I think we should train Welders to be like those mysterious black smiths in fantasy novels. All philosophical and gak about life, steel, and the meaning of why this young hero is here pestering me with his petty problems
Causing many of them to make incorrect statements. Rubio's welder v. philosopher comment, for instance.
That was accurate... critics thought they heard philosopher professor... which Rubio didn't say.
Well, it depends on what data you use to compare the two fields. Welders can make good money in relation to their overall level of higher education, but you won't be rich by a damn sight (unfortunately).
Also, what you weld and where you weld it makes a huge difference in what you're paid.
Sure... but the overarching point is that we need to stop denigrating these blue collar jobs over college educations.
That was accurate... critics thought they heard philosopher professor... which Rubio didn't say.
No, they thought they heard "philosopher", which is what Rubio said. People with undergraduate philosophy degrees have a higher median income than welders.
whembly wrote: I am not talking about the pie-in-the-sky, non-existent brand of socialism that is embraced by the left, but the real socialism practiced in the real world. The one that enslaves people, that poisons their cultures, that murders them for disobedience or sometimes, simply for mere convenience. Those are the hard facts in those countries that Sanders (many Democrats for that matter) willfully turn a blind eye on because it isn't the "real socialism" as described in their textbooks.
What you are describing is not socialism. You don't know what the word "socialism" means, at all. You've proven that time and time again and you continue to do so.
So let's give it a chaaaaaaaaaaaaaaance.
Funny enough, he sometimes forget that this isn't the 70's anymore and the scandinavian countries are NOT the socialist countries he believes they are... but, forgive him 'cuz he's totes kewl!
Funny that you bring up that same point again after myself and others have explained how wrong it is. There is literally nothing in any article about this topic that you have brought up that shows Sanders thinks the Nordic model is something that it isn't. On the contrary, he's explainedwhat it is and why he likes plenty of times. But please, go ahead and continue to ignore things you disagree with as you're wont to do.
I am not talking about the pie-in-the-sky, non-existent brand of socialism that is embraced by the left, but the real socialism practiced in the real world. The one that enslaves people, that poisons their cultures, that murders them for disobedience or sometimes, simply for mere convenience. Those are the hard facts in those countries that Sanders (many Democrats for that matter) willfully turn a blind eye on because it isn't the "real socialism" as described in their textbooks.
That's nice and all, but you still haven't presented evidence that Sanders supports that form of socialism. Are you basing your whole argument on his 1985 quote?
Funny enough, he sometimes forget that this isn't the 70's anymore and the scandinavian countries are NOT the socialist countries he believes they are... but, forgive him 'cuz he's totes kewl!
You didn't read that article, did you? Because it tells the tale of states that moved from an overly socialized economy to a mixed one, not unlike the US.
Causing many of them to make incorrect statements. Rubio's welder v. philosopher comment, for instance.
That was accurate... critics thought they heard philosopher professor... which Rubio didn't say.
Well, it depends on what data you use to compare the two fields. Welders can make good money in relation to their overall level of higher education, but you won't be rich by a damn sight (unfortunately).
Also, what you weld and where you weld it makes a huge difference in what you're paid.
Sure... but the overarching point is that we need to stop denigrating these blue collar jobs over college educations.
Lately I feel like I hear more denigrating of college education than I do blue collar jobs. I can't remember the last time I actually heard someone saying something negative about skilled blue collar jobs like welding, plumbing, mechanics, etc. If anything I've started hearing more people push for more vocational programs and apprenticeships (which I think is a good thing, personally, and hope to see more of). I hear people denigrate college education and those who have them on a pretty regular basis, and often in a grossly uninformed manner, like Rubio's welders vs. philosophers comment.
whembly wrote: I'm telling you that the majority of voters will not accept Sander's proposal and he'll be branded in the worst way during the General Election.
Causing many of them to make incorrect statements. Rubio's welder v. philosopher comment, for instance.
That was accurate... critics thought they heard philosopher professor... which Rubio didn't say.
Well, it depends on what data you use to compare the two fields. Welders can make good money in relation to their overall level of higher education, but you won't be rich by a damn sight (unfortunately).
Also, what you weld and where you weld it makes a huge difference in what you're paid.
Sure... but the overarching point is that we need to stop denigrating these blue collar jobs over college educations.
Lately I feel like I hear more denigrating of college education than I do blue collar jobs. I can't remember the last time I actually heard someone saying something negative about skilled blue collar jobs like welding, plumbing, mechanics, etc. If anything I've started hearing more people push for more vocational programs and apprenticeships (which I think is a good thing, personally, and hope to see more of). I hear denigrate college education and those who have them on a pretty regular basis, and often in a grossly uninformed manner, like Rubio's welders vs. philosophers comment.
I think in a newsy / social media context you're right.
However, what's drilled into our students at Elementary / High Schools?
Vocational programs and apprenticeships need more visibility in not only in High Schools...but, the general public.
whembly wrote: I'm telling you that the majority of voters will not accept Sander's proposal and he'll be branded in the worst way during the General Election.
You tell me because you seem to be the one that thinks it.
I am not talking about the pie-in-the-sky, non-existent brand of socialism that is embraced by the left, but the real socialism practiced in the real world. The one that enslaves people, that poisons their cultures, that murders them for disobedience or sometimes, simply for mere convenience. Those are the hard facts in those countries that Sanders (many Democrats for that matter) willfully turn a blind eye on because it isn't the "real socialism" as described in their textbooks.
So let's give it a chaaaaaaaaaaaaaaance.
Funny enough, he sometimes forget that this isn't the 70's anymore and the scandinavian countries are NOT the socialist countries he believes they are... but, forgive him 'cuz he's totes kewl!
You mean communism? Because there is a great deal of difference between socialism and communism (shocking, I know).
I read it, I just don't see what it has to do with Cuba or Venezuela. I mean, you're right, that's how he'll be branded but that is primarily due to people who want to brand him that way. People like you.
whembly wrote: Sure... but the overarching point is that we need to stop denigrating these blue collar jobs over college educations.
So the statement he made isn't correct, but since he was lying in support of broader idea it's totally cool.
Gotcha.
Actually, Rubio is still correct.
That’s because there are nearly one million jobs related to welding and machinery, and just about 23,000 jobs related to teaching philosophy. Median wage is therefore an idiotic measure between “philosophers” v. “welders”. That same Labor Bureau estimates that by 2024 the demands for welder will be over 400,000.
Rubio was saying was obvious... you will have a better chance at a decent paying job in welding than you will as a professional philosopher.
So this criticism of Rubio is weaksauce because... what... the Democrats are trying to tear him down? Why?
I read it, I just don't see what it has to do with Cuba or Venezuela. I mean, you're right, that's how he'll be branded but that is primarily due to people who want to brand him that way. People like you.
Um... Sanders would likely agree with me.
He's so fething far on the lefty ideology spectrum, normal lefties can't see him.
LordofHats wrote: I think we should train Welders to be like those mysterious black smiths in fantasy novels. All philosophical and gak about life, steel, and the meaning of why this young hero is here pestering me with his petty problems
whembly wrote: Sure... but the overarching point is that we need to stop denigrating these blue collar jobs over college educations.
So the statement he made isn't correct, but since he was lying in support of broader idea it's totally cool.
Gotcha.
Actually, Rubio is still correct.
That’s because there are nearly one million jobs related to welding and machinery, and just about 23,000 jobs related to teaching philosophy. Median wage is therefore an idiotic measure between “philosophers” v. “welders”. That same Labor Bureau estimates that by 2024 the demands for welder will be over 400,000.
Rubio was saying was obvious... you will have a better chance at a decent paying job in welding than you will as a professional philosopher.
The point is that having a degree in philosophy doesn't limit you to teaching philosophy. Someone with a philosophy degree can get a variety of high-paying jobs, which is why people with philosophy degrees have higher median incomes. Humanities degrees don't put you on one specific job track, which is hard for some people to understand, but that's actually one of the advantages to having one.
whembly wrote:
So you don't think Obamacare won't be fixed faster had Congressional critters had to purchase insurance from the exchange, like everybody else?
Nope. They all make enough money, have enough lobbyists buying them free meals, have the party's support structure, etc., so that they can pretty much pay for any insurance program they want or even pay their own medical costs.
The one thing I will "agree" with Rubio on, is that we really do need to not be "demonizing" trade schools. I think that education as a whole is important, but the trades are just as vital to America as are academic and more white collar type jobs, in some cases probably more so.
I agree, but at the same time, who's demonizing trade schools? I've never heard anything like that. Maybe it's my area, but it's not something I've ever experienced.
He's so fething far on the lefty ideology spectrum, normal lefties can't see him.
But that doesn't mean he supports the governments of Cuba and Venezuela, or seeks to emulate them. You're taking really far left on the American political spectrum, and equating it with two very particular forms of communism. This is intellectually dishonest.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I agree, but at the same time, who's demonizing trade schools? I've never heard anything like that. Maybe it's my area, but it's not something I've ever experienced.
It's just something that may have changed since I left high school over 10 years ago. But, at least when I was in school, the district was keen on pushing the agenda of "if you don't get a college degree you can never be successful" And I distinctly recall that, when I joined the military (I still had to finish my final year of HS as I was in the DEP) nearly every single teacher that I had heavily frowned on the idea. All except 4 that I can recall. 1 was a vet himself, and the other 3 were football coaches that saw the military as a career where one could stay in "great" shape, etc.
I know that at my daughter's school (she's in 1st grade) they are already pushing college as THE success path with various slogans and pictures on the walls and that sort of thing. But, because it's elementary school, I'm not seeing such a strong push as I would expect to see in a high school. One of the mottoes/slogans at her school is "Rams are College Bound!"
That's different. Probebly the area I'm form, I guess. I'd say at least 35-40% of the kids that were in my graduating class were going right into the workforce, with some going into trade schools/apprenticeships. Quite a few headed towards the military as well.
That’s because there are nearly one million jobs related to welding and machinery, and just about 23,000 jobs related to teaching philosophy. Median wage is therefore an idiotic measure between “philosophers” v. “welders”. That same Labor Bureau estimates that by 2024 the demands for welder will be over 400,000.
Getting a BA in philosophy does not restrict one to being a philosopher. Indeed, I suspect the vast majority of people with philosophy BAs don't actually work in philosophy. In fact I would guess that if the median wage were restricted to people working in philosophy the gap would be much larger as even non-tenure professors earn a minimum of around 45k a year, well over the medians for all holders of philosophy degrees and welders.
whembly wrote: I am not talking about the pie-in-the-sky, non-existent brand of socialism that is embraced by the left, but the real socialism practiced in the real world. The one that enslaves people, that poisons their cultures, that murders them for disobedience or sometimes, simply for mere convenience. Those are the hard facts in those countries that Sanders (many Democrats for that matter) willfully turn a blind eye on because it isn't the "real socialism" as described in their textbooks.
So let's give it a chaaaaaaaaaaaaaaance.
Funny enough, he sometimes forget that this isn't the 70's anymore and the scandinavian countries are NOT the socialist countries he believes they are... but, forgive him 'cuz he's totes kewl!
You got really, really defensive and angry a few months ago when people on this forum described you as a "low information voter", but then you keep posting stuff like this, which indicates you don't really know what you're talking about, and since it's been discussed on here many, many times, you really don't intend to learn more, either.
Co'tor Shas wrote: That's different. Probebly the area I'm form, I guess. I'd say at least 35-40% of the kids that were in my graduating class were going right into the workforce, with some going into trade schools/apprenticeships. Quite a few headed towards the military as well.
And see, I personally think that this is pretty close to what happens in the majority of the US. Last time I sat down to really count, in my graduating class of 480-something people, we had 24 that had joined the military within 12 months of graduation. There were 7 who had signed up prior to graduating. I know of a large number (couldn't give you a percentage) who still have yet to work a real job due to deciding it was better to settle down and start a family, many more who simply went to work. We also had the highest number of girls pregnant at the time of graduation in the entire city (6 public high schools and 2-3 private ones). The school had, and still has the highest number of minorities, the highest or second highest rate of delinquency, highest or second highest rate of kids on free or reduced meals, etc. Hell, our arch-rivalry football game featured a pretty massive (for our city) police escort for visiting fans to our school. But, for all the negative, I don't want to paint a picture like this school was in south-central LA, where a bloods vs. crips fight would break out at random, or we'd be featured on a documentary about gang violence. Usually, it was a pretty good, diverse school to be at.
I would frankly like to see the school system supporting reality, rather than wishful thinking. 100% of a graduating class entering community colleges or a 4 year school is simply unattainable. Sad fact is, after I left HS, with continuing budget cuts, my school went from having among the best "life prep" opportunities to, if it wasn't basic Ed or music, the school didn't offer it. When I was in, I took a welding class, there was CAD and other in depth computer sciences, there was traditional home-ec (as in, sewing, cooking, child-rearing type stuff), basically there was a whole range of courses that were offered that could give students "real life" skills.
Fact is, and I think we all know this, "success" isn't a one size fits all metric. You can't really put a dollar amount on it. For some, it's going to be having steady income, a house, spouse and 2.5 kids, slaving away at a crap job to take a 2 week vacation each year. For others, it will be a PhD, accolades and fancy crap. Why shouldn't we have an education system where kids can learn a bit about what they do and don't like BEFORE they leave the K-12 system? We sure as hell shouldn't be frowning on kids wanting to join the military (once I become a teacher, I sure as hell won't, but then, I'm also a vet and it's the military that got me to this position I'm in now), and we shouldn't be having kids grow up thinking that 4+ years of college and potentially mountains of debt is the only means to "success"
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Why shouldn't we have an education system where kids can learn a bit about what they do and don't like BEFORE they leave the K-12 system? We sure as hell shouldn't be frowning on kids wanting to join the military (once I become a teacher, I sure as hell won't, but then, I'm also a vet and it's the military that got me to this position I'm in now), "
I disagree. I firmly think we should discourage kids from wanting to join the military, because the military is absolutely out of control in this country.
It's an enormous drain on our economy at a time when our national infrastructure is crumbling.
It produces nearly nothing useful domestically other than for it's own purposes.
Whenever cuts are proposed to it, inevitably people scream about the jobs that would be lost, as if the purpose of the military is a fething jobs program/corporate welfare generator, instead of being for the common defense of this nation. (This, when "socialism" is a dirty word. Hilarious.)
It's much, much larger than it needs to be...
...and despite that, we functionally have not won a war since WW2.
It's so large that it leads to hammer/nail thinking: at some point since we spent all this money on it, we feel like we need to use it, which leads to us being stuck in huge foreign quagmires that actually make the world even more dangerous than it was before. It's like spending a quarter of your paycheck on a security system that attracts burglars.
It's so large that it lends itself to accounting procedures that would send civilian CEO's to jail, like the $43 million dollar gas station that no one knows how it got built, or why, or the $35 million dollar base that the Pentagon knew it would never use but somehow couldn't cancel the construction of, and so on, and so forth. That's before we get into the plane that cost more than the entire Iraq war.
At some point we need to, as conservatives like to say, starve the beast.
What data does he have to back up that claim? Oh that's right, none. I can see why you like him though, both of you just repeat stuff over and over again so you think that makes it true.
That’s because there are nearly one million jobs related to welding and machinery, and just about 23,000 jobs related to teaching philosophy. Median wage is therefore an idiotic measure between “philosophers” v. “welders”. That same Labor Bureau estimates that by 2024 the demands for welder will be over 400,000.
It's 'idiotic' to you because he proves Rubio was talking out of his ass. I know how this works.
Rubio was saying was obvious... you will have a better chance at a decent paying job in welding than you will as a professional philosopher.
Except that isn't what he said. He said that welders make more than philosophers, which income data proves is a false statement.
You need to understand something here... I wish that wasn't true. I wish it with all my heart. Unfortunately, not getting a degree will mean you make less money on average in this country. Some of us do better (I personally make way more than the average person with my level of education), but we're outliers. The other issue is this: you want to make more money working blue collar jobs? Join a union.
So this criticism of Rubio is weaksauce because... what... the Democrats are trying to tear him down? Why?
Why would his opponents say that he was correct (even though he isn't)? Did you forget how politics work?
Perhaps demonizing isn't the right word to use... But, if you'll recall way back to the Bush/Kerry campaigns, one of Kerry's bigger missteps was his remark about either going to college and being successful or "being stuck in the military"
Plus, you have offhand remarks by various politicians that while not explicitly looking down on working class, trades or other very necessary jobs, certainly do not look favorably on them. Usually this comes up anytime raising wages comes up (most often that comes down to the hilariously misinformed politician thinking that construction workers are truly a minimum wage job)
@Ouze, While I agree that military spending is out of control, I guess ultimately what I will not do is actively frown on anyone joining the military. That said, I won't sugar coat anything for them, and give them a more "real" picture of what I went through how I came out of it, etc. Basically, the things that recruiters will never really tell them. Yes, wars and spending on the DoD are ridiculous, and I agree that there are areas where cuts can be made, and they should be made. But, that doesn't detract from the valuable skills (depending on job) that one acquires, as well as the long term education benefits and sometimes health benefits.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: But, that doesn't detract from the valuable skills (depending on job) that one acquires, as well as the long term education benefits and sometimes health benefits.
From what I have heard, one of the problems with the skills is that they are frequently so very specialized that they actually end up having a hard time translating into non-military jobs and that military certifications frequently don't translate into civilian certifications.
As far as I know, yes. When I taught apprenticeship school I had guys come through my class that were getting money from the GI Bill (even though school was pretty much paid for by the union).
whembly wrote: I am not talking about the pie-in-the-sky, non-existent brand of socialism that is embraced by the left, but the real socialism practiced in the real world. The one that enslaves people, that poisons their cultures, that murders them for disobedience or sometimes, simply for mere convenience. Those are the hard facts in those countries that Sanders (many Democrats for that matter) willfully turn a blind eye on because it isn't the "real socialism" as described in their textbooks.
So let's give it a chaaaaaaaaaaaaaaance.
Funny enough, he sometimes forget that this isn't the 70's anymore and the scandinavian countries are NOT the socialist countries he believes they are... but, forgive him 'cuz he's totes kewl!
You got really, really defensive and angry a few months ago when people on this forum described you as a "low information voter", but then you keep posting stuff like this, which indicates you don't really know what you're talking about, and since it's been discussed on here many, many times, you really don't intend to learn more, either.
The way you frame this is that opinion doesn't matter then...
So, if that's true then... as what you stipulate, then everyone is "low information".
As far as I know, yes. When I taught apprenticeship school I had guys come through my class that were getting money from the GI Bill (even though school was pretty much paid for by the union).
Yup. My father-inlaw's company has plenty of Vets who used the GI to get training.
