America - The Official Thread

[Famine]

Because it was so obvious that he thinks a key account manager or professional athlete does not need to bother learn stuff other than what is needed in his line of profession.

What does that have to do with the feudal system of having to learn your father's profession, like you accused him of wanting to return to?

So in other words you basically want a class based society like in the middle ages to early 1900 where a son of a smith takes over the profession of his father? when you say "the same way they have for ages"

That's right, nothing.

Of course they need to know other stuff, how would they know what they like. The most important thing is that they had exposure to lots of different subjects in school, that they could use as a guide to become or at least try to be what they wanted in life.

And once they have learned it in school and chosen a profession wholly unrelated to about 95% of what they learned, why do they still need to know it?

You haven't answered the question, just flung absolutely insane accusations about what people must believe based on the question.

why would a retail clerk, an accountant, an entertainer, a fiction writer, an artist, a professional athlete need to know anything about the scientific method? Why should they even care if it exists or not?

I think everyone should care about it, but for most people there's absolutely no reason for them to need to know even the first thing about the scientific method.

So are you going to answer the question, or just do some more baffling mud-slinging?

I must be honest and say that I am afraid of how some of you think. And hope noone of you have a political position.

Last week you were lecturing people on the US Constitution without having read a word of it. I don't think you're in any kind of position to be taking an intellectual high ground.

 

[BobK]

This is such an odd way of thinking...
How would you then get anyone to get hooked on something they like ie get them interested in becoming something. Sure not everyone get to be what they want but this is even more evident that a person needs to know more then what it is needed in their field of work.

You want everyone to get their roles/education/profession decided by birth?

Of course not. What a bizarre question. What on earth leads you to believe I would hold such a ridiculous opinion?

Such an odd way of thinking...

Of course everyone needs to know a little bit of everything.

...and I ask, why?

There are many, many things I don't know anything at all about. Yet I don't feel a lack for not knowing. If I should, for whatever reason, then I'd try to educate myself.

 

[Pillo-san]

What does that have to do with the feudal system of having to learn your father's profession, like you accused him of wanting to return to?

That's right, nothing.

And once they have learned it in school and chosen a profession wholly unrelated to about 95% of what they learned, why do they still need to know it?

You haven't answered the question, just flung absolutely insane accusations about what people must believe based on the question.I think everyone should care about it, but for most people there's absolutely no reason for them to need to know even the first thing about the scientific method.

So are you going to answer the question, or just do some more baffling mud-slinging?

Last week you were lecturing people on the US Constitution without having read a word of it. I don't think you're in any kind of position to be taking an intellectual high ground.

What is there to answer? I read a statement from an user that I did not agree upon and gave my own points on the matter with explanations on how I reasoned, and it does not need any further explanation. Everything is there black on white. I think it is very strange that you and other do not seem to get my points.

How I take a certain stand or why I think in a certain way are given. If you do not get them I cant help you, as I do not have the patience to explain further when I try to be as clear as possible.

For example, everyone pretty much know what it is on the US Constitution because it is so often talked about in media and even here, but what it says had nothing to do with my argument that I put forward. Like I have said multiple times already, when I say something you seem to concentrate on totally useless point of my arguments that has nothing to do with what I wanted to convey. If I say a piece of paper is only a piece of paper if no one if following what it stand for then it is like that. You do not need to say, Have you read the constitution? Who cares, every country have a constitution of some sort, it still does not change the fact that stuff can happen to change it or demolish it completely as it is the people that are the country not the piece of paper with some fancy words on it. If something can happen in other countries that can happen in countries like USA GB and other modern western countries.

Someone asked me about Poland when I wanted to make it as an example and I got an question why I compared it to USA. If you want to know you should google it yourself, I do not have time to educate people about history, at least I will not do it for free.

Of course not. What a bizarre question. What on earth leads you to believe I would hold such a ridiculous opinion?

Such an odd way of thinking...


...and I ask, why?

There are many, many things I don't know anything at all about. Yet I don't feel a lack for not knowing. If I should, for whatever reason, then I'd try to educate myself.

because your post was strange and odd..

