Duderonomy

Yep, would rather hear a hostile opinion than another bobblehead. I know what Americans in my part of the country think. It's difficult to know what people in other parts of the world think unless they speak up. When it comes to Syria, the only country that can really make a difference there is Turkey. They've got proximity both geographically and culturally to Syria that the United States cannot match. I would be more than happy to support a Turkish intervention, but U.S. intervention is a non-starter. No matter what the U.S. does in Syria, aid or military, the native population will hate. Best to let that part of the world handle their affairs to the best of their ability. We can support Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey, but nothing should be U.S.-led, which is what a lot of posters seem to be calling for. The current War in Yemen is the model I would follow, with interested neighbors and culturally-related nations taking the forefront on the stabilization of troubled nations. Providing funds or support for that is better than any amount of direct aid. U.S. money to Syria will be wasted and pissed on. U.S. military action will just create further hostility. Let other nations police their own people or neighbors. Spend some of that military money on immigration services in the U.S. so we can keep tighter track of high-danger individuals. Surgical strikes are fine provided it targets weapons production capacity or terrorist leadership. I merely give the U.S. as a model of what a country is capable of managing on its own. We've come from a nation that pushed mass extermination of natives and enforced slavery to a nation that recognizes the basic right of people to love each other. This has not been done without pain. Just the Civil Rights movement involved hundreds of dead, even though ti was largely nonviolent. Violent resistance gets more casualties (obviously). Other cultures should walk on their own path to modernization, rather than being pushed down the Western one at the end of a gun or pulled with cash.

Hey, I agree that the U.S. should just get out and focus on the Iraqis, not Syria. Sadly, I'm not in charge, but I am advocating for it. Most Americans can't even point to Syria on a map, so you can't blame "Americans" in general for some fuckheads in the government supporting religious ideology with my money. Because, make no mistake, it is religious in nature. Not like the feds are clamoring for Venezuela or Cuba to be "stabilized". And I'm the one paying for that thousand-dollar hardware to blow up some Syrian cultist. Anything the U.S. does to stabilize Syria will not help. Doesn't matter if it's money, bombs, or troops. Better to wash hands and leave them to work it out on their own. Which would happen, if a certain demographic did not abandon their family the instant things turned south. As for the West's "involvement", a lot of people like to invent conspiracies where none exist. I'd like citations if you want to start accusing the U.S. for every flat tire and broken cup in the world. The CIA, FBI, and Secret Service can't even keep their own scandals a secret. I'm not convinced they are the boogeyman that demagogues would have you believe they are. Government is always incompetent, and the U.S. government is no different. While I encourage movements like WikiLeaks that keep government honest, it's very easy to manufacture stories and evidence that fit whatever outlandish scenario you care to dream up. Why do you think idiots keep insisting that Obama was born in Indonesia?

Staying quiet, sticking around, and organizing resistance does help their family, and their society. The French get a lot of flack, but they actively fought for liberation in World War 2. Same with Norway and China. If they had fled at the first sign of trouble, it's likely Normandy would've failed and the U.S. would never have gotten close enough to nuke Japan. Is it dangerous? Yes. Does it require effort? Yes. But it's better than letting your family and society continue to die at the hands of a brutal dictator. At a certain point, you've got to ask what your community needs from you, rather than fleeing to a place where you can work for minimum wage and go home to watch Netflix. Am I fortunate to live in a country where those sacrifices have already been made? You bet I am. Am I still expending effort to ensure that the result of those sacrifices continue? Absolutely. I participate in local elections and assist candidates I believe in, Republican or Democrat. Independence, Civil War, World Wars, and the Civil Rights Movement have all gotten the U.S. where it is today. The struggle for gay rights, drug legalization, and secularization of policy continues. It is not a violent struggle, but it is a struggle all the same. If I left the U.S. for Canada every time Obama did something I disagreed with, that just makes it more likely that those policies will continue. If I stay and participate in the political process and debate, then I have served my community and my country. I hate Trump, but I will stay if he's elected and fight any boneheaded moves he makes, while celebrating his few good ones. Syria will not get any better with its brightest young men hiding in foreign countries like cowards. They should fight for their families and the betterment of their country. No one else should. TANSTAAFL. You want it, you earn it.

