The actual question is right now, today, given that the money is gone and isn't coming back
You are begging the question, when you claim "isn't coming back".
Disability does not mean insolvency, and the insolvent — whatever the reasons for their misfortune — should all be treated the same. Why are the disabled singled-out?
The borrowers identified by the Department won’t have to go through the typical application process for receiving a disability discharge, which requires sending in documented proof of their disability. Instead, the borrower will simply have to sign and return the completed application enclosed in the letter.
Unless, of course, you are trying to score political points for your "compassion" and "generosity" with other people's money...
But it is even worse, than I thought:
“Americans with disabilities have a right to student loan relief,” Ted Mitchell, the undersecretary of education, said in a statement. “And we need to make it easier, not harder, for them to receive the benefits they are due.”
See? It is their right to have the loans forgiven, just as it always has been their right to obtain the loans. Do the disabled have a right to free college education? They do now...
created long before he came in to office
Oh, no you don't. The nationalization of student loans is very recent — it happened during Obama's second term.
But, but, but... It must've at some point... The benevolent and omniscient government officials kept telling us, that butter is evil. They could not ban it outright for the adults, insisting on their silly "liberties" and "freedoms, but they did ban it for children. As recently as in 2013!
without criminalizing and prosecuting parallel construction [...]
Parallel construction is an orthogonal (unrelated) problem. Yes, it can be abused to obtain a warrant dishonestly, but it has legitimate purposes too. It is dangerous, but a person innocent of substantial wrongdoing is yet to be convicted because of it...
we already had privacy... needing a law to say we have privacy actually implies we had LESS privacy.
You are right — we had less. There was a law that diminished our privacy — in contravention with the Constitution. That law could've been abolished by either Supreme Court hearing a concrete case, or by a new law. The former has not occurred in 30 years, the latter just happened. Rejoice.
But, like I asked earlier, why stop at the disabled? Single mothers rarely prosper too — should their loans be summarily forgiven in the same fashion? Why not?
what is the actual point [...] in spending more money needling them about it periodically?
Good question! How would a bank go about it? Maybe, this whole business of student loans should've remained in private hands, huh? Then it would've been discussed by the banks' boards and willing shareholders, rather than us — captive taxpayers?
The same could be said for foreign aid, disaster relief, disability support, etc.
Indeed. In fact, foreign aid is exactly what what discussed, when Madison said the words I quoted. We should not be doing any of that either — leaving it to private charities — unless, perhaps, it demonstrably benefits the national security.
By the way, Madison was talking about giving aid to French refugees from the Haitian Revolution and not all charity in general.
The refugees were the topic on the agenda that day, but he was certainly talking about benevolence in general.
It could be said that it is good for the general welfare of a country to take care of their people who have disabilities.
Under such interpretation of the term "general welfare", there is no limit on the government power at all.
Would you accept a President's claim, that torturing suspects (and I don't mean mere waterboarding) will improve the "general welfare", for example? It probably will not, but you, hopefully, would not accept it even if it would...
It's all government money. Look at the names on the coins and bills.
Actually, by that illogic, it all belongs to Federal Reserve's — an enigmatic institution successfully fighting off attempts to fully audit it for decades.
Please, take the Ayn Rand crap somewhere else.
Unlike you, perhaps, I find no satisfaction arguing in an echo-chamber...
They physically lost the ability to ever pay the loan back.
Responsible people carry disability insurance. Irresponsible ones get "forgiven" by the government. Which group would you like to shrink and which to expand?
It's my money and yeah I have no objection to it being spent this way
You are welcome to give it to next permanently disabled person you see. You can even ask Department of Education to help you identify one.
But you aren't satisfied with that — you wish to compel others into it.
Money for actually helping people who are having real problems through no fault of their own? That sounds laudable to me.