I have already explained how and why.

A variety of subject in school is just needed to form the kids, if Donald likes maths and science but dislike reading and writhing novels then it is clear form an early age what direction he is going. Maybe he changes his mind and get fed up with sciences and prefer art or what ever but the variety is just good for him and his fellow schoolmates.

How can you not see this?

 

[Danoff]

For example, everyone pretty much know what it is on the US Constitution because it is so often talked about in media and even here

Definitely do not base your understanding of the constitution on what the media says about it. They get it wrong a LOT, even US media outlets.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

We are looking for a reason to impeach the president, and do it fast. Is this the one?

Spicer is spinning it as Trump losing trust in Flynn, hence Flynn's resignation. It seems to be an unofficial "he was acting alone" stance.

However, Trump has been on Twitter asking where all of the leaks are coming from; our media is reporting that intelligence agencies are withholding information from Trump because they don't trust security within the administration. The leaks are an embarrassment for Trump, but a key part of government accountability is transparency in the eyes of the public. These sorts of leaks usually suggest dysfunction, or at least disharmony, within the government.

 

[DDastardly00]

I understand that you're crying "it's for the children". I'm explaining that what you're advocating is a complete destruction of parental responsibility. Making sure that every child gets the same start in life means locking up a parent who wants to give their kid a little extra. If you want all of the kids to have an equal start it has to be illegal to hire a private tutor. It has to be wrong to confer an advantage on them.

Kids tend to emulate their parents, and learn a great deal from them. So really if you want to give all kids the same start in life, they need to be institutionalized - which is very harmful for them, but hey at least nobody gets an unfair advantage.


I get that you're looking at this only from the perspective of children, but the implications of giving everyone the same start are quite destructive. A minimum level threshold, of course, I could get behind, and have already advocated.


The reality is that some kids will always be disadvantaged compared to other kids no matter what you think is the reason (unless we genetically engineer them and institutionalize them). And we need to accept that reality, and even embrace it as an outcome of a society that is, to any extent, driven by productivity.

I know I've been gone a few days, but now I'm completely lost as to which direction this discussion has turned. Last week we were talking about funding and testing standards at the federal level and the oversight to make sure those standards are being met. This of course, has nothing to do with private schools or tutors or anything additional that parents can provide for their kids. It's simply about making sure our schools are doing the best job they can at teaching core education to our children.

Now time to review all that I missed to figure out how this all went awry.

 

[DK]

So when are we going to get "LOCK HIM UP!" chants from the Trumpster Fire?

 

[Johnnypenso]

So in other words you basically want a class based society like in the middle ages to early 1900 where a son of a smith takes over the profession of his father? when you say "the same way they have for ages"

Knowing the scientific method, what are you talking about? (Do not twist and over exaggerate...) No, it is about knowing the newest way/procedures/experiments a scientist is doing/performing in his line of work. It is getting to know the basic like you do in school right now. In school you get to learn multiple of things that later on gets more specialised depending what you are drawn too.. If you only know what you need to in your line of work/profession then you cant function in a society properly. If you get a puncture on your car in the middle of nowhere will you stand there like a scarecrow and wait for someone with right knowledge/profession to help you? Sounds like the Simpsons episode where Flanders is the ruler and everyone else are just lobotomized zombies. Nice dystopian future you want.


What what?

If you dont want that the kids get to learn different subjects so that they later can decide what they want to do, then you want a class based society where my son get to learn what I can or that every citizen gets a role in the society decided by birth.

The latest sentences about you and your friend is what I am talking about, if we would go by your standards then everyone would get their roles and knowledge pre decided for them. Why would you want that?
He knows about this and that and you know about something else and yet maybe you have same work or maybe not, who cares. But the thing is, we all need to know what is in the jar before we can pick out or at least try to get what we want...

It is Always the same people saying the most strange things, in here.

Pointless to respond to most of this except to say that, if you think the scientific method is, "about knowing the newest way/procedures/experiments a scientist is doing/performing in his line of work", then I'd suggest you do some studying about what it really is, right after you hit the books about the Constitution that is.