Co'tor Shas wrote: That's different. Probebly the area I'm form, I guess. I'd say at least 35-40% of the kids that were in my graduating class were going right into the workforce, with some going into trade schools/apprenticeships. Quite a few headed towards the military as well.
And see, I personally think that this is pretty close to what happens in the majority of the US. Last time I sat down to really count, in my graduating class of 480-something people, we had 24 that had joined the military within 12 months of graduation. There were 7 who had signed up prior to graduating. I know of a large number (couldn't give you a percentage) who still have yet to work a real job due to deciding it was better to settle down and start a family, many more who simply went to work. We also had the highest number of girls pregnant at the time of graduation in the entire city (6 public high schools and 2-3 private ones). The school had, and still has the highest number of minorities, the highest or second highest rate of delinquency, highest or second highest rate of kids on free or reduced meals, etc. Hell, our arch-rivalry football game featured a pretty massive (for our city) police escort for visiting fans to our school. But, for all the negative, I don't want to paint a picture like this school was in south-central LA, where a bloods vs. crips fight would break out at random, or we'd be featured on a documentary about gang violence. Usually, it was a pretty good, diverse school to be at.
I would frankly like to see the school system supporting reality, rather than wishful thinking. 100% of a graduating class entering community colleges or a 4 year school is simply unattainable. Sad fact is, after I left HS, with continuing budget cuts, my school went from having among the best "life prep" opportunities to, if it wasn't basic Ed or music, the school didn't offer it. When I was in, I took a welding class, there was CAD and other in depth computer sciences, there was traditional home-ec (as in, sewing, cooking, child-rearing type stuff), basically there was a whole range of courses that were offered that could give students "real life" skills.
Fact is, and I think we all know this, "success" isn't a one size fits all metric. You can't really put a dollar amount on it. For some, it's going to be having steady income, a house, spouse and 2.5 kids, slaving away at a crap job to take a 2 week vacation each year. For others, it will be a PhD, accolades and fancy crap. Why shouldn't we have an education system where kids can learn a bit about what they do and don't like BEFORE they leave the K-12 system? We sure as hell shouldn't be frowning on kids wanting to join the military (once I become a teacher, I sure as hell won't, but then, I'm also a vet and it's the military that got me to this position I'm in now), and we shouldn't be having kids grow up thinking that 4+ years of college and potentially mountains of debt is the only means to "success"
Exalted.
Maybe the best way to achieve this, is to have a robust Mentoring Program covering the various workforce industries. Most schools sorta do this with the ROTC program... right? Then let's bring the the Trade Industries as well.
As far as I know, yes. When I taught apprenticeship school I had guys come through my class that were getting money from the GI Bill (even though school was pretty much paid for by the union).
That would be a good option then.
Stories that I have heard is from people that are trained in Diesel engines (as an example). The military may give you training in working on the specific Diesel engines that you will be working with, but not "Diesel engine" certification. So even though you spend your last 6 years working on Diesel engines, you don't have a useful skill because it is a very narrow specialized set of knowledge.
Being able to go to trade school to get the certifications and training to apply your skills more broadly will help. But that is different than the usual "the military will give you skills that get you hired" message that we often hear.
As far as I know, yes. When I taught apprenticeship school I had guys come through my class that were getting money from the GI Bill (even though school was pretty much paid for by the union).
That would be a good option then.
Stories that I have heard is from people that are trained in Diesel engines (as an example). The military may give you training in working on the specific Diesel engines that you will be working with, but not "Diesel engine" certification. So even though you spend your last 6 years working on Diesel engines, you don't have a useful skill because it is a very narrow specialized set of knowledge.
Being able to go to trade school to get the certifications and training to apply your skills more broadly will help. But that is different than the usual "the military will give you skills that get you hired" message that we often hear.
Sure... but, I know plenty of employers who would bend over backwards to hire ex-military folks over regular civvies. So the usual "the military will give you skills that get you hired" message isn't totally bunk.
The way you frame this is that opinion doesn't matter then...
Then stop framing your opinions as facts. You've said quite a few whoppers in these last couple of pages and have been repeatedly called out on them and have offered nothing to back them up, even after multiple people explaining to you in plain English how you are incorrect.
So, if that's true then... as what you stipulate, then everyone is "low information".
You're not a low information voter by an stretch of the term.
However, the information you consume has been carefully selected to conform to your preconceived notions while you reject anything that would actually challenge those ideas, deflecting it when it's presented to you and ultimately ignoring it until you move on as if it was never really there in the first place.
I don't usually see Trade schools getting slapped down. No one walks around saying "you want to be an electricians? lulz good luck with that." Trade Schools aren't demonized. They're ignored. People don't pay much attention to them and we spend lots of time espousing the value of a college education (probably because it is valuable). Maybe not going to college gets a fair bit of mockery time to time, but trade schools don't seem to be on anyone specific's target list. This strikes me as another round of "we have to stop voter fraud" and "look at what the abortion doctors are doing to the dead babies." Something completely made up that Conservative pundits and politicians will start preaching as gospel.
And yeah. I've definitely seen lots of mean spirited comments and implications about being a college student. There is a huge irony in Dakka talking about how much money philosophy students make given how often I've seen Liberal Arts and the Humanities thrown through the ringer around here.
Blue collar work isn't demonized at all, it's just looked down on and ignored. There is a very distinct difference between those two outlooks.
What is demonized is unions. Which is why it's funny that Rubio is talking up welders so much, considering the best welders are union trained bar none. I'm not sure of his opinion on unions, but I'd imagine it's in lockstep with the rest of his extremely right wing views.
Blue collar work isn't demonized at all, it's just looked down on and ignored. There is a very distinct difference between those two outlooks.
With more clarity, I think I agree with this.
What is demonized is unions. Which is why it's funny that Rubio is talking up welders so much, considering the best welders are union trained bar none.
Most of the ire stems from SIEU (government unions) or Teacher's unions. Not so much in trade unions... except for obvious hypocrisy. Such as pushing for min wages as a backdoor attempt to raise union wages due to agreed contracts (at least, here in MO. I'm not sure how common that stipulation is in the contracts in the rest of the states.
I'm not sure of his opinion on unions, but I'd imagine it's in lockstep with the rest of his extremely right wing views.
He is, indeed, very anit-Union with respect to government unions. But, I've yet to see any acrimony for Trade unions from Rubio (or from right-wingers for that matters).
That is because they are the spawn of Satan, hate the troops, and disavow baby Jesus. There may be a trade involved somewhere in there, but that is tertiary to their anti-American stance.
I know for certain that it does for vocational rehabilitation programs, but you have to be medically discharged for that program. AFAIK, anyone eligible for GI Bill benefits can use them at a trade school, but I think there's something about that school having some sort of standing or recognition (as in, you can't go to Bob's Technical Vocational College of Hair Dressers and Welders)
Stories that I have heard is from people that are trained in Diesel engines (as an example). The military may give you training in working on the specific Diesel engines that you will be working with, but not "Diesel engine" certification. So even though you spend your last 6 years working on Diesel engines, you don't have a useful skill because it is a very narrow specialized set of knowledge.
Being able to go to trade school to get the certifications and training to apply your skills more broadly will help. But that is different than the usual "the military will give you skills that get you hired" message that we often hear.
That is of course, the rub that NO recruiter will ever tell anyone who thinks about enlisting.
Yes, the army will teach you IT skills, Diesel engine skills, jet engine skills, ninja skills, etc. But, it is up to unit leadership to allow people the opportunities to use various testing centers on base to acquire the civilian equivalent licenses. I think perhaps the few jobs that do directly translate in some way are those in aviation due to much of the aviation sector being covered by DoD regulations and FAA regs.
Most of the ire stems from SIEU (government unions) or Teacher's unions. Not so much in trade unions... except for obvious hypocrisy. Such as pushing for min wages as a backdoor attempt to raise union wages due to agreed contracts (at least, here in MO. I'm not sure how common that stipulation is in the contracts in the rest of the states.
Honestly, I think if more people were paying attention to local level politics, they'd be more inclined to side with their teacher's unions. At the beginning of this school year, Seattle teachers went on strike. And, when I looked it up just now, one of the local papers was lauding some of the victories those teachers fought for: guaranteed recess for elementary students, limiting the "standardized" tests (which, lets face it, denies money to the corporations who write those bloody things) that students take, eliminating certain forms of detention for certain offenses. etc.
I recall a number of teacher strikes, or near strikes around my home town when I was in high school. The most common reason for striking? Government cutting education funding, local school boards cutting pay in violation of agreed upon contracts with the unions. At one point, there was threatened strike when the school board, facing state budget cuts, felt that the only way to meet budget needs, was to cut music programs. Somewhat surprising to me, ALL teachers, even those like my football coaches who hated the marching band for "trampling the football field grass", stood up and supported the music programs.
I know for certain that it does for vocational rehabilitation programs, but you have to be medically discharged for that program. AFAIK, anyone eligible for GI Bill benefits can use them at a trade school, but I think there's something about that school having some sort of standing or recognition (as in, you can't go to Bob's Technical Vocational College of Hair Dressers and Welders)
The United Association (my local's umbrella union) participates in Helmets to Hardhats which allows vets to utilize the GI Bill even to help offset living expenses since the apprenticeships offered are free. We also have our own program called V.I.P. (Veterans in Piping).
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Honestly, I think if more people were paying attention to local level politics, they'd be more inclined to side with their teacher's unions. At the beginning of this school year, Seattle teachers went on strike. And, when I looked it up just now, one of the local papers was lauding some of the victories those teachers fought for: guaranteed recess for elementary students, limiting the "standardized" tests (which, lets face it, denies money to the corporations who write those bloody things) that students take, eliminating certain forms of detention for certain offenses. etc.
I recall a number of teacher strikes, or near strikes around my home town when I was in high school. The most common reason for striking? Government cutting education funding, local school boards cutting pay in violation of agreed upon contracts with the unions. At one point, there was threatened strike when the school board, facing state budget cuts, felt that the only way to meet budget needs, was to cut music programs. Somewhat surprising to me, ALL teachers, even those like my football coaches who hated the marching band for "trampling the football field grass", stood up and supported the music programs.
My mom is a teacher and has frequently involved herself in teacher's union activities. A few years ago, teachers had been under a pay freeze for the fifth year in a row (which was the fifth year the County's agreement with the Union had been violated as the agreement stipulated that the County could not unilaterally freeze teacher pay). Any program that wasn't being tested (Art, Music, Foreign Language) was facing severe budget slashes; my mom was teaching AP Spanish in the lunch room. Several million dollars were being spent on refurbishing football fields and the School Board president had just authorized a pay raise for themselves. Teachers were being told by school administrators to perform tasks not part of their contracts (i.e. they were being told to do work they wouldn't be paid for). They were continually told there wasn't any money for their programs or their previously agreed on salary increases.
Add in that being a teacher sucks. You have to deal with self entitled parents. You often work 60-70 hours a week and only get paid a salary of 40-60k. Administrators blame anything that goes wrong on you.
After five years of complaining and trying to resolve the problem through channels, the teachers said "screw it. Strike!" Even then, they continued to teach their classes, they just refused to do anything else. This was in Loudon County Virginia. It is one of the wealthiest counties in the entire country (it has the highest median income for any county in the US with a population greater than 65,000) and virtually every school in the county suffers serious overcrowding.
It's not the teacher's fault the education system is broken. They're the second greatest victims of the spineless brain dead way we approach education after the students.
The FBI has expanded its probe of Hillary Clinton's emails, with agents exploring whether multiple statements violate a federal false statements statute, according to intelligence sources familiar with the ongoing case.
Fox News is told agents are looking at U.S. Code 18, Section 1001, which pertains to "materially false" statements given either in writing, orally or through a third party. Violations also include pressuring a third party to conspire in a cover-up. Each felony violation is subject to five years in prison.
This phase represents an expansion of the FBI probe, which is also exploring potential violations of an Espionage Act provision relating to "gross negligence" in the handling of national defense information.
"The agents involved are under a lot of pressure and are busting a--," an intelligence source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, told Fox News.
The section of the criminal code being explored is known as "statements or entries generally," and can be applied when an individual makes misleading or false statements causing federal agents to expend additional resources and time. In this case, legal experts as well as a former FBI agent said, Section 1001 could apply if Clinton, her aides or attorney were not forthcoming with FBI agents about her emails, classification and whether only non-government records were destroyed. It is not publicly known who may have been interviewed.
Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said the same section got Martha Stewart in trouble with the FBI. To be a violation, the statements do not need to be given under oath.
"This is a broad, brush statute that punishes individuals who are not direct and fulsome in their answers," former FBI intelligence officer Timothy Gill told Fox News. Gill is not connected to the email investigation, but spent 16 years as part of the bureau's national security branch, and worked the post 9/11 anthrax case where considerable time was spent resolving discrepancies in Bruce Ivins' statements and his unusual work activities at Fort Detrick, Md.
"It is a cover-all. The problem for a defendant is when their statements cause the bureau to expend more time, energy, resources to de-conflict their statements with the evidence," he said.
Separately, two U.S. government officials told Fox News that the FBI is doing its own classification review of the Clinton emails, effectively cutting out what has become a grinding process at the State Department. Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy has argued to both Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Congress that the "Top Secret" emails on Clinton's server could have been pulled from unclassified sources including news reports.
"You want to go right to the source," Gill said. "Go to the originating, not the collateral, authority. Investigative protocol would demand that."
On Friday, Clapper spokesman Brian Hale confirmed that no change has been made to the two "Top Secrets" emails after a Politico report said the intelligence community was retreating from the finding.
"ODNI has made no such determination and the review is ongoing," Hale said. Andrea G. Williams, spokeswoman for the intelligence community inspector general, said she had the same information. Kennedy is seeking an appeal, but no one can explain what statute or executive order would give Clapper that authority.
A U.S. government official who was not authorized to speak on the record said the FBI is identifying suspect emails, and then going directly to the agencies who originated them and therefore own the intelligence -- and who, under the regulations, have final say on the classification.
As Fox News previously reported, at least four classified Clinton emails had their markings changed to a category that shields the content from Congress and the public, in what State Department whistleblowers believed to be an effort to hide the true extent of classified information on the former secretary of state's server.
One State Department lawyer involved in the alleged re-categorization was Kate Duval. Duval once worked in the same law firm as Clinton's current and long-time lawyer David Kendall and at the IRS during the Lois Lerner email controversy. Duval left government service for private practice in mid-September.
How does it go?
It's the coverup that gets ya... not the crime... eh?
Well that depends on whether they find anything. I know to you the fact that they are investigating is enough proof that she is guilty (and evil), but that's not how law enforcement works.
That article was just a lot of words jumbled together to say, "they're looking for something but haven't found anything yet."
Most of the ire stems from SIEU (government unions) or Teacher's unions.
Which always struck as me as odd, given that many (possibly most) SEIU members aren't government employees, and teachers are probably the one group in the US most in need of union representation. If people wanted to complain about government unions they should be looking at AFSCME., though I suppose they do get some indirect attention via the AFL-CIO.
I know for certain that it does for vocational rehabilitation programs, but you have to be medically discharged for that program. AFAIK, anyone eligible for GI Bill benefits can use them at a trade school, but I think there's something about that school having some sort of standing or recognition (as in, you can't go to Bob's Technical Vocational College of Hair Dressers and Welders)
It wouldn't surprise me, as pretty much all grants and scholarships stipulate that the funds can only be applied to the cost of attending an accredited school. There exceptions, particularly small scholarships often involve simply giving the prospective student cash while telling them to spend it wisely, but the above is the general rule.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: That article was just a lot of words jumbled together to say, "they're looking for something but haven't found anything yet."
I read it more as, "we're examining the allegedly classified stuff that was found but haven't made a determination yet whether any of it is actually classified."
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: That article was just a lot of words jumbled together to say, "they're looking for something but haven't found anything yet."
I read it more as, "we're examining the allegedly classified stuff that was found but haven't made a determination yet whether any of it is actually classified."
Which is a fancier way of saying what I said.
The addition of the scary adjective "deepen" doesn't really mean anything. They're doing their investigation and they haven't found anything.
This will be another one of those things where there is no conclusion that will make people that hate Hillary happy. If she gets the nomination and wins the Presidency, it will continue for her entire term. If she doesn't get the nomination or loses the election and retires, no one will care anymore and they'll move on the next big thing. You know, like how politics in America work.
Jihadin wrote: We need more welders then college grad's (Philosophy majors)
That must have made a awkward moment on the debate stage, since Carly Fiorina's B.A. is in Medieval History and Philosophy. I can only imagine the internal struggle someone like, say, Whembly has with this information. Do you crap on liberal arts - a favorite pastime of conservatives - (and thereby indirectly, Mrs. Fiorina?) or do you continue to praise Mrs. Fiorina (and indirectly, liberal arts)?
Jihadin wrote: We need more welders then college grad's (Philosophy majors)
That must have made a awkward moment on the debate stage, since Carly Fiorina's B.A. is in Medieval History and Philosophy. I can only imagine the internal struggle someone like, say, Whembly has with this information. Do you crap on liberal arts - a favorite pastime of conservatives - (and thereby indirectly, Mrs. Fiorina?) or do you continue to praise Mrs. Fiorina (and indirectly, liberal arts)?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Then why do they keep cutting financial aid.
I find it funny that republicans want everyone to be rich, but then remove tools to allow it.
Ideological Hypocrisy! (I need an image gig of this phrase)
hotsauceman1 wrote: I would argue both parties need uneducated voters to keep them in power.
This. Don't get me wrong. While I decided long ago I'm just not a Republican, and I love to mock and poke fun at the many hypocrisies of the GOP, it's not like I think the Democrats are perfect. It's just that opportunities to mock them around here are a lot less frequent.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Then why do they keep cutting financial aid.
I find it funny that republicans want everyone to be rich, but then remove tools to allow it.
Rich? Financial aid put my arse in debt. Also, I do not work in a field associated with my degree so there's that.
What needs to be done (IMHO) is to reassess college tuition and bring it down to a more reasonable price level. Financial aid has played at least a small part in driving tuition up as universities see it as "free money" for them.
Personally, I'd like to see AA degrees pushed down to the community college system (yes, remove them from the 4-year schools entirely). Universities would handle advanced degrees such as Masters and above. A set of universal requirements for general AA degrees needs to be developed and all accredited universities forced to accept them regardless of where the student transfers in from.
This will free up the universities from dealing with early drop-outs and ensure their student body is there "for the duration" of their education requirements. It would also suck a hell of a lot of money out of the university system and cause them to reorganize into a leaner sponsor of knowledge.
The only question is, what to do about athletes who depend on the current university system for their continued careers? You can't really ask them to just skip two years of playing and you really don't want to start sports at the community college level since most aren't equipped to handle it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Then why do they keep cutting financial aid.