It is laudable, but only if the money is yours — such as in this case, for example. The government does not have "its own" money — it confiscates it from captive taxpayers. Funds thus obtained should not be spent on simple charity:
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
Both sides want to keep men out of women's bathrooms
Only one side has a clear definition of what "man" means. The other side does not have one, but is demonstrably intolerant of and outright hateful towards the side, which does. Only one of them is bigoted.
Personally, I would prefer people that look like men to you my restroom than my daughter's restroom
If she does not have a penis, she is neither danger, nor particular discomfort to your daughter. But if he does, thenheis. You may disagree, but it is no "bigotry" to think otherwise.
In the U.S. people are allowed to vote for who they want.
Sure. And a large number of them are going to be rather put off by seeing one of the contenders during Presidential Debates wearing a tracking device, don't you think?..
If elected despite all this, Madame President may pose a number of interesting questions. Can she pardon herself, for example? If not, can she execute her duties from prison? Who is to guard the prison — will the Warden surrender his facility to the Secret Service (temporarily)? Will the visitors be subject to the facility's ordinary schedule — and the usual scrutiny?
Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.
Sure. We know very well, that "Classified" may mean any of the restriction levels, most of which are not "super duper".
But it was still illegal (felonious) for Hillary Clinton to mishandle such material — and she knew it. She needs to be charged with the crime and convicted of it. President Obama can then show leniency and pardon her, if he wishes.
And if that costs Democrats the election, so be it — their own fault for giving the nation a choice between a Russia-manipulatedcrypto-Communist and a this spy-magnet.
Darling, we've already established, that in order for you to win this argument, you have to redefine terms. Which means, you lost it, no matter, how many more posts you make here...
And you redefinitions weren't merely cosmetic — you turned them from objective ("Is this a cat?") to subjective ("Does this identify as a cat?").
Such redefining of the very meaning of the language is called Doublespeak. It is not merely an invalid rhetorical vehicle (fallacy), it is a very slippery slope. One good book gave an example of redefining "war" as "peace" — wouldn't that be convenient for someone seeking to justify President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, for example?
Closer to home, casually redefining, what the term "bigot" means, allows the actual bigots to denounce (and even punish, as TFA describes) any and all ideological opponents as such. Other examples abound. Don't do that.
a gay man is XY, has male body parts, and self-identifies as male
Ah, so the chromosomes and the body parts do play their part. Very good... Unfortunately, you chose to add the "self-identification" part into it too — despite my warning against it.
Having thus shown your approach as self-inconsistent, I don't even need to creatively redefine, what "winning an argument" means — nor claim to identify as victor in this little debate of ours. I simply am. Remember to logout.
I did invent it.
Thank you for this admission. But we are still conversing in English and reinventing terms to mean something new is not acceptable.
I didn't miss it, I ignored it as its a nonsense attempt at a semantic trap.
I'm sorry, but arguing with a clear understanding of the terms is what slines do.
Language hasn't caught up with the reality of what transgendered people go through.
Is transgenderism so new a phenomenon, that language "hasn't caught up"?
mental health professionals diagnose gender dysphoria as an actual condition
Sorry, but that's merely an appeal to authority. And a highly questionable authority too — not only because most of their experiments can not be verified, but also because politics would cause any "health professional" disagreeing to lose his license, job, and access to pornography.
There's no "species dysphoria".
Says who? How anthropocentric and speciist of you!
And what about the White woman "identifying as" Black? Why should be fired from a "colored-only" job, but a muscular penis-owner be allowed into a women's bathroom?
chromosomal abnormalities like XXY or chimeras who happen to be about half XY and about half XX
Yes, yes. And some people have an extra chromosome too... Not talking about such invalids — only about those, whose chromosomes and genitalia are quite unmistakable and in full agreement, yet they insist on identifying as something other than what they are for some intangible reasons. Sad, really — pitiable, even, if they weren't forcing the rest of us to change the very English language to accommodate their delusions.
A person who is unambiguously male in all ways which can be measured or self-reported is a man (or boy).
Ah, thank you! Finally we have something.
This definition would not apply to homosexual men, for example — yet they are referred to as men by everyone.
