CSNbbs

Full Version: Trump Administration
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
(12-13-2017 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-06-2017 10:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote: [ -> ]This could also tie in to another idea I've been mulling over, that I first heard from Rep. Seth Moulton (D, MA-6; also, B.S., MBA, MPP Harvard). One of the things he's noticed, as part of the first generation of Congressfolk who are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan, is that there's a relative dearth of people who have served in his generation, compared to previous ones (the cadre of Vietnam vets, before them the cadres of WWII and Korea vets). He's talked a little bit about extending the ideas of the GI Bill to other areas of service to the country, too, as a way to incentivize people actually serving their country in not-necessarily-military ways they find fulfilling (e.g. teaching in under-served communities, working on combating the opioid epidemic, etc), without reinstituting the draft.
It seems to me that helping fill an invaluable hole in the workforce would tie into that nicely.

I think it is worth exploring the idea that everyone should give some time to the country in some form--military, Peace Corps, other areas. I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people. Soldiers learn to do it in a hurry, or they die. We could all stand to do more.

Is there any evidence to suggest that it is the youth (Millenials and Gen X) that are driving the polarization?

I agree that required service would be good, not arguing that, just trying to understand why it's the youth, as opposed to another portion of the population, that is to blame. We seem to be the scapegoat for everything, even though we aren't in a position of power or influence yet.
(12-13-2017 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-06-2017 10:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote: [ -> ]This could also tie in to another idea I've been mulling over, that I first heard from Rep. Seth Moulton (D, MA-6; also, B.S., MBA, MPP Harvard). One of the things he's noticed, as part of the first generation of Congressfolk who are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan, is that there's a relative dearth of people who have served in his generation, compared to previous ones (the cadre of Vietnam vets, before them the cadres of WWII and Korea vets). He's talked a little bit about extending the ideas of the GI Bill to other areas of service to the country, too, as a way to incentivize people actually serving their country in not-necessarily-military ways they find fulfilling (e.g. teaching in under-served communities, working on combating the opioid epidemic, etc), without reinstituting the draft.
It seems to me that helping fill an invaluable hole in the workforce would tie into that nicely.
I think it is worth exploring the idea that everyone should give some time to the country in some form--military, Peace Corps, other areas. I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people. Soldiers learn to do it in a hurry, or they die. We could all stand to do more.
Is there any evidence to suggest that it is the youth (Millenials and Gen X) that are driving the polarization?

None the I'm aware of, but where else do you start? Where did you get the idea it was a blame game thing?

I actually think that the youth could take the lead in ending the polarization if they were strongly motivated to do so. I don't think you can fix the generation that reached adulthood without it, but would hope that you could redirect the trend going forward.

The other thing that I think has been a huge factor in polarization, and I hate to say this, is our primary system. Having political bosses nominate candidates in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms doesn't sound very democratic, but I think we got better candidates that way. The bosses depended on winning elections for their careers, so they cared more about electability, which meant they tended to pick candidates from the center. Now the primaries are dominated by the two party bases, which are both extremist and becoming more so.
(12-13-2017 10:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-06-2017 10:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote: [ -> ]This could also tie in to another idea I've been mulling over, that I first heard from Rep. Seth Moulton (D, MA-6; also, B.S., MBA, MPP Harvard). One of the things he's noticed, as part of the first generation of Congressfolk who are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan, is that there's a relative dearth of people who have served in his generation, compared to previous ones (the cadre of Vietnam vets, before them the cadres of WWII and Korea vets). He's talked a little bit about extending the ideas of the GI Bill to other areas of service to the country, too, as a way to incentivize people actually serving their country in not-necessarily-military ways they find fulfilling (e.g. teaching in under-served communities, working on combating the opioid epidemic, etc), without reinstituting the draft.
It seems to me that helping fill an invaluable hole in the workforce would tie into that nicely.
I think it is worth exploring the idea that everyone should give some time to the country in some form--military, Peace Corps, other areas. I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people. Soldiers learn to do it in a hurry, or they die. We could all stand to do more.
Is there any evidence to suggest that it is the youth (Millenials and Gen X) that are driving the polarization?