I find it funny that republicans want everyone to be rich, but then remove tools to allow it.
Rich? Financial aid put my arse in debt. Also, I do not work in a field associated with my degree so there's that.
What needs to be done (IMHO) is to reassess college tuition and bring it down to a more reasonable price level. Financial aid has played at least a small part in driving tuition up as universities see it as "free money" for them.
Personally, I'd like to see AA degrees pushed down to the community college system (yes, remove them from the 4-year schools entirely). Universities would handle advanced degrees such as Masters and above. A set of universal requirements for general AA degrees needs to be developed and all accredited universities forced to accept them regardless of where the student transfers in from.
This will free up the universities from dealing with early drop-outs and ensure their student body is there "for the duration" of their education requirements. It would also suck a hell of a lot of money out of the university system and cause them to reorganize into a leaner sponsor of knowledge.
The only question is, what to do about athletes who depend on the current university system for their continued careers? You can't really ask them to just skip two years of playing and you really don't want to start sports at the community college level since most aren't equipped to handle it.
Wait, Community should only AA? But University Masters and Up? Where does that leave Bachelors.
And wouldnt that just turn Community college into universities? And you think CC isnt equipped for Sports? Than they sure as heck arent for college fresh/soph.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I would argue both parties need uneducated voters to keep them in power.
This. Don't get me wrong. While I decided long ago I'm just not a Republican, and I love to mock and poke fun at the many hypocrisies of the GOP, it's not like I think the Democrats are perfect. It's just that opportunities to mock them around here are a lot less frequent.
Cause democrats have learned to keep their mouth shut and not say what they actually think. Republicans need to learn the same.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Then why do they keep cutting financial aid.
I find it funny that republicans want everyone to be rich, but then remove tools to allow it.
Rich? Financial aid put my arse in debt. Also, I do not work in a field associated with my degree so there's that.
What needs to be done (IMHO) is to reassess college tuition and bring it down to a more reasonable price level. Financial aid has played at least a small part in driving tuition up as universities see it as "free money" for them.
Personally, I'd like to see AA degrees pushed down to the community college system (yes, remove them from the 4-year schools entirely). Universities would handle advanced degrees such as Masters and above. A set of universal requirements for general AA degrees needs to be developed and all accredited universities forced to accept them regardless of where the student transfers in from.
This will free up the universities from dealing with early drop-outs and ensure their student body is there "for the duration" of their education requirements. It would also suck a hell of a lot of money out of the university system and cause them to reorganize into a leaner sponsor of knowledge.
The only question is, what to do about athletes who depend on the current university system for their continued careers? You can't really ask them to just skip two years of playing and you really don't want to start sports at the community college level since most aren't equipped to handle it.
AA's-you mean associate degrees? Those are at the CC level.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Then why do they keep cutting financial aid.
I find it funny that republicans want everyone to be rich, but then remove tools to allow it.
Ideological Hypocrisy! (I need an image gig of this phrase)
The quickest and surest way to bring down the cost of tuition and force universities to focus on offering majors and classes that make graduates more employable is to stop the govt from giving out financial aid.
That's an interesting theory. What's that based on (evidance/research-wise) ?
Automatically Appended Next Post: TBH, I like the public college sytem we have here in NY (SUNY). IIRC the combined cost of tuition, room, and board for me was $21k, still expensive, but no where as the equivalent for profit schools. And it's good education too.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I would argue both parties need uneducated voters to keep them in power.
Both need them, sure, but one exists almost solely by there existence at this. The GOP didn't used to be the party of the Idiots and Religious Zealots, but the inmates have taken over the asylum, so to speak.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Then why do they keep cutting financial aid.
I find it funny that republicans want everyone to be rich, but then remove tools to allow it.
Ideological Hypocrisy! (I need an image gig of this phrase)
The quickest and surest way to bring down the cost of tuition and force universities to focus on offering majors and classes that make graduates more employable is to stop the govt from giving out financial aid.
I might be going against the mainstream anti-intellectualism bent of the folks here at dakka, but I'm not sure getting universities to "make graduates more employable" is the way to go. As has been noted, philo. majors tend to make more than welders (check the actual facts despite what Rubio says). More and more hospitals and higher enigneering job postings are looking for people with a well rounded education. Like people with an undergrad in the arts. They don't want robots. They want people who can communicate with other people. There is a reason the top 12 CEOs out of the top 20 as far as income in the us were liberal arts majors.
The quickest and surest way to bring down the cost of tuition and force universities to focus on offering majors and classes that make graduates more employable is to stop the govt from giving out financial aid.
And there we go back to college education getting a beating. Has anyone insulted trade schools yet? Not seeing much demonization of trade schools in here. Rubio wouldn't lie to me!
As far as I'm concerned, post-High School education (trade school, job training, and college) should all be government funded. Education is a powerful equalizer for class inequality, and yes. It's fething expensive. But you know what, it's important not just to the economy but the security of democracy and a stable society. The government should take an active role in furthering a productive and powerful education system. Think about what you said for a second. Schools offering majors and classes that don't make students employable? Have you looked at employment statistics;
EDIT: And too expand;
And mom said that my education in 17th Century English Literature wouldn't make me any money.
Worst case scenario, you're no more employable after getting a Liberal Arts degree than before, but you're going to get paid a lot more so sounds like it's not a waste of time as long as you don't pay an arm and a leg to the University of Phoenix (which along with DeVry and other trash schools that prey on students probably throws these statistics off a little bit). Most Business and Education degrees are liberal arts degrees with an Education/Business certification.
Seems like college is a pretty good place to go if you want a job (whether or not you get a good job is another matter). Like seriously. How did this myth that college students aren't being taught employable skills ever get started in the first place? When has it ever been true (probably 1087 CE).
Further it's for-profit colleges that are primarily responsible for rapidly driving up the costs of tuition and student debt, so for that you can actually blame good old capitalism not the government.
Breotan wrote: Universities would handle advanced degrees such as Masters and above.
Uh, no. Community colleges can't handle taking on science/engineering/etc degrees without completely changing them to be the current university system with a different name. And I don't really see any point to moving the math/science/engineering departments across town to a new building.
The quickest and surest way to bring down the cost of tuition and force universities to focus on offering majors and classes that make graduates more employable is to stop the govt from giving out financial aid.
And there we go back to college education getting a beating. Has anyone insulted trade schools yet? Not seeing much demonization of trade schools in here. Rubio wouldn't lie to me!
As far as I'm concerned, post-High School education (trade school, job training, and college) should all be government funded. Education is a powerful equalizer for class inequality, and yes. It's fething expensive. But you know what, it's important not just to the economy but the security of democracy and a stable society. The government should take an active role in furthering a productive and powerful education system. Think about what you said for a second. Schools offering majors and classes that don't make students employable? Have you looked at employment statistics;
EDIT: And too expand;
And mom said that my education in 17th Century English Literature wouldn't make me any money.
Worst case scenario, you're no more employable after getting a Liberal Arts degree than before, but you're going to get paid a lot more so sounds like it's not a waste of time as long as you don't pay an arm and a leg to the University of Phoenix (which along with DeVry and other trash schools that prey on students probably throws these statistics off a little bit). Most Business and Education degrees are liberal arts degrees with an Education/Business certification.
Seems like college is a pretty good place to go if you want a job (whether or not you get a good job is another matter). Like seriously. How did this myth that college students aren't being taught employable skills ever get started in the first place? When has it ever been true (probably 1087 CE).
Further it's for-profit colleges that are primarily responsible for rapidly driving up the costs of tuition and student debt, so for that you can actually blame good old capitalism not the government.
You're missing the point and creating a straw man. Mostly my fault because I didn't have time to elaborate earlier.
In a nutshell the system we have now is that colleges charge tuition and if students can't afford it the govt loans them the money to pay for it. The problem isn't capitalism its government. If the government stopped issuing loans to everyone in order to pay the ever increasing tuition costs colleges would be subject to market forces. If colleges, primarily private schools, want to keep raising the coat of attendance to the extent that virtually no one can pay it without govt loans then if the govt stops giving everyone student loans colleges have to find a way to educate for a lower cost or they won't have enough students to stay in business. If the govt is guaranteeing that students will pay whatever universities charge then there is no pressure for schools to keep costs down, they always get their money. Hence the increasing cost of college and the increasing burden of student loan debt.
There are private schools suffering from lower enrollments because people are realizing that the higher costs and debt burden aren't worth choosing a private school over a lower cost state university.
If students had to go to banks to get private student loans the banks would want to know what the students would study to get a degree that would have the earning power to allow them to pay off the loan. Currently the government doesn't carry what you study/major in and the schools charge the same regardless of your course of study. Different jobs offer different salaries and earning potential but the student loan burden is the same.
Since different degrees convey different amounts of earning potential it isn't efficient or equitable to charge the same for all of them but in our current system government loans remove any accountability or pressure to do so.
I am not opposed to people going to college and earning degrees. I am opposed to inefficient government interference that shields industries from market forces that would reduce costs. I am also opposed to one size fits all solutions because thats a myth, there's never a solution that fits everyone but that doesn't stop the government from trying to force it anyway. Not everyone should qualify for college loans and every undergraduate degree should not incur the same costs.
BrotherGecko wrote: In light of tonight events, how should the US respond to the attacks?
Offer any assistance the French may need.
Also, get serious against ISIS. No nation building crap... no pottery barn rule...
They want "war"? We'll... I'd argue that they truly haven't seen *WAR*.
Personally, if I was the POTUS I'd be calling up Putin and asking if he would like to Effiel Tower some ISIS targets tonight. We know the US and Russia have some targets. Give them some quick and inglorius ends. No fan fare on tv, a quick and strong answer to their actions.
BrotherGecko wrote: In light of tonight events, how should the US respond to the attacks?
Offer any assistance the French may need.
Also, get serious against ISIS. No nation building crap... no pottery barn rule...
They want "war"? We'll... I'd argue that they truly haven't seen *WAR*.
That won't work.
Do you really think storming into the their territory, leaving a trail of death and destruction, before leaving the place in ruins will kill their ideology?
BrotherGecko wrote: In light of tonight events, how should the US respond to the attacks?
Remember when the Russians steam-rolled Berlin? That. We need that. No more sitting on our arses waiting for something bad. We need to stop being reactive and start being proactive
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Do you really think storming into the their territory, leaving a trail of death and destruction, before leaving the place in ruins will kill their ideology?
Exactly. I mean, even if you magically develop some way of identifying every terrorist (PS: you can't) and kill them all, all you're likely to do is create the next generation of terrorists. If you want to stop terrorism and similar evils you have to fix the world they live in, not simply burn it to the ground.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tactical_Spam wrote: Remember when the Russians steam-rolled Berlin? That. We need that. No more sitting on our arses waiting for something bad. We need to stop being reactive and start being proactive
The quickest and surest way to bring down the cost of tuition and force universities to focus on offering majors and classes that make graduates more employable is to stop the govt from giving out financial aid.
And there we go back to college education getting a beating. Has anyone insulted trade schools yet? Not seeing much demonization of trade schools in here. Rubio wouldn't lie to me!
As far as I'm concerned, post-High School education (trade school, job training, and college) should all be government funded. Education is a powerful equalizer for class inequality, and yes. It's fething expensive. But you know what, it's important not just to the economy but the security of democracy and a stable society. The government should take an active role in furthering a productive and powerful education system. Think about what you said for a second. Schools offering majors and classes that don't make students employable? Have you looked at employment statistics;
EDIT: And too expand;
And mom said that my education in 17th Century English Literature wouldn't make me any money.
Worst case scenario, you're no more employable after getting a Liberal Arts degree than before, but you're going to get paid a lot more so sounds like it's not a waste of time as long as you don't pay an arm and a leg to the University of Phoenix (which along with DeVry and other trash schools that prey on students probably throws these statistics off a little bit). Most Business and Education degrees are liberal arts degrees with an Education/Business certification.
Seems like college is a pretty good place to go if you want a job (whether or not you get a good job is another matter). Like seriously. How did this myth that college students aren't being taught employable skills ever get started in the first place? When has it ever been true (probably 1087 CE).
Further it's for-profit colleges that are primarily responsible for rapidly driving up the costs of tuition and student debt, so for that you can actually blame good old capitalism not the government.
You're missing the point and creating a straw man. Mostly my fault because I didn't have time to elaborate earlier.
In a nutshell the system we have now is that colleges charge tuition and if students can't afford it the govt loans them the money to pay for it. The problem isn't capitalism its government. If the government stopped issuing loans to everyone in order to pay the ever increasing tuition costs colleges would be subject to market forces. If colleges, primarily private schools, want to keep raising the coat of attendance to the extent that virtually no one can pay it without govt loans then if the govt stops giving everyone student loans colleges have to find a way to educate for a lower cost or they won't have enough students to stay in business. If the govt is guaranteeing that students will pay whatever universities charge then there is no pressure for schools to keep costs down, they always get their money. Hence the increasing cost of college and the increasing burden of student loan debt.
There are private schools suffering from lower enrollments because people are realizing that the higher costs and debt burden aren't worth choosing a private school over a lower cost state university.
If students had to go to banks to get private student loans the banks would want to know what the students would study to get a degree that would have the earning power to allow them to pay off the loan. Currently the government doesn't carry what you study/major in and the schools charge the same regardless of your course of study. Different jobs offer different salaries and earning potential but the student loan burden is the same.
Since different degrees convey different amounts of earning potential it isn't efficient or equitable to charge the same for all of them but in our current system government loans remove any accountability or pressure to do so.
I am not opposed to people going to college and earning degrees. I am opposed to inefficient government interference that shields industries from market forces that would reduce costs. I am also opposed to one size fits all solutions because thats a myth, there's never a solution that fits everyone but that doesn't stop the government from trying to force it anyway. Not everyone should qualify for college loans and every undergraduate degree should not incur the same costs.
BrotherGecko wrote: In light of tonight events, how should the US respond to the attacks?
Offer any assistance the French may need.
Also, get serious against ISIS. No nation building crap... no pottery barn rule...
They want "war"? We'll... I'd argue that they truly haven't seen *WAR*.
That won't work.
Do you really think storming into the their territory, leaving a trail of death and destruction, before leaving the place in ruins will kill their ideology?
Yup. Because you keep killing until they say "no mas".
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Do you really think storming into the their territory, leaving a trail of death and destruction, before leaving the place in ruins will kill their ideology?
Exactly. I mean, even if you magically develop some way of identifying every terrorist (PS: you can't) and kill them all, all you're likely to do is create the next generation of terrorists. If you want to stop terrorism and similar evils you have to fix the world they live in, not simply burn it to the ground.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tactical_Spam wrote: Remember when the Russians steam-rolled Berlin? That. We need that. No more sitting on our arses waiting for something bad. We need to stop being reactive and start being proactive
Ah, to be so young and naive again...
Can I just be mad at the bad guys, Peregrine? Its not an ironned out plan, clearly.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Can I just be mad at the bad guys, Peregrine? Its not an ironned out plan, clearly.
Sorry, I thought this was the "discuss politics as adults" thread, not the "RAR KILL ALL THE TERRORISTS" thread where we all compete to see who can come up with the best revenge fantasy.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Can I just be mad at the bad guys, Peregrine? Its not an ironned out plan, clearly.
Sorry, I thought this was the "discuss politics as adults" thread, not the "RAR KILL ALL THE TERRORISTS" thread where we all compete to see who can come up with the best revenge fantasy.
Alright then, instead of saying "Grr Everyone else is wrong" why dont you go ahead and give your idea?
BrotherGecko wrote: In light of tonight events, how should the US respond to the attacks?
Offer any assistance the French may need.
Also, get serious against ISIS. No nation building crap... no pottery barn rule...
They want "war"? We'll... I'd argue that they truly haven't seen *WAR*.
That won't work.
Do you really think storming into the their territory, leaving a trail of death and destruction, before leaving the place in ruins will kill their ideology?
We should help France gather intelligence to make targeted attacks. If there are people smuggling ISIS fighters (or whoever is responsible) into France we should help France identify the smugglers and transport method and then help destroy them. Likewise if there are individuals and locations within France where immigrants and French Muslims are being radicalized and encouraged to attack France those people and places should be dealt with, harshly. We can't eliminate the ideology but we can help make it much more difficult for zealots (either imported to or created within France) to plan, coordinate and execute their attacks. Keep the really dangerous ones out of France, that's the best way to protect French people.
The really aren't. Do you understand the difference between Japan, a nation that was defeated in a conventional war over territory, and a religious ideology that exists independently from any state or territory and does not fight a conventional war?
The really aren't. Do you understand the difference between Japan, a nation that was defeated in a conventional war over territory, and a religious ideology that exists independently from any state or territory and does not fight a conventional war?
Horse gak.
ISIS has a "captial" in Monsul.
They have "infrastructure".
They have sympathizers.
Go after them. Shock and Awe them so hard, that their messiah would go WTF.
At least you'd be fighting over there... instead of the street's of Paris or New York.
The really aren't. Do you understand the difference between Japan, a nation that was defeated in a conventional war over territory, and a religious ideology that exists independently from any state or territory and does not fight a conventional war?
This. You can bomb key targets and break a nation forcing a surrender. You can't destroy an idea. Well, you can if you're willing to kill everyone who believes it and destroy any record of the idea. It's not practical or possible for us to selectively decimate the global Muslim population or destroy all the Korans and any record of their existence.
All we can do is try to marginalize the violent zealots and stay vigilant about breaking up any of their attempts to coordinate and carry out attacks.
Prestor Jon wrote: If the government stopped issuing loans to everyone in order to pay the ever increasing tuition costs colleges would be subject to market forces.
They're already subject to many market forces. However, much like the health care industry however, education is something that people need (if you want reliable access to a good job) so education facilities can basically charge however much they think they can get away with without crashing the economy i.e, the rapidly rising cost of tuition driven by private schools. A lot of market forces that theoretically drive down costs go out the window when your business can be structured into exploitation (which is very few businesses) and education is one of the businesses that can be twisted that way.
You're also seemingly under the mistaken believe the government aid is this all powerful force. While it is the single largest force of financial aid;
But it's not that simple. Federal Aid just barely accounts for half of all aid (for undergrads).
That's a lot of money, but it is insufficient to explain the changes we're seeing. The free market is not god. It is not the solution to every problem and it can be just as destructive as it can be beneficial (and the funny part is that I learned that reading The Wealth of Nations in College! Adam Smith said it!). If the government doesn't provide the money, people are just going to keep getting it from banks and credit unions and then we're just looking at something even more disastrous. The increasing number of students/families taking bank loans is the primary driver of the student debt bubble right now, not government aid. I'm not sure how cutting government aid entirely is going to resolve that. People will seek education not matter how much it costs, because the alternative is a population that can't work (and an economy with a crippling lack of skilled labor) and/or has overwhelming debt from the burden of education.