If you are still sure, you wish to defend it, may I ask, where this definition is from and when did it appear? Because I can not find it in any of the dictionaries at my disposal... You did not just invent it, did you?
Slashdot Mirror
You are begging the question, when you claim "isn't coming back".
Disability does not mean insolvency, and the insolvent — whatever the reasons for their misfortune — should all be treated the same. Why are the disabled singled-out?
Unless, of course, you are trying to score political points for your "compassion" and "generosity" with other people's money...
But it is even worse, than I thought:
See? It is their right to have the loans forgiven, just as it always has been their right to obtain the loans. Do the disabled have a right to free college education? They do now...
Oh, no you don't. The nationalization of student loans is very recent — it happened during Obama's second term.
But, but, but... It must've at some point... The benevolent and omniscient government officials kept telling us, that butter is evil. They could not ban it outright for the adults, insisting on their silly "liberties" and "freedoms, but they did ban it for children. As recently as in 2013!
Who is the bigot now?
Pine was first released in 1992. Elm, perhaps? Or just the good old mail(1)?
Parallel construction is an orthogonal (unrelated) problem. Yes, it can be abused to obtain a warrant dishonestly, but it has legitimate purposes too. It is dangerous, but a person innocent of substantial wrongdoing is yet to be convicted because of it...
You are right — we had less. There was a law that diminished our privacy — in contravention with the Constitution. That law could've been abolished by either Supreme Court hearing a concrete case, or by a new law. The former has not occurred in 30 years, the latter just happened. Rejoice.
No, actually. We're all cows. Moo.
Not if you carry disability insurance.
But, like I asked earlier, why stop at the disabled? Single mothers rarely prosper too — should their loans be summarily forgiven in the same fashion? Why not?
Good question! How would a bank go about it? Maybe, this whole business of student loans should've remained in private hands, huh? Then it would've been discussed by the banks' boards and willing shareholders, rather than us — captive taxpayers?
Indeed. In fact, foreign aid is exactly what what discussed, when Madison said the words I quoted. We should not be doing any of that either — leaving it to private charities — unless, perhaps, it demonstrably benefits the national security.
The refugees were the topic on the agenda that day, but he was certainly talking about benevolence in general.
Under such interpretation of the term "general welfare", there is no limit on the government power at all.
Would you accept a President's claim, that torturing suspects (and I don't mean mere waterboarding) will improve the "general welfare", for example? It probably will not, but you, hopefully, would not accept it even if it would...
Actually, by that illogic, it all belongs to Federal Reserve's — an enigmatic institution successfully fighting off attempts to fully audit it for decades.
Unlike you, perhaps, I find no satisfaction arguing in an echo-chamber...
"Disabled" does not mean "insolvent".
Responsible people carry disability insurance. Irresponsible ones get "forgiven" by the government. Which group would you like to shrink and which to expand?
You are welcome to give it to next permanently disabled person you see. You can even ask Department of Education to help you identify one.
But you aren't satisfied with that — you wish to compel others into it.
It is laudable, but only if the money is yours — such as in this case, for example. The government does not have "its own" money — it confiscates it from captive taxpayers. Funds thus obtained should not be spent on simple charity:
Is not it awesome, when you can spend other people's moneys and get all the credit for your "generosity"?
Are single mothers next on the list? Their's is a difficult lot too.
How about racial minorities — we know, they are economically disadvantaged as well?
They aren't "transgender".
I don't know. Does it?
Only one side has a clear definition of what "man" means. The other side does not have one, but is demonstrably intolerant of and outright hateful towards the side, which does. Only one of them is bigoted.
If she does not have a penis, she is neither danger, nor particular discomfort to your daughter. But if he does, then he is. You may disagree, but it is no "bigotry" to think otherwise.
... and the supposed champions of the people are now happy with the corporate influence.
Because some CEOs are more equal than others... Oh, wait, Koch brothers hate Trump too, so let's suspend this campaign.