None the I'm aware of, but where else do you start? Where did you get the idea it was a blame game thing?

I actually think that the youth could take the lead in ending the polarization if they were strongly motivated to do so. I don't think you can fix the generation that reached adulthood without it, but would hope that you could redirect the trend going forward.

The other thing that I think has been a huge factor in polarization, and I hate to say this, is our primary system. Having political bosses nominate candidates in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms doesn't sound very democratic, but I think we got better candidates that way. The bosses depended on winning elections for their careers, so they cared more about electability, which meant they tended to pick candidates from the center. Now the primaries are dominated by the two party bases, which are both extremist and becoming more so.

Where do I get the idea it was a blame guy? Please see bolded text. That is explicitly laying blame at the feet of youth for polarization. Perhaps you meant it as a way to combat further polarization, but that is not how it read.

I don't think your proposal is bad, but it certainly read as if you were blaming some of the polarization on the youth.
(12-13-2017 10:21 AM)baker-13 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-06-2017 10:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote: [ -> ]This could also tie in to another idea I've been mulling over, that I first heard from Rep. Seth Moulton (D, MA-6; also, B.S., MBA, MPP Harvard). One of the things he's noticed, as part of the first generation of Congressfolk who are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan, is that there's a relative dearth of people who have served in his generation, compared to previous ones (the cadre of Vietnam vets, before them the cadres of WWII and Korea vets). He's talked a little bit about extending the ideas of the GI Bill to other areas of service to the country, too, as a way to incentivize people actually serving their country in not-necessarily-military ways they find fulfilling (e.g. teaching in under-served communities, working on combating the opioid epidemic, etc), without reinstituting the draft.
It seems to me that helping fill an invaluable hole in the workforce would tie into that nicely.
I think it is worth exploring the idea that everyone should give some time to the country in some form--military, Peace Corps, other areas. I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people. Soldiers learn to do it in a hurry, or they die. We could all stand to do more.
Wholly concur. My only concern with it is the chance that it could become Heinlein's "Service Guarantees Citizenship" (i.e. the reward for service is the right to vote), which seems anathema to the premise of democracy (because I'm the sort of paranoid who worries about government riffing off of late-50's sci-fi novels).
A GI-Bill-esque thing, though--service guarantees training in the workforce training program of your choice, whether that's classes to become an electrician or college courses to become a screenwriter--seems like it would be fairly effective, assuming you figure out a way to pay for it.

Well, it is one idea that runs counter to my (and Heinlein's) generally libertarian views. But I do think the generation that fought a war together was much more inclined to work together on other things than we are now. I would be okay with some sort of GI Bill concept. But I would fear that it could become an inflated entitlement program if politicians thought they could buy votes with it. And unlike many places where we are squandering billions today, it could properly be viewed as an investment.
(12-13-2017 10:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 10:21 AM)baker-13 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-06-2017 10:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote: [ -> ]This could also tie in to another idea I've been mulling over, that I first heard from Rep. Seth Moulton (D, MA-6; also, B.S., MBA, MPP Harvard). One of the things he's noticed, as part of the first generation of Congressfolk who are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan, is that there's a relative dearth of people who have served in his generation, compared to previous ones (the cadre of Vietnam vets, before them the cadres of WWII and Korea vets). He's talked a little bit about extending the ideas of the GI Bill to other areas of service to the country, too, as a way to incentivize people actually serving their country in not-necessarily-military ways they find fulfilling (e.g. teaching in under-served communities, working on combating the opioid epidemic, etc), without reinstituting the draft.
It seems to me that helping fill an invaluable hole in the workforce would tie into that nicely.
I think it is worth exploring the idea that everyone should give some time to the country in some form--military, Peace Corps, other areas. I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people. Soldiers learn to do it in a hurry, or they die. We could all stand to do more.
Wholly concur. My only concern with it is the chance that it could become Heinlein's "Service Guarantees Citizenship" (i.e. the reward for service is the right to vote), which seems anathema to the premise of democracy (because I'm the sort of paranoid who worries about government riffing off of late-50's sci-fi novels).
A GI-Bill-esque thing, though--service guarantees training in the workforce training program of your choice, whether that's classes to become an electrician or college courses to become a screenwriter--seems like it would be fairly effective, assuming you figure out a way to pay for it.