Driving down student debt is a good thing, but seriously. Given the past few years of the US economy, I'd think people would have learned that banks and free market principals do not solve all problems.
Oh and this because I really like harping about it
Seriously University of Phoenix and all your friends. feth you. (In this sense, yes federal aid is working out poorly but not because it's a bad idea, but rather because we've allowed the rise of institutions that are structured scams to soak up aid money).
There are private schools suffering from lower enrollments because people are realizing that the higher costs and debt burden aren't worth choosing a private school over a lower cost state university.
Good. The vast majority of private (for profit) schools aren't worth their tuition. Many of the best colleges in the country are state run and they're massively cheaper (but don't worry, you local Governors have been happy to start slashing state education system budgets to try and drive those costs up!). As someone who has attended both, private schools by and large cut off your arms and legs and don't really make up for it in quality. Unless you're going somewhere with serious prestige (Ivy League, Notre Dame, Georgetown and the like< Catholic Church actually runs a lot of nice colleges fyi) you are likely wasting money.
All of which can and will be replaced. You know, because we're talking about an ideology and not a state.
I'm not discounting ideology... and we should be open and engaging the moderates. We should continue to facilitate an Islamic renaissance, ala Christanity's New Testament.
But, again, ISIS is a distinct group doing inexplicable horrible things. The western world armies is more than capable of eradicating anything related to ISIS.
At least you'd be fighting over there... instead of the street's of Paris or New York.
whembly wrote: The western world armies is more than capable of eradicating anything related to ISIS.
At which point ISIS is just replaced by the next terrorist group, like ISIS replaced previous ones.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Are you unaware what's happening in Paris?
Of course not. I'm asking you why you think that fighting in the middle east is going to magically stop someone from buying a gun and murdering people in other places. You are aware that terrorist groups can kill people in more than one place, right?
whembly wrote: The western world armies is more than capable of eradicating anything related to ISIS.
At which point ISIS is just replaced by the next terrorist group, like ISIS replaced previous ones.
You're not making sense.
You can't reason against an AK-47.
You can't reason against an ideology that brutually murders their captives.
You can't reason against an ideology that kidnaps, rapes, sells women for revenue.
You can't reason against an ideology that'll kill you for being gay or a chrisitan.
Sometimes... the only thing you can do... is to fight fire with fire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Are you unaware what's happening in Paris?
Of course not. I'm asking you why you think that fighting in the middle east is going to magically stop someone from buying a gun and murdering people in other places. You are aware that terrorist groups can kill people in more than one place, right?
Sure, but you are aware that if you keep killing the bad guys... until there's no one left. Then what? You really think that The Ghost of Muhammad's Past™ would rise again?
You can't reason against an ideology that brutually murders their captives.
You can't reason against an ideology that kidnaps, rapes, sells women for revenue.
You can't reason against an ideology that'll kill you for being gay or a chrisitan.
Sometimes... the only thing you can do... is to fight fire with fire.
And how exactly do you identify your targets to fight fire with fire?
Sure, but you are aware that if you keep killing the bad guys... until there's no one left. Then what? You really think that The Ghost of Muhammad's Past™ would rise again?
And "kill the bad guys until none are left" is a hopelessly unrealistic goal, unless you're willing to commit genocide against an entire religion and culture just to be sure you killed everything. I keep telling you this, you're dealing with an ideology, not a state that has fixed borders, a capital and government, open military actions, etc.
You can't reason against an ideology that brutually murders their captives.
You can't reason against an ideology that kidnaps, rapes, sells women for revenue.
You can't reason against an ideology that'll kill you for being gay or a chrisitan.
Sometimes... the only thing you can do... is to fight fire with fire.
And how exactly do you identify your targets to fight fire with fire?
Sure, but you are aware that if you keep killing the bad guys... until there's no one left. Then what? You really think that The Ghost of Muhammad's Past™ would rise again?
And "kill the bad guys until none are left" is a hopelessly unrealistic goal, unless you're willing to commit genocide against an entire religion and culture just to be sure you killed everything. I keep telling you this, you're dealing with an ideology, not a state that has fixed borders, a capital and government, open military actions, etc.
Prestor Jon wrote: If the government stopped issuing loans to everyone in order to pay the ever increasing tuition costs colleges would be subject to market forces.
They're already subject to many market forces. However, much like the health care industry however, education is something that people need (if you want reliable access to a good job) so education facilities can basically charge however much they think they can get away with without crashing the economy i.e, the rapidly rising cost of tuition driven by private schools. A lot of market forces that theoretically drive down costs go out the window when your business can be structured into exploitation (which is very few businesses) and education is one of the businesses that can be twisted that way.
You're also seemingly under the mistaken believe the government aid is this all powerful force. While it is the single largest force of financial aid;
But it's not that simple. Federal Aid just barely accounts for half of all aid (for undergrads).
That's a lot of money, but it is insufficient to explain the changes we're seeing. The free market is not god. It is not the solution to every problem and it can be just as destructive as it can be beneficial (and the funny part is that I learned that reading The Wealth of Nations in College! Adam Smith said it!). If the government doesn't provide the money, people are just going to keep getting it from banks and credit unions and then we're just looking at something even more disastrous. The increasing number of students/families taking bank loans is the primary driver of the student debt bubble right now, not government aid. I'm not sure how cutting government aid entirely is going to resolve that. People will seek education not matter how much it costs, because the alternative is a population that can't work (and an economy with a crippling lack of skilled labor) and/or has overwhelming debt from the burden of education.
Driving down student debt is a good thing, but seriously. Given the past few years of the US economy, I'd think people would have learned that banks and free market principals do not solve all problems.
Oh and this because I really like harping about it
Seriously University of Phoenix and all your friends. feth you. (In this sense, yes federal aid is working out poorly but not because it's a bad idea, but rather because we've allowed the rise of institutions that are structured scams to soak up aid money).
There are private schools suffering from lower enrollments because people are realizing that the higher costs and debt burden aren't worth choosing a private school over a lower cost state university.
Good. The vast majority of private (for profit) schools aren't worth their tuition. Many of the best colleges in the country are state run and they're massively cheaper (but don't worry, you local Governors have been happy to start slashing state education system budgets to try and drive those costs up!). As someone who has attended both, private schools by and large cut off your arms and legs and don't really make up for it in quality. Unless you're going somewhere with serious prestige (Ivy League, Notre Dame, Georgetown and the like< Catholic Church actually runs a lot of nice colleges fyi) you are likely wasting money.[/quoteà
Federal loans account for more aid than private bank loans so private bank loans can't exert more influence on the market than federal loans currently. Half the cost of tuition is being covered by the federal govt. If the government didn't cover that half students would either not be able to pay or have to show banks that they qualify as a good investment for a student loan. The federal government doesn't care what you study or what you earn after you graduate or even if you're likely to graduate (not everyone does). All of those mitigating factors have to be considered by private lenders who are only going to issue student loans if there is a good chance of the borrower paying them back with interest. The government doesn't issue loans to make a profit on the interest they issue loans to enable students to attend schools that would others be unaffordable. Federal loans exist specifically to offset the rising costs of tuition which is why costs will continue to rise as long as the government continues to issue loans to cover the increase. Without pressure and incentives to lower costs such as enabling enough students to attend in order to keep the school functioning costs won't decrease.
If tomorrow colleges were told that the feds would no longer cover half the tuition costs then schools would have to lower the cost of attendance in order to maintain enrollments. If students had to be evaluated on a case by case basis regarding their ability to graduate and earn enough to pay back student loans fewer loans would be issued and further pressure would be exerted on schools to lower costs in order to keep students.
Just because education is important doesn't mean credit will magically appear and be offered to anyone who wants to go to college. As long as schools can get paid at whatever rates they charge they will continue to charge more.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Still waiting for Peregrine to actually say something productive and stop undermining everyone elses argument
Undermining is the wrong word. But, yeah, don't hold your breath.
Posting this next bit here because I don't want to derail the Paris Attack thread. I think juxtaposing President Obama's statement earlier today with the news of tonight speaks volumes about his foreign policy.
Stephanopoulos asked Obama if ISIS was gaining in strength, to which Obama denied they were.
“I don’t think they’re gaining strength,” Obama responded. “What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq, and in Syria they’ll come in, they’ll leave, but you don’t see this systemic march by ISIL across the terrain.”
Depends on the idea. But "kill everyone who holds that idea" is almost certainly not going to be a viable solution.
Its almost funny, Muslims from places like Saudi Arabia don't even believe in killing. They are just really moralistic. So, now begs the question, how do we root out the radicals? They technically are following their holy book so we really can't attempt at rewriting that.
Now back to the other side:
Are you saying we can't fight at all or that fighting won't end the conflict? I can't disagree with the latter.
You can't reason against an ideology that brutually murders their captives.
You can't reason against an ideology that kidnaps, rapes, sells women for revenue.
You can't reason against an ideology that'll kill you for being gay or a chrisitan.
Sometimes... the only thing you can do... is to fight fire with fire.
I think he's making perfectly good sense, and also, no one suggested "reasoning" with them, so that's a bit of a strawman. It's simply being pointed out that some of you guys appear to think that a major show of military might can fix this, which I think we've got a pretty well established track record showing that is not the case.
We can't have a shock and awe campaign to defeat terrorism. We can't fund less-worse extremists because they always turn on us. We can't "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" because there really isn't any real reason they can't fight in both places at once. Terrorism is really, really inexpensive.
There may be other solutions but the way I see it, we have 3 options, neither is great:
1.) A sustained military campaign. We're talking multi country, the UN, and decades upon decades of time. The United States doesn't have the political will to do this, and it's a little questionable whether it's the best use of our finite blood and treasure in the first place.
2.) Hurt them as well as we can in a very limited manner, such as airstrikes. This costs very little politically, and also is minimally effectual.
3.) Avoid the conflicts as much as possible and try to prevent plots like this from happening domestically. This won't be 100% effective over a long time, and it takes very little domestic terrorism (of the brown muslim kind) for Americans to lose their gak, so it's a risky game.
whembly wrote: Sure, but you are aware that if you keep killing the bad guys... until there's no one left. Then what? You really think that The Ghost of Muhammad's Past™ would rise again?
Yes. Yes yes yes. They always do. It's been happening there for a long, long time, from the Mujahideen to the Taliban to Al Qaeda to the Sons of Iraq to ISIL to whoever comes next. They simply can't be destroyed in a 10 year military campaign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: Posting this next bit here because I don't want to derail the Paris Attack thread. I think juxtaposing President Obama's statement earlier today with the news of tonight speaks volumes about his foreign policy.
I was wondering how long it would take before there would be a "Thanks, Obama". Looks like the answer was "before the bodies were cold".
Breotan wrote: Posting this next bit here because I don't want to derail the Paris Attack thread. I think juxtaposing President Obama's statement earlier today with the news of tonight speaks volumes about his foreign policy.
I was wondering how long it would take before there would be a "Thanks, Obama". Looks like the answer was "before the bodies were cold".
You know what the best part about the hypocritical reaction the President's remarks is? The fact that idiots are angry because he didn't immediately place blame on anyone.
However, when they feel that the administration allegedly placed immediate blame on a video instead of being honest about not really knowing, we get Benghazigate.
You can't reason against an ideology that brutually murders their captives.
You can't reason against an ideology that kidnaps, rapes, sells women for revenue.
You can't reason against an ideology that'll kill you for being gay or a chrisitan.
Sometimes... the only thing you can do... is to fight fire with fire.
I think he's making perfectly good sense, and also, no one suggested "reasoning" with them, so that's a bit of a strawman. It's simply being pointed out that some of you guys appear to think that a major show of military might can fix this, which I think we've got a pretty well established track record showing that is not the case.
We can't have a shock and awe campaign to defeat terrorism. We can't fund less-worse extremists because they always turn on us. We can't "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" because there really isn't any real reason they can't fight in both places at once. Terrorism is really, really inexpensive.
There may be other solutions but the way I see it, we have 3 options, neither is great:
1.) A sustained military campaign. We're talking multi country, the UN, and decades upon decades of time. The United States doesn't have the political will to do this, and it's a little questionable whether it's the best use of our finite blood and treasure in the first place.
I'm talking of epic proportion. Not the "low energy" engagement we're currently seeing now. Keep in mind, this is more than military... you'd have to neuter their means in the financial world... blockcade around ISIS' territory... starve them.
2.) Hurt them as well as we can in a very limited manner, such as airstrikes. This costs very little politically, and also is minimally effectual.
Basically current status quo.
3.) Avoid the conflicts as much as possible and try to prevent plots like this from happening domestically. This won't be 100% effective over a long time, and it takes very little domestic terrorism (of the brown muslim kind) for Americans to lose their gak, so it's a risky game.
Isolationist route essentially. But, impossible with our "open borders" policies. I get the appeal for this... and you've advocated as such in the past.
But how long do you think we can ignore Edmund Burke's "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
"??
whembly wrote: Yup. Because you keep killing until they say "no mas".
Worked against Japan...
What is it with you and history that you have a difficult time with?
What is it with you that "we" can't doing anything right?
Where did I say we can't do anything right? Strawman much?
Your "solution" is to declare total war on ISIS and the rest of those donkey-caves, steamroll through the Middle East destroying everything in our path, then getting back in our aircraft carriers and sailing back home and leaving the countries we destroyed a bombed out remnant of their former selves.
When it's pointed out insanely fething stupid that is, your "proof" is that it worked in Japan. Which is obviously more proof that you have no fething clue what you're every talking about because we occupied Japan for seven fething years.
You want to know why I continually harp on you Whembly? Because you say idiotic things, over and over and over again and it's fething exhausting.
whembly wrote: But how long do you think we can ignore Edmund Burke's "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
"??
The truth is that exact thought bothers me enormously. I've opined over and over that it's not in our interest to get involved in these foreign entanglements, and I still believe that mostly because I don't really think we can win. But believe me, it's in the back of my mind, that when Djones and people like that are advocating that we should stop some of the horrible gak that is going on over there that... well... he's not wrong, either. I mean, ISIL needs to get got. I don't think there's any real dispute there. These guys are fething terrible. And I grew up reading Spider-Men and the X-Men! I totally understand the pull of with great power comes great responsibility, and that sometimes you have to fight for people even when they fear and hate you. The answer is for me at least, I don't have an answer. Not at all. I think it's a bad idea for us to get involved, and I also think it's terrible that we could mitigate at least some of the atrocities and we aren't. And that's sort of where I am. I agree that America should not seek out monsters to destroy, while also thinking, man, we need to do something about the monsters.
whembly wrote: Yup. Because you keep killing until they say "no mas".
Worked against Japan...
What is it with you and history that you have a difficult time with?
What is it with you that "we" can't doing anything right?
Where did I say we can't do anything right? Strawman much?
Your "solution" is to declare total war on ISIS and the rest of those donkey-caves, steamroll through the Middle East destroying everything in our path, then getting back in our aircraft carriers and sailing back home and leaving the countries we destroyed a bombed out remnant of their former selves.
No... my solution is for ISIS only. Not the steamroll through the Middle East.
Step away from fething Media Matters and Vox. They're poisoning your preconception of people having different opinions.
When it's pointed out insanely fething stupid that is, your "proof" is that it worked in Japan. Which is obviously more proof that you have no fething clue what you're every talking about because we occupied Japan for seven fething years.
Jesus...
What we did in Japan worked right? Are you denying this?
You want to know why I continually harp on you Whembly? Because you say idiotic things, over and over and over again and it's fething exhausting.
Turn off Fox News and read a fething book.
You need to take your own suggestion and turn off your lefty media sites and read a book too.
And have a bottle of your favorite brewski and chillax man.
whembly wrote: But how long do you think we can ignore Edmund Burke's "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
"??
The truth is that exact thought bothers me enormously. I've opined over and over that it's not in our interest to get involved in these foreign entanglements, and I still believe that mostly because I don't really think we can win. But believe me, it's in the back of my mind, that when Djones and people like that are advocating that we should stop some of the horrible gak that is going on over there that... well... he's not wrong, either. I mean, ISIL needs to get got. I don't think there's any real dispute there. These guys are fething terrible. And I grew up reading Spider-Men and the X-Men! I totally understand the pull of with great power comes great responsibility, and that sometimes you have to fight for people even when they fear and hate you. The answer is for me at least, I don't have an answer. Not at all. I think it's a bad idea for us to get involved, and I also think it's terrible that we could mitigate at least some of the atrocities and we aren't. And that's sort of where I am. I agree that America should not seek out monsters to destroy, while also thinking, man, we need to do something about the monsters.
I don't necessarily disagree with you buddy... and I meant no ill will towards you implying otherwise.
whembly wrote: No... my solution is for ISIS only. Not the steamroll through the Middle East.
So I guess ISIS isn't in the Middle East? You better get on the phone and let the Pentagon know, they've been bombing the wrong part of the world!
Step away from fething Media Matters and Vox. They're poisoning your preconception of people having different opinions.
I don't read Media Matter or Vox because both of those websites are terrible, but thanks for trying.
What we did in Japan worked right? Are you denying this?
No, I'm telling you that your idiotic plan and how we treated Japan after WWII aren't even close to being the same thing.
You need to take your own suggestion and turn off your lefty media sites and read a book too.
I don't read "lefty" media sites. In fact, I read Fox News more than anything else. In fact, it's the only news website I have pinned on my browser. Also, my personal library fills two bookshelves in my house: one in the basement (my 'cave') and one in my bedroom.
And have a bottle of your favorite brewski and chillax man.
I already drank a tall Sapporo at dinner and I'm quite relaxed, but thank you for the concern.
I don't know what the answer to this problem is and unlike you, I won't pretend too. I do know that it is nothing that has spilled out of your brain.
EDIT: Apparently my grammar is suffering because of the delicious beer I had with dinner.
whembly wrote: blockcade around ISIS' territory... starve them.
I see. So, aside from the moral issues with starving Bad People to death, I guess you're content to ignore the harm this blockade will inevitably cause to people who aren't evil terrorists?
whembly wrote: What we did in Japan worked right? Are you denying this?
Again, JAPAN WAS A STATE. It had clearly-defined borders, a clearly-defined government that could be replaced, a clearly-defined military with clearly-defined military objectives that could be opposed, etc. This is not in any way the same thing as a non-state ideology!
whembly wrote: blockcade around ISIS' territory... starve them.
I see. So, aside from the moral issues with starving Bad People to death, I guess you're content to ignore the harm this blockade will inevitably cause to people who aren't evil terrorists?
Right. Also, starving people to death is a great to make sure no one else decides to become a radical.
whembly wrote: No... my solution is for ISIS only. Not the steamroll through the Middle East.
