Irrelevant. I expect many to act like you say, but you don't need guns for that. Convince a single unit to defect and you have more and better weapons that all saturday night specials combined. Plus as a bonus trained people who know how to use them in combat.
It is a worthy enough cause that Mexico wants to help fund a wall.
Huh? Trump wants Mexico to help, Mexico has said no we won't.
Anything that reduces the crime rate of people entering the US is a good thing,
An obviously false statement. Releasing lions so they feast on illegal immigrants crossing the border would help reduce crime but clearly that would be inhumane and not a good thing.
So, there you go, your infantile argument to justify the wall can be debunked in five seconds of thinking, which seems to be more than the combined total of trump supporters.
Trump's half baked off the cuff proposals are usually selfcontradictory or nonsensical, often both, but simpletons lack the ability to follow them through and see how childish in their inception they are. Hey, why not simply deploy Chuck Norris in the border. I hear he lives in Texas.
Oh, and by the way, I have nothing against the USA trying to stem illegal immigration. Simply prosecute the people who hire them. No need for a really tall wall made of vibranium.
Right, because a government that is so bad one needs to rise up in arms against would obey said laws.
As I said, the shallowness of thought that accompanies the gun lead rebellion proponents is childlike and utterly endearing. They might as well count on the Avengers to save us.
This is irrelevant to the argument in favor of guns though. A single unit joining the uprising would provide more useful firepower than all your untrained civilians with their saturday night specials.
According to a 1993 US Air Defense Artillery publication, the Mujahideen gunners used the supplied Stingers to score approximately 269 total aircraft kills in about 340 engagements, a 79-percent kill ratio.
According to Crile, who includes information from Alexander Prokhanov, the Stinger was a "turning point".[11] Milt Bearden saw it as a "force multiplier" and morale booster.[11] Charlie Wilson, the congressman behind the United States' Operation Cyclone, described the first Stinger Mi-24 shootdowns in 1986 as one of the three crucial moments of his experience in the war, saying "we never really won a set piece battle before September 26, and then we never lost one afterwards"
"You also assume the military would fight on the side of the government ever hear of a coup?"
I agree that on would expect at last part of the army to join the uprising. This goes without saying. In fact political science states that the main guarantor of the rule of law from the part of the government is the military. Bangladesh is an example of a country where the army has routinely stepped in to restore order and, quite unusually hand back power to civilian control rather rapidly.
This is irrelevant to the argument in favor of guns though. A single unit joining the uprising would provide more useful firepower than all your untrained civilians with their saturday night specials.
America was winning against Korea until the Chinese joined in. Seriously, this is basic military history. The Chinese warned America not to continue advancing farther north, McArthur ignored this, the Chinese joined in a massive offensive which lead to the current stalemate.
None of those armies were restricted to guns, they had access to many other more powerful weapons. In fact Iraq, which is a great example, has kicked America's butt using IEDs, not their widely available AK47s.
It is really endearing of Americans when they think they can use a few handguns to rise against an army having tanks, artillery and bombs.
It's like when you see the eyes of a child who still believes in Santa Claus light up in Christmas morning when they see the cookies and milk gone and presents instead.
You are wrong. It's the person making an absurd claim who needs to substantiate it. Say, if we have two competing claims such as "there is a dragon behind that door" and "no there is not". Only one of those two people is really compelled to produce evidence.
So, for example, the Israeli wall is 18ft tall and made of concrete, plus the buried portion. Concrete is a heavy material, so a quick estimate gives about one ton of weight per linear foot of barrier. Assuming that we use local quarries within 100 miles of each section at a standard shipping cost of $0.05 per ton mile, you get an average of $2.50 shipping cost per linear foot (assuming there is a welt built road to get there in the first place). All of this is basic common sense and well within the grasp of someone who has a mental age over 8yrs.
You on the other hand like to believe in dragons no matter what. As I said, there is no cure for that and no, it is not my responsibility to dissuade you from your ignorant belief.
Another funny bit is that neither you nor your source cite figures for Black men
Except that it does, which you would have seen had you bothered to follow the links.
As for the supposedly unsubstantiated claims they are all a google search away from you. If you are too lazy to search for the facts before bothering to make up an opinion don't expect me to fix that by doing it for you. I'm not your monkey.
