It's what happens when you don't read history. Somehow there's this collective amnesia over what we did during WW2 to people we called our citizens. This feels historically significant.
Your argument is based on the idea that the President thinks a new phone every month is too costly? Interesting. Care to justify the 'tax' bill blowing out the deficit?
I try not to reply to anonymous, but this is too important a point.
Point #1: I agree that there is an apparent trend between our economy's strength and incumbent re-election. However, that doesn't make the association an accurate one.
Point #2: I couldn't care less who gets credit. I care that the country is headed in the right direction. The way our elected officials are behaving does not make me think that at all. I want decisions made at the highest levels based on facts, or good-faith beliefs, and compromises where it's needed. None of that is happening.
Listening to his generals, that's really brilliant. This is putting aside they were never a threat once our military got involved.
US economy - Heading back in the right direction.
Please describe, in detail, Trump's economic plan that caused a turnaround... and what the major turnaround has been since the administration change. Of course, this is all based on the idea that the President can have a major impact on the economy, but for now for the sake of argument claim that's true.
N. Korea - Coming to the negotiating table.
You haven't watched any news this past week, have you? I'd like it to be true, that we get something done here, but right now I'm seeing two leaders play a game of chicken where they both want out of the talk but don't want to be the first to say it.
Neglected to mention - with regards to what the framers intended, several of their ideas hinged on believing that the elected leaders would work in public service of the nation. I remain unconvinced that's what politicians are doing now (hence insanely low approval numbers of Congress). I wouldn't change the framework because current elected officials can't agree on the time of day, however I would like to think we could agree that grinding the nation's operations to a halt because of this is not in the best interests of the nation.
1. Fewer nukes and nuclear programs around the world.
2. Countries willing to make deals with the U.S.
3. Having our country try to leverage diplomacy rather than the military to resolve problems.
This course of action feels like it flies in the face of all 3. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong though. Hopefully North Korea doesn't view this with apprehension because I'd like them to not be interested in nukes either.
Congress is broken. Why do you think so many representatives are now retiring rather than running for re-election? Frankly, for global national security measures I don't want to rely on Congress for a super majority vote on anything.
Right, so now we're in a place where there's no guarantee any deal made by one administration is going to survive to the next. Tell me again how that sounds to other countries? When the Senate refuses to ratify *anything* that needs 60+ votes, it's clear that parties simply don't want to work together. And when administrations flip and talk about undermining whatever is going on now, why should other countries listen to us at all?
Sending people to prison for incompetence is silly.
This is what pisses me off most when having technical discussions. Claiming something is hard when you signed up for a job doesn't fly. Let's ignore the fact that Equifax was aware of the security issues before this breach happened. Let's ignore the fact they're repeat offenders with handling data. They handle people's data that controls identity. It's borderline impossible to undo damage and prevent it once this information leaks.
(And why our government is continuing to use them after this breach is... perhaps the dumbest thing I've seen in my life. But that's another story)
When you handle data this sensitive, if you can't handle it and barely even attempt to lift a finger to fix the problem YOU SHOULD BE PUNISHED. Seriously, how bad of a fuck-up needs to happen before you decide someone should be punished? When does it *start* for you?
Excellent comment. I'd take this one step further - I don't believe anything anyone says without evidence. Feel to operate by 'trust but verify' if that works better for you. Blindly believing anyone eventually gets you snake oil.
Impressive trolling. For everyone, here's what one person negotiating looked like for this deal.
This was an agreement with many stages of negotiating done with multiple countries. If you didn't like it, fine. Making up lies about it doesn't help sell your viewpoint.
The problem is, we devolve into 3 year old mentality when confronted by our own hypocrisy rather than admitting it, we point to "worse" hypocrisy as an excuse for our own hypocrisy.
This comment alone should have you at a +5 Insightful alone. I encourage everyone to take a sticky note and put this quote on some surface you can frequently see it. Lots of conversations that don't move forward would suddenly become productive (as is my opinion, anyway).
Why artificially constrain your definition of "opportunity" to the kids? What about the opportunity for wealthier parents to spend more money on their kids' education if they wish?
Charter schools and private schools exist, for one. Problem solved?
Great, so involvement at the municipal level is important then. It sounds like you need to put pressure on your local school board to fix things. Organize other people that feel the same way and get the people out that you feel aren't properly handling the funding they receive. Cutting spending doesn't sound like it will solve an administrative issue on the school board.
Conversely, it could have been used in this case to prevent an innocent man from going to jail. Maybe the next 1000 guilty men should go free to balance this? I forget how that saying goes sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with the sentiment, but he won't care because Ivanka's trademark was already granted. He'll fire back only if they revoke it.
It's what happens when you don't read history. Somehow there's this collective amnesia over what we did during WW2 to people we called our citizens. This feels historically significant.
I think we tried that, and our supreme overlords faked a DDoS attack and bots entered fake posts. Color me skeptical on a clean vote coming through.
Great, when do Americans get Net Neutrality?
Let's build on this - what's a *good* reason? Money can be moved - this is the electronic age.
The Blue Screen of Death, a.k.a. 'the sky', is a desired feature in this release. My how things have changed!
Considering the recent exploding of the debt by Congress, perhaps the transitive properly should mean an expansion of policy in this case?
I realize this isn't central to the thread, but we can still do a caviar nacho party without that anti-AGW paper right? I'm getting hungry.
Your argument is based on the idea that the President thinks a new phone every month is too costly? Interesting. Care to justify the 'tax' bill blowing out the deficit?
I try not to reply to anonymous, but this is too important a point.
Point #1: I agree that there is an apparent trend between our economy's strength and incumbent re-election. However, that doesn't make the association an accurate one.
Point #2: I couldn't care less who gets credit. I care that the country is headed in the right direction. The way our elected officials are behaving does not make me think that at all. I want decisions made at the highest levels based on facts, or good-faith beliefs, and compromises where it's needed. None of that is happening.
ISIS - No longer a major threat.
Listening to his generals, that's really brilliant. This is putting aside they were never a threat once our military got involved.
US economy - Heading back in the right direction.
Please describe, in detail, Trump's economic plan that caused a turnaround... and what the major turnaround has been since the administration change. Of course, this is all based on the idea that the President can have a major impact on the economy, but for now for the sake of argument claim that's true.
N. Korea - Coming to the negotiating table.
You haven't watched any news this past week, have you? I'd like it to be true, that we get something done here, but right now I'm seeing two leaders play a game of chicken where they both want out of the talk but don't want to be the first to say it.
Neglected to mention - with regards to what the framers intended, several of their ideas hinged on believing that the elected leaders would work in public service of the nation. I remain unconvinced that's what politicians are doing now (hence insanely low approval numbers of Congress). I wouldn't change the framework because current elected officials can't agree on the time of day, however I would like to think we could agree that grinding the nation's operations to a halt because of this is not in the best interests of the nation.
Included in the things I'm interested in:
1. Fewer nukes and nuclear programs around the world.
2. Countries willing to make deals with the U.S.
3. Having our country try to leverage diplomacy rather than the military to resolve problems.
This course of action feels like it flies in the face of all 3. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong though. Hopefully North Korea doesn't view this with apprehension because I'd like them to not be interested in nukes either.
There goes having a sane conversation I guess.
Congress is broken. Why do you think so many representatives are now retiring rather than running for re-election? Frankly, for global national security measures I don't want to rely on Congress for a super majority vote on anything.
Right, so now we're in a place where there's no guarantee any deal made by one administration is going to survive to the next. Tell me again how that sounds to other countries? When the Senate refuses to ratify *anything* that needs 60+ votes, it's clear that parties simply don't want to work together. And when administrations flip and talk about undermining whatever is going on now, why should other countries listen to us at all?
Uh huh. Who said it was a treaty?
Sending people to prison for incompetence is silly.
This is what pisses me off most when having technical discussions. Claiming something is hard when you signed up for a job doesn't fly. Let's ignore the fact that Equifax was aware of the security issues before this breach happened. Let's ignore the fact they're repeat offenders with handling data. They handle people's data that controls identity. It's borderline impossible to undo damage and prevent it once this information leaks.
(And why our government is continuing to use them after this breach is... perhaps the dumbest thing I've seen in my life. But that's another story)
When you handle data this sensitive, if you can't handle it and barely even attempt to lift a finger to fix the problem YOU SHOULD BE PUNISHED. Seriously, how bad of a fuck-up needs to happen before you decide someone should be punished? When does it *start* for you?
Excellent comment. I'd take this one step further - I don't believe anything anyone says without evidence. Feel to operate by 'trust but verify' if that works better for you. Blindly believing anyone eventually gets you snake oil.
Impressive trolling. For everyone, here's what one person negotiating looked like for this deal.
This was an agreement with many stages of negotiating done with multiple countries. If you didn't like it, fine. Making up lies about it doesn't help sell your viewpoint.
The problem is, we devolve into 3 year old mentality when confronted by our own hypocrisy rather than admitting it, we point to "worse" hypocrisy as an excuse for our own hypocrisy.
This comment alone should have you at a +5 Insightful alone. I encourage everyone to take a sticky note and put this quote on some surface you can frequently see it. Lots of conversations that don't move forward would suddenly become productive (as is my opinion, anyway).
Why artificially constrain your definition of "opportunity" to the kids? What about the opportunity for wealthier parents to spend more money on their kids' education if they wish?
Charter schools and private schools exist, for one. Problem solved?
Great, so involvement at the municipal level is important then. It sounds like you need to put pressure on your local school board to fix things. Organize other people that feel the same way and get the people out that you feel aren't properly handling the funding they receive. Cutting spending doesn't sound like it will solve an administrative issue on the school board.
Let's be fair - he started it.
Conversely, it could have been used in this case to prevent an innocent man from going to jail. Maybe the next 1000 guilty men should go free to balance this? I forget how that saying goes sometimes.