The principle science was actually done by the russians long before the ISS was launched. Either way, there were better ways to accomplish the same thing.
1. The ISS was a mistake in and of itself. The science its done wasn't worth the money. There were cheaper ways to attain the same knowledge. That money could have been better spent on other NASA projects.
2. Never trust the Russians. By all means do whatever in the name of diplomacy. But NEVER trust them. It goes back to the policy under Reagan... Trust but Verify... which really means we DO NOT trust them but we do business with them in a safe and sustainable way.
3. Allowing the US to lose its ability to go to space while the ISS remained active.
4. Not cultivating alternatives from spaceX etc that offered to fill the gap.
It goes without saying that the US is run badly these days. The politics being what they are about half the population will never admit it but such is the reality. As a people, we need to grow beyond our factionalism, find common ground, and hold our leaders to some reasonable standards. Otherwise, we'll just bounce between one faction's incompetents and the other's. Each side giving the profound incompetence of its own candidates a blind eye until they're out of political capital and then it shifts to the next guy. Back and forth.
Cisco has rights if any of us have rights. Those rights were violated without due process. It violates the constitution.
At the very least Cisco deserves to be compensated for the act. If the US government is willing to pay Cisco for their loss of business as a result of this then fine. If not then you have a legal case for forcing the government to pay Cisco.
If the government appreciates that its violations have a dollar consequence and is forced to pay that consequence then it will likely be more respectful of those rights.
If you do not take the government to court then you're giving it a free pass.
End of story. You're surrendering without a fight.
As to what it said, it obviously did. It said there were more fires now and that that was the result of more CO2... as evidence they of course cited more fires now than then and did not point out that there have been big changes in the ways our forests are managed between time T1 and T2.
This implies there was no significant change which since I live here and have watched it I can tell you with first hand knowledge that there was a big change.
As to fancy words, there isn't a single word in the english language that impresses me. Rather, you'd have to construct hundreds of complex concepts together in a way that was both intellectually stimulating and asthetically harmonious to actually impress me. You've done neither. Your arguments thus far have been little more then pointing at the sun and denying its existence and then dropping the same word over and over again while assuming that that would somehow lead weight to the idiocy. And beyond that the construction of your sentences has not been especially impressive thus rendering any claim to linguistic superiority moot.
Look, you're either 10 years old or an idiot... either way, good day, sir.
As to what I said, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
I did not say that the only difference between case 1 and case 2 was an increase in CO2. I said that that is what the article implied.
You are so clueless that you're agreeing with me and yet deluded into thinking you're arguing against me.
My point is that the two cases are not the same. My point is that they are saying they only differ in that there is a marginal amount of additional CO2 and that there is no other possible reason for the fires.
First off, I'm not in charge here. I just live here. I am fully aware that the nuts are in charge of the asylum. But once they are there is really nothing you can do about it.
Second off, the article was talking about california and Arizona, so what is going on in california is relevant to the topic.
Third off, show me any place in the US that has had an increase in forest fires and then cross reference those areas with areas where logging companies USED to be allowed to operate and now are no longer allowed to do so for environmental reasons.
No. My argument was never in jeopardy. His pathetic attempt to counter me was an utter failure. I pointed that out. I noted that his stupid insults only revealed his utter lack of worth... unless as I said he is a grade school student. In which case, his label of halfwit can be postponed until a later date when we can be sure not to confuse the callow with the malignantly retarded. If he's older then 10 years old then he's human garbage. Thus a drain on global resources. And I concluded by suggesting he do the moral thing and recycle himself.
Universities throughout Califoria make a point of not cutting down trees on campus during the active school year. They wait break then call in construction crews to knock them down.
This is now standard practice throughout my state especially in northern california.
Another common tactic is to do it at 2 am, to respond to questions as to whether they are doing it that they are not... and then doing it when no one is looking, etc.
You can't reason with these people. Its like trying to have a conversation with a cartoon character. They have a few scripted responses and that's all they do... no reasoning with them. So you have to respond to them in kind.
It helps that every single one of them is stupid. Their only dangerous in that they have numbers and tend to feel unbound by ethical, moral, and legal restrictions. Like animals you can only really stop them from doing things by literally physically making it impossible for them to stop you.
Its standard practice for many construction crews in North California to bring tools specifically for dealing with the would be hippies. Everything from bolt cutters to gas masks.
"The fires in California and here in Arizona are a clear example of what happens as the Earth warms, particularly as the West warms, and the warming caused by humans is making fire season longer and longer with each decade," said University of Arizona geoscientist Jonathan Overpeck. "It's certainly an example of what we'll see more of in the future."