BTW I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong. I've been in the interwebs long enough to know that idiocy is not an electronically curable disease. I participated in this debate for the benefit of people who care about the facts and are trying to reach an opinion on the matter. They can readily search any of the statements I made and see that they are true.
I've seen movie ratings on a grid precisely for this reason. The rows were "action flick", "drama", comedy", "romantic comedy", "indie", "sports movie", etc.
This way the critic could differentiate between, say, people who don't like sports movies period, and a bad sports movie.
This statement â" unsupported by any citations, BTW
LMGTFY:
From The Economist:
Indeed, Robert Sampson, a sociologist at Harvard, has found that "increases in immigration and language diversity over the decade of the 1990s predicted decreases in neighborhood homicide rates in the late '90s and up to 2006." An eight-year study of violence in Chicago led Mr Sampson to conclude that Mexican immigrants are less prone to violence than native-born Americans, whites or black, of comparable age and socio-economic status. In recent years, El Paso, Texas has had the lowest murder rate of any American city with a population of 500,000 or more, despite sitting directly across the Rio Grande from Juarez, a Mexican city plagued with horrific gang violence. Other metropolitan magnets for new arrivals from south of the border, such as San Diego, San Antonio and Phoenix, are similarly pacific. "Cities of concentrated immigration are some of the safest places around," Mr Sampson observes.
These patterns are reflected, as one would expect, in data on incarceration rates. White men born in America are twice as likely to end up in prison as men born abroad, while American-born black men are many times more likely to land in jail than their immigrant counterparts.
Right, because in a debate about crime and immigrants what could crime rates of said immigrants could possibly have to do with it?
Clearly you've run into information that contradicts your point, i.e. that crime rates would go down with less immigrants, and rather than revaluating your prejudice you double down on it. Brilliant.
an Israel-kind of wall stretching for 2000 miles would cost $6.4 bln
I don't know how Slate came up with that quote, but just the property rights have been estimated at several times that. It implies a cost of less than 60c per linear foot . If you ever stood next to the wall in Jerusalem you would know how ridiculously low that estimate is. Simply driving the segment of the wall to its final location would cost you that much in fuel, before we consider material and installation costs.
As I said, the wall is a simplistic solution from the mind of a child. You actually want to stop illegal immigration? punish the employers. It was tried in the 80s and it worked wonders, which is exactly why it was repealed back then (incidentally that is how Canada does it. They essentially do not have an illegal immigration problem, and believe you me there is no wall between the USA and Canada. As it is it would be trivial for any of the 11 million illegal immigrants to cross the border into Canada). Facts are we have illegal immigration because business needs illegal immigrants.
The correlation factor there is drug trafficking not visa status. Facts are that illegal immigrants have a lower rate of crime than the average population. And it is very easy to see why. If you run a red light the worst punishment is a simple fine, while if an illegal immigrant runs a red light the least punishment is deportation.
Illegal immigrants have a crime rate of about half that of native born Americans.
But yeah sure, a wall will stop that. It's not like Mexican culture is already aware of such technological advances as a tunnel or a ladder. No sire bob, a wall will stop them.
Only an eight year old would think of a wall as a solution to this problem. Anyone with a mental age past that should be able to see why it would achieve much of nothing.
Warren Buffet has proven to be very good judge of companies' long-term prospects. No one seriously believes he's infallible, but his approach has been extremely successful. His vote of confidence in Apple's future is something I would consider very interesting at any time, but it's even more interesting right now because so many people are questioning Apple's future.
Headline is misleading. Berkshire-Hathaway has for the last two or three years an investment arm that buys and sells stocks rather regularly. This is different and independent from the long term investment acquisitions by Berkshire-Hathaway.
While nothing has been confirmed officially, this seems to be a short term play by the investment arm, not a long term buy-and-hold by Mr. Buffet.
What you say has no connection whatsoever to what i wrote. It's funny that you think it does. It's like me saying, "hey your fly is open", and you reply "yeah but Jimmy hasn't taken a shower". Maybe so, and?
Israel which is a friendly country to the USA let it be known to the Bush administration that they had given up using torture against terrorism as it was so ineffective.