So I guess ISIS isn't in the Middle East? You better get on the phone and let the Pentagon know, they've been bombing the wrong part of the world!
dogma? Is that you?
Step away from fething Media Matters and Vox. They're poisoning your preconception of people having different opinions.
I don't read Media Matter or Vox because both of those websites are terrible, but thanks for trying.
You fooled me then... and yes their website are horribad... almost as bad as Fox's website.
What we did in Japan worked right? Are you denying this?
No, I'm telling you that your idiotic plan and how we treated Japan after WWII aren't even close to being the same thing.
My "plan" *is* the McArther plan. It's just that we don't have the *will* for a contemporary occupation. Are you sure you're not channeling dogma here?
You need to take your own suggestion and turn off your lefty media sites and read a book too.
I don't read "lefty" media sites. In fact, I read Fox News more than anything else. In fact, it's the only news website I have pinned my browser. Also, my personal library fills two bookshelves in my house: one in the basement (my 'cave') and one in my bedroom.
You should see mine... and my kindle lineup. My wife couldn't believe that there were *that many* Star Wars books.
And have a bottle of your favorite brewski and chillax man.
I already drank a tall Sapporo at dinner I'm quite relaxed, but thank you for concern.
Cool man.
I'm partial to Macallan.
I don't know what the answer to this problem is and unlike you, I won't pretend too. I do know that it is nothing that has spilled out of your brain.
whembly wrote: What we did in Japan worked right? Are you denying this?
Again, JAPAN WAS A STATE. It had clearly-defined borders, a clearly-defined government that could be replaced, a clearly-defined military with clearly-defined military objectives that could be opposed, etc. This is not in any way the same thing as a non-state ideology!
whembly wrote: blockcade around ISIS' territory... starve them.
I see. So, aside from the moral issues with starving Bad People to death, I guess you're content to ignore the harm this blockade will inevitably cause to people who aren't evil terrorists?
Right. Also, starving people to death is a great to make sure no one else decides to become a radical.
It all makes perfect sense.
What's your solution?
Ouze justified his tango with me. Both of you are just playing "whack-a-whembly" here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: We should bomb ISIS like we bombed AQ, that always works...
Um... isn't this the status quo? How's that working??
Ouze justified his tango with me. Both of you are just playing "whack-a-whembly" here.
I gave you the same answer Ouze did, I just use way less words to say it. Also, drop your persecution complex, it isn't helping.
Bombing them: doesn't/isn't working Invading them (even though they aren't a state): won't work Occupying them (even though they aren't a state): won't work Blockading them: won't work
ISIS and radical Islam needs to be stopped, but how can we force that to happen without creating a negative feedback loop? If I knew the answer to that, I'm sure I'd be sitting in the White House right now.
Gordon Shumway wrote: It's really scary how it only takes 150 deaths to make people who would otherwise disparage the man sound like a Donald Trump stump speech these days.
Well, the best way to prevent deaths is to have even more of your own people die fighting a war that doesn't solve anything.
How many American bodies are underground thanks to avenging 9/11?
"What's you solution?" isn't a good argument whembly. If my solution to end homelessness is to kill all homeless people, it's still a bad solution no matter if you don't have one. Bit of an extreme example there, but you get they picture.
Ouze justified his tango with me. Both of you are just playing "whack-a-whembly" here.
I gave you the same answer Ouze did, I just use way less words to say it. Also, drop your persecution complex, it isn't helping.
Bombing them: doesn't/isn't working
Invading them (even though they aren't a state): won't work
Occupying them (even though they aren't a state): won't work
Blockading them: won't work
ISIS and radical Islam needs to be stopped, but how can we force that to happen without creating a negative feedback loop? If I knew the answer to that, I'm sure I'd be sitting in the White House right now.
So... give up? Take a licking as it comes?
I mean... the next time a Sydney, Paris or 9/11 attacks happen, what's our response?
There is no easy solution that can be given in a single forum post. But I can tell you that, whatever the solution is, it almost certainly isn't "kill everyone and let god sort them out".
Ouze wrote: I look forward to the Alex Jones False Flag Theory in 3,2,1....
You're late, the highest minds of reddit declared it false within minutes of the news breaking.
For what its worth ISIS can be defeated by military force Al Qeada can not. While ideology drive them both the ideology is very different. ISIS needs a caliphate and a caliph. If you kill the caliph and crush the caliphate the ideology that drives ISIS dies. Al Qeada doesn't have ISIS's goals or format so beating them would require changing culture.
There is no easy solution that can be given in a single forum post. But I can tell you that, whatever the solution is, it almost certainly isn't "kill everyone and let god sort them out".
I'm not asking for a whole dissertation.
If you have even a nebulous idea... give me the cliffnote version.
whembly wrote: So... give up? Take a licking as it comes?
Give up? Because I don't have a solution to the most difficult question of the 21st century? I'd climb down off that high horse of yours before you get hurt.
I mean... the next time a Sydney, Paris or 9/11 attacks happen, what's our response?
Well, our response to 9/11 didn't really seem to stop the problem, did it?
Send them a sternly worded letter?
I sure am glad some donkey-cave on an internet forum devoted grown ups playing with toys has all of the answers to the world's problems.
I'll be able to sleep soundly tonight, that's for sure.
Co'tor Shas wrote: "What's you solution?" isn't a good argument whembly. If my solution to end homelessness is to kill all homeless people, it's still a bad solution no matter if you don't have one. Bit of an extreme example there, but you get they picture.
Hey... I threw out some options.
I'm trying to engage conversations where anything is on the table.
In fairness, both scooty and peregrine did say "I don't know".
whembly wrote: If you have even a nebulous idea... give me the cliffnote version.
I have no idea. The whole region is such a complicated mess that it's almost impossible to even figure out where to start, short of having a time machine and going back to fix our mistakes.
whembly wrote: So... give up? Take a licking as it comes?
Give up? Because I don't have a solution to the most difficult question of the 21st century? I'd climb down off that high horse of yours before you get hurt.
Oh... so having an opinion means I'm on the high horse. Got it.
I mean... the next time a Sydney, Paris or 9/11 attacks happen, what's our response?
Well, our response to 9/11 didn't really seem to stop the problem, did it?
So you answer my question with another question...
Send them a sternly worded letter?
I sure am glad some donkey-cave on an internet forum devoted grown ups playing with toys has all of the answers to the world's problems.
I'll be able to sleep soundly tonight, that's for sure.
Again... you have a problem when people don't fit your worldview, so you have to attack me and denigrate just about everyone on this site.
whembly wrote: If you have even a nebulous idea... give me the cliffnote version.
I have no idea. The whole region is such a complicated mess that it's almost impossible to even figure out where to start, short of having a time machine and going back to fix our mistakes.
Ouze wrote: I look forward to the Alex Jones False Flag Theory in 3,2,1....
You're late, the highest minds of reddit declared it false within minutes of the news breaking.
For what its worth ISIS can be defeated by military force Al Qeada can not. While ideology drive them both the ideology is very different. ISIS needs a caliphate and a caliph. If you kill the caliph and crush the caliphate the ideology that drives ISIS dies. Al Qeada doesn't have ISIS's goals or format so beating them would require changing culture.
Federal loans account for more aid than private bank loans so private bank loans can't exert more influence on the market than federal loans currently.
I don't think they exert more influence on the market. I think they exert more influence on Student Debt (and they do). If I were to point out the highest influence on the market right now it would be that the number of students going to college has risen. However defaults on private loans are extremely high due to ludicrous interest interest rates.
Interest rates on students loans can be outright extortion (as high as 10%) and many require students to start paying before they've even graduated. Now what happens here is that the government has started stepping in and is buying these loans up (this started in the early 90s) because of all the defaults and that's totally the government's fault for not realizing that loan shark interest rates being legal is asinine.
All that defaulting debt is a contributor to rising costs.
And again because I'm still harping on iT!
*shakes fist at university of phoenix*
All of those mitigating factors have to be considered by private lenders who are only going to issue student loans if there is a good chance of the borrower paying them back with interest.
Yeah. Because we can totally look at student loans right now and see how much better that's working out. Free market is not code for businesses will only make sensible decisions. Again, what in the past few years would lead anyone to believe this were true?
There are several countries here with heavily government subsidized education (Germany and France). Way less free market and they're still paying less. We really need to drop this concept in our national discourse that free market = lower costs. It's not that simple.
The government doesn't issue loans to make a profit on the interest they issue loans to enable students to attend schools that would others be unaffordable.
Good. Education is a good thing and more people should get it. If we were smart we'd let everyone get it for a penance because being educated never hurt anyone and maybe the state of our political discourse would go up a few rungs of the ladder.
Federal loans exist specifically to offset the rising costs of tuition which is why costs will continue to rise as long as the government continues to issue loans to cover the increase.
Not really? Federal Aid has been growing since the 40's and 50's (in fact we offer proportionally less government aid now than we did way back then). The current issue we're having with rising tuition costs and student debt didn't start until the late 80's when changes were made to regulations concerning Private Loans! Of course, that change was motivated by increasing enrollment and the inability of other aid sources to keep up with all the people going to college coupled with the market not being as prone to rapid expansion as it was during the golden years.
This is of course ignoring the other issue that over a third of student debt is actually owned by graduate students, not undergrads, especially those in pre-professional programs like law and medicine and their default rate is among the highest of all students (despite their degrees having some of the highest perceived value). These same students also receive less federal aid (as seen in my earlier posted chart) and a lot more private loans (with insane interest). And these programs have been rising in cost faster than others, yet again, involve way less federal aid money. So what is driving up the costs? Much higher enrollment, defaults on student debt, and the perception that these programs are increasing in value.
Realistically many graduate programs are increasing in value. There are more and more people with college educations, and a lot of fiends have realized they can demand more (masters and doctorates) for less than they could in the past. That growth honestly owes a great deal to the success of Federal Aid programs like the GI bill in the 40's and 50's instilling an economic mind set that college = success (i.e. a major part of the rising costs are indeed a natural economic outcome of so many people are going to college now).
Without pressure and incentives to lower costs such as enabling enough students to attend in order to keep the school functioning costs won't decrease.
Except they didn't have to do that. People will pursue education no matter what it costs, because not having one is basically leaving yourself with few if any options. So long as that is true, there is no incentive to lower costs.
And another issue; The government has a vested interest in making sure people can go to college because the economy needs college graduates to function (preferably college graduates without debt would be ideal, but the world isn't perfect). College education promotes and maintains economic growth. Ensuring an educated population and work force actually helps the 'free market' by remove risks associated with labor. If anything the government should be giving out more money to encourage growth in sectors with projected labor shortages... Oh. Like welders
Just because education is important doesn't mean credit will magically appear and be offered to anyone who wants to go to college. As long as schools can get paid at whatever rates they charge they will continue to charge more.
Except that removing federal financial aid will not stop that cycle. It never drove down the costs of Healthcare, and it's never driven down the costs of Education because these are things people will pursue regardless of price.
To be clear, I don't really care that prices are going up per se (prices going up is to a degree inevitable). Like I said, education is expensive but its worth it and I think that an educated population is worth the costs required to make it happen. IMO, we should be sending people to school, and not just for the empty soulless notion that it'll help them make money later on.
Peregrine wrote: It does when you're trying to claim some kind of moral high ground just for having an opinion, no matter how obviously wrong that opinion is.
And as a side note - this is not directed at you, but more at that other guy whose post I don't feel like going back and finding - I don't see why not knowing the best plan doesn't preclude you from pointing out the problems with other plans.
I don't know how to do brain surgery, but if you suggest we start by gathering a crowbar, some knitting needles and some baling wire, I feel like I can still say I don't think you know what you're doing.
whembly wrote: If you have even a nebulous idea... give me the cliffnote version.
I have no idea. The whole region is such a complicated mess that it's almost impossible to even figure out where to start, short of having a time machine and going back to fix our mistakes.
To try to phrase it in a way that might make sense to whembly:
If you can't decide which GOP candidate would be the best answer, would you vote for Hillary?
Or would you decide "we tried that, it didn't work, I don't know which GOP candidate would be a solution but I know what doesn't work".
Bombing radical Islam to hell is our Hillary here.
Peregrine wrote: It does when you're trying to claim some kind of moral high ground just for having an opinion, no matter how obviously wrong that opinion is.
And as a side note - this is not directed at you, but more at that other guy whose post I don't feel like going back and finding - I don't see why not knowing the best plan doesn't preclude you from pointing out the problems with other plans.
I don't know how to do brain surgery, but if you suggest we start by gathering a crowbar, some knitting needles and some baling wire, I feel like I can still say I don't think you know what you're doing.
*trying to tone down my responses...*
I guess I'm that "other guy".
You forget me already?
Sure, I don't mind these debates. It's just that, far too often we're held hostage to the idea that we MUST find that silver bullet to solve these issues. Sometimes, you just have to act. Isn't that how the PPACA got passed? Break a few eggs in order to make an omlete?
whembly wrote: If you have even a nebulous idea... give me the cliffnote version.
I have no idea. The whole region is such a complicated mess that it's almost impossible to even figure out where to start, short of having a time machine and going back to fix our mistakes.
To try to phrase it in a way that might make sense to whembly:
If you can't decide which GOP candidate would be the best answer, would you vote for Hillary?
Or would you decide "we tried that, it didn't work, I don't know which GOP candidate would be a solution but I know what doesn't work" Bombing radical Islam to hell is our Hillary here.
Very strange hypothetical and I don't know what to think...
*pondering*
EDIT: I don't think like that... Hence why I think why we get stuck in these discussions...
Federal loans account for more aid than private bank loans so private bank loans can't exert more influence on the market than federal loans currently.
I don't think they exert more influence on the market. I think they exert more influence on Student Debt (and they do). If I were to point out the highest influence on the market right now it would be that the number of students going to college has risen. However defaults on private loans are extremely high due to ludicrous interest interest rates.
Interest rates on students loans can be outright extortion (as high as 10%) and many require students to start paying before they've even graduated. Now what happens here is that the government has started stepping in and is buying these loans up (this started in the early 90s) because of all the defaults and that's totally the government's fault for not realizing that loan shark interest rates being legal is asinine.
All that defaulting debt is a contributor to rising costs.
And again because I'm still harping on iT!
*shakes fist at university of phoenix*
All of those mitigating factors have to be considered by private lenders who are only going to issue student loans if there is a good chance of the borrower paying them back with interest.
Yeah. Because we can totally look at student loans right now and see how much better that's working out. Free market is not code for businesses will only make sensible decisions. Again, what in the past few years would lead anyone to believe this were true?
There are several countries here with heavily government subsidized education (Germany and France). Way less free market and they're still paying less. We really need to drop this concept in our national discourse that free market = lower costs. It's not that simple.
The government doesn't issue loans to make a profit on the interest they issue loans to enable students to attend schools that would others be unaffordable.
Good. Education is a good thing and more people should get it. If we were smart we'd let everyone get it for a penance because being educated never hurt anyone and maybe the state of our political discourse would go up a few rungs of the ladder.
Federal loans exist specifically to offset the rising costs of tuition which is why costs will continue to rise as long as the government continues to issue loans to cover the increase.
Not really? Federal Aid has been growing since the 40's and 50's (in fact we offer proportionally less government aid now than we did way back then). The current issue we're having with rising tuition costs and student debt didn't start until the late 80's when changes were made to regulations concerning Private Loans! Of course, that change was motivated by increasing enrollment and the inability of other aid sources to keep up with all the people going to college coupled with the market not being as prone to rapid expansion as it was during the golden years.
This is of course ignoring the other issue that over a third of student debt is actually owned by graduate students, not undergrads, especially those in pre-professional programs like law and medicine and their default rate is among the highest of all students (despite their degrees having some of the highest perceived value). These same students also receive less federal aid (as seen in my earlier posted chart) and a lot more private loans (with insane interest). And these programs have been rising in cost faster than others, yet again, involve way less federal aid money. So what is driving up the costs? Much higher enrollment, defaults on student debt, and the perception that these programs are increasing in value.
Realistically many graduate programs are increasing in value. There are more and more people with college educations, and a lot of fiends have realized they can demand more (masters and doctorates) for less than they could in the past. That growth honestly owes a great deal to the success of Federal Aid programs like the GI bill in the 40's and 50's instilling an economic mind set that college = success (i.e. a major part of the rising costs are indeed a natural economic outcome of so many people are going to college now).
Without pressure and incentives to lower costs such as enabling enough students to attend in order to keep the school functioning costs won't decrease.
Except they didn't have to do that. People will pursue education no matter what it costs, because not having one is basically leaving yourself with few if any options. So long as that is true, there is no incentive to lower costs.
And another issue; The government has a vested interest in making sure people can go to college because the economy needs college graduates to function (preferably college graduates without debt would be ideal, but the world isn't perfect). College education promotes and maintains economic growth. Ensuring an educated population and work force actually helps the 'free market' by remove risks associated with labor. If anything the government should be giving out more money to encourage growth in sectors with projected labor shortages... Oh. Like welders
Just because education is important doesn't mean credit will magically appear and be offered to anyone who wants to go to college. As long as schools can get paid at whatever rates they charge they will continue to charge more.
Except that removing federal financial aid will not stop that cycle. It never drove down the costs of Healthcare, and it's never driven down the costs of Education because these are things people will pursue regardless of price.
To be clear, I don't really care that prices are going up per se (prices going up is to a degree inevitable). Like I said, education is expensive but its worth it and I think that an educated population is worth the costs required to make it happen. IMO, we should be sending people to school, and not just for the empty soulless notion that it'll help them make money later on.
Spoiler'd for length.... IMO, part of the problem is that Joe Snuffy wannabe college student can get accepted into a college, then go down to his/her local Wells Fargo and say, "I need some college money" and generally speaking the bank will give it. The reason it's so "easy" to get this loan is because, 20 years down the road when Joe Snuffy has been working for 10-15 years has a market collapse in which he is generally forced to file bankruptcy, that student loan stays on the books no matter what.
That's a problem. It may be a private loan, but the federal backing on it, and the rules associated with it means that the banks have very little down side, or very little reason to turn down these loans.
Again, I think part of the problem that we're seeing cause an increase in tuition and costs, are the exploding numbers of administrative staff. UW has a "dean of first generation college students", as well as admin staff who serve as tutors for those first gen. college students. They have mirroring admin for minorities, mirroring staff for gender based, etc. And then on top of all that, they have their deans of "regular" college students and regular tutors which they've had since the school's inception. And it is, quite frankly ridiculous to have all of these redundant staff members.
Sure, I don't mind these debates. It's just that, far too often we're held hostage to the idea that we MUST find that silver bullet to solve these issues. Sometimes, you just have to act.
No, you really don't. That's the sort of thinking that has made Trump a popular choice for the Republican candidacy. He positioned himself as a "doer" and people, generally people ignorant of the relevant situation, often just want to see something being done regardless of the efficacy of the action.
I think something has to be done about ISIL, but I'm not convinced that direct US action is the best way to go about it. In fact, I'm pretty certain its about the worst thing the US could do. Rather the US military should be used in an advisory and support role with respect to its counterparts in Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. This is very much a situation where a light touch is likely to generate the best results, which still won't be particularly good.
As to stopping domestic terrorism: the problem is much more complicated. There is no military solution to that problem, even completely annihilating ISIL will not put a stop to the phenomenon*. Prevention, in this instance, is more a matter of judicious intelligence gathering coupled with effective police work, and an understanding that there is no way to be 100% successful in preventing terrorist attacks.
And you just told us that doing something is always a good idea.
Or are you how saying that doing something can be bad?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: and can you please stop with that bs "your savior" bs you pull out of your bag everytime someone fundamentally disagrees with whatever it is you are saying. It's just making you sound like an ass and I'm really running out of any desire to engage with you because of it. I don't mind talking to people I disagree with, but it's really off-putting to constantly hear "you disagree with me? Go worship Obama some more then!"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: and can you please stop with that bs "your savior" bs you pull out of your bag everytime someone fundamentally disagrees with whatever it is you are saying. It's just making you sound like an ass and I'm really running out of any desire to engage with you because of it.
Sure... when ya'll can drop this "Obama is history's greatest monster" claptrap.
IMO, part of the problem is that Joe Snuffy wannabe college student can get accepted into a college, then go down to his/her local Wells Fargo and say, "I need some college money" and generally speaking the bank will give it. The reason it's so "easy" to get this loan is because, 20 years down the road when Joe Snuffy has been working for 10-15 years has a market collapse in which he is generally forced to file bankruptcy, that student loan stays on the books no matter what.
Well part of the issue is that until recently, Student Loans were a very good investment for banks. They could put up high interest rates, and generally have very good odds of getting that money back. It wasn't until the recession that Student Loan default rates started to become a problem. There've also been changes in employment demographics (outlook not good for Law students for example), that banks and students haven't really caught up to. Statistically they're still not a bad investment.
Again, I think part of the problem that we're seeing cause an increase in tuition and costs, are the exploding numbers of administrative staff. UW has a "dean of first generation college students", as well as admin staff who serve as tutors for those first gen. college students. They have mirroring admin for minorities, mirroring staff for gender based, etc. And then on top of all that, they have their deans of "regular" college students and regular tutors which they've had since the school's inception. And it is, quite frankly ridiculous to have all of these redundant staff members.
Well part of the issue is that a lot of Universities and Colleges, have effectively been growing non-stop for over 60 years. My school was very small back in the late 40's. A dozen staff, and just 100 students. However by the 1960's, the school had over one hundred staff and thousands of students. That growth never really stopped. My school has consistently added several hundred new students a year, staff to manage them, faculty to teach them, and facilities to accommodate their needs. My school isn't a big one, but this trend is country wide and more serious on larger campuses. That starts adding up to serious expenditures, especially since education isn't a business where lots of means of boosting supply/cutting costs of production don't work.
If you're IBM, and you see a serious spike in demand for you X4000 Computer Chip, and you can't keep up with with, there's a lot you can do. You can outsource production to another manufacturer. You can improve the means of production so you can make the product faster. You can expand your facilities to improve output.
Colleges don't have those options. A 4 year degree is a 4 year degree. There's no way to really speed that up. Once a professor starts reaching 30+ students per class, you're basically crippling that professors ability to teach (they can only handle so many even with help from TAs). You can't really outsource 'production' of students somewhere else. Further people need food, water, power, and somewhere to sleep and that starts adding up to a lot when we expect schools to provide room and board. My school has built new dorms at a rate of 1 every 8 or so years to deal with expansion and it just hit the wall that some of its dorms are almost 100 years old and don't have air conditioning (they're tearing those down and replacing them now). It all results in costs growing with little if any means to bring them down. If there were a breather or break in the growth for schools to work on efficiency and cost cutting, we might see some of that but with a constant rate of growth there's no real time for any of that to happen.
Our higher education system has had to cope with more and more people going to school and costs of administrating, teaching, and providing for them. Too a degree I totally agree there seem to be lots of redundant admin positions, but there's a gak ton of students and more keep coming. my school has close to 10k students now, and only 500 staff (including professors) to deal with them all. There's a fair amount of waste too. My school spend a couple hundred thousand building a nice student union building with conference rooms and stuff, that no one used. In spite of that, the school spent another couple hundred k expanding the building to add more rooms for no one to use... Meanwhile our library is decrepit and small for how many students are on campus. Oh and did I mention that a lot of the dorms don't have air conditioning? I mean it's not the deep south but there's still a good 6 weeks out of the school year where it's like 80 degrees outside!
What's the American reaction to these terrorist attacks? I'm pretty sure that there was a recent Bi-partisan Congressional report that said there could be a number of people returning to the USA from Syria...
Right now, our feckless foreign policy championed by your savior and HRC ain't really doing gak.
My savior? What? Simply because I point out the many problems in arguments you make regarding Hillary Clinton and Obama does not mean that I'm particularly fond of either of them.
Regardless, I'm also perfectly fine with doing nothing at all. In fact, that would be second on my list of preferred foreign policy choices, at least given the present state of affairs. This is especially true given that in order for the US to advise and support a foreign military, the government which oversees that military must be willing to accept such aid. In Jordan this shouldn't be much of an issue, as Jordan has been on good terms with the US for many, many years. But in the other 3 cases (Turkey*, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia) political issues could very easily get in the way of further cooperation.
*Turkey doesn't really need the help anyway, they've already got plenty of experience dealing with militants and terrorism.
To simplify:
If possible, support and advise foreign militaries. If not possible, do nothing. Directly engage ISIL only after other Western nations have made a concerted effort to do the same.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You guys not worried about fighters returning? You'll know better than me about the availibility of guns in the USA.
Opinions are divided, and range from "Most serious threat EVAR!!!" to "No threat at all.". The most reasonable position, in my opinion, is that they do pose a threat, but that it is often overblown for reasons of political positioning and general paranoia.
Either way, it isn't really a hot topic in the general public, and so discussion tends to be limited to the academy and foreign policy/security professionals.
To simplify:
If possible, support and advise foreign militaries. If not possible, do nothing. Directly engage ISIL only after other Western nations have made a concerted effort to do the same.
Honestly... that may be the only practical thing we can do at the moment.
Did anyone watch the debate last night? With 3 of them onstage... it still shows that they're the true clown show.
Sanders claiming climate change is the greatest security threat...
O'Malley not making sense...
Clinton using 9/11 to justify her Wall Street actions in NY was bizzare...
Just your standard debate where truths were stretched, with some whoppers.
Didn't watch it becaue of Betrayal at Calth (lol) but that wouldn't surprise me. I don't find either party or their debates to be anything more than clown shows.
whembly wrote: Sanders claiming climate change is the greatest security threat...
Which is a valid point, if you think about it for a moment. What do you think is going to happen when unstable regions (including places where people already hate the US) start suffering things like coastal flooding driving people out of their homes or shifting rain patterns turning important agricultural areas into deserts?
whembly wrote: Sanders claiming climate change is the greatest security threat...
Which is a valid point, if you think about it for a moment. What do you think is going to happen when unstable regions (including places where people already hate the US) start suffering things like coastal flooding driving people out of their homes or shifting rain patterns turning important agricultural areas into deserts?
Would turn Mad Max from a really cool Sci-fi story, to something more akin to a documentary
And I agree. What Sanders is saying isn't that Mother Earth is gonna start suicide bombing stadiums full of people to get her message across, but rather that as situations deteriorate, security becomes extremely problematic. It's really just a bit of logical thinking, rather than stating the obvious
Big ideas to complex issues don't get votes. If Sander's wants Americans to take him seriously he should of said he will build a wall around climate change and make the Earth pay for it. Or maybe run on a platform of being against the climatization of America and stop the immigration of illegal climates.
Hell, maybe he could promise to declare war on radical militant climates. Climate is not an environment of peace.
whembly wrote: Did anyone watch the debate last night? With 3 of them onstage... it still shows that they're the true clown show.
Sure, sure.
At any point, did one of them suggest they once tried to stab someone, that they'd bang their daughter, or that they'd be willing to situationally murder a baby? No? Nothing about grain silos yet?
Honest question - do you even realize how unbelieveable these guys sound to the rest of America? And, you know, not in an awesome way, like "these ribs are unbelieveable".
Rib Ticklers....small mom and pop business attach to a gas station...if that ain't Southern as all Hell...I drop serious $$ once every two weeks for two full racks
Frazzled wrote: Its not the constitutional crisis you're thinking of.
More's the pity then.
There's a law against shutting it down.
If Obama shuts it down he has violated the law.
Guess whats an impeachable offense...
Too bad we can't impeach Congress and the Senate.
And too bad they're more interested in finding ways of screwing over the executive branch than doing their fething job.
Isn't a major part of their job to be the check and balance to the Executive branch? If they feel it is stepping out of line they SHOULD be trying to screw it over.
Frazzled wrote: Its not the constitutional crisis you're thinking of.
More's the pity then.
There's a law against shutting it down.
If Obama shuts it down he has violated the law.
Guess whats an impeachable offense...
Too bad we can't impeach Congress and the Senate.
And too bad they're more interested in finding ways of screwing over the executive branch than doing their fething job.
Isn't a major part of their job to be the check and balance to the Executive branch? If they feel it is stepping out of line they SHOULD be trying to screw it over.
There is a difference between "being the check and balance to the Executive branch" and "being obstructionists wrapping themselves in patriotism".
The former implies that they will actively work with the Executive branch, to ensure that the Executive branch does not overreach its authority. And no, Executive Orders are not necessarily an overreach.
The latter is what we got. We've seen how that worked.
This is both accurate, that that he can't shutter the facility, but inaccurate in what we commonly mean when we say "shutting down Gitmo" - where we commonly ending the indefinite holding of detainees. The law precludes funding any transfers of prisoners to the US. He's free to transfer them to other countries (for example)
The fact that the indefinite detentions have continued are imo the biggest failing of this administration, and an utter betrayal of our ideals.
Frazzled wrote: Its not the constitutional crisis you're thinking of.
More's the pity then.
There's a law against shutting it down.
If Obama shuts it down he has violated the law.
Guess whats an impeachable offense...
Too bad we can't impeach Congress and the Senate.
And too bad they're more interested in finding ways of screwing over the executive branch than doing their fething job.
Isn't a major part of their job to be the check and balance to the Executive branch? If they feel it is stepping out of line they SHOULD be trying to screw it over.
Exactly. As envisioned, the Executive was the MINOR branch and was so until FDR.
Frazzled wrote: Its not the constitutional crisis you're thinking of.
More's the pity then.
There's a law against shutting it down.
If Obama shuts it down he has violated the law.
Guess whats an impeachable offense...
Too bad we can't impeach Congress and the Senate.
And too bad they're more interested in finding ways of screwing over the executive branch than doing their fething job.
Isn't a major part of their job to be the check and balance to the Executive branch? If they feel it is stepping out of line they SHOULD be trying to screw it over.
Exactly. As envisioned, the Executive was the MINOR branch and was so until FDR.
I'm pretty sure that "as envisioned", the Legislative branch didn't throw hissy fits like toddlers who need a good spanking whenever things that would affect their business ties got passed.
You mean the same legislature that beat each other with sticks and occasionally carried pistols in case there was a ruckus?
I always wanted to be part of a ruckus. Now I will just settle for Rodney not trying to lick my face in an apparent random fashion when he lays napping on my chest.
The more I think about it, the less likely the crisis will occur due to the Paris. thing. If the administration pushed that this week, they'd get their collective heads handed to them.
So we can amend the constitution to get rid of impeachment of the president? We can already vote for the other guy, so by that logic impeachment is not needed.
d-usa wrote: So we can amend the constitution to get rid of impeachment of the president? We can already vote for the other guy, so by that logic impeachment is not needed.
d-usa wrote: So we can amend the constitution to get rid of impeachment of the president? We can already vote for the other guy, so by that logic impeachment is not needed.
Not what I was saying...
But, sure... go for it.
Except that IS what you were saying.
Your argument for the ability to censure/remove Congressmen/Senators cannot just be "vote for the other guy", because hey it's the same thing as impeachment right?
d-usa wrote: So we can amend the constitution to get rid of impeachment of the president? We can already vote for the other guy, so by that logic impeachment is not needed.
Not what I was saying...
But, sure... go for it.
Except that IS what you were saying.
Your argument for the ability to censure/remove Congressmen/Senators cannot just be "vote for the other guy", because hey it's the same thing as impeachment right?
Implying that it's impossible to do this... I don't disagree with you there... technically, the house\senate could impeach anyone... just that the bar is so high that it's impossible.
d-usa wrote: So we can amend the constitution to get rid of impeachment of the president? We can already vote for the other guy, so by that logic impeachment is not needed.
Not what I was saying...
But, sure... go for it.
Except that IS what you were saying.
Your argument for the ability to censure/remove Congressmen/Senators cannot just be "vote for the other guy", because hey it's the same thing as impeachment right?
Implying that it's impossible to do this... I don't disagree with you there... technically, the house\senate could impeach anyone... just that the bar is so high that it's impossible.
It obviously isn't that high enough if the Republicans keep threatening it whenever Obama does something they don't like.
The only other recourse is to vote them out.
Or to let the Judicial branch utilize its status as the "checks and balance" of the Legislature and dissolve/dismiss problem members.
But heavens friggin' forbid the Judicial branch get involved in politics, then they're overstepping their reach per the Republicans!
d-usa wrote: So we can amend the constitution to get rid of impeachment of the president? We can already vote for the other guy, so by that logic impeachment is not needed.
Not what I was saying...
But, sure... go for it.
Except that IS what you were saying.
Your argument for the ability to censure/remove Congressmen/Senators cannot just be "vote for the other guy", because hey it's the same thing as impeachment right?
IIRC but Congress members can be "impeached" as well for crimes and misdemeanors. I think the term is different. I could be completely wrong. We should consult a book on the history of Louisiana and Chicago politicians to confirm.
d-usa wrote: So we can amend the constitution to get rid of impeachment of the president? We can already vote for the other guy, so by that logic impeachment is not needed.
Not what I was saying...
But, sure... go for it.
Except that IS what you were saying.
Your argument for the ability to censure/remove Congressmen/Senators cannot just be "vote for the other guy", because hey it's the same thing as impeachment right?
Implying that it's impossible to do this... I don't disagree with you there... technically, the house\senate could impeach anyone... just that the bar is so high that it's impossible.
It obviously isn't that high enough if the Republicans keep threatening it whenever Obama does something they don't like.
You obviously haven't paid attention during the Bush, Clinton, Reagan years then. It's an empty threat.
The only other recourse is to vote them out.
Or to let the Judicial branch utilize its status as the "checks and balance" of the Legislature and dissolve/dismiss problem members.
Yeah no. That'd be a friggin nightmare. The Judicial Branch's "check and balance" is pretty damn powerful... the only catch is that the case must "reach" their jurisdiction.
But heavens friggin' forbid the Judicial branch get involved in politics, then they're overstepping their reach per the Republicans!
Implying that it's impossible to do this... I don't disagree with you there... technically, the house\senate could impeach anyone... just that the bar is so high that it's impossible.
Well, that's not strictly true. There's a decent argument that members of Congress are not civil officers of the United States, and so cannot be impeached. Not that it really matters, as each chamber can expel one of its members with a successful 2/3s vote, which is arguably easier than impeaching a given individual as the Congressional rules governing legitimate grounds for removal are way more fluid than the list of impeachable offenses in the Constitution.
Indeed, the only member of Congress to be impeached was Senator William Blount, way back in the late 1700's. The House impeached him, and the Senate threw it out on the grounds that the House had no jurisdictional standing.
d-usa wrote: So we can amend the constitution to get rid of impeachment of the president? We can already vote for the other guy, so by that logic impeachment is not needed.
Not what I was saying...
But, sure... go for it.
Except that IS what you were saying.
Your argument for the ability to censure/remove Congressmen/Senators cannot just be "vote for the other guy", because hey it's the same thing as impeachment right?
Implying that it's impossible to do this... I don't disagree with you there... technically, the house\senate could impeach anyone... just that the bar is so high that it's impossible.
It obviously isn't that high enough if the Republicans keep threatening it whenever Obama does something they don't like.
You obviously haven't paid attention during the Bush, Clinton, Reagan years then. It's an empty threat.
NO REALLY?! IT'S AN EMPTY THREAT?!
Duh. That doesn't stop them from CONTINUOUSLY MAKING THE THREAT. They make the threat for one reason and one reason only:
To pander to their voters.
The only other recourse is to vote them out.
Or to let the Judicial branch utilize its status as the "checks and balance" of the Legislature and dissolve/dismiss problem members.
Yeah no. That'd be a friggin nightmare. The Judicial Branch's "check and balance" is pretty damn powerful... the only catch is that the case must "reach" their jurisdiction.
Right. But what "case" is there when the Legislative Branch overreaches?
Until there's an actual case to be prosecuted, there will not be any involvement.
But heavens friggin' forbid the Judicial branch get involved in politics, then they're overstepping their reach per the Republicans!
That isn't a "Republican" ideal... o.O
You're right. It isn't.
But look at what the Republicans have said when the Supreme Court got involved with gay marriage or the Affordable Care Act.
It was claimed to be an "overreach" and that the SC had no authority and all kinds of nonsense.
d-usa wrote: They are already promising to impeach Hillary 14 months before the term of the next president, which might not even be her to begin with.
Nah... she'll Pardon* herself of all real/perceived malfeasance that was done before her time as POTUS.
*yes, that's technically legal. The only limiting factor seems to be that Presidents cannot Pardon themselves of anything during his/her Presidential tenure.
Nah... she'll Pardon* herself of all real/perceived malfeasance that was done before her time as POTUS.
*yes, that's technically legal. The only limiting factor seems to be that Presidents cannot Pardon themselves of anything during his/her Presidential tenure.
Nope, they can do that too, in fact a President could hypothetically pardon himself of crimes he might commit in the future. But pardons only affect criminal prosecution, a President who pardons himself could still be subject to impeachment.
Nah... she'll Pardon* herself of all real/perceived malfeasance that was done before her time as POTUS.
*yes, that's technically legal. The only limiting factor seems to be that Presidents cannot Pardon themselves of anything during his/her Presidential tenure.
Nope, they can do that too, in fact a President could hypothetically pardon himself of crimes he might commit in the future. But pardons only affect criminal prosecution, a President who pardons himself could still be subject to impeachment.
Now we're getting into the weeds of things... I doubt impeachment is in play if a Pardon is in effect.
Nah... she'll Pardon* herself of all real/perceived malfeasance that was done before her time as POTUS.
*yes, that's technically legal. The only limiting factor seems to be that Presidents cannot Pardon themselves of anything during his/her Presidential tenure.
Nope, they can do that too, in fact a President could hypothetically pardon himself of crimes he might commit in the future. But pardons only affect criminal prosecution, a President who pardons himself could still be subject to impeachment.
Why doesn't every president begin their time in office by declaring "I pardon myself of all crimes past, present, and future.", or do they already do that?
d-usa wrote:They are already promising to impeach Hillary 14 months before the term of the next president, which might not even be her to begin with.
Maybe they have already accepted that she will win.
Exactly. As envisioned, the Executive was the MINOR branch and was so until FDR.
Nah, I disagree, Frazz. You can make a strong case for Lincoln's war powers being the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of executive reach. Granted, that was a crisis situation, but it all started with Lincoln IMO.
Exactly. As envisioned, the Executive was the MINOR branch and was so until FDR.
Nah, I disagree, Frazz. You can make a strong case for Lincoln's war powers being the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of executive reach. Granted, that was a crisis situation, but it all started with Lincoln IMO.
This is a fair point. The ACW broke the back of separation of powers and state's rights. It was the New Deal that put two into its head.
Exactly. As envisioned, the Executive was the MINOR branch and was so until FDR.
Nah, I disagree, Frazz. You can make a strong case for Lincoln's war powers being the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of executive reach. Granted, that was a crisis situation, but it all started with Lincoln IMO.
I agree on the Lincoln bit.
In regards to today, I think Obama has overstepped what is reasonable in terms of executive power, but I feel Congress has abused their power by being obstructionist. And really, if we get down to it people know who's being more unreasonable; compare Congress' approval ratings to Obama. Not that this ecuses anything, its just...
Gosh I wish "compromise" was not a bad word in politics.
Now we're getting into the weeds of things... I doubt impeachment is in play if a Pardon is in effect.
I actually think that the opposite would be true. For example, if Hillary Clinton were to take office and pardon herself, I can't imagine a scenario in which the GOP wouldn't fall all over themselves building a case for impeachment as they could easily use that single action to generate the popular support they failed to build when they impeached Bill.
Remember, impeachment isn't dependent on the criminal justice system. Congress can impeach an official regardless of whether or not a particular offense is found to warrant criminal punishment.
the Signless wrote: Why doesn't every president begin their time in office by declaring "I pardon myself of all crimes past, present, and future.", or do they already do that?
It would be horrific for public relations, and likely set in motion many, many Congressional investigations by the opposing Party.
Now we're getting into the weeds of things... I doubt impeachment is in play if a Pardon is in effect.
I actually think that the opposite would be true. For example, if Hillary Clinton were to take office and pardon herself, I can't imagine a scenario in which the GOP wouldn't fall all over themselves building a case for impeachment as they could easily use that single action to generate the popular support they failed to build when they impeached Bill.
Remember, impeachment isn't dependent on the criminal justice system. Congress can impeach an official regardless of whether or not a particular offense is found to warrant criminal punishment.
the Signless wrote: Why doesn't every president begin their time in office by declaring "I pardon myself of all crimes past, present, and future.", or do they already do that?
It would be horrific for public relations, and likely set in motion many, many Congressional investigations by the opposing Party.
Couple of things...
a) Presidential pardons are damn near plenary... via constitution: "...grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
b) Having said that, if a theoretical Pardon is issued on first day of Presidency... then, Congress has nothing to invoke articles of impeachment.
c) Now... here's the kicker, from that point forward during the President's tenure, Congress *could* bring articles of impeachment against the President post-Pardon. So, yes your last point is valid that it'd be a PR disaster in such that, removal from office is definitely more plausible.
d) Point of clarification, Bill Clinton *was* impeached (in the House). The Senate couldn't *remove* him from office. It proves an incredibly high bar to remove any elected officials.
Frazz, did that Syrian family come over as refugees (actually claiming that status) as part of this new program, or did they immigrate with sponsorship via a different mechanism?
CptJake wrote: Frazz, did that Syrian family come over as refugees (actually claiming that status) as part of this new program, or did they immigrate with sponsorship via a different mechanism?
There very well could be a difference...
political refugees. As we speak we are indoctrinating them into our TexMex ways. Soon all will fall before our SyrianTexMex uber cuisine!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Aren't there biker gangs, Mexican cartels, and Oklahoma refugees that he should be worrying about?
Jihadin wrote: 15 state (US of A) Governors are refusing to accept Syrian refugee's. I don't blame them.
Unfortunately, they have ZERO say in the matter. The Federal Gov't, not the states determines immigration policy. The Feds can bring them in to any state they want, initially housing them on federal land, and give them green cards. Once they are legal residents no Governor can deny them any rights guaranteed to any legal resident.
If folks get their congress critters to defund this you can stop it. The States should get the 17th Amendment repealed, that way they can use their senators to block stuff like this.
Funny how these are the Governors who profess to love, promise to uphold the Constitution but still think that they have the power to restrict who settles in their state:
Hines v. Davidowitz (among others), “the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution.”
'For local interests the several states of the Union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power.
James Madison had this to say; "to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement & prosperity."
Before someone starts parroting the derposphere, Obama did not say he isn't interested in "America winning" or "Ameican leadership." This is what he actually said:
What I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow in the abstract make America look tough. Or make me look tough.
And maybe part of the reason is because every few months I go to Walter Reedx and I see a 25 year old kid who is paralyzed or who has lost his limbs and some of those are people I've ordered into battle.
And so I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may. We’ll do what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think it’s entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisers are better than the chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate.
But what I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership, or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with, that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people. And to protect people in the region who are getting killed. And to protect our allies in people like France. I’m too busy for that.
a) Presidential pardons are damn near plenary... via constitution: "...grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Which is why a President's decision to pardon themselves, for any reason, has no bearing on whether or not Congress can move to impeach.
d) Point of clarification, Bill Clinton *was* impeached (in the House). The Senate couldn't *remove* him from office. It proves an incredibly high bar to remove any elected officials.
I actually think that the opposite would be true. For example, if Hillary Clinton were to take office and pardon herself, I can't imagine a scenario in which the GOP wouldn't fall all over themselves building a case for impeachment as they could easily use that single action to generate the popular support they failed to build when they impeached Bill.
d) Point of clarification, Bill Clinton *was* impeached (in the House). The Senate couldn't *remove* him from office. It proves an incredibly high bar to remove any elected officials.
I specifically stated that he was impeached.
I misunderstood your point there... my bad.
I'd still submit that which ever party claiming "I'll bring articles of impeachment to the President"... is simply using it as a bully pulpit to get their point across.
whembly wrote: So the derposphere includes anyone who doesn't support Obama fully?
Wait, where did you get this from? I am honestly curious as to how you took what he said and produced "anyone who doesn't support Obama fully = derposphere" please explain your reasoning if you can because I am quite interested to hear it.
agnosto wrote: Funny how these are the Governors who profess to love, promise to uphold the Constitution but still think that they have the power to restrict who settles in their state:
...
James Madison had this to say; "to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement & prosperity."
It's almost as if these people have forgotten what America, and the light of liberty stand for:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
agnosto wrote: Funny how these are the Governors who profess to love, promise to uphold the Constitution but still think that they have the power to restrict who settles in their state:
...
James Madison had this to say; "to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement & prosperity."
It's almost as if these people have forgotten what America, and the light of liberty stand for:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
ya the statue needs to go, we should tear it down. If we turn our back on those that need help then the terrorists have won and we don't need that statue making false promises.
We are a nation of immigrants that hates immigrants. Always have been. The current attitude is nothing new; it was there before the statue was even built, and it will be there when our ape-overlords are condemning human immigrants for calling them dirty.
And yep, it's 2015 and we still have mainstream republican presidential candidates attending "the bible says we should execute people for being gay" conferences.
Well the bible also says to kill people who commit adultery, so this can be considered a stepping stone to finally giving Bill Clinton the most final of 'impeachments'...
ya the statue needs to go, we should tear it down. If we turn our back on those that need help then the terrorists have won and we don't need that statue making false promises.
Nah, don't tear it down... just paint a Tom Brady jersey onto it, replace the torch with an upraised hand flipping the bird... then change the placard to read something like, "Welcome to 'Murica. Dont be a [female dog], bootstraps and more bootstraps"
ya the statue needs to go, we should tear it down. If we turn our back on those that need help then the terrorists have won and we don't need that statue making false promises.
Nah, don't tear it down... just paint a Tom Brady jersey onto it, replace the torch with an upraised hand flipping the bird... then change the placard to read something like, "Welcome to 'Murica. Dont be a [female dog], bootstraps and more bootstraps"
Don't forget to include an AR-15 in there somewhere, too.
agnosto wrote: Funny how these are the Governors who profess to love, promise to uphold the Constitution but still think that they have the power to restrict who settles in their state:
...
James Madison had this to say; "to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement & prosperity."
It's almost as if these people have forgotten what America, and the light of liberty stand for:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
ya the statue needs to go, we should tear it down. If we turn our back on those that need help then the terrorists have won and we don't need that statue making false promises.
No where in there does it say Terrorists. This intensive background check Obama said is damn near impossible. Syrian government is tore up from the floor up. Hell did not some of the Terrorist enter the EU on Refugee status. That PS4 peer to peer comm was quite clever
Even if you could get info and ensure you were not letting in active terrorists there are big issues with this.
The refugee population is going to be very susceptible to radicalization where ever they settle. They don't assimilate well, they will have a hard time economically. They will be targeted by radicalizing elements, and frankly we've already seen examples of that radicalization (Boston, Ft Hood and so on).
agnosto wrote: Funny how these are the Governors who profess to love, promise to uphold the Constitution but still think that they have the power to restrict who settles in their state:
...
James Madison had this to say; "to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement & prosperity."
It's almost as if these people have forgotten what America, and the light of liberty stand for:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
ya the statue needs to go, we should tear it down. If we turn our back on those that need help then the terrorists have won and we don't need that statue making false promises.
No where in there does it say Terrorists. This intensive background check Obama said is damn near impossible. Syrian government is tore up from the floor up. Hell did not some of the Terrorist enter the EU on Refugee status. That PS4 peer to peer comm was quite clever
It's about living up to our stated principles. We're either a nation that topples governments because they're oppressing their people and promulgating terrorism or we're a bunch of mewling babies hiding behind a closed border. Anyone who wants to see America become irrelevant on the world stage should support closing the borders; hermit kingdom 2.0 here we come!
The statue of liberty doesn't say, "Send all of these to me, except for Syrians, feth them, they can watch their children drown." We can close our borders and put a live body on every square foot of border space and still a terrorist could waltz in if they wanted. Heck, we've been on this war on drugs thing for decades and we still can't stop drug boats and tunnels.
No. The difference is in the hard work that DHS and the other alphabet agencies are putting in to keep us all safe so we can continue doing the inane day-to-day crap that we all do.
agnosto wrote: Funny how these are the Governors who profess to love, promise to uphold the Constitution but still think that they have the power to restrict who settles in their state:
...
James Madison had this to say; "to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement & prosperity."
It's almost as if these people have forgotten what America, and the light of liberty stand for:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
ya the statue needs to go, we should tear it down. If we turn our back on those that need help then the terrorists have won and we don't need that statue making false promises.
No where in there does it say Terrorists. This intensive background check Obama said is damn near impossible. Syrian government is tore up from the floor up. Hell did not some of the Terrorist enter the EU on Refugee status. That PS4 peer to peer comm was quite clever
It's about living up to our stated principles. We're either a nation that topples governments because they're oppressing their people and promulgating terrorism or we're a bunch of mewling babies hiding behind a closed border. Anyone who wants to see America become irrelevant on the world stage should support closing the borders; hermit kingdom 2.0 here we come!
The statue of liberty doesn't say, "Send all of these to me, except for Syrians, feth them, they can watch their children drown." We can close our borders and put a live body on every square foot of border space and still a terrorist could waltz in if they wanted. Heck, we've been on this war on drugs thing for decades and we still can't stop drug boats and tunnels.
No. The difference is in the hard work that DHS and the other alphabet agencies are putting in to keep us all safe so we can continue doing the inane day-to-day crap that we all do.
Some of you guys seem to be forgetting that right there next to the Statue of Liberty is Ellis Island. You know, the island that was one of our primary immigrant processing centers where we screened aspiring immigrants and refused admittance to anyone we didn't want. Not to mention that fact that we've had strict requirements and limitations on immigrants for as long as we've had the Statue of Liberty:
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
The Geary Act of 1892
The Gentleman's Agreement with Japan in 1907
The Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1901
The Immigration Act of 1917
The Emergency Quota Act of 1921
We've had immigration laws banning certain people from lawfully immigrating into the USA for our entire national history. Congress could outlaw the immigration of Syrian refugees tomorrow if they wanted.
CptJake wrote: Immigration policy needs to fit the times, and it is silly to ignore that fact.
In the 1800s and early 1900s we had land to settle and industrial jobs needing huge labor pools. That meant we needed a very open immigration policy.
We ain't at that point no more. Our economy is stagnant, we have an abundance of labor already sitting idle.
While I agree that policy of all stripes should reflect the realities of the time, I recommend that you look into the matter a bit deeper. Name a data matrix and you'll see that foreign-born immigrants are outperforming their US born peers. While low-skilled immigrants with little to no education were the norm at the turn of 20th century, the current reality is that 28% of foreign-born persons currently have a bachelor's degree or higher while that number is 30% US-born; well within the +/- margin for error to make it statistically the same.
Spoiler:
I will grant you that about 30% still have less than a HS education BUT if you look at the economic indices, you'll find that these people are filling niches in the service or agriculture sectors where employers have the most difficulty finding US-born candidates for employment.
Spoiler:
So, what about crime. These dirty vermin have to be raping and murdering their way across the country, right? Nope, not so much.
Spoiler:
I know we have a strong tradition in the US of blaming immigrants for whatever woes but if you actually look at numbers, we're our own worst enemies, not these newcomers.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You guys not worried about fighters returning? You'll know better than me about the availibility of guns in the USA...
I do not believe that refugees would pass the NICS background check on a Form 4473. However France has some strict gun laws and we saw how that worked out
While I agree that policy of all stripes should reflect the realities of the time, I recommend that you look into the matter a bit deeper. Name a data matrix and you'll see that foreign-born immigrants are outperforming their US born peers. While low-skilled immigrants with little to no education were the norm at the turn of 20th century, the current reality is that 28% of foreign-born persons currently have a bachelor's degree or higher while that number is 30% US-born; well within the +/- margin for error to make it statistically the same.
And this group of refugees? What are the educational stats on them? I think you will find that you are looking at low-skill with little to no education being the norm.
And again, this will be a group that is prone to radicalization and not prone to assimilation.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You guys not worried about fighters returning? You'll know better than me about the availibility of guns in the USA...
I do not believe that refugees would pass the NICS background check on a Form 4473. However France has some strict gun laws and we saw how that worked out
Yes. We saw how that worked out.
To pretend that it would somehow work out differently because of some yahoo in the crowds having pistols is pure and simple fantasy.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You guys not worried about fighters returning? You'll know better than me about the availibility of guns in the USA...
I do not believe that refugees would pass the NICS background check on a Form 4473. However France has some strict gun laws and we saw how that worked out
Yes. We saw how that worked out.
To pretend that it would somehow work out differently because of some yahoo in the crowds having pistols is pure and simple fantasy.
Legality of refugees purchasing firearms in US, and the availability of firearms through illicit means =/= a discussion on whether or not a CCW holder would have had any impact on the Paris attack.
How you managed to conflate these two concepts is beyond me. This is the second time you have completely mis-read what I actually said. Is there something in particular that is causing you to confuse what I say, or is it a knee jerk reaction to the person posting?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You guys not worried about fighters returning? You'll know better than me about the availibility of guns in the USA...
I do not believe that refugees would pass the NICS background check on a Form 4473. However France has some strict gun laws and we saw how that worked out
Yes. We saw how that worked out.
To pretend that it would somehow work out differently because of some yahoo in the crowds having pistols is pure and simple fantasy.
Legality of refugees purchasing firearms in US, and the availability of firearms through illicit means =/= a discussion on whether or not a CCW holder would have had any impact on the Paris attack.
Then make that argument. See how little time it took you to expound upon that statement?
Vague statements like "France has some strict gun laws and we saw how that worked out" are open-ended nonsense and effectively contribute nothing to the discussion at hand.
How you managed to conflate these two concepts is beyond me.
It really isn't too difficult to grasp as to why I'm "conflating these two concepts" given your posting style of "Let me put out a tiny statement that says nothing then get offended when someone 'mistakes' my intentions!".
This is the second time you have completely mis-read what I actually said. Is there something in particular that is causing you to confuse what I say, or is it a knee jerk reaction to the person posting?
MAYBE if you actually made a reasonable post rather than make nebulous statements, people could reply to your argument?
One can't do a intensive background check if one country is all jacked up. One can only do a intensive background on what the refugee (Individual/Family members) says and put down on paper. Their is no way to verify the identity and/or background of the individuals.
Mind you its Department of State granting the visa's and USCIS eventually getting around to verifying. Who in Syrian government is verifying or even willing to cooperate.
Remember the Bosnian refugee's? The one's we kept at Ft. Dix NJ for a good long time under guard? Who we sent back....
Kanluwen wrote: Then make that argument. See how little time it took you to expound upon that statement?
Vague statements like "France has some strict gun laws and we saw how that worked out" are open-ended nonsense and effectively contribute nothing to the discussion at hand.
Mis-reading another user's post and ascribing arguments to him that he did not make actually add nothing to the discussion
Kanluwen wrote: It really isn't too difficult to grasp as to why I'm "conflating these two concepts" given your posting style of "Let me put out a tiny statement that says nothing then get offended when someone 'mistakes' my intentions!".
Do_I_Not_Like_That; how easy is it for refugees to get guns in America
dreadclaw; I don't they can pass a background check, but there are illicit sources - see France
Kanluwen; OMG a gun owner would not have stopped that attack. How can you suggest that fantasy
My statement said plenty to address the question at hand as to whether or not refugees could access firearms in the US. The question as to whether a CCW could have had an impact in Paris is one you threw into the mix as a complete non sequitur
Kanluwen wrote: MAYBE if you actually made a reasonable post rather than make nebulous statements, people could reply to your argument?
So answering a question directly is not a reasonable post? Was mis-reading my statement reasonable?
Kanluwen wrote: Then make that argument. See how little time it took you to expound upon that statement?
Vague statements like "France has some strict gun laws and we saw how that worked out" are open-ended nonsense and effectively contribute nothing to the discussion at hand.