That is bullshit. I can't speak to Arizona but I can to California. It is a false equivalency to compare the frequency of forest fires and their intensity today with a previous time when we had reasonable forest management as they are the same... and that the ONLY difference is a marginal difference in CO2 concentration.
So I did read it. Your pathetic attempt to browbeat me by suggesting I wasn't properly responding to the article is comical in that you apparently didn't read it.
Before you accuse someone else of being full of shit you might want to try cleaning your own shit out of your eyes, mouth, and ears.
As to your sad little attempt to suggest that my opinion is really just a consequence of some sexual failure... that is so infantile and intellectually vacant that I don't know where to start with it. You literally tried a tactic worthy of no one after grade school. Please tell me you're 10 years old be very very ashamed of yourself.
As to taking my own advice... I do actually... However, given that you have literally NOTHING to contribute to this discussion and have done nothing but throw out stupid baseless insults and make fallicious little arguments I don't see where you think you get the right to even talk to me.
Kill yourself. You are officially wasting oxygen.
No really.
Kill yourself. It is literally the most environmentally friendly thing you'll ever do. Compost yourself immediately. Your biomass will be better used by bacteria.
Do not waste bandwidth by replying. Terminate yourself immediately.
What a vapid bit of tripe. Of course we're intelligent. We built the internet and walked on the moon.
This is the sort vacant headed foolishness I'm talking about.
Turn your fucking brain on. OR don't presume to be credit as having one.
Our problems are not due to a lack of intelligence but rather due to self destructive and deluded ideologies and philosophies that are themselves illogical, anti scientific, anti modern, and frequently anti human.
TLDR?
Make sense. Have a plan that is actually attractive to the majority of the people that need to follow it. OR sit down and follow direction from someone with a clue.
As someone that has been in regions where these wildfires have happened, I can tell you it is actually bad forest management.
Here's the thing. In nature, forests burn on occasion. Always have. Its part of the natural process. Some species either actively encourage the fires or rely upon the fires as part of their life cycle.
Okay, now that it is established that if left alone the forests will occasionally burn... what happens if you don't cut trees down and cut brush back on occasion and instead just leave the whole thing to take care of itself.
It burns.
I live in California and that has been the cause of most of our wild fires. We used to have forest management to the extent that we would subcontract logging companies to go through the forests and thin them out a bit so there was room for new growth and the whole forest didn't go up like a roman candle every 10-30 years (depends on the plant species and local climate).
Well, that was stopped and the logging companies aren't allowed to operate in our forests anymore because they're not environmentally friendly.
Fine... you're now putting nature in charge. And nature is going to burn that fucker down on its own schedule.
Global warming might have something to do with this sort of thing but it is NOT what is causing the vast majority of forest fires in the US. They are caused by moronic forest management that is itself guided by crystal rubbing mystics that will say out of one side of their mouth that the environment is harmed by direct human management and then say out of the other side that nature's natural processes are all our fault.
These people are idiots.
And just to preempt the first fucktard that responds to this post saying I have his misguided asshattery wrong... I don't. I live here. I've seen this happen over years. I saw was we were doing before. I saw what you did, I watched the forest prime itself like a coiling spring, I saw the fires, I watched the clean up, and I've been listening to you same slack-jawed halfwits ever since point fingers at anyone besides yourselves.
Do the Earth a favor and listen more and talk less.
The other big misconception is that people keep referring to this debt as if they're demand loans. They're not. The money loaned has to be paid off at a specified time and the money is paid in dollars which the US government can just print. Which is precisely what they do whenever these bonds come due.
We could literally afford to sell bonds 100 trillion dollars worth of bonds. The only consequence would be our currency would be worthless when it came time to pay them off.
That is the risk. Not that some foreign government is going to call their debts in but that our currency collapses.
This has nothing to do with the borders... I don't know what that guy was thinking... I'll be nice but come now... don't waste our time with that silliness.
I live here actually, sport. Its happening. Its real.
You want to stick your head in the sand on the issue? The last generation of deluded fuckwits like yourself were saying at one point that all this talk about Detroit going into decline was wrong.
Well... that's what self delusion gets you.
California all by itself is about 600 billion in debt. There is a population outflow from the state especially amongst retiring baby boomers that would otherwise contribute significantly to the tax base. This is increasing a demographic shift and causing income inequality to spike as the middle either gets crushed or leaves... and all you're left with are the rich and the poor.
