ADVERTISEMENT

Moslems hit Munich again!

I don't think the idea of free college education is "absurd." It may be something that never passes but it isn't generally speaking "absurd."
We have free high school education. Why? Because back in the day that was the minimum education you needed to have a shot at a decent life.
Now, does free college education mean free Harvard? No. But if there were programs that say guaranteed at least an associates degree at a community college, that would be something that would be both affordable and helpful (it would effectively cut college costs in half). The specifics matter obviously, but I'm not sure 12th grade is universal "14th grade" is absurd is all that true.
The high school diploma has become relatively worthless in the real world because it is no longer a discriminating mark. The same will happen with a public college degree when it becomes "free", which should alarm just about anyone. Eventually, folks with free college degrees will be ubiquitous, and you'll have to have a post-graduate degree to make a difference. And post-graduate school is very expensive. So when do we do post-grad school at public institutions is free?

Again, I hate slippery slopes, but this is one I believe in...

Now, I admit I'm not as familiar with her plan as I should be. If it's "Free Associate's Degree availability for qualified students" that might be worthwhile. If it's "Free Bachelor's degrees for everyone"... In other words, is there going to be a requirement for minimum GPA? Or, since it'll be a Federal funding grab, will colleges be thusly encouraged to admit literally anyone in order to get their free government money?
 
But I mean the Munich shooter wasn't even a practicing Muslim, and may have actually converted from Islam anyway, but yeah, I'm sure Islam was his primary motivation despite the mounds of evidence to the contrary cuz you say so.
You're still in denial about the guy that yelled "Allahu Akbar", confirmed by witnesses. OK.

We now have three additional moslem attacks in Baveria - in the same week. Just a bad hair day for them?
 
You're still in denial about the guy that yelled "Allahu Akbar", confirmed by witnesses. OK.

We now have three additional moslem attacks in Baveria - in the same week. Just a bad hair day for them?

"Confirmed" by one witness. Multiple other witnesses and even videos to the contrary. I've personally witnessed a shooting. Two girls walking down the street, one of them shot in the stomach by a hispanic girl wielding a .38 who was trying to consummate a purse-snatching as part of a gang initiation and freaked out when they said "No" to her demand to hand over their purses. Do you know how reliable my testimony to the police was? I didn't even notice a large van where the shooter jumped in and sped away right in front of me because I was so focused on the victim of the shooting and shocked by the fact that I'd just seen someone get shot that I completely missed the van altogether. That happened to me two years ago, and they found the shooter and her accomplice by tracking down the van that drove right in front of me that I have no recollection of seeing at all despite being less than 20 feet away.

So yeah, when it comes to "eyewitnesses", I ask a lot of questions and take their initial stories at the scene with a grain of salt. I did the same thing in the Ferguson story where damn near every "eyewitness" was either full of shit or was completely mistaken about what they saw and heard.

I mean, how ridiculous are you to be taking one witness' story vs. the mounds of evidence, other witnesses, and even video of the shooter that say he had nothing to do with jihad, wasn't even a practicing Muslim, etc. I guess because his name was Ali, that's enough for you. Not surprising. Somehow I'm the one with his head screwed on backwards...
 
The high school diploma has become relatively worthless in the real world because it is no longer a discriminating mark. The same will happen with a public college degree when it becomes "free", which should alarm just about anyone. Eventually, folks with free college degrees will be ubiquitous, and you'll have to have a post-graduate degree to make a difference. And post-graduate school is very expensive. So when do we do post-grad school at public institutions is free?

This is spot on. Young people and particularly poor young people (first-generation college families) already commonly misdiagnose this when they take out tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars of loans for a degree, in the spirit of "I have a college degree, I've MADE IT!", only to find out that just any ol' degree isn't good enough anymore like it was 50 years ago. A real problem then of free college for everyone is pumping more money into a university system that is already not effective for a lot of its students, if the measurement of efficacy is "gainful employment" after college.

