US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1292

On September 16 2014 10:04 xDaunt wrote:
Fuck the world.

On September 16 2014 18:20 nunez wrote:

dear lord.

On September 16 2014 14:27 Roswell wrote:

Wars actually help the economy and all that jazz. But yes, because every year we arent at war everyone gets free college education and healthcare! Fuck it, costs a few billion a week, damn maybe we could give everyone like 200$ free walmart gift cards instead.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal dodged three questions on Tuesday about whether he personally believes the theory of evolution explains the presence of complex life on Earth.

"The reality is I'm not an evolutionary biologist," the Republican governor and possible 2016 presidential hopeful told reporters at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

"What I believe as a father and a husband is that local schools should make decisions on how they teach," he said. "And we can talk about Common Core and why I don't believe in a national curriculum. I think local school districts should make decisions about what should be taught in their classroom. I want my kids to be exposed to the best science, the best critical thinking..."

The reporter interrupted Jindal, a Rhodes scholar who studied biology and public policy at Brown University, to press him on the original question of whether he believes the theory of evolution reflects the best scientific thinking about life on Earth.

"I will tell you, as a father, I want my kids to be taught about evolution in their schools, but secondly, I think local school districts should make the decision," he said.

Pressed a third time on what he personally thinks, Jindal again sidestepped.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal paid a visit to Washington, D.C. this week to roll out his national energy policy blueprint.

At a breakfast for reporters Tuesday hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, the Republican governor attacked President Barack Obama for not fully taking advantage of the United States' fossil fuel and energy resources.

"The reality is right now we've got an administration in the Obama administration that are science deniers when it comes to harnessing America's energy resources and potential to create good-paying jobs for our economy and for our future," Jindal said. "Right now we've got an administration whose policies are holding our economy hostage."

The "science deniers" line of attack mirrors that of progressives against Republican lawmakers who don't accept the broad scientific consensus that climate change is real and man-made.

When asked for examples, Jindal cited the administration's resistance to approving the Keystone pipeline and recent rules to establish strict limits on pollution from coal-fired power plants.

On September 16 2014 23:21 heliusx wrote:

Yeah the Iraq and afghan wars have done miracles for the economy.

On September 17 2014 00:54 Simberto wrote:
Alternatively, invest that money into having less debt, that will pay off in the long term too.

On September 17 2014 00:54 Simberto wrote:
You could also have them dig a lake. Great for the GDP. Great for reducing the number of jobless people. Also utterly useless and a complete waste of money.

And the fact that you don't have free tuition and healthcare in peacetime does not mean you could not afford it if you cut down your oversized military a bit, it just means that americans for some reason don't like that stuff, probably because of FREEDOM!.

Other countries, like Germany for example, manage very well to have a general healthcare system even for people who don't make a lot of money, and to have free tuition in college. I currently pay 111€/6 months in tuition at the university, and that comes with a free public transport ticket. But bombing Iraq is probably doing a lot more for the standard of living of the average american.

Apparently the Iraq and Afghanistan wars costs 900billion dollar IN ADDITION to your already absurd defense spendings. So the military becomes even more expensive when they do the only thing a military is actually useful, fight wars.

Apparently there are ~21 million college students in the USA. That is the number i have found, could be wrong. 900 billion would mean ~45000$ per student, but i guess that would be over roughly 10 years, so you could probably not afford free tuition, at least not at the absurd tuition rates you already have, just by not invading iraq and afghanistan. Still, 4500$ less tuition per year is probably something that would make students really happy. Did invading Iraq make anyone really happy? Alternatively, invest that money into having less debt, that will pay off in the long term too.

On September 17 2014 01:20 Millitron wrote:

Speaking of free tuition, one thing having expensive tuition does that's beneficial is that it acts as a filter. University is not for everyone. It being expensive is a good way to get prospective students to think hard about whether or not it really is for them. If anybody can go to university, you end up with similar problems to inner-city public schools. Too many students, many of whom don't really care about learning, and too few teachers. It will decrease the quality of education the students who do want to learn will get.

Now, maybe you could get away with free tuition by simply forcing students to maintain a certain, relatively high, GPA to stay enrolled, but that won't solve the problem for Freshmen.

On September 17 2014 00:54 Simberto wrote:
You could also have them dig a lake. Great for the GDP. Great for reducing the number of jobless people. Also utterly useless and a complete waste of money.

On September 17 2014 01:20 Millitron wrote:

Speaking of free tuition, one thing having expensive tuition does that's beneficial is that it acts as a filter. University is not for everyone. It being expensive is a good way to get prospective students to think hard about whether or not it really is for them. If anybody can go to university, you end up with similar problems to inner-city public schools. Too many students, many of whom don't really care about learning, and too few teachers. It will decrease the quality of education the students who do want to learn will get.

Now, maybe you could get away with free tuition by simply forcing students to maintain a certain, relatively high, GPA to stay enrolled, but that won't solve the problem for Freshmen.

On September 17 2014 01:20 Millitron wrote:
Speaking of free tuition, one thing having expensive tuition does that's beneficial is that it acts as a filter. University is not for everyone. It being expensive is a good way to get prospective students to think hard about whether or not it really is for them.

On September 17 2014 01:50 sc2isnotdying wrote:
Wars are good for the economy is essentially a Keynesian economic argument. Funny isn't it, that argument usually comes from the right; the same folks who are often found rejecting Keynesian economics. Personally, I'd rather spend the money on infrastructure, but I guess that makes me a hippie.

In all seriousness, I'm not a pacifist or isolationist or anything, more of a neo-imperiliast at heart. I believe in empire building. It's just if you're going to conquer a nation, then fucking CONQUER it, not whatever it is we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem is invasions are costly and difficult and you have to commit to a long term occupation. If that's not politically pragmatic, and it never is, then maybe it wasn't a good idea in the first place.

There's an argument that gets made that if we don't go into Iraq and Syria now, it will become a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism. As if its not already. I'm all for a propaganda war, a war that would be much easier to prosecute if the US didn't have a history of counter-productive meddling in the region, its the bombs I'm skeptical of. ISIS is deliberately provoking us. We don't have to take the bait.

So, what exactly is our end-game in the Arab world? I'm not convinced we have one.

On September 17 2014 02:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


When we no longer need Oil which is approaching sooner or later, then we'll leave the area alone and let Europe/Asia deal with it.

On September 16 2014 21:52 Danglars wrote:
Not a big fan of context, are you? This is like what, the second time in a dozen pages you saw fit to quote three words out of a short response itself? Apparently international diplomacy should be formed and discussed in unexplained sound bites in your world. Fun outlook!

On September 17 2014 02:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


When we no longer need Oil which is approaching sooner or later, then we'll leave the area alone and let Europe/Asia deal with it.