shots of President George W. Bush and President Obama. One man, wearing a mask of the president’s face and holding a cigar, carried a sign that read, “I sold out!” Ben Campbell, 28, one of the march’s organizers, said he hoped to prove to skeptics of the protests that the demonstrators were political critics of equal opportunity. “President Obama is coming to town solely to raise money from the richest of the rich,” Mr. Campbell said. The 45-minute march from Bryant Park forced shoppers and theatergoers into retreat on what mostly likely would have been a difficult night to find sidewalk space anyway. At one point, two pedestrians tried to move through the crowd head-on but quickly reconsidered, breaking into a jog in the other direction. “You better not go that way,” one protester told them moments earlier. “You’re going to hit democracy.” Officers, on foot and on motorcycles, followed the protesters with each step, trying — with occasional success — to keep marchers off the road. Many protesters chafed at the sight of barricaded pens near the hotel, but a majority decided to stay, given how close they were to their destination. Shortly before 9 p.m., as the police cut off traffic and began making final preparations for the president’s arrival, officers informed demonstrators that the area had been designated a “frozen zone” until the president’s departure: They were not allowed to leave their enclosure, bound by three lines of barricades and a Chase bank. Some protesters tried to break through, but were swiftly rebuffed by officers, who shoved them back to their initial perches. Before the trek began around 6:45 p.m., one officer appeared to foretell a difficult evening. “This is going to be fun,” he said to a colleague, dropping his head. “I already tore my A.C.L. on this job.”"

11/30/2011 11:47:28 PM

Lulz,

Protest banks in public places get pepper sprayed and mugged by police.

Protest obama in public places get a police escort.

12/1/2011 6:31:13 AM

Lulz,

Talk to bank teller get 50 yr prison sentence:



Talk to Obama get signed autograph:

12/1/2011 8:48:14 AM

^ I was expecting a 2nd pic

12/1/2011 10:00:33 AM

Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf being Mic Checked at NCSU:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N1g3Xps68g

12/1/2011 10:24:23 AM

I didn't know he was speaking on campus. I would have gone.

Too bad he was shouted down. I'm sure the shouting could have waited until the question&answer session after whatever he was going to say. Then we all could have heard his response to the criticism rather than what did happen, which was all communication coming to a halt.

[Edited on December 1, 2011 at 11:12 AM. Reason : .,.]

12/1/2011 11:11:57 AM

Who gives a shit what he has to say. Inviting him to speak was asking for trouble.

12/1/2011 1:23:16 PM