Question: Is this an agreement that the American people approve? The point is... John Kerry made a deal that an overwhelming majority of the United States does not agree with. I believe there will be a war within 2 years, and it's because of this deal. Congress does not approve, therefore it is not a sanctioned and legally binding contract. It's just another Obama executive order that dies when he leaves office. Israel will probably attack when they have a US President that will support them... because that is a deal that had the approval of Congress. Crossing the people here has vast consequences, and I find your declaration that the US does not have the military capacity to carry out a war completely laughable. We could turn Iran into a wasteland without even setting foot in that despicable place. I have always known that we could just as easily drill through glass. What do you think the military options are with Iran? 2) Mass bombing campaign? Maybe, but Iran actually has some decent Anti-Aircraft weaponry (unlike Iraq, Libya or Syria) so there would be losses.Civilian targets are off limits as usual, and miltiary targets will be fairly well defended. Mass bombing campaigns in Iraq were not all that successful, and IS seem well able to withstand it. Add in that the US fleets in the gulf of persia immediately become very vulnerable to anti-ship missiles, as do all the freighters in the gulf, and you have a recipe for a very long, drawn out, and probably fruitless mission. I wouldn't say massive, but I think somebody could orchestrate a targeted bombing campaign. Enough is known about their facilities to seriously set back their nuclear program. They build it again, then bomb it again. Iraq was kept from developing nuclear weapons after the Gulf War, despite W. Bush's assertions to the contrary. That proves that a country can be kept from producing these sorts of weapons. Iran is a theocracy that values religious dogma over human life, whether Persian or global. Allowing them to develop nukes would be a disaster, because they would not hesitate to use them without regard to their own safety. An Iranian A-bomb WOULD be used in a first strike for religious ideology. That's what makes it dangerous. You cannot negotiate with a cult member that has a nuke. You shoot them in the head and hope their children survive to be put in a foster home. That's probably the biggest thing that the liberal left does not get about ultra-conservative Muslims. Ultra-religious Abrahamists (Christian, Muslim, or Jewish) do NOT value life. They value their soul. That makes it easy to push them into violent and suicidal acts. Give them an illusion of threat to their soul, or a loved one's soul, and they will do whatever you tell them to do. A lot of the time, Abrahamists definitely don't value non-believers, and use various methods to de-personify anyone that does not match their belief system, which makes it easier to kill them. Conservatives in America get it because the vast majority either are or associate with extreme Abrahamists. Liberals see everyone as a human being that values their own life, but don't realize that other cultures don't reciprocate that world view. Don't let North Korea fool you. The Kims may not value Korean or other lives, but they value their own. That's why they have never launched a nuke, because it would be their end. Theocrats don't value their own life or the world, especially Abrahamists with an apocalyptic worldview. They would rather end history than be a part of a secular present.

I wouldn't have bothered to drop the bombs in the first place. Most of the displacement is being caused by the various factions in the civil war. Honestly, the U.S. should help Iraq fight ISIS, since Iraq is our mess, and then stop outside of IS targets. Syria is a shitstorm of its own making, and the less we have to do with it the better. The civil war happened before the U.S. got involved, and it would have continued even if the U.S. wasn't there. Those migrants should be fighting ISIS and Assad in their own country. Instead, they've taken the lazy option of pulling up stakes and attempting to push themselves on another country. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want stability and freedom, then you should develop it in your own country and stop expecting others to save you. Especially when you'll respond to any rescue with hostility. Assad is welcome to the country if he can win it back, no matter what crimes he commits. IS proves that the people there aren't interested in Western value systems that value life or liberty, so let them develop their own methods to dethrone Assad. Obama should not be siding regime change anywhere. This is not a Hollywood movie where the natives cheer the noble invaders. Sunnis are hostile to centralized government whether local or imposed. They should be allowed to revert back to tribal states until such time they develop a central government they can live with, whether it look like Indonesia's democracy or Saudia Arabia's sheikdom. Everybody should stop trying to force them to band together. If people want freedom and stability, let them earn it. Something given is only valued by the relationship with the giver. Something won is priceless.

Really Shah? You sound a little frightened. Everyone knows you guys in the Mid-East are much more tolerant. Tell me... what would happen to someone in a similar situation where you come from? What would your authorities do if some low level government employee said, "I'm taking the 5th!"? My guess is he would be thrown off a building. Or they'd cover it up. Or throw the prosecutor off the building. But yeah, Hilary compromised the country's security. There's no denying that. Instead of trusting her employees at the State Department who actually knew how to set everything up, she set up a private email server with official mail specifically so they couldn't watch it. While not directly incriminating, it's shady as hell. Then having that system compromised is just extra. I'm still too cynical to believe she'll get jail time, but I'm hoping it costs her the candidacy.