Unlike your asshatish comment about Perry, my point is not a political one. I don't mind democrats or republicans in charge. I really don't give a fuck. However, whomever is in charge needs to do their fucking job. And the current people in charge of my state have failed utterly to deal with the issue. Now maybe that's our fault as voters. But if it is then who should have we elected to make it all better? Probably not the people you're apparently willing to lie to yourself about.
They could start a battery company that sells batteries to Tesla. So buying batteries from that company wouldn't be added to Tesla's profits.
Companies spin off portions of themselves all the time.
That said, I'm hesitant to push Tesla around or suggest what they should or shouldn't do. The pressure for batteries has been strong for over a decade and yet we have yet to see improved batteries hit the market. Even Tesla's batteries are little better then laptop batteries. If the many battery companies the world over can't come up with something better I don't see why we think Tesla's battery factory is suddenly going to a world better.
So far as I've seen, Tesla's batteries are nothing special. Its the same stuff. They're saving some money by doing it in house. That's all.
Even if it went up more, the actual problem is that they keep letting radical elements into the country. Again, someone is going to cry racism here but it has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with people landing on a plane or crossing our southern border... and then doing something terrible. Period.
The DHS recently released something like 30 thousand illegal immigrants in the US onto US streets who were also convicted of other crimes including MURDER, RAPE, and assault.
Now how fucking stupid do you have to be to think that's a good idea. These are people that shouldn't be in the country in the first place. And worse, they're people that indifferent to where they are shouldn't be free because they're violent criminals... Their countrymen in their home country would put them in jail. And actually it is racism that gets them released because if they were white I'm pretty sure they would have been shipped back to their country of origin and certainly not released wholesale.
Here is my solution to our immigration issue: Symmetrical immigration policy. Every country that wants to send people to the US must accept on the same terms US citizens as immigrants to their own country.
So for example, if a country wants the US to accept 5 million immigrants then they must be willing to accept 5 million Americans as immigrants. And the terms for immigration must be symmetrical. So if citizenship in that other country requires X, Y, and Z it is reasonable for the United States to require X, Y, and Z from them in return.
This should amongst other things make it much easier for Americans to emigrate to other countries or establish duel citizenship elsewhere. Which would give americans a release valve in the case that Federal taxes become too high or there becomes some other problem with living in the United States. Its much easier to become an American citizen than it is to become a Mexican citizen for example. They should be at least similar.
If imposed it would be logically impossible to cite the US for racism because in nearly all cases it would be the foreign country that had stricter immigration rules and therefore the US could justify much stricter rules for those citizens as a result.
The major problem with this idea is that it would be very complicated because you might have very different rules for different countries.
The genius of this policy is that the US has looser immigration laws than pretty much any other country on earth. So its moronic to claim we are being racist by wanting to tighten it up a bit. Every country
I'd rather deal with a higher level of threat then accept extra legal NSA/CIA spying within the US.
The politically incorrect reality is that we've probably let too many bad people into the US and the western world at large. Say you want to keep radical elements out and they cite you for racism because the people trying this crap lately tend to not be white. That said, were they white, I'd have the same attitude about it so I don't see how race comes into it. Obviously, people shouldn't be excluded based on their race. BUT ideology might be fair game. I don't think being islamic should be enough to trigger a ban. But if you are then it is a risk factor. Sorry... it is. And that risk factor might trigger a deeper evaluation and that evaulation might find that a particular person is dangerous.
Regardless we can have two types of security. Internal security and external security.
I prefer the heavy handed stuff be kept external. Which means filtering visas more aggressively, securing the boarders, and dealing with foreign threats on foreign soil.
The alternative is that we turn the US into a police state with intelligence agencies scouring the nation looking for all the enemies the external filters didn't stop.
Choose. Its that or we just get bombed whenever they want. External security means I stay safe AND free.
Internal security means I MIGHT be safe but I lose my freedoms. Neither means I could easily lose both my freedoms and my security.
So... is there really more then one option here? Secure the border, be more careful with travel visas, and make a point of dealing with foreign threats on foreign soil.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. The ISS was largely a political stunt and as such was less about the science and more about forging a post cold war international union.
That clearly failed and the money that went into the project was largely wasted.
In hindsight, the real lesson was don't trust the Russians.
That said, any cold warrior could have told you that.
The principle science was actually done by the russians long before the ISS was launched. Either way, there were better ways to accomplish the same thing.
1. The ISS was a mistake in and of itself. The science its done wasn't worth the money. There were cheaper ways to attain the same knowledge. That money could have been better spent on other NASA projects.