 

[Tornado]

For example, everyone pretty much know what it is on the US Constitution because it is so often talked about in media and even here, but what it says had nothing to do with my argument that I put forward.

Which just means that "everyone" doesn't include Pillo-san.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Of course everyone needs to know a little bit of everything.

This is an incredibly ironic statement from someone that has argued about the Constitution without actually knowing it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The White House says Trump knew Flynn was misleading people over his contact with Russia for weeks:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...that-flynn-was-misleading-over-russia/8271224

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Intelligence agencies reveal that Team Trump had contact with Russian spies during the campaign:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...act-with-russian-intelligence:-report/8273394

 

[Liquid]

I have to be honest and say that I've never heard of the Logan Act until now. If I was a US citizen and I sent a letter to the Bulgarian government asking them to come over and trade with us, or said that they are a bunch of horrible scrotes, would that be a violation of the Logan Act?

Trivial, yes, but I'm just wondering hypothetically. No-one has ever been convicted of defying the Logan Act since it was introduced and there has only ever been one indictment at all.

 

[ryzno]

First North Korea now Russia is testing nukes. This is not looking good.

http://wate.com/2017/02/14/us-offic...ile-in-violation-of-treaty/?preview_id=268400

WASHINGTON (AP) — Russia has deployed a cruise missile in violation of a Cold War-era arms control treaty, a Trump administration official said Tuesday, a development that complicates the outlook for U.S.-Russia relations amid turmoil on the White House national security team.

 

[ukfan758]

Intelligence agencies reveal that Team Trump had contact with Russian spies during the campaign:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...act-with-russian-intelligence:-report/8273394

Hopefully we get more information about this over time.
I'm curious about who in the government is leaking this information to the media.

 

[Dotini]

Hopefully we get more information about this over time.
I'm curious about who in the government is leaking this information to the media.

We have what is called a Deep State, or Shadow Government.

Edit:
Obviously I cannot say exactly who these people are. I might characterize it as "an old boys network", consisting of top figures in and around the military/industrial complex, including serving and retired officers of the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

Elected people like presidents come and go, but the Deep State serves over the decades. If a president governs against the interests the Deep State and is not malleable to its rule, he will be removed, as JFK found the hard way.

 

[Danoff]

We have what is called a Deep State, or Shadow Government.

Edit:
Obviously I cannot say exactly who these people are. I might characterize it as "an old boys network", consisting of top figures in and around the military/industrial complex, including serving and retired officers of the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

Elected people like presidents come and go, but the Deep State serves over the decades. If a president governs against the interests the Deep State and is not malleable to its rule, he will be removed, as JFK found the hard way.

Citation needed.

 

[Dotini]

Citation needed.

Agreed. Not enough is generally known about the Deep State in America. I can tell you pretty precisely how it killed Kennedy.

By taking aboard so many military, business and banking figures, Mr Trump is signaling his willingness to become a tool of the Deep State. He may not make it through his audition!

Deep state in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of a series on the
Politics of the
United States of America

Federal Government[show]
Legislature[show]
Executive[show]
Judiciary[show]
Elections[show]
Political parties[show]
Federalism[show]

• Other countries
• Atlas

• v
• t
• e

Some writers, journalists, political scientists and political activists in the United States have for decades expressed concerns about the existence of a deep state or state within a state, which they suspect exerts influence and control over public policy, regardless of which political party controls the country's democratic institutions.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

According to Philip Giraldi, the nexus of power is centered on the military–industrial complex, intelligence community, and Wall Street,[11] while Bill Moyers points to plutocrats and oligarchs.[12] Professor Peter Dale Scott also mentions "big oil" and the media as key players,[13] while David Talbot focuses on national security officials, especially Allen Dulles.[14] Mike Lofgren, an ex-Washington staffer who has written a book on the issue, includes Silicon Valley, along with "key elements of government" and Wall Street, but emphasizes the non-conspiratorial nature of the "state".[15][16]

Political scientist Michael J. Glennon believes that this trend is the result of policy being made by government bureaucracies instead of by elected officials.[6]

 

[Danoff]

Agreed. Not enough is generally known about the Deep State in America. I can tell you pretty precisely how it killed Kennedy.

