Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 May 1999 11:46:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
860 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Ed Jones wrote:
>
> > The changes were brought about by initiatives begun during the
> > Koch and Dinkins administrations - Rudy is just taking credit
> > for it all.
>
> Debatable. But debating it puts me in an R defending position. No
> thanks, I'll pass. Politicians would take credit for the sun rising if
> they could.
Just to name two of the initiatives - Koch and Dinkins added 1000s of police to
the force. The return of beat cops in "problem" neighborhoods.
> Side point, why the quotes on sister in law? If you have chosen a life
> partner, it's rather bogus and intrusive of the government to say that
> you can't marry them just because they happen to be of a gender the
> government doesn't sanctify, don't you think? Marriage is a contract
> between individuals and the government has no place moralising about
> which individuals (or how many) can enter into it. But I digress.
> (you're free to agree if you wish, no need to disagree about everything,
> after all)
No need to disagree - the quotes are there simply to reinforce the fact that we
do not and currently cannot have a legally binding marriage - and are denied
the benefits of such a relationship.
> Point taken that you did not say it was a good idea, sorry for the
> misquote.
>
> However, as I pointed out in my email to you at the time, it has NO
> effect on brokerages, you have it confused with a different, less
> perfidious, but still perfidious government privacy intrusion. Know your
> customer is about banking.
Know Your Customer is about all transactions of amounts over a certain
amount - which is the lifeblood of a brokerage firm - it would have a major
impact of the industy which is why we were in the process of designing courses
for our traders/brokers to ensure that the tracking requirements were met.
> OK, fair enough. (great news, by the way). But you haven't refuted the
> assertion that NY is violent, though.
NY is not as violent as it was. Per capita it is much less violence than
Detroit, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and others (based on
additional stats from the link above). Because its NYC, its violence gets much
mroe publicity than most other cities. So, to people in Seattle and Iowa and
Oshkosh, 2 murders a day sounds totally horrific - but when you consider there
are over 7,000,000 people, 2 murders a day is barely a wake in the water.
But the point is that you make an example of NYC and violence that seems to be
based on nothing more than a correlation of opinions based on hearsay about
NYC. There is violence in every city in America - New York is certainly not
the worst.
As to the correlation between anti-gun laws and the reduction of crime in NYC,
I can't find the exact date that those laws went into effect, but I recall
that they were during the end of the Koch administration.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) I forgot the most important point: Those transactions are completed 99% of the time via wire transfer from bank accounts - that is the reason that brokerages would be required to track the transactions. (25 years ago, 15-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Debatable. But debating it puts me in an R defending position. No thanks, I'll pass. Politicians would take credit for the sun rising if they could. (...) No argument, R & D are both nasty. I just hope Carville and Matalin never have kids, (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