The Bush administration, just like you, was impervious to facts, always preferring their own ideological preconceived notions to reality. Lately, this seems increasingly have become a signature of the whole GOP. If facts are not to your liking just pretend they aren't true.
Amazon was going to succeed because it didn't need to have inventory...
no wait, Amazon will succeed because it only needs one large warehouse...
no wait, Amazon will succeed because even though it needs many warehouses, it can outsource distribution...
no wait, Amazon will succeed because even though it needs its own robot distribution network, it will have warehouses in every major city, same day delivery and brick and mortar stores and lounges where you can pick up stuff...
no wait, Amazon will succeed even though now its just like Walmart because it will compete with Netflix, Azure, and iTunes...
You do realize that the president has very little to do with the budget?
False. The president has veto power which is why it always get approved through negotiation with Congress. The budget is a joint endeavour which is why, if you read back to my posting I wrote GWBush & Congress. Look it up. I'll wait here.
Also, $445 B of the deficit came directly from the TARP Bailouts and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which were both from Obama/his congress.
False again:
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you want to hold Bush responsible for 2009, fine, but then we should hold Obama responsible for a total of $5296 trillion dollars of deficit, compared to Bush's $3547.4 trillion, so who exactly did worse?
easy. Obama had a deficit and went to great lengths to reduce it. Bush had a surplus and went to great lengths to make it into a deficit.
Clinton inherited a deficit which he turned into a surplus. Bush inherited a surplus which he turned into the biggest deficit ever. Obama inherited a deficit of 10% of GDP and by the time he's done he'll leave behind a deficit of about 2.2% of GDP.
Slashdot Mirror
Irrelevant. I expect many to act like you say, but you don't need guns for that. Convince a single unit to defect and you have more and better weapons that all saturday night specials combined. Plus as a bonus trained people who know how to use them in combat.
It is a worthy enough cause that Mexico wants to help fund a wall.
Huh? Trump wants Mexico to help, Mexico has said no we won't.
Anything that reduces the crime rate of people entering the US is a good thing,
An obviously false statement. Releasing lions so they feast on illegal immigrants crossing the border would help reduce crime but clearly that would be inhumane and not a good thing.
So, there you go, your infantile argument to justify the wall can be debunked in five seconds of thinking, which seems to be more than the combined total of trump supporters.
Trump's half baked off the cuff proposals are usually selfcontradictory or nonsensical, often both, but simpletons lack the ability to follow them through and see how childish in their inception they are. Hey, why not simply deploy Chuck Norris in the border. I hear he lives in Texas.
Oh, and by the way, I have nothing against the USA trying to stem illegal immigration. Simply prosecute the people who hire them. No need for a really tall wall made of vibranium.
p.s. even now we already have examples of the army not following said law, such as during the LA Riots and New Orleans relief efforts.
Right, because a government that is so bad one needs to rise up in arms against would obey said laws.
As I said, the shallowness of thought that accompanies the gun lead rebellion proponents is childlike and utterly endearing. They might as well count on the Avengers to save us.
This is irrelevant to the argument in favor of guns though. A single unit joining the uprising would provide more useful firepower than all your untrained civilians with their saturday night specials.
From Wikipedia:
According to a 1993 US Air Defense Artillery publication, the Mujahideen gunners used the supplied Stingers to score approximately 269 total aircraft kills in about 340 engagements, a 79-percent kill ratio.
According to Crile, who includes information from Alexander Prokhanov, the Stinger was a "turning point".[11] Milt Bearden saw it as a "force multiplier" and morale booster.[11] Charlie Wilson, the congressman behind the United States' Operation Cyclone, described the first Stinger Mi-24 shootdowns in 1986 as one of the three crucial moments of his experience in the war, saying "we never really won a set piece battle before September 26, and then we never lost one afterwards"
"You also assume the military would fight on the side of the government ever hear of a coup?"
I agree that on would expect at last part of the army to join the uprising. This goes without saying. In fact political science states that the main guarantor of the rule of law from the part of the government is the military. Bangladesh is an example of a country where the army has routinely stepped in to restore order and, quite unusually hand back power to civilian control rather rapidly.