Migrants usually have a good work ethic and realistic understanding of how the world works (despite some conservatives' statements to the contrary). I generally have no problem with immigrants that genuinely want to work and assimilate. The main issue is that political migrants like this should be instigating change in their home country, rather than moving to others. It's the major reason that governments in the Middle East and Americas have not changed much despite the unrest and poor economic conditions their people face. Rather than risk death and hardship at home trying to instigate a genuine change, they move to a richer country and leave their brethren to rot. If the British colonies in the U.S. had not been boxed in by France and Spain at the time, it's likely the U.S. revolution would never have happened. Potential troublemakers would have simply gone further inland rather than fight. Egypt's revolution was supported by their geographic isolation from potential migrant sinks. Cuba took advantage of this when they sent a lot of their undesirables (both political and criminal) to the U.S. and it allowed their government to last far longer than their people should have permitted it to. Venezuela is in the same boat. I agree that more stability should be sought in the source of the migrants. Unfortunately, both Iraq and Afghanistan have proved that stability cannot come from without, and I don't think sinking a ton more money into source countries would help much. It's time to admit that some cultures just aren't compatible with the concept of nation-states as the West and East perceive them. I don't know what other system should be put into place, but the post-colonial divisions are not working. Japan and Germany were developed after World War 2, but they already had functioning (if evil) nation-states before the Allies rebuilt them. This isn't a reflection on these non-Western-or-Eastern cultures positively or negatively. Just that they need to develop on their own provided they are not directly impacting neighboring nation-states. Migrants are an impact, but that can be mitigated. Democracy and other Western cultural values must come from within these cultures in their own variations. I compare going into non-developed countries to a story I heard from a police officer about how he got his skull cracked open. He got a call for a domestic dispute. When he arrived, the husband was beating the everliving shit out of his wife. Being a hot-blooded American, the cop jumped on the husband and put him into a chokehold. After about twenty seconds, the cop blacked out (not the husband). The story (from his partner) is that the wife got free once the cop initiated the chokehold, left and got a bat, and then smashed her rescuer in the head with the bat. And no, it was no accident. She attacked the cop that had just saved her life. The moral of the story is to never assume that a victim wants your help, even if their life is at stake. This goes moreso for anyone that lives in a different culture, where the value of life and ideas is not the same as the West. In the U.S., I applaud any police officer who saves the life of someone else, because that reflects our values in the U.S. Even if the person is from a foreign culture and doesn't want to be saved, it should be attempted, because foreigners forgo the right to their alternate value system simply by being here. They made the choice to come here. They do not have to stay here. They accept our values or leave. However, Western nations have no right to impose our values on other nations, whether it be related to monetary or social issues. It's up to the people of those nations to change their values if they feel they are wrong. Nobody else can do it for them. If a non-developed nation causes problems, you take out the problems and then leave if their culture does not support a normal nation-state.

I remember that W. Bush ran a program which would send an autographed letter congratulating a citizen for important events, provided someone requested it online. The yellowest-doggiest democrat I knew got a letter congratulating her for moving into a new house. She ended up burning it on the street in front of her house. An Iran deal is something any Republican candidate would refuse on principle, but it's doubtful they would turn it over after the fact. They work better when they have a scapegoat for fallout.

Try mibbit. I've been able to use it from my phone, but that's because I was too lazy to get out of bed. Also, request a diplomatic post. Diplomacy is the game behind the game.

People, especially those without firearm experience, have a lot of misconceptions about their use and results. I don't see anything odd in her reaction, personally. Like others have said, guns are a lot harder to aim than people realize, especially if you haven't trained with it (which is the case for most madmen). I can tell you from my time hunting that I have: 1. Seen deer ignore a gunshot. 2. Seen deer ignore another deer dying of a gunshot. 4. Seen deer flee and then return to the spot of a gunshot. 5. Seen a deer run a hundred yards after being hit in the heart. 6. Seen a deer run close to three hundred yards after being hit in the shoulder (later analysis revealed internal organs OK). The problem is that our instinctual responses are built to counter predators at least half our size. A gun often makes very little noise and may not even sound out of place in a high traffic area. A jackhammer can be louder than a 9mm. I've heard people describe being shot as approximating a beesting or even a shove, if it's a small round. Larger rounds will obviously hurt more. A good rule of thumb is a basic rule of physics, "For every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction". If a gun doesn't kick much (the reaction), it won't have a lot of energy going into the target (the action). Granted, the bullet is much smaller than the butt of the gun, but you can't expect knockdown force if the shooter doesn't get much force, either. At the same time, a gun can only injure based on shot location and the size of the hole it puts in you. People survive gunshots all the time, especially from smaller caliber weapons. Doctors don't even cut out the bullet unless they absolutely have to. They'll just sew you up and tell you to avoid MRIs. (Trivia time: modern doctors say that Abraham Lincoln died because of his medical care, not his bullet wound). The human body is a hardy but callous thing, with redundancies all over the place. Getting a piece of metal lodged in your shoulder takes several seconds to recognize and doesn't even stop that arm. Pain is an imperfect communicator. That's why I keep the crowd pleaser at home. It kicks like a mule, but I'll have enough adrenaline & training to take it, plus I should (and need) to take out invaders in one-to-two shots at their center of mass.