If I only had the choice between the two options I'd be MUCH more in favor of government paying for vocational trade education (plumbing, electricians, masonry, that type of thing), perhaps even as a swap-out for the last 2-3 years of high school. I believe this is what Germany does--put one track of students on the academic path and the other track of students on the vocational path. Not every student is cut out for nor even wants to be on the academic path.
 
But I mean the Munich shooter wasn't even a practicing Muslim, and may have actually converted from Islam anyway, but yeah, I'm sure Islam was his primary motivation despite the mounds of evidence to the contrary cuz you say so.
Gr8 you need to keep up:
"Moslem" can be attributed to the religion of Islam, someone of any religion (or none) who is of middle eastern heritage or parentage, or even just a name that BGB doesn't like, such as Mohammed. There are no rules. There is no logic
 
  • Like
Reactions: gr8indoorsman
The high school diploma has become relatively worthless in the real world because it is no longer a discriminating mark. The same will happen with a public college degree when it becomes "free", which should alarm just about anyone. Eventually, folks with free college degrees will be ubiquitous, and you'll have to have a post-graduate degree to make a difference. And post-graduate school is very expensive. So when do we do post-grad school at public institutions is free?

Again, I hate slippery slopes, but this is one I believe in...

Now, I admit I'm not as familiar with her plan as I should be. If it's "Free Associate's Degree availability for qualified students" that might be worthwhile. If it's "Free Bachelor's degrees for everyone"... In other words, is there going to be a requirement for minimum GPA? Or, since it'll be a Federal funding grab, will colleges be thusly encouraged to admit literally anyone in order to get their free government money?
no, the high school diploma is worthless because:

1. wages have stagnated so much in not keeping pace with inflation that unlike your grandad and mine, being a janitor or some other ditchdigger job doesn't cut it anymore like it used to in the 60s. So jobs that just require a HS degree simply don't pay enough anymore for any type of decent life. And manufacturing jobs which require a high school degree and maybe a little trade study are so few that they cannot make up the difference anymore.

2. The jobs that do pay well require a college degree.

Has nothing to do with high school being a "discriminator." MOST people were a high school graduate even in the 60s. It's been at 70% or higher since 1959 (technically 69.5%).
It's only recently gotten over 80% and just barely (83).
 
That Obama is so sneaky, I imagine in your fragile minds he has been causing all the bad things in society forever.

Remember when he was much younger in the 80's and something he did wrong caused or aided the Beirut Marine barracks attack? That was BHO's fault right? Because nobody ever blamed Reagan.

Then when he was a state senator in IL and he cozied up to his muslim friends/relatives and caused 9/11; remember? I mean it had to be Obama's fault - not GW Bush. And certainly not a random act of violent terrorism.

WTF would some of you nuts do with your lives if you couldn't blame EVERY undesirable thing on either Obama or Hillary? Critical thinking? nah! Rational thought? Nope.

Nope, everyone knows it was Bush's fault.
 
Nope, everyone knows it was Bush's fault.
Look at the sheer level of personal animus and scapegoating leveled against Obama or Clinton - even the most disillusioned nut in the Fox News echo chamber couldn't rationally say Bush faced anything remotely similar

There's even a catch phrase "Thanks Obama" because there is a -crazy uncle- segment of the population that tries to blame everything on him. Remember that for Bush? Neither do I.
 
Look at the sheer level of personal animus and scapegoating leveled against Obama or Clinton - even the most disillusioned nut in the Fox News echo chamber couldn't rationally say Bush faced anything remotely similar

There's even a catch phrase "Thanks Obama" because there is a -crazy uncle- segment of the population that tries to blame everything on him. Remember that for Bush? Neither do I.
Yes, actually I do remember that same level of animus towards Bush. No catchphrase, but there's little to no difference between what's going on now towards Obama from the right than was going on towards Bush from the left in 2008. Doesn't make it right or useful, but it was so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boilermaker03
Yes, actually I do remember that same level of animus towards Bush. No catchphrase, but there's little to no difference between what's going on now towards Obama from the right than was going on towards Bush from the left in 2008. Doesn't make it right or useful, but it was so.
I don't remember anyone producing a motion picture imagining Obama's assassination during his time in office. I do remember that happening to 43, though. Damn thing won a film festival award to boot.
 
