|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 16 2015 12:26 TheTenthDoc wrote: On another note, Cruz and Rubio appear to absolutely LOATHE each other. Almost as much as Rand and Trump.
I loathe both of them fwiw
|
Two people with cuban blood in a cat fight
|
To be fair to Rubio, Cruz is extremely loath-able.
|
Paul and Cruz tag teaming Rubio
|
We can't vet those gosh darn 5 year old orphans.
|
when the risk of a false negative is a terrorist attack your screening test had better have no false negatives
and if you have to limit it to 5 year old orphans so be it
|
The results of this poll are kinda impressive. + Show Spoiler +Poll: Which Republican candidate has the most punchable face?Cruz (43) 91% The Donald (1) 2% iCarly (1) 2% Chris Christie (1) 2% Ron Paul Jr (1) 2% Jeb! (0) 0% Kasich (0) 0% Rubio (0) 0% Dr. Benjamin Carson (0) 0% Scott Walker (0) 0% Hiccup Huckabee (0) 0% 47 total votes Your vote: Which Republican candidate has the most punchable face? (Vote): Jeb! (Vote): Kasich (Vote): Cruz (Vote): Rubio (Vote): The Donald (Vote): iCarly (Vote): Chris Christie (Vote): Ron Paul Jr (Vote): Dr. Benjamin Carson (Vote): Scott Walker (Vote): Hiccup Huckabee
Oh it's missing Rubio woops.
|
On December 16 2015 12:40 jalstar wrote: when the risk of a false negative is a terrorist attack your screening test had better have no false negatives
and if you have to limit it to 5 year old orphans so be it
That's assuming that you can only classify people as "positive" and "negative" and that your only options are "let them in and do nothing about it" and "turn them away." Both of those aren't really true for terror threats. I mean, you shouldn't let in anyone at all-shut all borders-by that logic, that's the only way to have no false negatives.
|
Fiorina's catch phrase this debate is "showing strength".
Carson: "Economy is another weapon besides the military. And without a military, we have nothing."
|
so basicly, according to carson: "the only way to deal with North Korea is via superior economy. We have to abuse that on a nation that spends all his money on it's military ignoring it's publics needs for food. So we need to strenghten our military"
|
On December 16 2015 12:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2015 12:40 jalstar wrote: when the risk of a false negative is a terrorist attack your screening test had better have no false negatives
and if you have to limit it to 5 year old orphans so be it That's assuming that you can only classify people as "positive" and "negative" and that your only options are "let them in and do nothing about it" and "turn them away." Both of those aren't really true for terror threats. I mean, you shouldn't let in anyone at all-shut all borders-by that logic, that's the only way to have no false negatives.
you can certainly make a 2x2 table with "terrorist" and "not terrorist" and "identified as terrorist by screening" vs "not identified"
both of those are binary, sure you can do more with screening and us agencies certainly would.
On December 16 2015 12:46 Toadesstern wrote: so basicly, according to carson: "the only way to deal with North Korea is via superior economy. We have to abuse that on a nation that spends all his money on it's military ignoring it's publics needs for food. So we need to strenghten our military"
this supports the theory that carson is preparing by playing civilization 5.
|
On December 16 2015 12:46 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2015 12:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 16 2015 12:40 jalstar wrote: when the risk of a false negative is a terrorist attack your screening test had better have no false negatives
and if you have to limit it to 5 year old orphans so be it That's assuming that you can only classify people as "positive" and "negative" and that your only options are "let them in and do nothing about it" and "turn them away." Both of those aren't really true for terror threats. I mean, you shouldn't let in anyone at all-shut all borders-by that logic, that's the only way to have no false negatives. you can certainly make a 2x2 table with "terrorist" and "not terrorist" and "accept them into the usa" vs "do literally anything else" both of those are binary, sure you can do more with screening and us agencies certainly would.
It's really more like a 4x4 table though. "Not terrorist." "Small chance of terrorist." "Moderate chance of terrorist." "High chance of terrorist." And your options are "Let them in with minimal supervision." "Let them in with high surveillance." "Let them in with extremely high surveillance and use them as an unwitting mole." "Do anything else."
That seems way more coherent than "don't let anyone in" to me.
|
On December 16 2015 12:46 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2015 12:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 16 2015 12:40 jalstar wrote: when the risk of a false negative is a terrorist attack your screening test had better have no false negatives
and if you have to limit it to 5 year old orphans so be it That's assuming that you can only classify people as "positive" and "negative" and that your only options are "let them in and do nothing about it" and "turn them away." Both of those aren't really true for terror threats. I mean, you shouldn't let in anyone at all-shut all borders-by that logic, that's the only way to have no false negatives. you can certainly make a 2x2 table with "terrorist" and "not terrorist" and "identified as terrorist by screening" vs "not identified" both of those are binary, sure you can do more with screening and us agencies certainly would. Show nested quote +On December 16 2015 12:46 Toadesstern wrote: so basicly, according to carson: "the only way to deal with North Korea is via superior economy. We have to abuse that on a nation that spends all his money on it's military ignoring it's publics needs for food. So we need to strenghten our military" this supports the theory that carson is preparing by playing civilization 5.
Maybe he knows that pyramids give faith and science instead of wheat now.
|
After this whole grain in pyramids thing this theory is really gaining traction. I just can't follow American conservatives. It's like watching some kind of alien species debating. Although there are probably alien lifeforms out there right now who might be less weird.
|
Trump made Cruz his bitch. Cruz can't even talk bad about Trump now.
|
I don't think Cruz knows what "infinitely" means. His advisers telling him not to say anything bad about Trump is...interesting.
Why does Carson think that in the past there's been sinister subterfuge by the Republican party?
|
Stupid questions get stupid answers. Trump and Cruz handled that well.
|
Carson needs speech training
|
Poor Jeb Bush, the man just wants to go home. But can't.
|
Carson
Grains in pyramids Guy came at me with knife but my belt saved me I prayed to jesus before my chem final and angels told me all the answers in a dream
|
|
|
|
|
|