GM_Tood

12 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

How do you think Syria keeps track of their own citizens?

 

Suggesting that they have no system in place whatsoever seems unfathomable. Do you have anything that explains how little identifying information is available and why it is such a problem?

From 2015 but gives an explanation. I could not find any recent article that states there is now an accurate database that contains Syrian nationals information that would be used in the vetting process.  

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/no-databases-exist-to-vet-syrian-refugees/

Under grilling from GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, head of the Senate subcommittee on immigration, the Homeland Security official in charge of vetting Syrian and other foreign Muslim refugees confessed that no police or intelligence databases exist to check the backgrounds of incoming refugees against criminal and terrorist records.

"Does Syria have any?" Sessions asked. "The government does not, no sir," answered Matthew Emrich, associate director for fraud detection and national security at DHS' U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Sessions further inquired: "You don't have their criminal records, you don't have the computer database that you can check?" Confessed Emrich: "In many countries the U.S. accepts refugees from, the country did not have extensive data holdings."

While a startling admission, it confirms previous reporting. Senior FBI officials recently testified that they have no idea who these people are, and they can't find out what type of backgrounds they have — criminal, terrorist or otherwise — because there are no vetting opportunities in those war-torn countries.

Syria and Iraq, along with Somalia and Sudan, are failed states where police records aren't even kept. Agents can't vet somebody if they don't have documentation and don't even have the criminal databases to screen applicants.

19 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

Here's where I just don't understand the Republicans.

 

They support certain issues that I see could come back to really bight them in the ass later.

 

Let's say George Soros goes out and buys up the vast majority of ISP companies.  Then, he manipulates liberal websites to be more prominent on the internet than conservative sites.  Would they be happy then?  Liberals wouldn't be happy if the Koch brothers would do that.

 

Keeping Net Neutrality helps ensure voices are heard.

To a certain extent that is already being done...twitter/facebook/google. These sites are promoting/moderating content and user accounts based on specific content being requested or posted. Why are these companies allowed to filter what consumers are seeing?  Loss of NN will definitely promote this if ISPs charge more if you want CNN or Fox News based on how the company's political views are.

2 hours ago, Cdog923 said:

 

Show your work, please. 

What work would you like me to show?  You can read my last reply as to how I experienced some of the issues that NN has helped address.  

Thanks for your contribution to the topic. 

12 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The internet is a much different animal now than in 2014.  That's almost 4 years ago.  That's a millennium in technology.

 

Let me ask you this.  Why do you support this move?  I am honestly open to the argument from the other side.  I just don't understand what that other side is and would like it explained to me.

 

How was this regulation detrimental.

I never said either way if I supported NN or not. I am trying to 'member what i paid for my current tier of Internet in 2014 and I don't think it was much different. I had Comcast back when they were throttling torrent traffic. Which is really a misnomer, they'd tank your entire download speed while torrent traffic was active. 

I agree with you that the Internet is a different bigger beast than in 2014. As someone who works for a company that relies on some of these ISPs to supply fast/reliable/cost effective internet connectivity,  as well as the content providers to generate accurate search content for clients and to our/their customers I support an open Internet.  Though the concept of open internet (separate topic) in my mind is hard to explain accurately when content is moderated/promoted by apps/search engines/etc based on what type of content is being requested (not talking about any illegal stuff). 

So short answer is I would prefer to keep the NN rules in place. 

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The truly insidious part of this is that the ISP's can coerce the content providers (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, Huskerboard, etc.) to pay to keep the ISP from throttling bandwidth to their site. So the ISP's can both drive up your cost AND the cost of the websites/services you use.

Like they were doing pre-NN internet 2014?

30 minutes ago, commando said:

apparently there is a loophole in the law that allows people to buy a part that changes the semi auto to full auto.  and what about the large clips?  i asked earlier about that but didn't get any answer.   a clip of 7 rounds is still deadly and too much when a crazy takes aim at innocent people...but what i heard sounded like a large clip or belt feed when i saw video of the attack last night.   might have saved a few hundred people from being injured or killed if there was a smaller limit on how many can be loaded at a time.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0039.htm

Federal Law

The 1994 federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which amended the 1968 Gun Control Act, made it illegal to transfer or possess “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” not lawfully possessed on or before the law's enactment. But the law permitted the sale of magazines manufactured before the ban (formerly codified at 18 USC § 922(w)(1) and (2)). (The act also banned the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons.)

The act defined “large capacity ammunition feeding device” as “a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device . . . that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” It exempted attached tubular devices designed to accept and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rim fire (18 USC § 921(a)(31(A) &(B)). The act included a sunset clause, under which the ban expired after 10 years, on September 13, 2004. Congress allowed the law to expire, and consequently, formerly banned high capacity ammunition magazines (and assault weapons) are now legal unless banned by state or local governments.

***Nevada has no such law on the books. 

5 minutes ago, commando said:

i don't know the answer....but aren't fully automatic weapons and large capacity clips already illegal?   if so....i hope whoever sold those items to this guy can be traced down and punished.  if they are not illegal....well....guess it's ok because we're murica!!!!

For ~$400 you can turn your semi-auto rifle into a pretty much full auto by using a bump stock/slide fire kit...which are legal (loopholed).  

Don't call it a comeback....

 

 

The ewoks who, armed with spears and rocks, took down an AT-ST had big dicks.

 

David of David and Goliath fame had a big dick.

 

The dudes played by shirtless sexy men in 300 had big dicks.

 

 

Dropping a bomb from a plane on people who can't see your face has nothing to do with big dickedness.