Deep state in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of a series on the
Politics of the
United States of America

Federal Government[show]
Legislature[show]
Executive[show]
Judiciary[show]
Elections[show]
Political parties[show]
Federalism[show]

• Other countries
• Atlas

• v
• t
• e

Some writers, journalists, political scientists and political activists in the United States have for decades expressed concerns about the existence of a deep state or state within a state, which they suspect exerts influence and control over public policy, regardless of which political party controls the country's democratic institutions.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

According to Philip Giraldi, the nexus of power is centered on the military–industrial complex, intelligence community, and Wall Street,[11] while Bill Moyers points to plutocrats and oligarchs.[12] Professor Peter Dale Scott also mentions "big oil" and the media as key players,[13] while David Talbot focuses on national security officials, especially Allen Dulles.[14] Mike Lofgren, an ex-Washington staffer who has written a book on the issue, includes Silicon Valley, along with "key elements of government" and Wall Street, but emphasizes the non-conspiratorial nature of the "state".[15][16]

Political scientist Michael J. Glennon believes that this trend is the result of policy being made by government bureaucracies instead of by elected officials.[6]

 

[Pillo-san]

Agreed. Not enough is generally known about the Deep State in America. I can tell you pretty precisely how it killed Kennedy.

By taking aboard so many military, business and banking figures, Mr Trump is signaling his willingness to become a tool of the Deep State. He may not make it through his audition!

Deep state in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of a series on the
Politics of the
United States of America

Federal Government[show]
Legislature[show]
Executive[show]
Judiciary[show]
Elections[show]
Political parties[show]
Federalism[show]

• Other countries
• Atlas

• v
• t
• e

Some writers, journalists, political scientists and political activists in the United States have for decades expressed concerns about the existence of a deep state or state within a state, which they suspect exerts influence and control over public policy, regardless of which political party controls the country's democratic institutions.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

According to Philip Giraldi, the nexus of power is centered on the military–industrial complex, intelligence community, and Wall Street,[11] while Bill Moyers points to plutocrats and oligarchs.[12] Professor Peter Dale Scott also mentions "big oil" and the media as key players,[13] while David Talbot focuses on national security officials, especially Allen Dulles.[14] Mike Lofgren, an ex-Washington staffer who has written a book on the issue, includes Silicon Valley, along with "key elements of government" and Wall Street, but emphasizes the non-conspiratorial nature of the "state".[15][16]

Political scientist Michael J. Glennon believes that this trend is the result of policy being made by government bureaucracies instead of by elected officials.[6]

So you believe that your own country is a fascist type of government. What was all that about freedom and US Constitution?
Those usual posters in here say that US Constitution is something sacred that would automatically protect its people from hostile internal/external threats but then some of you you also believe that people in reality have no say in anything at all. Okey... How do you want it

Oh by the way, wth is Trump thinking. All his tweets about the lates matters with his staff and that mess with the N-kora at his restaurant. Should they not call, Lock them up for being that lacklustre with security?

 

[Famine]

Those usual posters in here say that US Constitution is something sacred that would automatically protect its people from hostile internal/external threats

Still not read it then...

 

[Pillo-san]

Still not read it then...

Because I dont need to read it, it is a Constitution and is probably very similar to every other Constitution out there.
And to be honest, I think we have read it when we had history and it was USA on the schedule. But if it was such an impressive and exclusive document why cant I remember it. Probably because it is a constitution that declares what a citizen can expect of his country and his rights. Like almost every other modern country out there?


...

 

[Famine]

Because I dont need to read it

No, not at all. I mean if you don't mind looking like an imbecile when you repeatedly make claims about it that are simply unsupported by the contents, you don't have to read a word of it.

On the other hand, it might help you out a bit when you want to dash off a quick quip about illuminati conspiracy theories or claim that soldiers are ignorant and just do what they're told.