Yes, actually I do remember that same level of animus towards Bush. No catchphrase, but there's little to no difference between what's going on now towards Obama from the right than was going on towards Bush from the left in 2008. Doesn't make it right or useful, but it was so.
Bush's very Americanism was never challenged.
Bush never faced racist caricatures.
Bush's wife was never called a man/manly or a transvestite.
Bush was never accused of being a Muslim, or Gay.
Bush wasn't accused of secretly working to destroy America.

There were certainly over-the-top statements made about him. But there is a qualitative difference.
 
Look at the sheer level of personal animus and scapegoating leveled against Obama or Clinton - even the most disillusioned nut in the Fox News echo chamber couldn't rationally say Bush faced anything remotely similar

There's even a catch phrase "Thanks Obama" because there is a -crazy uncle- segment of the population that tries to blame everything on him. Remember that for Bush? Neither do I.
LOL- are you 12? Or maybe you had a lobotomy on January 20, 2009?
 
Bush's very Americanism was never challenged.
Bush never faced racist caricatures.
Bush's wife was never called a man/manly or a transvestite.
Bush was never accused of being a Muslim, or Gay.
Bush wasn't accused of secretly working to destroy America.

There were certainly over-the-top statements made about him. But there is a qualitative difference.
I don't disagree. I mean, of course, they are both open to avenues of attack that previous presidents and first ladies haven't been open to. But, the level of vitriol faced by Bush from the left was pretty relentless and pretty ugly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boilermaker03
I don't disagree. I mean, of course, they are both open to avenues of attack that previous presidents and first ladies haven't been open to. But, the level of vitriol faced by Bush from the left was pretty relentless and pretty ugly.
He wasn't objectively any more open to his very Americanism being attacked than Bush.
The gay/transexual stuff wasn't something either of them were more open to than Bush.
The trying to actively undermine America wasn't something either of them were more open to than Bush.

"They did it to Bush too" only goes so far, because what they have done this time has gone farther.
 
He wasn't objectively any more open to his very Americanism being attacked than Bush.
The gay/transexual stuff wasn't something either of them were more open to than Bush.
The trying to actively undermine America wasn't something either of them were more open to than Bush.

"They did it to Bush too" only goes so far, because what they have done this time has gone farther.
If by Americanism, you mean "the qualities regarded as definitive of America or Americans," then I think that one is debatable as to Bush being equally open to that criticism.

The gay/transexual stuff...I'll give you that one.

On undermining/destroying America, I think there's a quantitative difference with PresBO running ahead, but Bush did get hit with this criticism, too.

I'm not condoning any of it from either side. But, I do tend think there's some of "whose ox is getting gored," that factors into how people see this issue.
 
LOL- are you 12? Or maybe you had a lobotomy on January 20, 2009?
I don't even understand the point behind this post to formulate a reply. But your post is clearly a cogent retort to the point about the antagonistic forces & accusations against Obama being distinctly next-level compared to Bush... Or any prior President for that matter.
 
Bush's very Americanism was never challenged.
Bush never faced racist caricatures.
Bush's wife was never called a man/manly or a transvestite.
Bush was never accused of being a Muslim, or Gay.
Bush wasn't accused of secretly working to destroy America.

There were certainly over-the-top statements made about him. But there is a qualitative difference.
You are right that none of those specific statements were made about Bush, but many other statements that would be akin to those WERE made about Bush. Obviously no one questioned his Americanism and religion because he was a white man from Texas. There are whackos out there on both sides to say ignorant stuff like that. And yes, I am certain that there were people (on this board) who were openly accusing Bush of wanting to "destroy America" or sell out to the Saudis, though not in the same vain as the Obama-bashing Muslim stupidity.