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/u8vviCYNZxwy.3geYOL0aQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMxMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/sbs/sbc/Business2Community/coffee.jpg

What never fails to amaze me is that the everyone harps on guns constantly, but ignore the fundamental issue of mental health. As many people as I've met with diagnosed and undiagnosed mental problems, we should be trumpeting anyone's attempts to get better. A mental health checkup should be no different than a physical. In fact, today's service economy demands stronger resources than ever. That's the main beef I have with automatically taking away gun rights from those who seek treatment. It will discourage people from seeking treatment that need it. I'd trust a properly treated manic depressive over half of the maniacs I see on the road. If this guy had been encouraged to seek treatment, it's possible this wouldn't have happened. Gun, knife, or fists.

What type of nightmares do you think we could have experienced in the first 3 years? I'm really curious obviously apart from being delivered into this world lmao

If you want spatial creativity, buy Minecraft. Otherwise, just get a decent piece of graph paper and draw a map.

In a country full of guns, of course an individual would find a way, legal or not. I see a circle here, specifically from your quote. "Better have it and not need it then need it and not have one". Tell me this: Would you need a gun if they were not as easily accessible? Given that home invasions happen in my city every other day, yes. A crowd pleaser by the couch/bed is merely natural selection. When I'm not home, I leave money & a broken laptop near the front door, so any burglars grab it for a payday and leave. You think somebody gonna come home invade you without a gun? Home invasions happen with at least 2 or 3 criminals kicking down your door and incapacitating their victims with whatever weapons they have on them. None of that requires a gun. In fact, a gun is nigh useless to the criminal in a home invasion, because they have no idea where I will be sitting, so no idea on where to aim their gun. By the time they've figured it out, they could've just waved a knife in my face or tackled me. Soldiers and SWAT members have to train for weeks to enter buildings safely with a gun. However, it is EXTREMELY difficult to fight off 2 or 3 assailants unless you have a gun. I know where they will be coming from. A shotgun will injure everyone coming through my front door or back door in a single shot. Two shots and anybody behind them will have to step over bodies to get to me. I do not feel bad for anyone who dies because they chose to violently attack me. They committed suicide when they broke down my door. A) How many people died? If guns were allowed on campus wouldn't he just use a gun instead and kill people easier. Allowing guns just makes the crazy people more dangerous. I don't remember, the news didn't cover it much because it did not fit the anti-gun agenda. At least 2 or 3, if I remember correctly. Get an artery and your victim will bleed out quick. Considering that other universities have had crazy people with guns even with the ban, it's not like the ban "kept" a gun off the campus in that instance. I suspect the guy was just poor and couldn't afford a gun. However, whether the guy has a gun or not, a law-abiding citizen with a gun could stop the attacks very quickly. Who follows gun bans? Law-abiding citizens. Bans do not disarm criminals or crazies. It disarms those who would stop them.

Possible in the UK, but do you guys have private colleges? A lot of the private colleges in the U.S. make outlandish claims about career availability, charge up to 100k for a degree, and then dump students on the job market. It's borderline criminal.

In a country full of guns, of course an individual would find a way, legal or not. I see a circle here, specifically from your quote. "Better have it and not need it then need it and not have one". Tell me this: Would you need a gun if they were not as easily accessible? Given that home invasions happen in my city every other day, yes. A crowd pleaser by the couch/bed is merely natural selection. When I'm not home, I leave money & a broken laptop near the front door, so any burglars grab it for a payday and leave.

I think we were supposed to have a big surprise with Wendy Davis... nope. Texas is blood red except for Austin and several counties on the southern border. Even Mitt took 57% of the vote in 2012. I predict that Texas will vote decisively against a Democrat in 2016. Everyone is bigger than NBC... The Voice, Fallon, and The Blacklist can't carry them forever. I do believe that Trump will lose the illegal alien vote by a large margin... but that will not mean much since illegals can't vote. Once Greg Abbott rolls up on the stage with a "Make America Great Again" hat... Texas follows Trump. I pegged you for Louisiana... I knew it was somewhere in the south. I love the south. When the shit hits the fan, you guys never run and you always bounce back. I have lived in Louisiana and Oklahoma, but most of my time has been in Texas. Southeast Texas actually has a lot in common with South Louisiana. Northeast Texas is the same with North Louisiana/Arkansas. Texas is deep red because of religion, not politics. Catholic Hispanics hate most Democrats because of abortion and gay marriage. Conservative-protestant whites are the same. However, blacks and liberal whites can overcome conservative whites if the Catholic Hispanics refuse to vote for Trump. Given his current war on Hispanics and inability to apologize, you can expect a lot of LEGAL (yes, most Hispanics in Texas are legal) Hispanics to either not vote/vote Democrat. There are a lot of liberal whites in Texas, more than even the Austin region, but they've been drowned out by the rapid immigration of Catholics. If those Catholics don't show up at the polls, it'll get nasty for Republicans. The Republican War on Immigrants has always puzzled me, since most of the immigrants I've met (legal and illegal) share a lot of values with Republicans. Most like to work hard and go to church. They take from the medical system because nobody can afford the medical system, conservative or liberal.

There were mass stabbings at a community college near my house. If guns had been allowed on campus, it would have ended after the first one. Outlawing guns does not make the crazy less crazy. I think we'd be better off taking some of the gun taxes and putting it towards mental health treatment, as well as de-stigmatizing its use. The brain needs upkeep, just like the body. And church is not needed, religion does a horrible job of bettering your mental health (see Westboro Baptists or Scientology). Sadly, guns are cheaper than therapy in most instances, not counting the potential fallout (social and careerwise) for seeking treatment.

And if you live where I think you do... it will have the same effect as voting Republican in California. That's why I moved away from there several years ago. Over the course of 2 decades, California turned into a liberal cesspool... an entire state of sanctuary cities, gangs, drugs, and the morally bankrupt. This election will be decided by a few swing states, unless Trump gets the nomination and breaks the chain on the whole red and blue state situation. It could be a good thing for us. You might be in for a surprise. Half of my city speaks Spanish (one-quarter as their only language). Univision is bigger than NBC in South Texas. Combine liberals with Hispanics (who usually vote as conservative Republican as they can), and Trump will lose the state.

^So much this. Remembering is overrated. I live a life of mystery every morning after a bender.

Yeah, I agree that marketability is a major component of any career (artistic or technical) that people dismiss entirely. It's great you know a lot of people in creative jobs, but almost any job has a creative component to it. However, anytime you look at a career field, the technical staff gets paid more and treated better than the creative staff. Anyone who can do both will be highly prized, but it's just flat-out harder to fill technical positions. I know programmers that get paid 70k+ a year to start and their boss pays for their lunch every day (because it's cheaper than losing that hour of production), while most artistic types are sub-40k. You mention that people that can't market themselves can't get a job in a creative industry. I work in a technical field, and I've had several people call me to see if I'll leave my employer. Job postings last years without getting filled. Granted, I had to gain experience at a lower job title/pay, but I rarely worked over 45 hours a week to get where I am. No marketing is needed on my part, except to get to the best work environments in the field. Your friend that is in classical art probably works far more than 60 hours a week when you consider networking, failed projects, and applying for grants. Most "technical" staff that I know (including most engineers I work with) barely put in 40 hours for their pay. It's why I can spend time and money on a creative writing career while a lot of the Lit majors I knew in college work 60 hours a week, either at a nonprofit or as a barista while still making less money than me. Better to have the financial and temporal freedom to pursue dreams in your off-time. Otherwise, all you'll ever be doing is making someone else money.

I for one, will be a conservative voting for Democrats if Trump gets on the ticket. That conman is the last person we need running this country. I'd hoped for a decent Republican this time around, too.

I'd like to preface this by saying: wanting to create is wonderful. That drive to innovate and share your vision with the world produces most of the man-made beauty in our society. But please, do not listen to the snake-oil salesmen who take advantage of your innermost dreams to siphon money out of you and the federal government. Far better to get a practical education first, and then use the spare time/money you have gained to create art. Now on to it, this article pretty much proves that the art-school industry (as well as liberal-arts schools) is a pyramid scheme at best and a flat-out con at worst. How can anyone justify federally-backed student loans for any college major that will not help students in the work force? http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2015/08/19/black-arts-the-800-million-family-selling-art-degrees-and-false-hopes/

Best quote: "Their job is to serve and protect. Not to serve and die." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG7mZQvaQDk