Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 74

Thread: Afghan Girls' School Feared Hit By Poison Gas

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Afghan Girls' School Feared Hit By Poison Gas

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    that's putting it rather lightly.
    The point is, are these stories false? It seems we now must judge the messenger rather than the truth of the story.

    Most of us want the truth and if any source fudges the truth they should be condemned. So far this hasn't happened.

  2. #62
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: Afghan Girls' School Feared Hit By Poison Gas

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    The point is, are these stories false? It seems we now must judge the messenger rather than the truth of the story.
    Didn't i Just mention this same point while posting less biased reporting of the events?


    Most of us want the truth and if any source fudges the truth they should be condemned.
    Well, from my brief reading last night, I would say your sources fudge the truth (through presenting interpretation and opinion as fact)

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Afghan Girls' School Feared Hit By Poison Gas

    Quote Originally Posted by Jredbaron96 View Post
    Not to interrupt you, but I can't talk about Education Spending with thinking if this: All Of Nation's Resources Dumped Into 50 Children Who Are Actually The Future | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
    Sounds like a plan! Drugs should further winnow the undesirables from the second tier intelligentsia.

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Afghan Girls' School Feared Hit By Poison Gas

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    Didn't i Just mention this same point while posting less biased reporting of the events?
    And do you did. And you mentioned. That's putting it lightly' twice.

    I actually don't believe any one source one hundred percent. Each should be corroborated with at least one other until the truth emerges.

    As far as these sources go I just submitted the first ones on google that seemed different from the others.


    Well, from my brief reading last night, I would say your sources fudge the truth (through presenting interpretation and opinion as fact)
    If you do have the truth, and where the fudging occurred, then I'd like to hear it.

  5. #65
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Afghan Girls' School Feared Hit By Poison Gas

    your sources fudge the truth
    which ones?

    reuters, bloomberg, mcclatchy, msn, time mag, der speigel, nyt or huffpo?

    links above

    what's their agenda?

    you talk too much, your mere opinions are worthless

    if you linked more it would force you to know what you're talking about

    why does obama fund the party that organizes the gangs?

    Obama set to speed aid to Egypt | Reuters

  6. #66
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Afghan Girls' School Feared Hit By Poison Gas

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    No, it wouldn't. Many of our worst areas (think: DC) have higher spending per student, and continue to fail massive portions of our rising populace. Our spending is well above that of most nations:



    And has increased dramatically over the past few decades with nothing to show for it.



    we dont' need to spend more (and in fact, spending more will probably hurt). We need to spend more wisely.
    This isn't so cut and dry in terms of funding and building up resources in proper schools while expanding the number of teachers and administrators necessary to properly run the system. Spending redistribution certainly is part of it. While we spend more per student on average, where is that coming from? Inner city schools or private richie-rich schools? Cause your little graph includes BOTH private and public; when it should just be public. I don't doubt that DC spends the most, lots of politicians there and politicians need richie-rich schools to exclude the "riff raff" and blah blah blah.

