|
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. |
that analogy seems quite inaccurate clutz. and i'd disagree on the latter being bigger news than the former; since if the former had been otherwise it would be incredible news. presidential candidates making absurd false accusation should be countered. sadly alot of fools still bought into it and voted to destroy the country. it's simply not true that trump was wiretapped, period.
|
|
Is that illegal, unethical, or just unorthodox? ^^^
|
On September 20 2017 05:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 05:09 Mohdoo wrote: I think it's that LegalLord sees so many trillions of reasons for Clinton to walk away from this humiliated and defeated that hearing people talk about things that make it less her fault drives him insane. Talking about things outside her control, when so many things were totally within her control and would have won her the election, feels silly. Which I can somewhat understand. But it is important to look at both. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it looks from here. It's not so much about walking away defeated, it's more about moving on and about letting the country move on. One of the few bright spots of a Trump win is that we as a country get to shed the choking influence of the Clinton cancer on our country. But the longer she plays the game of the sore loser who doesn't want to understand that about three-fourths of the country is saying "just fuck off, Hillary" the harder it is to clean house and move on. If you want to move on from Hillary then stop posting about her. I haven't counted but it certainly feels like the vast majority of posts that start another Hillary discussion come from you nowadays.
|
On September 20 2017 05:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Is that illegal, unethical, or just unorthodox? ^^^
Could certainly argue defending the head of the party is a hell of a lot more important than a billboard in Kansas.
|
On September 20 2017 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 05:28 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 05:09 Mohdoo wrote: I think it's that LegalLord sees so many trillions of reasons for Clinton to walk away from this humiliated and defeated that hearing people talk about things that make it less her fault drives him insane. Talking about things outside her control, when so many things were totally within her control and would have won her the election, feels silly. Which I can somewhat understand. But it is important to look at both. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it looks from here. It's not so much about walking away defeated, it's more about moving on and about letting the country move on. One of the few bright spots of a Trump win is that we as a country get to shed the choking influence of the Clinton cancer on our country. But the longer she plays the game of the sore loser who doesn't want to understand that about three-fourths of the country is saying "just fuck off, Hillary" the harder it is to clean house and move on. If you want to move on from Hillary then stop posting about her. I haven't counted but it certainly feels like the vast majority of posts that start another Hillary discussion come from you nowadays. it's been true for quit esome time actually; not just nowadays, but for mooooonths, really ever since after the election. and of course he still can't help spewing factually false nonsense, as well as highly doubtful claims, about it constantly.
|
On September 20 2017 01:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On September 20 2017 01:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 20 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote: A lot of genuinely interesting and productive stuff that we have developed only saw light first as military developments. The military has never been shy about creating new and useful technologies when necessary. They still do, so at least that money does have something to show for the effort. Unfortunately, it still seems wasteful when incredible sums of money are spent inefficiently on things that are completely unnecessary or erroneously paid for in the military. Furthermore, the service members rarely see this money. It sure as hell isn't in our wages, It rarely turns into new benefits (I can't tell you how many times I've been told, "sorry, that benefit was cut recently, you can't get it anymore"), living conditions are routinely poor (I could tell you quite a few stories about the barracks that I just came from and the galleys I had to eat in), and the gear is substandard (during my recent training, my flak jacket didn't fit and my rifle couldn't fire more than a single round without jamming). Is this really avoidable, though? As entity gets bigger --> waste gets bigger. Kind of like how big companies lose millions of dollars a year to accounting errors. Is there some nation that we know has an outstandingly efficient military while also being huge? I imagine not. I am sure a lot of work has been done to study "how do huge things not be wasteful?", but it does not seem to have been particularly successful yet. The point is that $80b in additional spending does not necessarily lead to anything like $80b in benefits.
It would be a lot closer if it went to providing everyone college, but you know Democrats prefer feeding the MIC.
But this is just a snack, $80b is a rounding error in our military.
The Defense Department’s Inspector General, in a June report, said the Army made $2.8 trillion in wrongful adjustments to accounting entries in one quarter alone in 2015, and $6.5 trillion for the year. Yet the Army lacked receipts and invoices to support those numbers or simply made them up.
Source
Can we not say the problem with tuition-free college is that it would be too expensive for the tax payer ever again please?
|
I would think that there is ample evidence out there now that throwing more money at higher level education is a bad idea. All it will do is continue to drive up the cost of tuition.
|
On September 20 2017 05:28 zlefin wrote: that analogy seems quite inaccurate clutz. and i'd disagree on the latter being bigger news than the former; since if the former had been otherwise it would be incredible news. presidential candidates making absurd false accusation should be countered. sadly alot of fools still bought into it and voted to destroy the country. it's simply not true that trump was wiretapped, period.
If Trump was wiretapped, that is huge bombshell news. Him not being wiretapped (despite his tweets) is "meh" news. Trump having phone calls intercepted is big news.
Overall, I think there has been a retcon over the last half year of what "wiretap" means when you say it in casual conversation. In January of 2017 there was the legal definition of wiretap, and the colloquial term which is broad and spanned everything from a direct wiretap to intercepting 1 or 2 emails. People would, for instance, think that on The Wire the Wallace, Bodie, and anyone else who used the payphone were "tapped". In the Sopranos if Tony's house is tapped and Joe schmoe calls he was "subject to" a tap. In 24 all the shady electronic intercepts were "taps".
|
On September 20 2017 06:03 xDaunt wrote: I would think that there is ample evidence out there now that throwing more money at higher level education is a bad idea. All it will do is continue to drive up the cost of tuition.
Do you feel there is ample evidence that throwing money at the military is a bad idea?
|
I don't think trump having a few phone calls intercepted is that big news; and moreover, that his claim was false remains entirely correct; and hence it is fine to report it that way. There's no need to use golden mean fallacy to make trump's claims seem less unjustified than they were. it's also bad policy to support liars lying, or to cover for them. trump should not be rewarded for lying; he should be in prison for it; or at least not where he is.
|
On September 20 2017 06:03 xDaunt wrote: I would think that there is ample evidence out there now that throwing more money at higher level education is a bad idea. All it will do is continue to drive up the cost of tuition.
I'd first echo this question;
On September 20 2017 06:24 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 06:03 xDaunt wrote: I would think that there is ample evidence out there now that throwing more money at higher level education is a bad idea. All it will do is continue to drive up the cost of tuition. Do you feel there is ample evidence that throwing money at the military is a bad idea?
Then, I'd say I'm okay with having politicians argue about how to drive down tuition costs, once tuition isn't a barrier to any student.
|
On September 20 2017 06:24 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 06:03 xDaunt wrote: I would think that there is ample evidence out there now that throwing more money at higher level education is a bad idea. All it will do is continue to drive up the cost of tuition. Do you feel there is ample evidence that throwing money at the military is a bad idea? Not really. I'd spend less on the military than we spend now, but the effects of flooding the military sector with funds are a little a different than with academia.
|
On September 20 2017 06:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 06:24 IyMoon wrote:On September 20 2017 06:03 xDaunt wrote: I would think that there is ample evidence out there now that throwing more money at higher level education is a bad idea. All it will do is continue to drive up the cost of tuition. Do you feel there is ample evidence that throwing money at the military is a bad idea? Not really. I'd spend less on the military than we spend now, but the effects of flooding the military sector with funds are a little a different than with academia.
In what way? They both spend money on R&D, they both create jobs..... I mean the difference comes at low level but at high level I am not sure what the difference between how they spend their money really is.
Payroll, Buildings, R&D, Advertising.
Both do these things... I might be missing the difference at a high level so if you could explain I would be grateful
|
On September 20 2017 06:03 xDaunt wrote: I would think that there is ample evidence out there now that throwing more money at higher level education is a bad idea. All it will do is continue to drive up the cost of tuition. An informed populace is the bad idea. Can you imagine the impoverished kids who are barred from higher ed because they're poor but are really gifted mathematicians? Or the mother or father who had to forgo higher ed because they needed to support a family?
Take away the money barrier and suddenly a lot of people become start becoming equal. You increase demand and you increase supply. Colleges still take in fees from families and can charge for masters+ degrees.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
More money spent on the military puts more money into the hands of the people who work on important advanced research projects - which includes those who work from the hallowed halls of academia.
More money into education generally leads to construction of endless university infrastructure projects, real estate of little worth, dorms for exorbitant prices, and so on. There is not a lack of money being spent on education, just a lack of proportionate results.
Healthcare is similar.
Infrastructure lol.
Two of the above three problems could adequately be solved with communism.
|
On September 20 2017 06:17 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 05:28 zlefin wrote: that analogy seems quite inaccurate clutz. and i'd disagree on the latter being bigger news than the former; since if the former had been otherwise it would be incredible news. presidential candidates making absurd false accusation should be countered. sadly alot of fools still bought into it and voted to destroy the country. it's simply not true that trump was wiretapped, period. If Trump was wiretapped, that is huge bombshell news. Him not being wiretapped (despite his tweets) is "meh" news. Trump having phone calls intercepted is big news. Overall, I think there has been a retcon over the last half year of what "wiretap" means when you say it in casual conversation. In January of 2017 there was the legal definition of wiretap, and the colloquial term which is broad and spanned everything from a direct wiretap to intercepting 1 or 2 emails. People would, for instance, think that on The Wire the Wallace, Bodie, and anyone else who used the payphone were "tapped". In the Sopranos if Tony's house is tapped and Joe schmoe calls he was "subject to" a tap. In 24 all the shady electronic intercepts were "taps". Currently sitting President accusing the previous President of ordering a wiretap on himself while campaigning. This is big news, true or not.
Now, it was entirely false, and was reported as such. No ifs, and or buts, Obama did not order a wiretap on Trump Tower to monitor Trump's calls.
|
Is it not possible to somehow do both.
|
|
On September 20 2017 06:58 LegalLord wrote: More money spent on the military puts more money into the hands of the people who work on important advanced research projects - which includes those who work from the hallowed halls of academia.
More money into education generally leads to construction of endless university infrastructure projects, real estate of little worth, dorms for exorbitant prices, and so on. There is not a lack of money being spent on education, just a lack of proportionate results.
Healthcare is similar.
Infrastructure lol.
Two of the above three problems could adequately be solved with communism. I disagree with how you look at where the money goes in education. If you give schools an extra X dollars your entirely correct but when your removing tuition fees to lower the barrier of entry for education your not adding more money, your replacing one source with another. And the government has better control over the cost then currently where schools can just keep raising tuition fees to feed off government aid since the school will not longer get to set the rate.
|
|
|
|