CWC01

So Obama made good on his promise to fuck up Iraq. Well, OK.

Deflecting. Doesn't matter how the war started or for what reason. The left occupies the throne and is responsible for the decisions made under its control. You want to take credit for success so you also get to take credit for failure. Obama's foreign policy is as big an abject failure as Bush's. We should never have gone into Iraq but we did. For better or worse the crazies were under wraps until the power vacuum caused by Obama's abrupt exit. Obama doesn't lead he just reacts and this is what happens when your entire foreign policy is reacting.

There is nothing funny about people dying, asshole. I have several family members living in Paris. But people like you are part of the problem, not the solution. Not only you lack education, but you lack basic manners and respect. Hurt feelings and sanctimony, I'll try to keep that in mind the next time I see your insults.

Well, it's obvious you know two things about the area- jack and shit. You really do not know any facts, nor the history and how things unfolded. Brainwashed by faux "news"? Here are some quotes to straighten a pile of lies you just wrote: "A December 13, 2006 cable, "Influencing the SARG [syrian government] in the End of 2006,"1 indicates that, as far back as 2006 - five years before "Arab Spring" protests in Syria - destabilizing the Syrian government was a central motivation of US policy. The author of the cable was William Roebuck, at the time chargé d'affaires at the US embassy in Damascus. The cable outlines strategies for destabilizing the Syrian government. In his summary of the cable, Roebuck wrote: We believe Bashar's weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising." Here some other facts: "In public the US was in favor of economic reform, but in private the US saw conflict between economic reform and "entrenched, corrupt forces" as an "opportunity." In public, the US was opposed to "Islamist extremists" everywhere; but in private it saw the "potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists" as an "opportunity" that the US should take action to try to increase." Here is another US cable: This cable summarizes a March 15 meeting including then US counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan and US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Ford Fraker with Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, the head of Saudi Arabia's external intelligence agency. Ambassador Fraker's summary recounted: 7. © PERSIAN MEDDLING: Prince Muqrin described Iran as "all over the place now." The "Shiite crescent is becoming a full moon," encompassing Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait and Yemen among Iran's targets. In the Kingdom, he said "we have problems in Medina and Eastern Province." When asked if he saw Iran's hand in last month's Medina Riots (reftels), he strongly affirmed his belief that they were "definitely" Iranian supported. (Comment: Muqrin's view was not necessarily supported by post's Saudi Shi'a shia sources.) Muqrin bluntly stated "Iran is becoming a pain in the ..." and he expressed hope the President "can get them straight, or straighten them out." You realize that during 2006 Bush was the president, right? So wtf are you even talking about? The funny part is you're serious.

Someone doesn't pay attention...Iraq asked the US to leave once they had a functional (corrupt) government. Syrian civil war sprang from the much lauded Arab-Spring. Obama effectively snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. A little bit of leadership could have prevented all of this but we have an executive branch that is only interested in itself and polling numbers. Hell, our own secretary of state couldn't tell the truth about what was and what wasn't a terrorist attack. No, the left isn't exactly known for its international policy strength...you get to own it now. Nice try. Lets talk about stoopid parties; unrestrained immigration for the "feelz" brought this bombing to the socialist's utopia. Good job!

The success of the left's open immigration policy.

true or not this assertion, the most logical way to understand the problem is...to fawking study the problem. refusing the cdc the power to study gun violence is clearly political and clearly intended to prevent future gun regulation, even if warranted sure, there were mass killings in the past, but the media of the past wasn't that different from today, at least in terms of its politics and its interests - the perception that these kinds of attacks have become more common seems very likely true The problem has been studied. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

If we banned guns shootings would stop. http://therightscoop.com/breaking-possible-terror-attack-in-australia-one-policeman-and-one-gunman-dead/

Which does the media focus on the most?

When did the executive branch start passing tax bills or declaring war? CF and BC sure talk a lot about defunding PP based on bad interpretations of faulty videos. The last Bush started wars then submitted fake evidence to congress about WMD Congress voted for Afghanistan and Iraq engagements before we sent troops, little known fact. I assume your position is so that you can set up arbitrary qualifiers and excuses for your pick. Ya know, cause Hillary voted twice to play cowboys and indians.

What a bullshit approach.... Calling bullshit on your bullshit. The data are VERY clear. People in the US have easy access to guns and they shoot people. You don't hear of mass stranglings or mass knifings. Control guns and the problem goes away. Any idiot can see that. Moreover, the media gives dead killers huge amounts of attention so future would-be gunmen see fame and glory through infamy as their end. And the media makes money, the gun companies make money. Yes, changing gun laws is the obvious solution. If you've figured out a way to do that I'd love to hear it. One very simple way to act is to not let the media monetize these tragedies. Avert your electronic gaze. If killers get no attention the prospect of internet fame will be removed as a lure to would be killers. Maybe you have better ideas. The difference between today and 30 years ago is the media. Firearms technology hasn't changed much and gun laws are actually more strict. Media sells news by making news, they're growing up their own stories one nut job at a time with the constant news circus. Ironically the law abiding citizens are villains and the mass shooters are infamous.