    I wonder what your numbers would say if it represented only public education and broke down the demographics between inner city and suburban. Additionally, this is also about opening up college more too and funding it better in ways to get more of our population through it. And still too much? Use the extra to fix our bridges, repair our roads, or the plethora of other projects necessary to take care of American problems before we start worrying about the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    In Iraq? The removal of the Saddam regime and the regional delegitimization of AQ were both fairly solid successes. As a human being, I consider that we left the country a better place with a better future than when we found it. As an American, I'm glad that we met our geopolitical goals; however, I find the full withdrawal nature of our leaving (and the extent to which it has enabled Iran) to be abysmally stupid and destructive. Hitchens has an excellent quote which is appropriate here: "What the isolationists don't understand is that non-intervention doesn't mean nothing happens; it means something else happens." That that something else might be more inimical to US interests or the universalist truth-claims of our founding creed than our action seems to be something that many have trouble grasping.
    And the real problem here is that this is a stupid argument and that Hitchens quote is not applicable as no one is stating isolationism. Only idiots mistake non-military interventionism with isolationism. As for Saddam, guess we shouldn't have helped put up the Ba'athist regime in the first place, eh? Saddam was our buddy buddy until it became politically advantageous for him not to be. Interventionism drove us into the situation and your solution....more interventionism. This is why I really want to stress education, we need an educated populace in order to avoid the insanity of stupidity. We didn't leave the country in a better place, BTW. We made it unstable and a hot bed of insurgent and terrorist activity when it wasn't before. We've blown up their roads and schools and hospitals and now they're rebuilding some of it and getting gassed for the efforts. Iraq isn't in a better place, and our 10+ year war is not helping.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    By which you mean....? When you say "America is at risk" you mean of invasion? What about just plain old attack? How about economic attack? Given that the vast majority of them signed up during a time of war, and explicitly this war, how is it a maligning of their commitment to America that they be sent to do what they signed up to do?
    When our sovereignty is directly threatened/attacked. We are not responsible for the world, we do not have infinite money and infinite people to throw at not our problems. Economic attacks can be resolved with economic means under many circumstances, military attacks can be resolved with military action. Not imperial, foreign, aggressive forever war either. Short, devastating, severe retaliation for actual attack against us proper. That's it. Not there to bring democracy, not there to make your life better, just there to remind you the consequences if you actually attack America.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    And cutting and running from something because it is difficult (which is what we are doing) requires no particular strength of character.
    And repeating the same mistakes while spinning your wheels in the mud requires no particular strength of character either. Just sheeple. 10+ years, trillions of dollars, 4000+ more American dead. And you want to throw more years, more dollars, more lives at the problem saying that if we don't we aren't honoring the sacrifices of the dead. It's a rather sick conclusion when you claim education requires less money and we need to keep killing Americans in foreign lands to honor the sacrifices of those we sent to die in foreign lands.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    No. The "weak willed Americans" are the ones who "can't take" 4,000 deaths when they don't know a single damn one of them and have never deployed. 4,000 over eleven years, and again, some of them were my friends, is not that friggin unsustainable or impossible or even anything except an incredible historical low. We took more dead in 24 hours in Normandy. I hear it all the time "Oh, America is tired of War". Really??? when the **** did America ever go to war? America didn't go to war. The Army and Marines went to war. America went to the mall. You're tired? Of what? Of hearing headlines about war on a news station as you flip through to the next knockoff of "People Sing While Other People Judge Them For It"?
    No, the weak willed Americans are those so afraid that all they can do is hide behind the strength of government and the demonstrated force of the military. The Army and marines went to war, but not for MY freedom. Not for MY safety. In fact, it can well be argued I have less of those things. More aggressive government, more debt, more death. What I'm tired of is stupidity ruling the roost. Idiots who think that doing the same thing over and over again will yield different results. Y'all already had 10+ years and over a trillion dollars and the only thing you have to show for it is more dead Americans. Oh, but to "honor" our troops we have to kill more off for crap that is not our freedom, not our safety, not our problem.

    Who is really denigrating the troops here? Those wishing to call forth their commitment only in times of need for America, or those willing to throw them away at any problem that may come up across the globe?
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #67
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: Afghan Girls' School Feared Hit By Poison Gas

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    which ones?

    reuters, bloomberg, mcclatchy, msn, time mag, der speigel, nyt or huffpo?

    links above

    what's their agenda?

    you talk too much, your mere opinions are worthless

    if you linked more it would force you to know what you're talking about

    why does obama fund the party that organizes the gangs?

    Obama set to speed aid to Egypt | Reuters
    If you bothered to actually read what you are responding to, you will notice that I also provided news sources for the incidents in question. So the acts themselves were never in question in my posts (something I have also been clear about). What was in question was specifically cited as "(presenting interpretation and opinion (about the events) as fact

  8. #68
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    35,099

    Re: Afghan Girls' School Feared Hit By Poison Gas

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    That might well be, but it doesn't make the stories untrue.

    What do you think their agenda is?

    spreading hate for Muslims. kinda obvious. even their domain names show that much less their stories.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  9. #69
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,125

    Re: Afghan Girls' School Feared Hit By Poison Gas

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    This isn't so cut and dry in terms of funding and building up resources in proper schools while expanding the number of teachers and administrators necessary to properly run the system. Spending redistribution certainly is part of it. While we spend more per student on average, where is that coming from? Inner city schools or private richie-rich schools?
    Public Schools, mostly. See link below for what (for example) New York pays (over $18K)

    Cause your little graph includes BOTH private and public; when it should just be public. I don't doubt that DC spends the most, lots of politicians there and politicians need richie-rich schools to exclude the "riff raff" and blah blah blah.
    D.C. public schools are spending more per student than any state in the nation, writing an $18,667 check for each child

    I wonder what your numbers would say if it represented only public education
    Well, A) I think they might and B) if they don't, then those numbers would increase due to the fact that private schools are cheaper per student than public schools.