Well, it is one idea that runs counter to my (and Heinlein's) generally libertarian views. But I do think the generation that fought a war together was much more inclined to work together on other things than we are now. I would be okay with some sort of GI Bill concept. But I would fear that it could become an inflated entitlement program if politicians thought they could buy votes with it. And unlike many places where we are squandering billions today, it could properly be viewed as an investment.

Agreed on it being an investment. It'd be the biggest investment the US has made in workforce education since...probably the WWII GI Bill, actually. That or the Morrill Acts.
(12-13-2017 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 08:48 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]So the response to a misogynistic tweet from the current POTUS to a sitting Senator in 2017 is "What about Chappaquiddick?"

Where's the Picard face palm emoji?

Not to make you feel old, but I'm old enough to be Lad's dad (assuming '15 is the year he graduated) and *I* wasn't born when Chappaquiddick happened. :-)

If it makes you feel better, I don't have a good explanation of why he got a pass on that, though I do think it's why he never became President or got the nomination. It's an older generation of Dems mostly that seem to have the undying loyalty to the Kennedys. I'd suspect the fact that it happened the year after RFK's assassination and 6 after JFK's was not irrelevant to the reaction.

Graduated in '11, so close enough. 15 was the number I wore for the Lads.

We'll go with almost old enough, then. 04-cheers
(12-13-2017 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 10:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-06-2017 10:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote: [ -> ]This could also tie in to another idea I've been mulling over, that I first heard from Rep. Seth Moulton (D, MA-6; also, B.S., MBA, MPP Harvard). One of the things he's noticed, as part of the first generation of Congressfolk who are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan, is that there's a relative dearth of people who have served in his generation, compared to previous ones (the cadre of Vietnam vets, before them the cadres of WWII and Korea vets). He's talked a little bit about extending the ideas of the GI Bill to other areas of service to the country, too, as a way to incentivize people actually serving their country in not-necessarily-military ways they find fulfilling (e.g. teaching in under-served communities, working on combating the opioid epidemic, etc), without reinstituting the draft.
It seems to me that helping fill an invaluable hole in the workforce would tie into that nicely.
I think it is worth exploring the idea that everyone should give some time to the country in some form--military, Peace Corps, other areas. I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people. Soldiers learn to do it in a hurry, or they die. We could all stand to do more.
Is there any evidence to suggest that it is the youth (Millenials and Gen X) that are driving the polarization?
None the I'm aware of, but where else do you start? Where did you get the idea it was a blame game thing?
I actually think that the youth could take the lead in ending the polarization if they were strongly motivated to do so. I don't think you can fix the generation that reached adulthood without it, but would hope that you could redirect the trend going forward.
The other thing that I think has been a huge factor in polarization, and I hate to say this, is our primary system. Having political bosses nominate candidates in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms doesn't sound very democratic, but I think we got better candidates that way. The bosses depended on winning elections for their careers, so they cared more about electability, which meant they tended to pick candidates from the center. Now the primaries are dominated by the two party bases, which are both extremist and becoming more so.
Where do I get the idea it was a blame guy? Please see bolded text. That is explicitly laying blame at the feet of youth for polarization. Perhaps you meant it as a way to combat further polarization, but that is not how it read.
I don't think your proposal is bad, but it certainly read as if you were blaming some of the polarization on the youth.