2. Never trust the Russians. By all means do whatever in the name of diplomacy. But NEVER trust them. It goes back to the policy under Reagan... Trust but Verify... which really means we DO NOT trust them but we do business with them in a safe and sustainable way.
3. Allowing the US to lose its ability to go to space while the ISS remained active.
4. Not cultivating alternatives from spaceX etc that offered to fill the gap.
It goes without saying that the US is run badly these days. The politics being what they are about half the population will never admit it but such is the reality. As a people, we need to grow beyond our factionalism, find common ground, and hold our leaders to some reasonable standards. Otherwise, we'll just bounce between one faction's incompetents and the other's. Each side giving the profound incompetence of its own candidates a blind eye until they're out of political capital and then it shifts to the next guy. Back and forth.
Cisco has rights if any of us have rights. Those rights were violated without due process. It violates the constitution.
At the very least Cisco deserves to be compensated for the act. If the US government is willing to pay Cisco for their loss of business as a result of this then fine. If not then you have a legal case for forcing the government to pay Cisco.
If the government appreciates that its violations have a dollar consequence and is forced to pay that consequence then it will likely be more respectful of those rights.
If you do not take the government to court then you're giving it a free pass.
End of story. You're surrendering without a fight.
As to what it said, it obviously did. It said there were more fires now and that that was the result of more CO2... as evidence they of course cited more fires now than then and did not point out that there have been big changes in the ways our forests are managed between time T1 and T2.
This implies there was no significant change which since I live here and have watched it I can tell you with first hand knowledge that there was a big change.
As to fancy words, there isn't a single word in the english language that impresses me. Rather, you'd have to construct hundreds of complex concepts together in a way that was both intellectually stimulating and asthetically harmonious to actually impress me. You've done neither. Your arguments thus far have been little more then pointing at the sun and denying its existence and then dropping the same word over and over again while assuming that that would somehow lead weight to the idiocy. And beyond that the construction of your sentences has not been especially impressive thus rendering any claim to linguistic superiority moot.
Look, you're either 10 years old or an idiot... either way, good day, sir.
http://heeereswilly.ytmnd.com/
Yes. A specific post to a specific topic. Shocking.
Don't complain. Sue.
As to what I said, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
I did not say that the only difference between case 1 and case 2 was an increase in CO2. I said that that is what the article implied.
You are so clueless that you're agreeing with me and yet deluded into thinking you're arguing against me.
My point is that the two cases are not the same. My point is that they are saying they only differ in that there is a marginal amount of additional CO2 and that there is no other possible reason for the fires.
As to prevarication, you remind me of this sketch comedy:
http://youtu.be/KrJYpActs7g?t=...
Using the same fancy word over and over again that is clearly out of place in your personal lexicon is not a way to impress any but the simple.
We are saying the same thing... you are literally agreeing with me... and then you presume to insult me holding an opinion you share?
*hands dbll a clue*
You seem to need one.
Good day.
First off, I'm not in charge here. I just live here. I am fully aware that the nuts are in charge of the asylum. But once they are there is really nothing you can do about it.
Second off, the article was talking about california and Arizona, so what is going on in california is relevant to the topic.
Third off, show me any place in the US that has had an increase in forest fires and then cross reference those areas with areas where logging companies USED to be allowed to operate and now are no longer allowed to do so for environmental reasons.
That is a vin diagram that will match up 5 by 5.
No. My argument was never in jeopardy. His pathetic attempt to counter me was an utter failure. I pointed that out. I noted that his stupid insults only revealed his utter lack of worth... unless as I said he is a grade school student. In which case, his label of halfwit can be postponed until a later date when we can be sure not to confuse the callow with the malignantly retarded. If he's older then 10 years old then he's human garbage. Thus a drain on global resources. And I concluded by suggesting he do the moral thing and recycle himself.
Its for Gaia.
Universities throughout Califoria make a point of not cutting down trees on campus during the active school year. They wait break then call in construction crews to knock them down.
This is now standard practice throughout my state especially in northern california.
Another common tactic is to do it at 2 am, to respond to questions as to whether they are doing it that they are not... and then doing it when no one is looking, etc.
You can't reason with these people. Its like trying to have a conversation with a cartoon character. They have a few scripted responses and that's all they do... no reasoning with them. So you have to respond to them in kind.
It helps that every single one of them is stupid. Their only dangerous in that they have numbers and tend to feel unbound by ethical, moral, and legal restrictions. Like animals you can only really stop them from doing things by literally physically making it impossible for them to stop you.
Its standard practice for many construction crews in North California to bring tools specifically for dealing with the would be hippies. Everything from bolt cutters to gas masks.
As to what the article said:
That is bullshit. I can't speak to Arizona but I can to California. It is a false equivalency to compare the frequency of forest fires and their intensity today with a previous time when we had reasonable forest management as they are the same... and that the ONLY difference is a marginal difference in CO2 concentration.
So I did read it. Your pathetic attempt to browbeat me by suggesting I wasn't properly responding to the article is comical in that you apparently didn't read it.
Before you accuse someone else of being full of shit you might want to try cleaning your own shit out of your eyes, mouth, and ears.
As to your sad little attempt to suggest that my opinion is really just a consequence of some sexual failure... that is so infantile and intellectually vacant that I don't know where to start with it. You literally tried a tactic worthy of no one after grade school. Please tell me you're 10 years old be very very ashamed of yourself.
As to taking my own advice... I do actually... However, given that you have literally NOTHING to contribute to this discussion and have done nothing but throw out stupid baseless insults and make fallicious little arguments I don't see where you think you get the right to even talk to me.
Kill yourself. You are officially wasting oxygen.
No really.
Kill yourself. It is literally the most environmentally friendly thing you'll ever do. Compost yourself immediately. Your biomass will be better used by bacteria.
Do not waste bandwidth by replying. Terminate yourself immediately.
What a vapid bit of tripe. Of course we're intelligent. We built the internet and walked on the moon.
This is the sort vacant headed foolishness I'm talking about.
Turn your fucking brain on. OR don't presume to be credit as having one.
Our problems are not due to a lack of intelligence but rather due to self destructive and deluded ideologies and philosophies that are themselves illogical, anti scientific, anti modern, and frequently anti human.
TLDR?
Make sense. Have a plan that is actually attractive to the majority of the people that need to follow it. OR sit down and follow direction from someone with a clue.
TLDR again?
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
As someone that has been in regions where these wildfires have happened, I can tell you it is actually bad forest management.
Here's the thing. In nature, forests burn on occasion. Always have. Its part of the natural process. Some species either actively encourage the fires or rely upon the fires as part of their life cycle.
Okay, now that it is established that if left alone the forests will occasionally burn... what happens if you don't cut trees down and cut brush back on occasion and instead just leave the whole thing to take care of itself.
It burns.
I live in California and that has been the cause of most of our wild fires. We used to have forest management to the extent that we would subcontract logging companies to go through the forests and thin them out a bit so there was room for new growth and the whole forest didn't go up like a roman candle every 10-30 years (depends on the plant species and local climate).
Well, that was stopped and the logging companies aren't allowed to operate in our forests anymore because they're not environmentally friendly.
Fine... you're now putting nature in charge. And nature is going to burn that fucker down on its own schedule.
Global warming might have something to do with this sort of thing but it is NOT what is causing the vast majority of forest fires in the US. They are caused by moronic forest management that is itself guided by crystal rubbing mystics that will say out of one side of their mouth that the environment is harmed by direct human management and then say out of the other side that nature's natural processes are all our fault.
These people are idiots.
And just to preempt the first fucktard that responds to this post saying I have his misguided asshattery wrong... I don't. I live here. I've seen this happen over years. I saw was we were doing before. I saw what you did, I watched the forest prime itself like a coiling spring, I saw the fires, I watched the clean up, and I've been listening to you same slack-jawed halfwits ever since point fingers at anyone besides yourselves.
Do the Earth a favor and listen more and talk less.
Obviously human error... there is no patch for it.
... till then my cord remains cut.
The other big misconception is that people keep referring to this debt as if they're demand loans. They're not. The money loaned has to be paid off at a specified time and the money is paid in dollars which the US government can just print. Which is precisely what they do whenever these bonds come due.
We could literally afford to sell bonds 100 trillion dollars worth of bonds. The only consequence would be our currency would be worthless when it came time to pay them off.
That is the risk. Not that some foreign government is going to call their debts in but that our currency collapses.
This has nothing to do with the borders... I don't know what that guy was thinking... I'll be nice but come now... don't waste our time with that silliness.
I live here actually, sport. Its happening. Its real.
You want to stick your head in the sand on the issue? The last generation of deluded fuckwits like yourself were saying at one point that all this talk about Detroit going into decline was wrong.
Well... that's what self delusion gets you.