The noble aim of #NeverTrump justifies all means, does not it? Principles are for wussies anyway...
Once again, your obsession with my (deeply flawed) persona is unhealthy. Seek therapy.
Coming out of "anonymity" may be the first step towards healing — you have nothing to fear IRL...
Sure. And a large number of them are going to be rather put off by seeing one of the contenders during Presidential Debates wearing a tracking device, don't you think?..
If elected despite all this, Madame President may pose a number of interesting questions. Can she pardon herself, for example? If not, can she execute her duties from prison? Who is to guard the prison — will the Warden surrender his facility to the Secret Service (temporarily)? Will the visitors be subject to the facility's ordinary schedule — and the usual scrutiny?
Fun, I tell you...
Libertarianism is coming. Deal with it.
Sure. We know very well, that "Classified" may mean any of the restriction levels, most of which are not "super duper".
But it was still illegal (felonious) for Hillary Clinton to mishandle such material — and she knew it. She needs to be charged with the crime and convicted of it. President Obama can then show leniency and pardon her, if he wishes.
And if that costs Democrats the election, so be it — their own fault for giving the nation a choice between a Russia-manipulated crypto-Communist and a this spy-magnet.
The book came out in 2008. If you still haven't read it in 2016, you can not continue posting on Slashdot...
Darling, we've already established, that in order for you to win this argument, you have to redefine terms. Which means, you lost it, no matter, how many more posts you make here...
And you redefinitions weren't merely cosmetic — you turned them from objective ("Is this a cat?") to subjective ("Does this identify as a cat?").
Such redefining of the very meaning of the language is called Doublespeak. It is not merely an invalid rhetorical vehicle (fallacy), it is a very slippery slope. One good book gave an example of redefining "war" as "peace" — wouldn't that be convenient for someone seeking to justify President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, for example?
Closer to home, casually redefining, what the term "bigot" means, allows the actual bigots to denounce (and even punish, as TFA describes) any and all ideological opponents as such. Other examples abound. Don't do that.
Ah, so the chromosomes and the body parts do play their part. Very good... Unfortunately, you chose to add the "self-identification" part into it too — despite my warning against it.
Because, if — as logical consistency demands — we take your approach to other cases of delusion, we'll have to agree, that this White woman is not White, and this human is not human. They both do not identify as what they appear, and thus — by your definition — are not that... (Not to mention the various other sufferers, who similarly "self-identify as" Napoleon Bonaparte and similar figures.)
Having thus shown your approach as self-inconsistent, I don't even need to creatively redefine, what "winning an argument" means — nor claim to identify as victor in this little debate of ours. I simply am. Remember to logout.
Thank you for this admission. But we are still conversing in English and reinventing terms to mean something new is not acceptable.
Because injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
That should be without, of course.
I'm sorry, but arguing with a clear understanding of the terms is what slines do.
Is transgenderism so new a phenomenon, that language "hasn't caught up"?
Sorry, but that's merely an appeal to authority. And a highly questionable authority too — not only because most of their experiments can not be verified, but also because politics would cause any "health professional" disagreeing to lose his license, job, and access to pornography.
Says who? How anthropocentric and speciist of you!
And what about the White woman "identifying as" Black? Why should be fired from a "colored-only" job, but a muscular penis-owner be allowed into a women's bathroom?
Yes, yes. And some people have an extra chromosome too... Not talking about such invalids — only about those, whose chromosomes and genitalia are quite unmistakable and in full agreement, yet they insist on identifying as something other than what they are for some intangible reasons. Sad, really — pitiable, even, if they weren't forcing the rest of us to change the very English language to accommodate their delusions.
Ah, thank you! Finally we have something.
This definition would not apply to homosexual men, for example — yet they are referred to as men by everyone.
If you are still sure, you wish to defend it, may I ask, where this definition is from and when did it appear? Because I can not find it in any of the dictionaries at my disposal... You did not just invent it, did you?