Well, you read wrong. "One reason" is not blame. Where do I say it's their fault they don't have that experience? That would be blame. The experience isn't available, unless they join the military or attend a very diverse university. And the number of both those is limited. We need to provide more opportunities. That was my point, which you obviously missed.
(12-13-2017 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]A little history for the youngsters

For the record, I'm familiar with Chappaquiddick. :-) I'm just saying it happened nearly 50 years ago. Bill Clinton's impeachment happened 20 years ago. (And the Republican Speaker of the time is now in jail for child molestation.)

Trump's tweet about Gillibrand happened yesterday.
(12-13-2017 12:16 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]A little history for the youngsters
For the record, I'm familiar with Chappaquiddick. :-) I'm just saying it happened nearly 50 years ago. Bill Clinton's impeachment happened 20 years ago. (And the Republican Speaker of the time is now in jail for child molestation.)
Trump's tweet about Gillibrand happened yesterday.

And my point is that the left (collectively, to be clear) calmly looked the other way when one of their own killed a woman, and are now going ballistic over tweets. To be candid, the right does the same thing. Let's come up with a standard that we apply to everyone. If that standard says that killing a woman is okay, then nobody needs to resign. And if it says the killing a woman is not okay, then any reminders of Ted Kennedy ned to go the way of the confederate generals.
(12-13-2017 12:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 10:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I think it is worth exploring the idea that everyone should give some time to the country in some form--military, Peace Corps, other areas. I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people. Soldiers learn to do it in a hurry, or they die. We could all stand to do more.
Is there any evidence to suggest that it is the youth (Millenials and Gen X) that are driving the polarization?
None the I'm aware of, but where else do you start? Where did you get the idea it was a blame game thing?
I actually think that the youth could take the lead in ending the polarization if they were strongly motivated to do so. I don't think you can fix the generation that reached adulthood without it, but would hope that you could redirect the trend going forward.
The other thing that I think has been a huge factor in polarization, and I hate to say this, is our primary system. Having political bosses nominate candidates in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms doesn't sound very democratic, but I think we got better candidates that way. The bosses depended on winning elections for their careers, so they cared more about electability, which meant they tended to pick candidates from the center. Now the primaries are dominated by the two party bases, which are both extremist and becoming more so.
Where do I get the idea it was a blame guy? Please see bolded text. That is explicitly laying blame at the feet of youth for polarization. Perhaps you meant it as a way to combat further polarization, but that is not how it read.
I don't think your proposal is bad, but it certainly read as if you were blaming some of the polarization on the youth.

Well, you read wrong. "One reason" is not blame. Where do I say it's their fault they don't have that experience? That would be blame. The experience isn't available, unless they join the military or attend a very diverse university. And the number of both those is limited.

Blame = assign responsibility for a fault or wrong (literally, the exact definition).

So since your statement was assigning some responsibility for the fault (polarization) because young people aren't serving in the military, how were you not assigning some blame to them with that statement?

I get what you meant to say now, but the way you wrote it then laid some blame on our young people. It's not just young people that haven't served, it's pretty much everyone after the Greatest Generation that hasn't served. Service participation has been going down more and more with each generation, and the generations between the Greatest and Gen X aren't any different.

So perhaps I took your statement in a way it wasn't meant, but many people are so quick to blame my generation for problems we haven't caused that I'm quick to refute those accusations when they need to be refuted.
(12-13-2017 12:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 12:16 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]A little history for the youngsters
For the record, I'm familiar with Chappaquiddick. :-) I'm just saying it happened nearly 50 years ago. Bill Clinton's impeachment happened 20 years ago. (And the Republican Speaker of the time is now in jail for child molestation.)
Trump's tweet about Gillibrand happened yesterday.

And my point is that the left (collectively, to be clear) calmly looked the other way when one of their own killed a woman, and are now going ballistic over tweets. To be candid, the right does the same thing. Let's come up with a standard that we apply to everyone. If that standard says that killing a woman is okay, then nobody needs to resign. And if it says the killing a woman is not okay, then any reminders of Ted Kennedy ned to go the way of the confederate generals.

We have a standard. The standard is, What is OK for side A is not OK for side B.