When did the executive branch start passing tax bills or declaring war?

So who is your pick? Is there an actually viable candidate worthy of election in this race? That "geriatric communist".....he is only 5 years older than Trump. Not saying I think he would make a great president, but it is always interesting when someone runs based on honesty over politics. Super rare. Unfortunately there isn't a person running who strikes me as a good candidate to lead this country right now. That whole Warren thing I had never heard of...weird stuff! And the Cherokees seem to want to call her one of their own??? http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/09/27/the-fight-over-elizabeth-warrens-heritage-explained/ I don't have a pick, at this rate I'll stay home. You're probably right that Sanders is more honest than other candidates but he lacks leadership ability and his everything-for-free platform is expensive and naive.

You have got to be kidding, right? W had a C average, and had nothing distinguishing about his career. Ben Carson, to recap... Carson was a professor of neurosurgery, oncology, plastic surgery, and pediatrics, and he was the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital.[15] At 33, he became the youngest major division director in the hospital's history as director of pediatric neurosurgery. He was also a co-director of the Johns Hopkins Craniofacial Center. Carson specialized in traumatic brain injuries, brain and spinal cord tumors, achondroplasia, neurological and congenital disorders, craniosynostosis, epilepsy, and trigeminal neuralgia.[15] Your comment makes you look more like W than Ben Carson, Jim. Just sayin'. Who gives a flying fuck about his past. He publicly endorsed fringe lunacy theory, and denied science, just to cater to people who choose to believe the Earth is 6000 years old. That shows a complete lack of integrity. The GOP has created this bat-shit crazy moron show - a moronic version of the running of the bulls. Yea, free speech. Except sometimes you lay too good a foundation...... Wacko Speech So what would you call the Democrat side? There isn't a show at all. You have a geriatric communist who's been a Democrat as long as Trump's been a Republican and what'shername under investigation by the FBI. Maybe if the DNC would allow some debates Elizabeth Warren could explain why she lied about having native American ancestry.

Ironically one of the members here recently said he "fucked my mom". Whatever the point of your civility post was is either lost or lip service. I'm not here to say negative things, in fact, I enjoy a good debate. Unfortunately it usually degenerates into profanity by the people you tend to agree with. Anyhow, I see you have a pile of excuses you're working through so I'll let you get back to them without any more interruption.

Maybe you could write another post about how you're changing the standards for civility around here to improve traffic. Or was it that FB and Reddit stole your traffic? Either way, I respect your determination to rock your 2003 platform! You're almost a hero...almost.

We should compare graduate degrees. Dr. Carson went to Yale and was head of Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins. Where is your graduate degree from and in what subject?

That's like saying anyone who reads your posts supports retardation.

Obama ran a semi-religious platform as a state congressman. He was active in local churches, it came up during his first election campaign.

Kim Davis is a registered Democrat according to MSNBC. Here is a link you might want to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Student loan debt is ridiculous but it really isn't anyone's fault but the borrower. With that said, tuition has skyrocketed because loans are so easily available. Compounding is the fact that states have zero incentive to contribute since the federal government is underwriting loans for everyone. Why give away money when the students will simply take out a loan? Here is a summary of two studies performed. There are a few shortcomings but they conclude there is a correlation between increases in student loan availability and increases in tuition by for-profit and not-for-profit colleges alike. https://kelchenoneducation.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/new-evidence-on-the-bennett-hypothesis-and-federal-student-aid/ On the surface I think Chris Krispy is right that non-essential services should be limited if it would lower tuition. Unfortunately I don't think colleges would actually lower tuition if they reduced services. The video from John Oliver spends a lot of time criticizing for-profit schools for marketing costs but fails to accurately identify the ways state colleges spend money to market themselves. It's pretty naive to think the rock gyms are just niceties instead of a way to attract students. Why is there so much student loan debt? Because students have time to go to the rock gym. I paid cash for college and I spent my free time working to pay for it. Instead of offering ridiculous loans to young adults that lack the life experience to make sound financial decisions, make them work for it.

I assume your mom fucked football team, hence your lack of intelligence. That would explain you thinking 1.1 is larger then 3.8. For posterity...

I'm embarrassed for you. Wow. There's no question tuition has soared but your interpretation is incorrect. I assume since you avoided the question you didn't go to college.

I don't see data supporting "The biggest issue is the way it is paid. While till about mid 90's the costs were split between state and federal funding, and in general students were responsible for about 20%. Now the students are responsible for about 80%." I see many statistics that tuition has risen for a variety of reasons but none that show students were only responsible for 20% until the mid 90's. What college did you graduate from?

Football and basketball programs generally pay for themselves. Please provide a source showing students only paid 20% until the mid 90's. Out of curiosity, what college did you go to?