This is irrelevant to the argument in favor of guns though. A single unit joining the uprising would provide more useful firepower than all your untrained civilians with their saturday night specials.
America was winning against Korea until the Chinese joined in. Seriously, this is basic military history. The Chinese warned America not to continue advancing farther north, McArthur ignored this, the Chinese joined in a massive offensive which lead to the current stalemate.
None of those armies were restricted to guns, they had access to many other more powerful weapons. In fact Iraq, which is a great example, has kicked America's butt using IEDs, not their widely available AK47s.
The Afghans were losing the war until provided by the USA with shoulder propelled rockets that could bring down soviet helicopters. Look it up.
I'm so excited. If this isn't true innovation I don't know what is. I'll go line up now for when the store opens.
It is really endearing of Americans when they think they can use a few handguns to rise against an army having tanks, artillery and bombs.
It's like when you see the eyes of a child who still believes in Santa Claus light up in Christmas morning when they see the cookies and milk gone and presents instead.
[wipes off moist eyes]
You are wrong. It's the person making an absurd claim who needs to substantiate it. Say, if we have two competing claims such as "there is a dragon behind that door" and "no there is not". Only one of those two people is really compelled to produce evidence.
So, for example, the Israeli wall is 18ft tall and made of concrete, plus the buried portion. Concrete is a heavy material, so a quick estimate gives about one ton of weight per linear foot of barrier. Assuming that we use local quarries within 100 miles of each section at a standard shipping cost of $0.05 per ton mile, you get an average of $2.50 shipping cost per linear foot (assuming there is a welt built road to get there in the first place). All of this is basic common sense and well within the grasp of someone who has a mental age over 8yrs.
You on the other hand like to believe in dragons no matter what. As I said, there is no cure for that and no, it is not my responsibility to dissuade you from your ignorant belief.
Another funny bit is that neither you nor your source cite figures for Black men
Except that it does, which you would have seen had you bothered to follow the links.
As for the supposedly unsubstantiated claims they are all a google search away from you. If you are too lazy to search for the facts before bothering to make up an opinion don't expect me to fix that by doing it for you. I'm not your monkey.
BTW I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong. I've been in the interwebs long enough to know that idiocy is not an electronically curable disease. I participated in this debate for the benefit of people who care about the facts and are trying to reach an opinion on the matter. They can readily search any of the statements I made and see that they are true.
You are welcome to wallow in your ignorance.
I've seen movie ratings on a grid precisely for this reason. The rows were "action flick", "drama", comedy", "romantic comedy", "indie", "sports movie", etc.
This way the critic could differentiate between, say, people who don't like sports movies period, and a bad sports movie.
This statement â" unsupported by any citations, BTW
LMGTFY:
From The Economist:
Indeed, Robert Sampson, a sociologist at Harvard, has found that "increases in immigration and language diversity over the decade of the 1990s predicted decreases in neighborhood homicide rates in the late '90s and up to 2006." An eight-year study of violence in Chicago led Mr Sampson to conclude that Mexican immigrants are less prone to violence than native-born Americans, whites or black, of comparable age and socio-economic status. In recent years, El Paso, Texas has had the lowest murder rate of any American city with a population of 500,000 or more, despite sitting directly across the Rio Grande from Juarez, a Mexican city plagued with horrific gang violence. Other metropolitan magnets for new arrivals from south of the border, such as San Diego, San Antonio and Phoenix, are similarly pacific. "Cities of concentrated immigration are some of the safest places around," Mr Sampson observes.
These patterns are reflected, as one would expect, in data on incarceration rates. White men born in America are twice as likely to end up in prison as men born abroad, while American-born black men are many times more likely to land in jail than their immigrant counterparts.
Studies cited therein:
https://contexts.org/articles/...
http://www.urban.org/urban-wir...
http://migrationinformation.or...
is irrelevant to my point.
Right, because in a debate about crime and immigrants what could crime rates of said immigrants could possibly have to do with it?
Clearly you've run into information that contradicts your point, i.e. that crime rates would go down with less immigrants, and rather than revaluating your prejudice you double down on it. Brilliant.
an Israel-kind of wall stretching for 2000 miles would cost $6.4 bln
I don't know how Slate came up with that quote, but just the property rights have been estimated at several times that. It implies a cost of less than 60c per linear foot . If you ever stood next to the wall in Jerusalem you would know how ridiculously low that estimate is. Simply driving the segment of the wall to its final location would cost you that much in fuel, before we consider material and installation costs.
