US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1142

On June 29 2014 04:25 Yoav wrote:


Are you really saying that defensive warfare is unjustifiable? Isn't that the most obviously justifiable form? Say Hitler had tried to invade Switzerland. A lot of how long Switzerland could have held out for help would be based on mine warfare. It's asymetrical and benefits the defensive party, but there's nothing wrong with that. If a central Asian country faced agression from Russia or China, landmines would help. Hell, if Finland was attacked again landmines would help. South Korea's defense does indeed partly depend on landmines, which could certainly be cleared by the North, but only with difficulty and delay of crucial time for reinforcements to show up. A war involving China/Pakistan v. India would almost certainly involve defensive mines in mountain passes.

Local area denial of choke-points (where civilians in a combat situation will generally avoid) with the implicit or explicit promise of later cleanup is a perfectly legitimate use of landmines. If the U.S. were faced with a defensive war protecting an ally from Russian or Chinese aggression, landmines would be extremely helpful.

On June 29 2014 09:00 oneofthem wrote:

uh i'm not saying that at all. would you take an argument against eating shit as an argument against eating in general? please don't.

rather using indiscriminate land mines in defense, (or rather, any time you think you are in defense) is not justified if you just go the additional step of questioning why you even need to go that far. most of the time it's because land mines are easy, cheap and the usual solution. there's no thorough analysis of alternatives before mine awareness became a thing, and when it did the cost of 'responsible' mine usage immediately made these things impractical.

promise of clean up is cute, but really moving a goal post that was about long term mines. if you want to clean them all up go ahead that'd be great.

On June 29 2014 09:00 oneofthem wrote:

uh i'm not saying that at all. would you take an argument against eating shit as an argument against eating in general? please don't.

rather using indiscriminate land mines in defense, (or rather, any time you think you are in defense) is not justified if you just go the additional step of questioning why you even need to go that far. most of the time it's because land mines are easy, cheap and the usual solution. there's no thorough analysis of alternatives before mine awareness became a thing, and when it did the cost of 'responsible' mine usage immediately made these things impractical.

promise of clean up is cute, but really moving a goal post that was about long term mines. if you want to clean them all up go ahead that'd be great.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) continued his fight against the Environmental Protection Agency this week, urging his colleagues to block a proposed rule that would redefine several forms of surface water under the landmark 1972 Clean Water Act.

The EPA has extended the time available to comment on the rule for the general public until Oct. 20. The agency says the regulation would not protect any new waters, but rather clarify waters, such as streams and wetlands, that are already protected under current law.

Republicans like Barrasso, however, view the move as another example of federal overreach that threatens local land use and zoning.

"Federal regulations have never defined ditches and other upland drainage features as 'waters of the U.S.,'" Barrasso said, according to the Wyoming Star-Tribune. "But this proposed rule does, and it will have a huge impact on farmers, on ranchers, on small businesses that need to put a shovel in the ground to make a living."

In 2012, Barrasso joined Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) in introducing legislation that would prohibit the EPA from going forward with the proposed regulation.

"Our bill will stop this unprecedented Washington power grab and restore Americans' property rights. It's time to get EPA lawyers out of Americans' backyards," Barrasso said.

On June 29 2014 07:28 coverpunch wrote:

Uh, no, you didn't think I was referring to those things in a one-liner. But it doesn't really matter because they're all red herrings that do not change the nature of war, they only change the methodology.

President Obama will ask Congress to provide more than $2 billion in new funds to control the surge of illegal Central American migrants at the South Texas border, and to grant broader powers for immigration officials to speed deportations of children caught crossing without their parents, White House officials said on Saturday.

Mr. Obama will send a letter on Monday to alert Congress that he will seek an emergency appropriation for rapidly expanding border enforcement actions and humanitarian assistance programs to cope with the influx, which includes record numbers of unaccompanied minors and adults bringing children. The officials gave only a general estimate of the amount, saying the White House would send a detailed request for the funds when Congress returned after the Fourth of July recess that began Friday and ends July 7.

About 1,000 women and children, mainly from Central America, have been dropped off in Phoenix since Memorial Day weekend with little more than water, apples and potato chips.Faces of an Immigration System Overwhelmed by Women and

The president will also ask Congress to revise existing statutes to give the Homeland Security secretary, Jeh Johnson, new authorities to accelerate the screening and deportation of young unaccompanied migrants who are not from Mexico. Fast-track procedures are already in place to deport young migrants from Mexico because it shares a border with the United States.

Mr. Obama will also ask for tougher penalties for smugglers who bring children and other vulnerable migrants across the border illegally, the officials said.

On June 29 2014 10:13 IgnE wrote:


Uh, yes, I did think you were referring to that because I like to presume that my critic is making an intelligent argument. You seem insistent on sticking to this platitude about the unchanging "nature of war" that defies the common sense meaning and evades the direct line of argument here about methodologies of warfare and whether landmines are a legitimate weapon in modern warfare. What I am really appalled by is that you cited the 100th anniversary of WWI in support of this hackneyed line of argumentation without any critical attempt to wrestle with the lessons of that war, nor displayed any awareness of how thoroughly the horrors of WWI shocked most contemporary observers. Much is old about the "nature of warfare" but there is also an astonishing amout of change.

On June 29 2014 12:35 GreenHorizons wrote:


Should be interesting to see if the right will put their money where there mouth is? Betting they will say they will only sign on if the money comes out of some social program though.

Doubt this does anything to stop them from saying the nations top deporter in history is soft on immigration enforcement though.

But the portrait of a steadily increasing number of deportations rests on statistics that conceal almost as much as they disclose. A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.

Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.

On the other side of the ledger, the number of people deported at or near the border has gone up — primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency's deportation statistics.

The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now.

But in the second half of the Bush administration, DHS decided to up the number of “removals” and limit the number of “returns.” The government hoped to deter immigrants from sneaking back into the country by making it clear that the U.S. knew who they were—and could punish them more harshly if they showed up again. Under Obama, DHS has stuck with this policy. Between 2009 and 2012, the number of deportations and informal returns was roughly the same—about 1.6 million each. Add up all the relevant numbers, you’ll see removals are on track to end up higher under Obama than Bush (Lind’s point in Vox) but that removals plus returns will end up higher under Bush than Obama (Davis’ point in The Federalist).

On June 29 2014 08:53 oneofthem wrote:
financial aid is pretty good for the rich private schools. i'm not sure what the situation is for the state schools but they probably are in far worse condition to offer financial aid. there's also those third tier private for profit entities but you'd expect them to offer the worst return to cost ratio.

On June 29 2014 14:14 Introvert wrote:


It's not so simple



Source




Source

Those pesky definitions again!

As for this crisis, funds should be made available to care for them AND ship them home. Make sure they don't die, then give them back to their parents. Then, close the border down so they know they can't come back.

On June 29 2014 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:



But with significantly more people illegally in the country and trying to cross the border under Bush showing that Bush and Obama are even close shows he's certainly not significantly lighter on people trying to cross the border illegally under his presidency (if not more strict).

Considering they both blow any other president's numbers out of the water the point stands.

Add up all the relevant numbers, you’ll see removals are on track to end up higher under Obama than Bush (Lind’s point in Vox) but that removals plus returns will end up higher under Bush than Obama (Davis’ point in The Federalist).

Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009

Between 2009 and 2012, the number of deportations and informal returns was roughly the same—about 1.6 million each.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), on Sunday defended the GOP's plan to sue President Obama over his use of executive actions.

"It’s not about our wanting to stop him from doing his job. It’s our wanting to do the job the constitution prescribes," Goodlatte said about the effort on "Fox News Sunday."

“It’s very important," Goodlatte continued. "And this should be bipartisan — people standing up to protect the balance of power.”

Host Chris Wallace then questioned how Republicans could justify a lawsuit when there are other remedies that could be used to curb the president's power.

Goodlatte again insisted that Congress had the authority to sue Obama.

"We also have the power to bring causes of action when we believe that the President of the United States is exceeding his authority," he said.

And when Wallace asked Goodlatte if the lawsuit would be pointless since it would probably be dragged out past the end of Obama's second term, Goodlatte said that the legal process could be sped up and should only take a few months.

On June 29 2014 14:32 ticklishmusic wrote:


No, financial aid is a joke. For me, I began with a scholarship worth close to 2/3 of tuition, but has declined to just a bit under half because of price increases. My younger brother started school this year, and the school saw fit to give me a whopping extra $1,000 in aid. This is considering that not only is my family paying a ton more for school, but that we are also 4 years worth of tuition poorer.

The majority of aid is given in Stafford loans anyways (unsubsidized, subsidized)-- I think the average package is like 20-25K, but very little of the financial package actually reduces the cost of attending a college. Despite the common declaration of fully met financial need, I've heard plenty of stories of people who had to drop out because of cost.