California all by itself is about 600 billion in debt. There is a population outflow from the state especially amongst retiring baby boomers that would otherwise contribute significantly to the tax base. This is increasing a demographic shift and causing income inequality to spike as the middle either gets crushed or leaves... and all you're left with are the rich and the poor.
Unlike your asshatish comment about Perry, my point is not a political one. I don't mind democrats or republicans in charge. I really don't give a fuck. However, whomever is in charge needs to do their fucking job. And the current people in charge of my state have failed utterly to deal with the issue. Now maybe that's our fault as voters. But if it is then who should have we elected to make it all better? Probably not the people you're apparently willing to lie to yourself about.
What if they were separate corporations?
They could start a battery company that sells batteries to Tesla. So buying batteries from that company wouldn't be added to Tesla's profits.
Companies spin off portions of themselves all the time.
That said, I'm hesitant to push Tesla around or suggest what they should or shouldn't do. The pressure for batteries has been strong for over a decade and yet we have yet to see improved batteries hit the market. Even Tesla's batteries are little better then laptop batteries. If the many battery companies the world over can't come up with something better I don't see why we think Tesla's battery factory is suddenly going to a world better.
So far as I've seen, Tesla's batteries are nothing special. Its the same stuff. They're saving some money by doing it in house. That's all.
Even if it went up more, the actual problem is that they keep letting radical elements into the country. Again, someone is going to cry racism here but it has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with people landing on a plane or crossing our southern border... and then doing something terrible. Period.
The DHS recently released something like 30 thousand illegal immigrants in the US onto US streets who were also convicted of other crimes including MURDER, RAPE, and assault.
Now how fucking stupid do you have to be to think that's a good idea. These are people that shouldn't be in the country in the first place. And worse, they're people that indifferent to where they are shouldn't be free because they're violent criminals... Their countrymen in their home country would put them in jail. And actually it is racism that gets them released because if they were white I'm pretty sure they would have been shipped back to their country of origin and certainly not released wholesale.
Here is my solution to our immigration issue: Symmetrical immigration policy. Every country that wants to send people to the US must accept on the same terms US citizens as immigrants to their own country.
So for example, if a country wants the US to accept 5 million immigrants then they must be willing to accept 5 million Americans as immigrants. And the terms for immigration must be symmetrical. So if citizenship in that other country requires X, Y, and Z it is reasonable for the United States to require X, Y, and Z from them in return.
This should amongst other things make it much easier for Americans to emigrate to other countries or establish duel citizenship elsewhere. Which would give americans a release valve in the case that Federal taxes become too high or there becomes some other problem with living in the United States. Its much easier to become an American citizen than it is to become a Mexican citizen for example. They should be at least similar.
If imposed it would be logically impossible to cite the US for racism because in nearly all cases it would be the foreign country that had stricter immigration rules and therefore the US could justify much stricter rules for those citizens as a result.
The major problem with this idea is that it would be very complicated because you might have very different rules for different countries.
The genius of this policy is that the US has looser immigration laws than pretty much any other country on earth. So its moronic to claim we are being racist by wanting to tighten it up a bit. Every country
Nonsense. Securing the borders has literally nothing to do with our foreign debt.
I don't see why the car business gets in the way of the battery business. There's no shortage of investment capital.
I'd rather deal with a higher level of threat then accept extra legal NSA/CIA spying within the US.
The politically incorrect reality is that we've probably let too many bad people into the US and the western world at large. Say you want to keep radical elements out and they cite you for racism because the people trying this crap lately tend to not be white. That said, were they white, I'd have the same attitude about it so I don't see how race comes into it. Obviously, people shouldn't be excluded based on their race. BUT ideology might be fair game. I don't think being islamic should be enough to trigger a ban. But if you are then it is a risk factor. Sorry... it is. And that risk factor might trigger a deeper evaluation and that evaulation might find that a particular person is dangerous.
Regardless we can have two types of security. Internal security and external security.
I prefer the heavy handed stuff be kept external. Which means filtering visas more aggressively, securing the boarders, and dealing with foreign threats on foreign soil.
The alternative is that we turn the US into a police state with intelligence agencies scouring the nation looking for all the enemies the external filters didn't stop.
Choose. Its that or we just get bombed whenever they want. External security means I stay safe AND free.
Internal security means I MIGHT be safe but I lose my freedoms. Neither means I could easily lose both my freedoms and my security.
So... is there really more then one option here? Secure the border, be more careful with travel visas, and make a point of dealing with foreign threats on foreign soil.
I have no problem with facebook being forced to delete your account on request. That was something they always should have allowed.