I mean it's your call, but if I was going to participate in a discussion which had a document as a central theme, I'd give it at least a quick scan so I didn't end up with several different people telling me I was making baseless claims about it...

 

[Danoff]

Constitution and is probably very similar to every other Constitution out there.

Yea... nothing unusual.

Here's a comparison of the US constitution and (at least at the time) a proposed EU constitution.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/comparing-us-eu-constitutions

Here's a key point:

The most important difference between the U.S. Constitution and the proposed EU constitution, however, is the concept of rights. The U.S. Bill of Rights is a list of individual rights against the state. In contrast, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which constitutes Part II of the proposed EU constitution, includes a long list of rights to services provided by the state. Such rights, for example, include education, a free placement service, paid maternity leave, social security benefits and social services, housing assistance, preventive health care, services of general economic interest, and high levels of environmental and consumer protection.

That's a pretty fundamental difference. Rights "against" the state vs. rights to the state. He also explains the difference between a concept like "all residual rights are reserved to the people" and a concept like "one article suggests that the Union could use its power outside its exclusive authority if some unspecified body decides that the Union could do it better than a member state."

That's utilitarian authority vs. logical moral authority. "I get to do this if I can do it better" vs. "here's what we have demonstrable authority to do, and everything else we do not".

I'll grant you that they're both called "constitution"...

 

[SlipZtrEm]

We have what is called a Deep State, or Shadow Government.

Edit:
Obviously I cannot say exactly who these people are. I might characterize it as "an old boys network", consisting of top figures in and around the military/industrial complex, including serving and retired officers of the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

Elected people like presidents come and go, but the Deep State serves over the decades. If a president governs against the interests the Deep State and is not malleable to its rule, he will be removed, as JFK found the hard way.

TL;DR - La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo.

 

[BobK]

Because I dont need to read it

And with that, you have just established that anything you say regarding it isn't worth the time it would take us to read what you say.

 

[Pillo-san]

Yea... nothing unusual.

Here's a comparison of the US constitution and (at least at the time) a proposed EU constitution.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/comparing-us-eu-constitutions

Here's a key point:



That's a pretty fundamental difference. Rights "against" the state vs. rights to the state. He also explains the difference between a concept like "all residual rights are reserved to the people" and a concept like "one article suggests that the Union could use its power outside its exclusive authority if some unspecified body decides that the Union could do it better than a member state."

That's utilitarian authority vs. logical moral authority. "I get to do this if I can do it better" vs. "here's what we have demonstrable authority to do, and everything else we do not".

I'll grant you that they're both called "constitution"...

What are you talking about, EU was in the begging a economical union between some countries in Europe for conducting business much easier. Later on it grew to be so much more. If a country does not do as the guidelines/Constitution dictates then there will be fines/courts or what ever. And every country is free to leave EU if they want. Just Like GB did.
Every country have its own constitution that should have even better "rights" than what EU have. It is just a bare minimum what it is expected of the countries in EU.
EU is not a country.
What happens when a state does something Unconstitutional in USA?

And with that, you have just established that anything you say regarding it isn't worth the time it would take us to read what you say.

Have you read the Bible?
Because you know, you really do not need to to get the gist of it so to speak.

 

[Danoff]

What are you talking about, EU was in the begging a economical union between some countries in Europe for conducting business much easier. Later on it grew to be so much more. If a country does not do as the guidelines/Constitution dictates then there will be fines/courts or what ever. And every country is free to leave EU if they want. Just Like GB did.
Every country have its own constitution that should have even better "rights" than what EU have. It is just a bare minimum what it is expected of the countries in EU.
EU is not a country.
What happens when a state does something Unconstitutional in USA?

You missed every point I made.

 

[Pillo-san]

You missed every point I made.

No, you did not have any point what so ever.
You are comparing EU against USA. EU is not a country, not for now at least

 

[Joel]

Saddest thing about this election has been Alex Jones becoming another boring and bland conservative pundit. Was so much more entertaining when he was complaining about conspiracies to turn frogs gay with chemtrails from the planes Bush used to do 9/11.