«12. . .505152535455»
Yeah, dealing with groups is always a pain in the ass.
I agree with the point about not using grammarly, especially the AI function.
Greetings!
After a long period with diplomatic relations interrupted, the Directorate of the Imperial Sanctuary is pleased that we have now re-established contact with all our diplomatic friends.
On behalf of the Directorate, the Department of Foreign Relations hereby sends an official greeting.
For prosperity, security and freedom!
Yours Sincerely,
Emanuel Marks
Director of Foreign Relations
Imperial Sanctuary
My ACCOUNTING professor is starting to act a lot nicer, it is weird. I think it is getting around the University (my behavioral issues) about my issues with group members and group projects and crap. He said "You know what all thats just busy work. I hate internet companies too". He is talking about the issue I am having with the gay kid in my accounting class who is ALSO in my Marketing class. He chose to do a presentation on "Ko Fi" and it is gonna be embarassing. The logo is a cup of tea with a heart on it. That is the kid who I am having trouble with (That came from the marketing teacher). He also commented "You're a pro", referring to how well I did on my multiple choice that we did at home (48/50), AND he tries to mess us up with tricks and stuff that I catch. The best tricker I have seen. He actually doesnt care too much I don't think. I think it is mostly the written stuff he cares about, not things like WHO made the standards and stuff like that (For instance, questions on what the SEC is and what it has to do with accounting doesnt hinder our ability to do accounting work so long as we know how to do it). I told him about my philosophy on why I messed up my balance sheet and how I was thinking to myself "Can an expense be an asset?" I knew I was wrong but I put expenses (debits) on the asset (debits) portion of my balance sheet making me look super dumb. It had been a while but thats basic accounting that expenses are on the income statement. He expected me to quit I think. I think he was scared I'd get him in trouble actually through a bad review in anger, especially after I saw how I did. He was being an ass the whole semester probably because he thought I'd drop. "You know, there arent even 40 people here" (I got 42/70, BAD grade obviously) after saying he was trying to decide how to make our final exam, saying he may make it a take home making financial statements. He keeps reminding me that he teaches the his higher up classes too, probably warning me to remember I'd see him again, I don't know
I asked my hot Turkish professor who went on a walk with me if she wanted to go on a date and she said she'd get fired. She told me I had pretty eyes and stuff. "It [my blue shirt] complements your eyes so well"
She told me at midnight "Jacob I have been at work since 7 am. I am tired. I'm sorry i can't respond immediately" before telling me I was paranoid. She smokes ganja too
I feel like it was "i" on purpose. Like, "I cant respond super quick or they'll know we are in a secret relationship."
But the expense being an asset thought was kind of a philsophical thing that was going on in my mind. They are both debits. Just because it is a debit doesnt mean it is an asset, but all assets are debits, all expenses are debits, and all liabilities equity and revenue are credits. I ALSO put revenue as a LIABILITY on the other side.....I was explaining i was not as dumb as the balance sheet made me look. "Umm no, expenses and revenue belong on the income statement". In ACCOUNTING terms no, but I was trying to explain that what was going on in my head was not "STUPID," if that makes sense
Some very obnoxious pro-Hamas protests have kicked into full-swing on campus lately. At least it's close to the end of the semester. As long as nothing too stupid happens, I count it mainly as an inconvenience, if a fairly vitriolic and ugly one.
Ours isnt THAT bad but there is certainly pro-lib bullcrap all over campus.
It actually confused me at first when I saw we (the UNIVERSITY had them installed) had BLM flags ALL OVER campus. Meanwhile, not 1 American flag. As in, entire metal poles dedicated entirely do displaying the BLM logo. INSIDE "University Hall" (Where all MY classes have been so far) there is lib crap on all the walls and it makes me so mad. Can I put these things up? Some sticker about great minorities talked about AOC and how she tried to get Clarence Thomas impeached (That was the example given on why she is a good leader). I bet people dont know Clarence Thomas is black. So maybe I should put pro-Clarence Thomas stuff in the same place. It really surprises me. I wonder who decides what can and cannot be displayed. It is my campus too.
Israel certainly had the right to declare war in self defense. Civilian casualties are pretty much inevitable.