Mis-reading another user's post and ascribing arguments to him that he did not make actually add nothing to the discussion
Speaking of "misreading another user's post and ascribing arguments to him that he did not make actually"...
Kanluwen wrote: It really isn't too difficult to grasp as to why I'm "conflating these two concepts" given your posting style of "Let me put out a tiny statement that says nothing then get offended when someone 'mistakes' my intentions!".
Do_I_Not_Like_That; how easy is it for refugees to get guns in America
Somehow you got that from:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You guys not worried about fighters returning? You'll know better than me about the availibility of guns in the USA...
My statement said plenty to address the question at hand as to whether or not refugees could access firearms in the US. The question as to whether a CCW could have had an impact in Paris is one you threw into the mix as a complete non sequitur
He made no mention of refugees.
He's making a reference to the fact that there are a number of Western Muslims who are actively going to Syria to fight against ISIS/ISIL and Assad's regime.
Kanluwen wrote: MAYBE if you actually made a reasonable post rather than make nebulous statements, people could reply to your argument?
So answering a question directly is not a reasonable post? Was mis-reading my statement reasonable?
I'd suggest you actually start reading and replying to things in a timely and reasonable manner rather than picking and choosing.
I'd still submit that which ever party claiming "I'll bring articles of impeachment to the President"... is simply using it as a bully pulpit to get their point across.
That is usually the case because neither side really wants it to become standard practice for the President to face impeachment whenever the opposition holds Congress. Not to mention that a serious run at impeachment is a dangerous gambit, as it can easily be seen as going directly against the will of the people.
agnosto wrote: Funny how these are the Governors who profess to love, promise to uphold the Constitution but still think that they have the power to restrict who settles in their state:
...
James Madison had this to say; "to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement & prosperity."
It's almost as if these people have forgotten what America, and the light of liberty stand for:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
ya the statue needs to go, we should tear it down. If we turn our back on those that need help then the terrorists have won and we don't need that statue making false promises.
No where in there does it say Terrorists. This intensive background check Obama said is damn near impossible. Syrian government is tore up from the floor up. Hell did not some of the Terrorist enter the EU on Refugee status. That PS4 peer to peer comm was quite clever
It's about living up to our stated principles. We're either a nation that topples governments because they're oppressing their people and promulgating terrorism or we're a bunch of mewling babies hiding behind a closed border. Anyone who wants to see America become irrelevant on the world stage should support closing the borders; hermit kingdom 2.0 here we come!
The statue of liberty doesn't say, "Send all of these to me, except for Syrians, feth them, they can watch their children drown." We can close our borders and put a live body on every square foot of border space and still a terrorist could waltz in if they wanted. Heck, we've been on this war on drugs thing for decades and we still can't stop drug boats and tunnels.
No. The difference is in the hard work that DHS and the other alphabet agencies are putting in to keep us all safe so we can continue doing the inane day-to-day crap that we all do.
The Statue of Liberty's phrase wasn't there originally.
please show me these stated principles? The ones I see are in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. None of which mention anything you're even remotely talking about.
The Statue of Liberty's phrase wasn't there originally.
please show me these stated principles? The ones I see are in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. None of which mention anything you're even remotely talking about.
Yep, and the fact that it was an American poet who wrote it AND American people who decided it deserved to be installed upon the pedestal which was also built by Americans, all of which should tell you something. Or not, I guess.
As to Principles being stated. Washington said it pretty well:
No? How about Reagan?
Speaking at a ceremony celebrating Hispanic Heritage:
"At the root of everything that we're trying to accomplish is the belief that America has a mission. We are a nation of freedom, living under God, believing all citizens must have the opportunity to grow, create wealth, and build a better life for those who follow. If we live up to those moral values, we can keep the American dream alive for our children and our grandchildren, and America will remain mankind's best hope."
At the end of the Vietnam war, we accepted over 800,000 refugees.
And so on. We have a long history of accepting refugees; heck even George W passed a law that allowed N. Koreans to come here, you know the people who have said that they're going to nuke us.
We're either the shining beacon on the hill or we're not. If we're not, we need to stop meddling in other country's affairs and just become the grumpy old man telling everybody to get off our lawn.
All this nonsense is reactionary and smacks of little boys peeing their pants because they're too chicken to face the big, bad world rather than a real and present danger to our nation. As a nation we can either have our big boy and girl pants on or we can become irrelevant on the world stage.
Incorrect. Something like 30 governors are now against it.
I'm very against allowing them in.
I'm all for beginning the citizenship for people that are already here, as long as we secure the borders at the same time.
Incorrect. Something like 30 governors are now against it.
I'm very against allowing them in.
I'm all for beginning the citizenship for people that are already here, as long as we secure the borders at the same time.
Oh no, not the governors being against it!
People like Pat McCrory being against it means it must be a good idea.
Incorrect. Something like 30 governors are now against it.
I'm very against allowing them in. I'm all for beginning the citizenship for people that are already here, as long as we secure the borders at the same time.
Oh no, not the governors being against it!
People like Pat McCrory being against it means it must be a good idea.
How about the governor of Massachusetts? How about the governor of New Hampshire? How about Maine?
I get that people are concerned and afraid for our security, and we should take a look and think about what we're doing, but when people like Ted Cruz say that it's only the Muslim refugees we should block but allow the Christian refugees, that's what gets me pissed off.
Frazzled wrote: You're acting like we're not already doing our share.
And, as I said, it's kind of hypocritical to claim credit for those 20 million people as "doing our share" while many of the same people who oppose taking Syrian refugees also want to kick the other 20 million people out and build a giant border wall to keep them out.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I get that people are concerned and afraid for our security, and we should take a look and think about what we're doing, but when people like Ted Cruz say that it's only the Muslim refugees we should block but allow the Christian refugees, that's what gets me pissed off.
The Christians didn't just shoot up Paris for holy jihad.
Frazzled wrote: You're acting like we're not already doing our share.
And, as I said, it's kind of hypocritical to claim credit for those 20 million people as "doing our share" while many of the same people who oppose taking Syrian refugees also want to kick the other 20 million people out and build a giant border wall to keep them out.
Then you should talk to them.
If a refugee later goes on a spree, can I get your promise you'll personally visit the families of the bereaved and tell them you supported letting their killer in?
Tannhauser42 wrote: I get that people are concerned and afraid for our security, and we should take a look and think about what we're doing, but when people like Ted Cruz say that it's only the Muslim refugees we should block but allow the Christian refugees, that's what gets me pissed off.
I agree with you that Cruz is a fething nutter and about as useful as a third nipple when he says gak like that.
And I think that, provided we take steps to mitigate the risks of taking in refugees from that part of the world who are already radicalized, we should take some in.
BUT, I think that we have our own issues to deal with. There are large numbers of homeless vets and children that we should be taking care of before we should be taking care of other immigrants. Personally this isn't an If, Then situation, we can take care of these problems simultaneously, I just personally think we should be taking steps to do so.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I get that people are concerned and afraid for our security, and we should take a look and think about what we're doing, but when people like Ted Cruz say that it's only the Muslim refugees we should block but allow the Christian refugees, that's what gets me pissed off.
The Christians didn't just shoot up Paris for holy jihad.
Frazzled wrote: You're acting like we're not already doing our share.
And, as I said, it's kind of hypocritical to claim credit for those 20 million people as "doing our share" while many of the same people who oppose taking Syrian refugees also want to kick the other 20 million people out and build a giant border wall to keep them out.
Then you should talk to them.
If a refugee later goes on a spree, can I get your promise you'll personally visit the families of the bereaved and tell them you supported letting their killer in?
I'll play. How do you know they're Christian? Is there a holy water test? Weiner dog sniff-test? Touch them with a crucifix and see if they catch on fire?
Indeed, further, I am not counting the legal refugees we take in yearly. We do more than our part.
Illegal immigration is an entirely separate issue. Please do not try and shoehorn your pet concerns into this discussion.
Anyway, this isn't about taking in additional refugees, it is about explicitly refusing to accept Syrian refugees. I find this strange as only one of the people involved in the Paris attacks appears to have been a Syrian refugee, the remainder were, or appeared to be, citizens of European states.
Frazzled wrote: If a refugee later goes on a spree, can I get your promise you'll personally visit the families of the bereaved and tell them you supported letting their killer in?
This is a terrible argument. Any system that allows people to enter the US, or even live in the US at all, has the potential to allow terrorists to enter. Should we also ban tourists from entering the US, and insist that anyone who wants to allow the tourism industry to exist needs to personally apologize to the families of the victims if that happens to be the way that a terrorist enters the country?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: The Christians didn't just shoot up Paris for holy jihad.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I get that people are concerned and afraid for our security, and we should take a look and think about what we're doing, but when people like Ted Cruz say that it's only the Muslim refugees we should block but allow the Christian refugees, that's what gets me pissed off.
Especially given that it would be quite easy to simply lie about one's religious beliefs. Something which many conservatives have long been quick to point out as being acceptable under certain interpretations of the Quran.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I get that people are concerned and afraid for our security, and we should take a look and think about what we're doing, but when people like Ted Cruz say that it's only the Muslim refugees we should block but allow the Christian refugees, that's what gets me pissed off.
The Christians didn't just shoot up Paris for holy jihad.
Frazzled wrote: You're acting like we're not already doing our share.
And, as I said, it's kind of hypocritical to claim credit for those 20 million people as "doing our share" while many of the same people who oppose taking Syrian refugees also want to kick the other 20 million people out and build a giant border wall to keep them out.
Then you should talk to them.
If a refugee later goes on a spree, can I get your promise you'll personally visit the families of the bereaved and tell them you supported letting their killer in?
I'll play. How do you know they're Christian? Is there a holy water test? Weiner dog sniff-test? Touch them with a crucifix and see if they catch on fire?
This is an extravagantly good point. One way was noted. The bacon test. One must eat 1/3 of fried bacon. In order to show I am completely fair, I am willing to take this test daily, provided the government pay for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Illegal immigration is an entirely separate issue. Please do not try and shoehorn your pet concerns into this discussion.
Says you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is a terrible argument. Any system that allows people to enter the US, or even live in the US at all, has the potential to allow terrorists to enter.
Translation: Oh hold on now, I don't want to actually be responsible for the position I take.
Should we also ban tourists from entering the US, and insist that anyone who wants to allow the tourism industry to exist needs to personally apologize to the families of the victims if that happens to be the way that a terrorist enters the country?
Frazzled wrote: Translation: Oh hold on now, I don't want to actually be responsible for the position I take.
Your "responsibility" makes no sense at all. You're demanding a level of "responsibility" well beyond what anyone takes for any other policy that could allow a terrorist to be in the US. For example, will you personally apologize to the families of the victims every time a US citizen is responsible for an act of terrorism, or do you support the immediate removal of all US citizens from the US?
Frazzled wrote: Translation: Oh hold on now, I don't want to actually be responsible for the position I take.
Your "responsibility" makes no sense at all. You're demanding a level of "responsibility" well beyond what anyone takes for any other policy that could allow a terrorist to be in the US. For example, will you personally apologize to the families of the victims every time a US citizen is responsible for an act of terrorism, or do you support the immediate removal of all US citizens from the US?
Wait you're asking this of the guy who thinks 99.99999% of the human population is a waste of skin and potential threat to the sanctity of his yard?
The majority also thought that gay marriages would cause hurricanes and other horrible things.
But WWJD, he had dinner with 12 people knowing one was a traitor, not even a suspected traitor. that's 8% of his table right there. At most you'd be looking at 1% of refugees being a part of ISIS, and any violence they cause first has to get past the skin color test. OK who's shooting up the school/mall/city now? What happened in france would only account for a small amount of the gun violence that already takes place in america by americans.
Now maybe if we had a more comprehensive gun control laws we could at least stop them from legally buying all the guns they want. But with every american already under surveillance, how much trouble could the refugees get into? Isn't that why the NSA is spying on everyone, to prevent terrorist activities?
You'd think with a gun for every person, and all those good guys with guns in the states, and the NSA monitoring everyone, Americans should have nothing to fear from anyone.
The four people removed Tuesday morning from a Spirit Airlines flight from BWI to Chicago amid concerns about a threat were released without charges after being questioned, Maryland Transportation Authority police said.
A passenger reported suspicious activity to the flight crew, which turned out to be a person watching a media report on their smart phone, said Sgt. Jonathan Green, a spokesman with the Maryland Transportation Authority, which patrols Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport.
"Everything added up to create a situation where she felt concerned," Green said of the witness. "Everything was done in the interest of safety."
Spirit Airlines flight 969 was taxiing out to take off when the passenger alerted a flight attendant, Spirit Airlines said in an earlier statement.
"Out of an abundance of caution," the airline said, "the plane returned to the gate."
Officers removed three men and one woman from the flight, Green said. He said the passengers who were questioned were a married couple, who were traveling with another family member. A fourth male passenger who was questioned was sitting near them.
All passengers on the 6 a.m. flight were deplaned for a brief time, a Spirit officials said.
Mike England, a spokesman with the Transportation Security Administration, said TSA personnel rescreened all the baggage on the flight including the bags of the four passengers who were pulled off.
"No threat was found," he said in a statement.
The aircraft and luggage was cleared by the Transportation Security Administration and the plane was later cleared to depart.
The flight, headed for Chicago O'Hare International Airport, was later cleared to depart and arrived late morning.
Another news outlet states that the passenger who alerted the flight crew was a woman who thought that one of the men was watching an ISIS video.... It would have been hilarious if it turned out to be an SNL skit or something equally ridiculous.
sirlynchmob wrote: You'd think with a gun for every person, and all those good guys with guns in the states, and the NSA monitoring everyone, Americans should have nothing to fear from anyone.
Don't forget the selective use of the "terrorism" label. For example, when a white guy crashes a plane into a building as a political statement it's a joke and kind of understandable, not terrorism. And we don't have to be afraid of that!
Frazzled wrote: You think the NSA is spying on everyone to prevent terrorism?
It is part of their mission statement
"This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties"
Don't forget the selective use of the "terrorism" label. For example, when a white guy crashes a plane into a building as a political statement it's a joke and kind of understandable, not terrorism. And we don't have to be afraid of that!
When did that happen? You're not talking about Austin are you?*
*When i heard it, at first I thought it was the Wife's stalker. The Wife had the same thought. Alas not.
Frazzled wrote: You think the NSA is spying on everyone to prevent terrorism?
It is part of their mission statement
"This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties"
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Same method and intent as the 9/11 attacks, except the guy wasn't able to do as much damage. And yet somehow it isn't "terrorism".
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Same method as the 9/11 attacks, except the guy wasn't able to do as much damage. And yet somehow it isn't "terrorism".
Not an exact copy.
It was a three story building, and a single engine piper cub type plane.
I have no problem calling that anti government terrorism.
The majority also thought that gay marriages would cause hurricanes and other horrible things.
But WWJD, he had dinner with 12 people knowing one was a traitor, not even a suspected traitor. that's 8% of his table right there. At most you'd be looking at 1% of refugees being a part of ISIS, and any violence they cause first has to get past the skin color test. OK who's shooting up the school/mall/city now? What happened in france would only account for a small amount of the gun violence that already takes place in america by americans.
Now maybe if we had a more comprehensive gun control laws we could at least stop them from legally buying all the guns they want. But with every american already under surveillance, how much trouble could the refugees get into? Isn't that why the NSA is spying on everyone, to prevent terrorist activities?
You'd think with a gun for every person, and all those good guys with guns in the states, and the NSA monitoring everyone, Americans should have nothing to fear from anyone.
Stop who from buying guns? An off the boat Syrian refugee couldn't legally buy a single gun in the US, let alone as many as he wanted.
Aww motyak, he's just deflecting to get not into the weeds of having to explain irrational ideas, and as a result, making the forums less vitriolic, give him a break. Everybody knows who he is and what he's doing here.
On point, what is the long game of the Dems? I get the whole stand up for tradtional values of the country bit. I get that by secumbing to the radicals, you are giving them exactly what they want. But you can read polls too. It's popular to be weak but to project false strength. Come on guys, we can say we will hit them with bombs, big ones, but take a more rational approach to the end too.
IMO, the last "clause" of your post seems to fit what I think many Dems are pushing for: rational thought and reactions to things that may have long term consequences. Yes, I know that people like HRC, Feinstein, et al. make a living by pulling the "heart strings" anytime something bad happens, but others, such as Sanders actually take time to think about their positions, take time to at least try and see what's in a bill before voting on, etc. with a goal of keeping the American people on the track ought to be.
Not posting the whole article here because that is substantially more effort than Bobby Jindal is worth. With a current 20% approval rating in his home state, he's probably done, period.
d-usa wrote: Shouldn't all this be in the Paris thread or the ISIS thread?
Yes and no, because there is relevance to USA politics, with regards to this refugee crisis.
For example, take some of the worst terrorist attacks to have occurred on US soil.
9/11 - attackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia, an 'ally' of the USA.
Fort Hood shootings - American citizen
Oklahoma bombings - American citizens
Boston bombings - attackers had been given US citizenship.
Anybody returning to the USA from Syria, will more and likely be a US citizen, and will have full residence rights, and of course, depending where they live, the right to buy firearms per the 2nd amendment...
Refugees, on the other hand, will probably be subjected to some kind of 'probation' period, and it will probably be a few years before they acquire full US citizenship.
The UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper had an interesting graphic that showed that in the last five years, 50,000 refugees had arrived in the USA, and to this date, 0 had been arrested or convicted of anything terror related.
Refugees are not the problem IMO, terror attacks are more likely to come from US citizens.
This current trend of attacking refugees by US politicians is due in no part to the circus surrounding the run for the White House.
Not posting the whole article here because that is substantially more effort than Bobby Jindal is worth. With a current 20% approval rating in his home state, he's probably done, period.
he was , not too long ago either IIRC, something of a rising star/hope for the future for the GOP right ?
.. he was given/did a rebuttal to a State of the Union or somesuch ?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Aww motyak, he's just deflecting to get not into the weeds of having to explain irrational ideas, and as a result, making the forums less vitriolic, give him a break. Everybody knows who he is and what he's doing here.
Frazzleds feelingz sad now. Frazzled taking ball and going home.
Not posting the whole article here because that is substantially more effort than Bobby Jindal is worth. With a current 20% approval rating in his home state, he's probably done, period.
he was , not too long ago either IIRC, something of a rising star/hope for the future for the GOP right ?
.. he was given/did a rebuttal to a State of the Union or somesuch ?
It's best to consider "rising stars" in the GOP to be like a game of whack-a-mole.
They'll pop up, make some kind of noise, and then immediately get smacked back into their holes by the hammer of reality.
It's just that we don't have the *will* for a contemporary occupation. Are you sure you're not channeling dogma here?