As I said, the wall is a simplistic solution from the mind of a child. You actually want to stop illegal immigration? punish the employers. It was tried in the 80s and it worked wonders, which is exactly why it was repealed back then (incidentally that is how Canada does it. They essentially do not have an illegal immigration problem, and believe you me there is no wall between the USA and Canada. As it is it would be trivial for any of the 11 million illegal immigrants to cross the border into Canada). Facts are we have illegal immigration because business needs illegal immigrants.
The correlation factor there is drug trafficking not visa status. Facts are that illegal immigrants have a lower rate of crime than the average population. And it is very easy to see why. If you run a red light the worst punishment is a simple fine, while if an illegal immigrant runs a red light the least punishment is deportation.
Illegal immigrants have a crime rate of about half that of native born Americans.
But yeah sure, a wall will stop that. It's not like Mexican culture is already aware of such technological advances as a tunnel or a ladder. No sire bob, a wall will stop them.
Only an eight year old would think of a wall as a solution to this problem. Anyone with a mental age past that should be able to see why it would achieve much of nothing.
Warren Buffet has proven to be very good judge of companies' long-term prospects. No one seriously believes he's infallible, but his approach has been extremely successful. His vote of confidence in Apple's future is something I would consider very interesting at any time, but it's even more interesting right now because so many people are questioning Apple's future.
Headline is misleading. Berkshire-Hathaway has for the last two or three years an investment arm that buys and sells stocks rather regularly. This is different and independent from the long term investment acquisitions by Berkshire-Hathaway.
While nothing has been confirmed officially, this seems to be a short term play by the investment arm, not a long term buy-and-hold by Mr. Buffet.
What you say has no connection whatsoever to what i wrote. It's funny that you think it does. It's like me saying, "hey your fly is open", and you reply "yeah but Jimmy hasn't taken a shower". Maybe so, and?
Israel which is a friendly country to the USA let it be known to the Bush administration that they had given up using torture against terrorism as it was so ineffective.
The Bush administration, just like you, was impervious to facts, always preferring their own ideological preconceived notions to reality. Lately, this seems increasingly have become a signature of the whole GOP. If facts are not to your liking just pretend they aren't true.
LMFTFY
Only on of their businesses make more than adequate profit margins (namely their cloud business)
Amazon was going to succeed because it didn't need to have inventory...
no wait, Amazon will succeed because it only needs one large warehouse...
no wait, Amazon will succeed because even though it needs many warehouses, it can outsource distribution...
no wait, Amazon will succeed because even though it needs its own robot distribution network, it will have warehouses in every major city, same day delivery and brick and mortar stores and lounges where you can pick up stuff...
no wait, Amazon will succeed even though now its just like Walmart because it will compete with Netflix, Azure, and iTunes...
I'm starting to be just a wee bit skeptical....
You do realize that the president has very little to do with the budget?
False. The president has veto power which is why it always get approved through negotiation with Congress. The budget is a joint endeavour which is why, if you read back to my posting I wrote GWBush & Congress. Look it up. I'll wait here.
Also, $445 B of the deficit came directly from the TARP Bailouts and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which were both from Obama/his congress.
False again:
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you want to hold Bush responsible for 2009, fine, but then we should hold Obama responsible for a total of $5296 trillion dollars of deficit, compared to Bush's $3547.4 trillion, so who exactly did worse?
easy. Obama had a deficit and went to great lengths to reduce it. Bush had a surplus and went to great lengths to make it into a deficit.
when Obama clearly had the largest ever.
Which shows how uninformed you are. The 2009 budget is approved and authorized by the outgoing president. This is basic knowledge.
The biggest deficit ever was approved in 2008 by GWBush and Congress, in the total amount of, as you say, $1578.77 Billion.
Clinton inherited a deficit which he turned into a surplus. Bush inherited a surplus which he turned into the biggest deficit ever. Obama inherited a deficit of 10% of GDP and by the time he's done he'll leave behind a deficit of about 2.2% of GDP.