But there were plenty of people, even on this message board, who were questioning basically every quality outside of race, creed, religion, and sexuality as pertained to Bush. I understood some of the criticism, as I do with Obama, but I never understood the vitriol, as I don't with Obama.
 
If by Americanism, you mean "the qualities regarded as definitive of America or Americans," then I think that one is debatable as to Bush being equally open to that criticism.

The gay/transexual stuff...I'll give you that one.

On undermining/destroying America, I think there's a quantitative difference with PresBO running ahead, but Bush did get hit with this criticism, too.

I'm not condoning any of it from either side. But, I do tend think there's some of "whose ox is getting gored," that factors into how people see this issue.
I think of literally "He's an American."

I think of literally, he's not a foreign plant sent here to destroy the country.

I saw nothing like that against Bush. They attacked him because of his policies. Some of those attacks were certainly over the top...the Hitler comparisons, the fascist label, etc. But his fundamental "Americaness" was not attacked...and certainly the racial sexual religious attacks were all completely absent.
 
You are right that none of those specific statements were made about Bush, but many other statements that would be akin to those WERE made about Bush. Obviously no one questioned his Americanism and religion because he was a white man from Texas. There are whackos out there on both sides to say ignorant stuff like that. And yes, I am certain that there were people (on this board) who were openly accusing Bush of wanting to "destroy America" or sell out to the Saudis, though not in the same vain as the Obama-bashing Muslim stupidity.

But there were plenty of people, even on this message board, who were questioning basically every quality outside of race, creed, religion, and sexuality as pertained to Bush. I understood some of the criticism, as I do with Obama, but I never understood the vitriol, as I don't with Obama.
What akin to "his wife is really a man, he's secretly gay, he's secretly Muslim, he's not even American, and he hates this country and is actively seeking to destroy it" did you see? List them out.

BOTH were attacked for their policies, called dumb, called fascists or imperial leaders by nutcases on the far extremes.

The rest, and it's quite a large bit, was solely for Obama.

I'm sorry, there was a qualitative difference. Does that mean that there weren't nutjobs on the left who attacked Bush? Nope.

I also don't recall any Dem leaders getting together within a month of Bush's inauguration with a meeting, that they openly touted, to make him a one-term President.

I remember President Bush's approval ratings after 9/11 being up as high as the 80s...that's a whole lot Dems and quite a few liberals. I don't remember Obama's being nearly as high after killing Osama.

Both sides do it only goes so far on this one.

Edited to add: The nominee for the Republican Party is literally a "Birther,:
 
Last edited:
ONE witness claimed early on she heard that, only ONE, but that's all you need right? Police investigation means nothing, all the evidence that has come out since means nothing, ONE witness yesterday claims something you want to hear and that's all the proof you need, so much so you say others "still dot get it." It would be funny if it wasn't so sad, but don't worry, I don't doubt at some point there will be an actual religiously motivated terror attack by Muslims somewhere in the world and then you will be able to shout "I told you so!"

Generally I agree that some people go overboard and blame everything on Islam, terror, and radical jihad.

The problem I see with this post is the second sentence. "Police investigation means nothing, all the evidence that has come out since means nothing, ONE witness yesterday claims something you want to hear and that's all the proof you need, so much so you say others "still dot get it.""

In Germany it was already attempted to keep all of the sexual assaults on NYE quiet. Now prominent govt officials are downplaying the terror card stating that they really do not know if it is terror or mental health issues and critique police for shooting the attackers. Just not sure the German Govt has a lot of faith in it right now to investigate these incident with a clear mind.