    41 percent of all private elementary and secondary schools — more than 27,000 nationwide — charged less than $2,500 for tuition. Less than 21 percent of all private schools charged more than $5,000 per year in tuition.

    Median cost in the DC area for a private school? $4500.

    and broke down the demographics between inner city and suburban.
    That appears to be mixed:

    Among the schools GAO reviewed, differences in per-pupil spending between inner city and suburban schools varied across metropolitan areas, with inner city schools spending more in some metropolitan areas and suburban schools spending more in other areas. The inner city schools that GAO examined generally spent more per pupil than suburban schools in Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis, while in Fort Worth and New York the suburban schools in GAO's study almost always spent more per pupil than the inner city schools. In Denver and Oakland, spending differences between the selected inner city and suburban schools were mixed.

    Additionally, this is also about opening up college more too and funding it better in ways to get more of our population through it.
    On the contrary, we send too many people to college for useless degrees, representing an incredible waste of human capital. College at this point has been made too open, with the result being that large numbers of people go there, acquire student debt, and then realize it's not worth their time and leave without a degree, but with the debt.



    And still too much? Use the extra to fix our bridges, repair our roads, or the plethora of other projects necessary to take care of American problems before we start worrying about the world.


    And the real problem here is that this is a stupid argument and that Hitchens quote is not applicable as no one is stating isolationism. Only idiots mistake non-military interventionism with isolationism.
    On the contrary, Hitchens is on the money. I realize that the standard response is that "oh no, isolationism means no trade and we are in favor of trade", but that is a thin reed to try to hide behind. If the United States was not dominating the strategic chokepoints of the world with the US Navy, then someone else would be. If the US does not keep Iran contained, then either Iran will move to seize regional hegemony and succeed, or Iran will move to seize regional hegemony and spark a sunni/shia war with millions of casualties and severe global economic depression.

    As for Saddam, guess we shouldn't have helped put up the Ba'athist regime in the first place, eh?
    We didn't help out the Ba'athists in the first place. We helped them fight Iran after they had already established themselves. The Nasserite National Socialist movement that swept the Middle East in the 1950's was without our encouragement and against our interests.

    Saddam was our buddy buddy until it became politically advantageous for him not to be.
    No. We used a less-worse-a-hole to oppose a more-worse-a-hole. This is what you call "foreign affairs", wherein the world, darn it, refuses to give us happy options, and so you choose the least evil path you can. We allied with the Soviet Union, for example, to destroy Hitler. We then worked with China to weaken the Soviet Union. We worked with Iraq to oppose Iran. We then worked with Saudi Arabia to oppose Iraq, and on it goes.

    Interventionism drove us into the situation and your solution....more interventionism.
    Fail. Interventionism didn't drive us into this situation. Planes flying into the world trade center put us into Afghanistan. The US moved into Afghanistan to destabilize opposition forces and deny them a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on us.

    This is why I really want to stress education, we need an educated populace in order to avoid the insanity of stupidity. We didn't leave the country in a better place, BTW.
    We absolutely did.

    We made it unstable and a hot bed of insurgent and terrorist activity when it wasn't before.
    we did and then we largely fixed that. And then our idiot administration wanted us out quick fast and in a hurry (or simply failed to negotiate a SOFA treaty, which speaks to lack of competency more than lack of desire to be wise), and some of it has since come back - but not much.

    We've blown up their roads and schools and hospitals and now they're rebuilding some of it and getting gassed for the efforts. Iraq isn't in a better place, and our 10+ year war is not helping.
    You appear to be confused.

    This is a map of Iraq:




    This is a map of Afghanistan:



    Notice how they are different shapes?

    When our sovereignty is directly threatened/attacked
    Our "soveriegnty". Oh, so not just our "people"? No thanks, that's a stupid way to solve the problem of mutual defense.