That being said, I don't care as long as the United States stays away (And I dont know, but I'm guessing we've already given tons of money to them (More than usual)). I dont think foreign aid is constitutional whatsoever, and I cant find anything in the constitution that could permit it directly OR through the sticky clause or whatever. There does seem to be an odd thing I have found where we defend every single thing Israel does and treat them like our baby just because there are Jews in Israel. There is a weird neo-con obsession with Israel, but saying that they have a right to declare war isnt it (I am talking about how we give them tons of money and baby them and things: let them be a free and independent state)
We should CERTAINLY stay out of Ukraine. I believe it is unconstitutional and a I understand how to interpret the constitution the way it should be. I just can't find a power. I'm not saying I am an expert but I highly HIGHLY doubt that those ratifying the constitution could have envisioned not only us but us in debt (like theirs was at the time of the ratification of the constitution) throwing away money. Giving away money. I can't find the power. Someone help me believe, seriously (If you believe foreign aid is constitutional)
I totally agree with Hamilton there are "unwritten" rules about the constitution. This isnt one. More like declaring the national anthem, flag, holidays, and of course, something permitted by the sticky clause. And I just cant find it there either.
I hate to look like a weirdo, but I sort of like Putin. I think Japan and Russia would make our greatest allies. Free nationalist countries. (You can claim Russia isnt "free", but I think it is: I think there is anti-Russian propoganda here actually. Those bankers and the military industrial complex need their sweet wars. I got super pissed when I got in an argument (thankfully online class) with my history (my minor) professor over the Fed, and other topics not just that (He was a lib, not that the Fed opinion was related to that). He said I was influenced by "anti-Semitic conspiracy theories". Another thing I said (not related) he got mad at and fact checked it with Politico. Good job using a known liberal secondary source to check the accuracy of my statement)
I got in a few DEBATES (He was a lib I can tell (you just get that vibe if you know what I mean), but nice) with my microeconomics teacher. After our discussion posts, on Zoom he laughed and said "Ok guys, so money isnt metal..." HAHA, yes it is. In fact it is the only money that can be issued by the federal government ("COIN money"). Even if my statement on constitutionality isnt true, it is certainly money. Thats why we have reserves, or that is the PRINCIPLE behind the Fed before the Nixon shock (In some ways our fiat money is still partially backed by gold, such as that in Fort Knox: if there ISNT gold in Fort Knox, maybe us not knowing is for the better....Definitely, actually. If they took intermediary accounting. And I am guessing he may not have. Probably introductory)
I remember one time I was ranting about the constitutionality of something and Balkans just posted a Supreme Court ruling and didnt say anything. Yeah.... That means you wanna win an argument but you can't do it. Justices take an oath to support the constitution just like every member of government. If I was a public servant and I believe something is unconstitutional, I will not do it just because the Supreme Court said it was alright: that is breaking your oath. The Supreme Court is to settle disputes, not make laws or TELL US what is and is not constitutional. That is up to your interpretation. They are to settle a dispute TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the constitution.
I don't know if you guys remember this, but one time when I was a kid while Justice of the FFS I overruled a previous ruling (on my own) that said GOR can have nations in foreign regions and it got overturned in the manner the constitution allowed. In other words, I (the judicial branch) could do ANYTHING, following the precedent set. And it is the same thing with the US Supreme Court, if we were to follow that precedent completely. They are to settle disputes, taking into account the oath that all members of government are to adher.
I don't think foreign aid is unconstitutional. Also, I would say the reason we're involved in Israel and Ukraine is because these are smaller nations with powerful enemies, and they would not survive without a rich and strong friend like the United States. Ditto Taiwan. So I don't have any of the same sympathy for Russia that people apparently have on the right.
As for the stuff on the walls, I mainly consider it a nuisance. Ultimately, it will be their freedoms of speech and protest and so on. It's mainly the stuff that threatens my convenience and safety that I take issue with.
What power granted to Congress justifies its ability to give foreign aid? You need a power on an issue like this. Are you making the argument that foreign aid is constitutional if it benefits us indirectly in a manner that Congress is allowed (If it helps "promote the common defense" or something). In other words, are you saying it is implied under the sticky clause? I really don't understand your argument here. Our government is one of enumerated powers. I can't find it.
On the subject of giving foreign aid just to give it, I can't see that being justified under the constitution at all.
*Also, to go along with originalism, look at the time. We were a nation in debt (We still are but it mattered back then). They didnt imagine this while ratifying the constitution. They didnt imagine an empire or us being a babysitter. The President of the constitutional convention (Washington) was very careful about getting involved in other country's affairs. I cannot see such a power being implied at all looking at those who helped draft the constitution.
I had a conversation with my financial management teacher (He is also a lawyer and a CPA) on the constitution. I actually don't think Trump's tariffs (taxes, which Congress lays) are constitutional, though I have a feeling every president would do it if they wanted. He told me in some way they were. I don't see it unless in times of war or something where you could argue that tariffs somehow help us or hurt our enemies. I believe his argument is that they aren't just like other taxes: they are meant to do something more than just raise money. Still, I don't know. I would have to think on that one.
Most of my professors are more conservative, but only because they are either finance, business, economics, and accounting professors (They know about money, so naturally they tend to be Republican). Some of my professors are not. My business ethics professor (That one does NOT count: almost a history class about how certain minorities are oppressed) and managing organizational behavior teacher were both liberals, I could tell.
However, by that logic, we would have to get involved in EVERY conflict. I think it is crazy to suggest we should give billions and billions to Ukraine that we dont have. It is none of our business. We can do so UNTIL faith in the dollar is totally lost. Not every place can be like America. That is just the way it is: Israel will be a country plagued by war for the rest of its existence. If you dont wanna live there, get out.
If only Israelis had the right to bear arms when Hamas came. THAT is what we should be doing. Setting an example.
Re: the constitutionality, I will have to take some time and give my arguments in a more thorough way, and with the appropriate level of citation. I can't give you that right now, sadly, but I promise I will later, haha. I know you take the question very seriously, and I agree, it deserves an appropriate level of deep, serious consideration.
Re: the debt. While the national debt and deficits concern me greatly, you will find that foreign aid is a relatively miniscule portion of the American budget. We also do make good business decisions with our foreign aid, to the irritation of other countries, in the sense that in general we are cheap, and give loans and grants only in ways that profit us somehow. Sometimes we do give a lot of aid that is basically humanitarian charity, but again, those are a fraction of a fraction of the total budget, and also it buys us goodwill abroad. Not to mention, especially when it comes to, for instance, disease prevention, it does in a distributed way redound to our benefits. We learn how to fight disease, we prevent diseases from spreading to the US, and we also actually get to test new things when it comes to fighting disease. Not to mention the people who receive the aid benefit from not dying horribly of disease! And they remember that the USA did that for them and understand our mission in the world is basically benevolent. Now, of course this us all arguable in terms of how really effective it is, and what's the efficacy of disease aid vs. military aid vs. food aid vs. (especially) financial aid. These are appropriate questions to ask. But I don't think that it's by its nature something the United States should be constitutionally obligates to never do. If we can send our troops and ships abroad, we can certainly send our weapons and money and food and medicine.
I think the logic is sound. But yes, there is a practical limit, in the sense that the United States, for all our wealth and power, aren't able to act without consideration as to costs, and even more so, catastrophic costs imposed by hostile actors—notably Russia, China, Iran, and to a much lesser extent North Korea, as well as non-state organizations and militants. We have to balance all these things together. I totally reject the idea that what happens to Ukraine is "none of our business." The security and prosperity of Europe and the unchecked aggression of bandit states like Russia are very much our business.
What did Russia do wrong other than considering Ukraine to be apart of Russia? Seriously. I get tired of the anti-Russian propoganda.
Also, are they really pro Hamas?
I do not think or Israel, a country the world created after WW2, is some divine state that we have an obligation to help in every single affair: financial aid only teaches them to be dependent, continuing a cycle.
Also, are you referring to the accounting term "goodwill"?
I feel like if you have to think about it, you aren't really sure if it is constitutional either.
And no, I don't believe our military aid has been constitutional either. Definitely not military aid to Ukraine. I could see giving foreign aid to allies in (declared) wars for the purpose of fighting that war as constitutional. Or something else that would benefit us in a way Congress can (Just a random hypothetical example, paying Mexico to keep their criminals inside ("provide for the common defense") or something)
To be honest we haven't gotten into goodwill....It is an intangible asset but he didnt really tell us what it is
Iran is a funder and military supporter of Hamas, though I don't think they're quite a proxy org, like the Houthis or Hezbollah. Not sure about Russia.
I don't think I am referring to the accounting term? Maybe accidentally, but definitely not knowingly. I know very little about accounting, per se.
Russia is doing something wrong by "considering Ukraine to be [a part?] of Russia." That is wrong. That's as wrong as us considering any other sovereign foreign state as being part of the United States, when they are in fact not. It is exactly the kind of aggressive war of territorial expansion that libertarians traditionally admit the righteous function of the State at home is to prevent and resist.
As for Israel, well, I also don't believe that we have a divine obligation. I am not what you would call a "religious Zionist," although I understand that is a popular belief set among evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants. To the extent I support Israel, it is moral and political for me, rather than theological.
Actually, you might consider that one of the major reasons we have so much global reach, is because of our interests in global trade. Ever since our wars with the Barbary Pirates, surely you can at least admit there's an obvious justification for global military involvement by the wealthiest, strongest countries (the UK in a previous age, the USA in this one) guaranteeing the safety of the world's oceans and trade routes. It just occurred to me, if I were a historian, it might be a fun academic project to analyze how many of our wars were in some major way caused by threats to American shipping. Certainly the War of 1812 and WW1 have causes of this kind, as does the War of Independence. Anyway, that's a tangential point. But Israel, and other American allies and sponsors of our bases, allow us real access to strategic points across the world. Even if we had dismantled everything strictly, only related to ""fighting"" the Cold War, there would still be a lot of bases and allies and partners we'd be involved with, just because we have a major, MAJOR interest in keeping the seas (and skies) SAFE—and almost every other country also wants us to do that. They don't want us involved in their domestic concerns, naturally, and I agree with that. I don't believe in unlimited intervention for intervention's sake. But, like, foreign aid is not really intervention.
I also am not sure that Israel is actually growing dependent on our aid. It's a valid concern, but I think to establish it, we would want to look at facts, rather than religiously generalizing from principles. Humans tend to follow economic laws, but they can make smart decisions to avert problems, if they are proäctive.
Mm, a pithy argument, but it's not correct. You can be convinced of something, but find it difficult to convince someone else of it without careful investigation and thought. That's just a matter of feeling sure about a belief being different from that belief actually being right. It happens, of course. Sometimes we're 100% deadset certain of something, only to find out at some other point that we were totally wrong. So it's out of respect for your intelligence and character that I want to frame my argument carefully. I wouldn't want to insult someone by just spouting an ill-considered stream of nonsense on such a genuinely important question. You would think less of me for that, and you'd be right to.
Okay, it looks like unfortunately a few RMB messages got wiped out by the crash. Bummer. Luckily, I think I have backups for the law that was passed and erased from it. There is one other thing I posted which I am not sure whether or not I had it backed up. I wrote a court opinion, and I'm not quite finished searching for it. Once I have found it, or looked everywhere and not found it, then I'll be about set to finish updating the Codex.
Ah! I have, in fact, been able to recover it. It will be added to the Law Codex.
For some weird reason, more well-known companies have simpler financial statements. I just realized that is why he said "first come first serve" on the list of companies he put out. I got in a little argument because I picked Coke before this other kid. I was so confused as to why he cared so much (Its the same work: we are supposed to do like 20 financial ratios and interpret them, using info in their 2023, 2022 and 2021 financial statementa). Now I totally see......I picked "Flowserve", some random corporation, and their "10-k" is SO confusing. The accounting genius in my class was sitting next to me and he said "Tell me if you need some help on that by the way....". I then asked him where to find the number of shares and he just pointed to some number on a financial statement while I was scrolling through the 10-k. I said "No thats the CONSILIDATED statement of comprehensive income....what is that? A simpler income statement or something?" And he said "I DON'T KNOW" and went back to the seat he was at and the accounting professor started laughing. Their financial statements are hard to read and I dont get it. Coke is just as big as "Flowserve", the random compwny I picked, I am guessing. I dont quite understand. But I looked at their 10-k and it is so much simpler.....
«12. . .505152535455»
Advertisement