 

Before anyone misconstrues my post, I'm not against dropping bombs. Killing the bad guys and not killing innocents or ourselves is the best way to do it. But that doesn't make it brave or manly. It shows we have science and $.

Again, I'm not sure where you are seeing people with this attitude.

 

Maybe I'm just not looking at the same things.

You're just over reading into my post. I didn't say anyone had an attitude. I said dropping a bomb has nothing to do with dick size. Earlier you replied to a post that specifically said the US is swinging its big D.

 

The military is our (USA) dick when it comes to how we are seen by the rest of the world. It's true..science.

BTW...Russia developed "The Father Of All Bombs" and is supposedly 4 times as powerful. So I am guessing the US is now developing the Mother In-Law Of All Bombs which will out pace that.

Thermobaric bombs are the most effective against cave/tunnel systems...and MOAB is the biggest thermobaric bomb we got. The US Military has used smaller laser guided 2000lb thermobaric weapons against caves/tunnels in this region before (in 2002). Not sure why it hasn't been used before.

Edit for link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon

This bomb was used on the tunnel systems ISIS is using in that area. I think this type of bomb is the most effective we have for cave/tunnels.

Foreign policy wise I think this shows that we aren't afraid to use weapons like this to get the job done. It's been around since 2003....

It should also send hopefully send Afghanistan a message that we will do what it takes to win this war against ISIS/Taliban and for them to stop supporting..."allegedly"...these groups.

Oh my god, one square mile of destruction!

 

We blew s--- up, you guys.

 

Who is doing that?

 

Not directed at you, to be clear. The reaction to this and the fawning media coverage is what I worry about. I mean, I fall for a lot of military glorification stuff, personally, but this isn't even hella cool tech enables U.S. to launch devastating surgical strikes. It's "we dropped a dumb bomb, but a really big one because it's 10 times heavier than our normal dumb bombs."

 

We have always had and demonstrated the ability to bomb at will. Amping up the tonnage on a (probably) one-off demonstration is clearly pulling out the ruler. The only argument to be had is whether there was value in doing so. Some people think so. I disagree strongly.

It's GPS guided...so technically not a "dumb bomb".

Most of our munitions are in the 500-lb to 4000-lb range. This one's 21*k*-lb because f--- yeah America, that's why.

 

Reasons for smaller munitions tend to be they can be carried by our combat aircraft. Further, our guided bombs are all of that size. Guided munitions are useful for targeted strikes as opposed to indiscriminate carpet bombing. They also don't cost $314M a pop.

 

This weapon was previously never deployed due to the possibility of civilian casualties. It's a wide-area soft, dumb, soft-target weapon. This is the first use. It appears to me to be symbolic more than anything in response to a Green Beret's combat death -- particularly as it required flying a cargo noncombat plane over the area and kicking the bomb out the bay door.

 

Let's not blow a wad over our military, guys. Especially when it's unclear what was accomplished here. Dick-swinging is the foreign policy of the Kims of North Korea. It doesn't befit the greatest nation on the planet.

One square mile of destruction seems like a dick swing to me. And the message it sends is pretty clear.

First on CNN: US drops largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan

Military swinging their big D today.

If anything, forewarning the Russians of the strike makes Trump look like an actual Putin-puppet and not just being perceived as one.

Ever heard of the deconfliction line that was established between US and Russia?

To protect pilots, Moscow and Washington opened a so-called "deconfliction line" after Russia began its bombing campaign in September 2015. On the U.S. side, it is run out of the Combined Air and Space Operations Center at the vast al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which hosts the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command. There, air traffic controllers and senior military officers are in contact with their Russian counterparts in Syria. They share coordinates and other data to avoid midair collisions or confrontations. One U.S. pilot flying missions over Syria credited his safety to it in a recent Associated Press interview .

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/04/07/world/middleeast/ap-ml-ap-explains-syria-us-russia.html?_r=0

Can't airlines remove/bump passengers from any flight based on airlines contract of carriage? (I am not advocating the manner in which the man was removed)

It means that it's a continuation of the groundwork laid by the Obama Administration.

Deal closer.

It's a continuation of the groundwork laid by the Obama Administration. From that Newsweek article:

 

 

Yet these agreements were in the works before Trump and Xi met. Following negotiations with President Barack Obama, China was already prepared to open up to more investment from American financial firms, a Chinese official involved in the Florida summit told the FT. “Had Obama been in office for another six months we would have gotten there,” they said.

 

China had already begun rolling back its December 2003 ban on some U.S. beef products last September. However, The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association pointed out to Trump in a March 27 letter that American beef is still blocked since the terms of their access to the Chinese market haven’t been ironed out yet.

 

The most concrete thing to have emerged from the meeting so far is Trump’s agreement to make a state visit to China in 2017.

 

And this means that US-China economic relations are not off to a good start under Trump?

Chinese officials who spoke to the Financial Times said that President Xi Jinping is offering to lift China’s 13-year-long ban on U.S. beef and buy more American grain and agricultural products. That comes alongside an offer to increase the stake that American financial firms can hold in Chinese insurance and financial asset companies.

-----

Sounds like a good start to US-China economic relations under Trump.

 

-Drove 6 hours at 430 in the AM to watch the spring game a few years back. Paid for tickets and was all ready to go, but it got cancelled due to tornado warnings and bad weather. My son and I hung out at a hotel until the storms passed. We were pretty bummed out.

 

- A different game I talked to Lavonte David and Prince Amukamara on the sidelines.

Was in the skybox for that one...they came in and let us know we could stay for an hour.

 

Free pizza.