    We are not responsible for the world, we do not have infinite money and infinite people to throw at not our problems.
    Correct, however, our efforts over the past few years have required neither.

    Economic attacks can be resolved with economic means under many circumstances
    That is incorrect.

    military attacks can be resolved with military action
    Gosh, you mean like "terrorist supporting nation launches attack into New York City, US Military moves against terrorist supporting nation"? Why, you little imperialist, you.

    Not imperial, foreign, aggressive forever war either. Short, devastating, severe retaliation for actual attack against us proper.
    Ah, so you are more a fan of the massive-civilian-casualty-create-more-trouble-for-yourself-down-the-road approach. Well, it's an approach. Got to give it that. It is an approach.

    That's it. Not there to bring democracy, not there to make your life better, just there to remind you the consequences if you actually attack America.
    Yeah, they tried that with Germany after WWI. Hey, how did that work out, anywho?

    And repeating the same mistakes while spinning your wheels in the mud requires no particular strength of character either.
    Which is why you don't, but rather shift from the failed Rumsfeld Doctrine that the current administration is now idiotically trying to bring back to a proper Counterinsurgency doctrine which has proven itself consistently successful.

    10+ years, trillions of dollars, 4000+ more American dead. And you want to throw more years, more dollars, more lives at the problem saying that if we don't we aren't honoring the sacrifices of the dead. It's a rather sick conclusion when you claim education requires less money and we need to keep killing Americans in foreign lands to honor the sacrifices of those we sent to die in foreign lands.
    On the contrary, I support real education because I want people to know what they are talking about when they discuss these matters, which you evidently do not; preferring instead to repeat blase shibboleths build on pie in the sky dreams that global stability is somehow the norm.

    No, the weak willed Americans are those so afraid that all they can do is hide behind the strength of government and the demonstrated force of the military
    Those perhaps too. They are the ones who also support your position in this debate, although they support gun control as well.

    The Army and marines went to war, but not for MY freedom. Not for MY safety.
    Not unless you happen to be an American, or a Westerner (any will do). Oh, in that case, yes, in fact, it turns out that the psycho violent jihadis whom we've been fighting would, in fact, love to saw off your head on Youtube to prove what badasses they are.

    In fact, it can well be argued I have less of those things. More aggressive government, more debt, more death. What I'm tired of is stupidity ruling the roost. Idiots who think that doing the same thing over and over again will yield different results. Y'all already had 10+ years and over a trillion dollars and the only thing you have to show for it is more dead Americans.
    On the contrary - where we have applied proper counterinsurgency doctrine we have seen incredible success. We have brought a measure of lifting from oppression to millions of people, overthrown two ultra-violent nigh-genocidal regimes, delegitimized AQ, secured our Geopolitical goals in the region, and yes, along the way helped give rise to the Arab spring (which has since gone Islamist - as predicted - and yes, which is a good thing), and given people suffering under jackboots a greater measure of freedom. The Declaration states that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights, not just those lucky enough to be born south of the 48th parallel and north of Mexico on the North American Continent

    Oh, but to "honor" our troops we have to kill more off for crap that is not our freedom, not our safety, not our problem.
    It is our problem, and it is our safety. What do you think happens after the American retreat from Afghanistan?

    The answer is: The entire Muslim world sees that A) America can be beaten by anyone with determination and that B) taking on America and hitting them where they are weak (their national will) brings you worldly success and umma-wide respect. Like walking into a prison and announcing that you would rather be raped than fight anyone, retreating invites attack. Think back to your earlier prescription to "remind people what happens when they mess with America". Then ponder the fact that your proposed policy is to affect the opposite of that.

    Who is really denigrating the troops here? Those wishing to call forth their commitment only in times of need for America, or those willing to throw them away at any problem that may come up across the globe?
    Those troops volunteered knowing what they were doing and having a better grasp of the why than yourself. Those who are picturing them as some kind of victim, those who would make their sacrifice meaningless, those who speak as though we were the mindless robots of the government rather than thinking, breathing, patriotic human beings and individual citizens are those who denigrate us.

  10. #70
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Afghan Girls' School Feared Hit By Poison Gas

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    spreading hate for Muslims. kinda obvious. even their domain names show that much less their stories.
    Have you considered that Muslims might be spreading hate, or are they given a pass?

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •