You say that like it is a bad thing. Reporters SUCK at actually asking tough questions of people they fawn over, and are really good at asking ridiculous questions of people they hate. I have very little respect for the MSM reporters.

And Obama, Clinton .... all get a pass on this, because they say things that are untrue, that you actually believe. Do I need to list them for you or will you find out when the news reports it?

We have the economy that the politicians designed. See the problem yet?

1) So did Palin (vs Obama) but that didn't stop the criticism there
2) Most of Hilary's experience is being the wife of Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend
3) Finally, most good democrats cannot even find ONE accomplishment of Hilary, besides #2)

Given the choice between Hilary and Carly, I'd take Carly. Which isn't actually saying much. Personally, I can't stand either of them.

No, the reason we can't have nice things is because idiots are running the place, because they outnumber the people with brains. People who vote Party Lines are idiots.There are 20-30% on each side that don't even bother to know anything, they just vote for (D) or (R) reflexively. BTY, that is a majority of the people are too stupid to actually pay attention.

Which is a real crime! I'm diabetic .. :-(

Declaring intent is a threat. "I'm gonna punch you" is a threat. That alone is enough in many places to act preemptively. But one has to have REASON to believe the threat can be carried out. It comes down to "reason", which is about as nebulous as one can get.

In the case above (4/16) is hardly a threat, because the intent is completely unknown. Random numbers, even in the context of the Campus shooting, isn't enough to gauge a threat. It just isn't. The police should investigate, and even make an arrest (investigative detention) if needed. BUT to charge a person with a crime, for mentioning a date? Without any further cause is just wrong. Yeah, the police had to do their work, boo hoo. Not enough to charge with a crime.

For Speech to be dangerous, it must be followed by an action. Yelling "fire" in a theater isn't illegal, it happens all the time (Actor on stage)"ready, aim, fire!" The resultant panic is what makes it dangerous. If I yelled fire in a theater, where there was no actual flames, and nothing happened, then .. nothing happened. You shouldn't be able to arrest me for nothing.

This is like all the new Politically Correct thought crimes that people love to embrace, you know the poor pizza shop in Indiana, who didn't commit any crime, and yet the harm done by those crying "HATE!!!!!" (no hate, just a difference of opinion on longstanding definition of "marriage" vs the new hip definition), which DID cause harm.

IMHO, speech that is the worst kind, is the kind that needs the strongest defense.

How does one distinguish between credible and non-credible threats?

How does one distinguish attempts at humor ("Hi Jack" in the airport) vs an actual threat (hijack at the airport) ?

I'll tell you how. Hard work. You have to assume the worst, hope for the best and actually do your work and investigate it. I know, it is much easier to arrest the poor guy selling single cigarettes on the street than it is actually doing real important police work.

Not really. At some point, because it is currency (and not just an asset), it is useful and needed in commerce. Those products and services that actually provide usefulness become valued, while extemporaneous superfluous expenditures.

Here is a good example of the difference between currency and an asset. You had $1000 in 1987 to use. You could buy an Apple MacBook, or invest it in Apple stock. Looking back did you make the right decision between Asset or Currency (buying something). Now, if buying the MacBook made you enough money, to later buy $1000 in stock, and other things (it was a tool) then you made a good decision. If not, then it wasn't a good decision.

The long term view of deflationary CURRENCY is that it is also an asset, but it also remains a currency. It has double usefulness. Inflationary currency is a long term net loss if you hold it. It is a liability. The currency part means that you work hard, and save ANYTHING it because a net gain for you. There is no loss over time.

And this is different than now how? You're under the assumption that what you said is something that isn't happening now. I already said the rich hold assets. Changing what is an asset doesn't actually change anything.

However, a poor man, being frugal, can become rich over time. A worker earns his wage and doesn't lose value before he is even been paid.

Here, I'll show you: A worker works for an hour, and earns a bit coin. The person paying him owes him a bit coin. If the currency is deflationary, the longer the payer holds that coin, the worse it is for the payer. He owes that coin no matter what its purchasing power is. Today, one bitcoin can buy a shopping cart full of food. Tomorrow, the shopping cart and something else (a candy bar).

With Inflationary money, a worker can work for $500, which can buy a shopping cart of food. If the payer holds that currency, the worker waits and when he gets it, he can buy a shopping cart of food, minus a candy bar.

Guess which is better for which person. I work for a salary. I haven't had a raise in 7 years. Guess what happens in the inflationary currency? If I work for deflationary currency, guess what happens (hint, it is the opposite).

There are other issues with deflationary currency. However, those that work hard, work extra, save currency are rewarded in deflationary currency market, and punished in inflationary currency.

People want to know why the rich keep getting richer? It is because they don't deal in currency, they deal in assets. Currency is only used when converting one asset for another. Most Currency is inflationary, meaning if you hold it, you lose. This is such a little known fact of life. BitCoin, should it survive will ultimately be deflationary currency, meaning it gains value the longer you hold it.

Think of it this way, you work hard, when you're young, you can retire if you save anything, because deflationary currency becomes an asset. But that doesn't bode well for the rich n powerful, or politicians who need a dependent class of people to take care of.

Actually it doesn't have to match anything. It has to match what the market in Argentina bears. And since Bitcoin is deflationary, while Pesos are Inflationary they counter each other very well. By having Bitcoins, the average Argentine can increase wealth by performing services and charging BitCoins for them.

In terms of monetary terms, withholding payment in Inflationary currency (Peso) is a net gain, and unless you are paid in cash (or equivalent) immediately, Pesos are a losing proposition for workers. On the other hand, withholding payment in a deflationary currency (BitCoin) is bad for the employer, and good for the worker.

This will result in better economy for Argentina, at least for workers.

You say that like it is a bad thing. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, just different.

I'd say having unaccountable private enterprise (the Fed) in charge of money supply has, at least partially, been responsible for dismantling the middle class, and the accumulation of wealth by the few at the top.

Ah yes, the "no true Scotsman" argument".