Do I think the quote from one witness should have been heard by others? Likely. That said, pretty skeptical of an investigation that seemed to want to discount that as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-police-for-shooting-axe-wielding-attacker/
 
This is one of those arguments that would be a ridiculous waste of time. So, "you win qaz." Tilt at another windmill.

http://gaygeorgewbush.tripod.com. :rolleyes:
you really hate when someone disagrees with something you are CERTAIN is true. I'm sorry I don't agree with you, but don't cast yourself as the reasonable one while I'm "tilting at windmills." Get over yourself.
 
Just a thought. Perhaps the other witnesses who heard the Munich gunman yell "Allahu Akbar" are now dead.
 
you really hate when someone disagrees with something you are CERTAIN is true. I'm sorry I don't agree with you, but don't cast yourself as the reasonable one while I'm "tilting at windmills." Get over yourself.
No actually, I just don't care to argue this point anymore. It's entirely possible I'm misremembering, I just don't want to waste the time to find out. So as I said, "You win qaz."
 
Lets at least know the facts here. Unauthorized immigration numbers from Mexico have declined during Obama's administration (5.6 million in 2014 compared to 6.4 million in 2009) and have been lower than under President Bush. Simultaneously, deportation numbers have generally increased when compared to his predecessors with the exception of FY 2015. I mean look at the data.... I would argue that the Obama administration has been the most effective ever at curbing illegal immigration.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ions-of-immigrants-reach-record-high-in-2013/

I do not disagree with you at all on the absurdity of his deportation pledge or free college education for that matter. As far as income equality, I think measures can be taken to achieve more income inequality. For instance, expansion of the earned income tax credit while you slowly taper up the minimum wage. You are kind of taking "income equality" to its literal extreme, which I do not believe is the position of mainstream Democrats.

Last, my definition of "assault rifle." Admittedly I am not a gun guy and am not super familiar with the terminology, but I would think something along the lines of a long weapon, that's clip exceeds x amount of rounds (insert your number here -- but something around a standard handgun), and the ability to repeatedly discharge said rounds by simply pulling the trigger i.e. not bolt action. A more expansive background procedure is slightly more difficult. I would like to see some form of mental health screening, especially with the purchase of handguns. If I go to buy a handgun I should have to waive HIPPA. This would be unpopular and goes beyond your initial question, but if someone purchases a gun I think they should also have to obtain liability insurance with penalties for not doing so and a proof of insurance requirement at purchase.
How about our government actually try and enforce the thousands of gun laws already on the books before adding new ones...

One of the 22,000 plus gun laws now on the books.
In a recent CDC report, IN ONE YEAR, 76,000 applicants LIED on the form to purchase/own a firearm.( A FEDERAL OFFENSE} 4700 were referred to BATF for processing.
The number prosecuted - 44.

How is it that only 44 people were prosecuted with such numerous offenses on a federal level? How can they expect new laws to be effective instead of further disarming law abiding citizens where criminals will continue to ignore said laws.
 
How about our government actually try and enforce the thousands of gun laws already on the books before adding new ones...

One of the 22,000 plus gun laws now on the books.
In a recent CDC report, IN ONE YEAR, 76,000 applicants LIED on the form to purchase/own a firearm.( A FEDERAL OFFENSE} 4700 were referred to BATF for processing.
The number prosecuted - 44.

How is it that only 44 people were prosecuted with such numerous offenses on a federal level? How can they expect new laws to be effective instead of further disarming law abiding citizens where criminals will continue to ignore said laws.
But that stat fails to take into account how many are prosecuted under state laws. Where I practice law state prosecutions for gun violations far exceed federal, and in most circumstances carry equally, and often more, stringent penalties.
 
Bush's very Americanism was never challenged.
Bush never faced racist caricatures.
Bush's wife was never called a man/manly or a transvestite.
Bush was never accused of being a Muslim, or Gay.
Bush wasn't accused of secretly working to destroy America.

There were certainly over-the-top statements made about him. But there is a qualitative difference.
are you retarded? Did you actually live here during his presidency?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT