I'm a conservative and I'd adamantly disagree that "most liberals" don't think you should pay back loans. But I could be wrong - it's totally possible that most liberals buy cars in cash, only rent instead of purchasing property, etc. That's totally plausible.
What's new? While liberals proclaim themselves to be more tolerant than conservatives, my experience finds that when they are confronted by views that they disagree with, liberals can be the most intolerant people on the planet.
Typical lib -- tax and spend, but oblivious of the impact. This won't effect the rich or middle class, but will severely impact the poor and those just scraping by (many new ones under his watch). Aren't libs the ones who claim they are looking out for the poor? Not so much...
Nevertheless, I don't think gun laws work unless you also confiscate and ban every single gun in the country at the same time, otherwise you'll end up with the law-abiding people having no guns, and the non-law-abiding people with all the guns, and that will increase violent crime, rather than decrease it. And since confiscating every gun is not a practical solution, the practical solution should be to enable the freedom for every woman, man and child to carry a gun at all times.
>Nevertheless, I don't think gun laws work unless you also confiscate and ban every single gun in the country at the same time.
You're setting up a false dichotomy. Outlawing guns, and complete unlimited rights to fire arms aren't the only choices available. To say their is a spectrum of possible choices is simplifying it, there is a high dimensional landscape of possible policies and they lead to many outcomes.
Besides the two choices that can work, my point was, one of the many outcomes of the remaining choices will lead to non-law-abiding people possessing guns, and law-abiding people following the gun laws, possessing no guns, and this situation will be a lot less desirable than either no one have guns, or every body have guns. It is precisely because doing something that's complicated is going to lead to a high dimensional landscape of possible policies and many unknown outcomes, I think it's wise to stick to more simple, predictable solutions, because otherwise you're doing something you don't know what the consequences are. And it is because politicians and the electorate have the tendency to be doing that in the U.S., why U.S. has mass shootings every other day, and why that isn't true for a country like Australia, which undertook option 1, because it was feasible for a relatively centralised, unified island country, as compared to the U.S.
Exactly! Look at my home state of Massachusetts where you need a license to own a gun and a permit to buy a gun...well, now that I look into it... actually you are 3X less likely to die from a gun in MA than the US average and 6X safer from gun violence than the worst states:
As a counter data point, the police chief of Detroit recently advised the city's residents to carry guns for their protection. The reaction on right-wing blogs which covered this was applause.
Why you doubt it? In fact, that is exactly what is done when one wants to make absolutely sure nothing bad happens - a lot of people with guns come and saturate the area. Look what was done in New York on New Year's even or what happens when the President or other VIP like that visits some place. Lots of people with guns are always around. So apparently if you look at evens through the lens of "how many guns are around", "more guns" is the common standard solution for "more security".
Given the layoffs that are occurring around the country (from a shrinking economy to corporate consolidation and subsequent downsizing), this is troubling.
While it's true that India is a third world country, I'm surprised that so many want to get away from it rather than improve it.
But in the end, I think this will destroy the H1B system. Unshackling workers from employers (which allows them to abuse the employees since they can't move to other companies) will be its undoing.
LOL -- why challenge someone's ideas, let's just remove all traces of them so we don't have to see it. That's the liberal point of view. All opinions are valid, unless they disagree with them.
Hiding opinions of people you don't agree with is not a trait of the "left." It is a human trait. You make a lot of assumptions that this one specific developer is liberal vs. say a conservative who doesn't like Trump.
Example: You don't like Trump according to your subcomment, does that automatically make you a liberal?
I'd actually rather see all the crazy shit she says and does. But I won't be offended and want to wipe it away from my mind or consider letting it affect my thinking.
BTW, I'm not a trump fan. But I am a fan of information, and this seems very questionable but apropos given recent happenings on college campuses (not wanting to hear opposing views).
I encourage everyone to dig into this story a bit more. This family acted in a provocative way, and now they to attempt to punish the school and taxpayers.
Just to remind you: the great Civil Rights era cases were all plants, and care was taken by the organizers to find a presentable defendant with a clean record. Lady Chatterley was a plant, too.
I think people are more disgusted by how self serving the "plant" is. Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus to support a movement. Ahmed Mohammed brought a dismantled clock in a suitcase to school to further the political ends of his father's career.
This had nothing to do with race. Children have gotten into serious trouble just for drawing guns (see links below). This is a result of "zero tolerance" policies which have been in place for a while now.
This child repeatedly brought out a clearly provocative object which he didn't even make and which looked like a count down timer in a small container. He also ignored e very single teacher who politely asked him to put it away. Until finally one teacher got freaked out enough to take action.
I don't agree with his arrest just like I don't agree with those kids getting into trouble for drawing guns. But to try to paint this as a race issue is plainly ignorant at best.
When you look at the details of this case (the father who is a Sudanese politician, the sister who tried something similar a few years ago, Mark Cuban saying that when he was talking to him he was being fed lines and told what to say, the fact that he didn't make the clock and has not even a cursory knowledge of electronics commensurate with his age or skill - claiming in an interview to 'solder' CPUs, etc.) then it becomes clear what this was really about.
I feel sorry for the child because it is clear that his father orchestrated all of this.
Neither of your examples were the kids ever arrested.
So they suspect he has a bomb, but don't evacuate the school? If someone calls into a school and says there is a bomb, they evacuate regardless of whether its a hoax or not.
Also you misquote what Mark Cuban said, just like a lot of news sites that want to focus the narrative that his sister "fed" him answers.
"I talked to the kid," Cuban said. "He's from Dallas, and I've talked to the people in the school district. The kid is a super smart kid. Science geek. We talked about science, but while I'm talking to him on the phone, as I ask him a question, 'Tell me what happened because I'm curious.' Right? His sister, over his shoulder, you could hear, listening to the question, giving him the answer. So, I don't know all the details of what happened, but what I do know, when I talked to him about science, when I talked to him about magnets, when I talked to him about creating things, he was very, very engaged."
How do you charge someone with a "bomb hoax" unless someone initially assumed there was an actual threat of a bomb? Can you just somehow jump straight to "bomb hoax"?
Why do you need to call the police for a bomb threat you know to not be real? If I said something stupid like, "I have a bomb" and the teacher _knows_ I'm lying. The teacher probably sends me to the principal's office or maybe gives me a stern lecture about "misusing words"
If he really did something that warranted cops being called why would the Principal need to threaten him with expulsion if he didn't sign a written statement coping to that fact? You either have him dead to rights on making bomb scares or you don't.
I honestly don't know if his dad was the cause of him bringing that clock to school. But man if that's true, the dad must have read the school well enough to know they would try to arrest his son on something dumb.
exactly. if the school conducted itself in a humane and respectful manner in the first place there would never have been an incident at all, which is exactly the point. there should have never been an incident at all.
regardless of whether or not mohammed and his family were well-prepared to exploit the media for a favorable narrative, they were still wronged.
even if they deliberately provoked the incident, they were still wronged.
Is CNN blacklisted? They were a major source of fake news this election.