But yes, we need a new standard.

another standard I would like to see set is that accusations do not lead directly to consequences. Teddy and Bill at least went through the legal system, even ifit appears justice was perverted by politics.
(12-13-2017 12:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 12:16 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]A little history for the youngsters
For the record, I'm familiar with Chappaquiddick. :-) I'm just saying it happened nearly 50 years ago. Bill Clinton's impeachment happened 20 years ago. (And the Republican Speaker of the time is now in jail for child molestation.)
Trump's tweet about Gillibrand happened yesterday.

And my point is that the left (collectively, to be clear) calmly looked the other way when one of their own killed a woman, and are now going ballistic over tweets. To be candid, the right does the same thing. Let's come up with a standard that we apply to everyone. If that standard says that killing a woman is okay, then nobody needs to resign. And if it says the killing a woman is not okay, then any reminders of Ted Kennedy ned to go the way of the confederate generals.

I agree that we need to come up with a standard, but there is no reason to apply it so retroactively.

People's thoughts, opinions, social norms, etc. change over time, and that is OK. It's why when you watch shows about the 60s, like Mad Men, things feel so foreign, because we as a society have evolved past some of the behavior we used to think was socially acceptable. So we now must look at how one reacts, in real time, to these changes. Do they admit that what they did decades previously was wrong and ask for forgiveness and try and mend old wounds? Or do they deny and obfuscate what happened to try and avoid dealing with the consequences?

Why look back at how Dems or Reps acted at the time, and instead hold them accountable for either how they act now or how they respond today to how they acted then? So bring up Kennedy or Clinton, but not in response to how people let them off the hook back then. Bring them up as a way to show how we shouldn't act now, and try to understand how actions would be, should a similar situation present itself today (a few decades down the road).
(12-13-2017 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Blame = assign responsibility for a fault or wrong (literally, the exact definition).
So since your statement was assigning some responsibility for the fault (polarization) because young people aren't serving in the military, how were you not assigning some blame to them with that statement?
I get what you meant to say now, but the way you wrote it then laid some blame on our young people. It's not just young people that haven't served, it's pretty much everyone after the Greatest Generation that hasn't served. Service participation has been going down more and more with each generation, and the generations between the Greatest and Gen X aren't any different.
So perhaps I took your statement in a way it wasn't meant, but many people are so quick to blame my generation for problems we haven't caused that I'm quick to refute those accusations when they need to be refuted.

You need to get a thicker skin. Either that or read more carefully. My proposal was to provide opportunities that don't exist now. How you construed the to mean that I was blaming people for not taking opportunities that don't exist is quite frankly beyond me. Do you parse every single sentence separately without regard to context, like fundamentalists quoting Bible verses?
But what about Aaron Burr?!?!?! He killed Alexander Hamilton!

Therefore Trump has a freebie coming. People saying he shouldn't shoot someone on fifth avenue have partisan blinders on!
(12-13-2017 12:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Blame = assign responsibility for a fault or wrong (literally, the exact definition).
So since your statement was assigning some responsibility for the fault (polarization) because young people aren't serving in the military, how were you not assigning some blame to them with that statement?
I get what you meant to say now, but the way you wrote it then laid some blame on our young people. It's not just young people that haven't served, it's pretty much everyone after the Greatest Generation that hasn't served. Service participation has been going down more and more with each generation, and the generations between the Greatest and Gen X aren't any different.
So perhaps I took your statement in a way it wasn't meant, but many people are so quick to blame my generation for problems we haven't caused that I'm quick to refute those accusations when they need to be refuted.

You need to get a thicker skin. Either that or read more carefully. My proposal was to provide opportunities that don't exist now. How you construed the to mean that I was blaming people for not taking opportunities that don't exist is quite frankly beyond me. Do you parse every single sentence separately without regard to context, like fundamentalists quoting Bible verses?

Young people can’t server right now? Your post wasn’t about opportunities that don’t exist, it was about a policy that doesn’t force young people into those opportunities.

It’s not as if you can’t volunteer for military service, Peace Corps, etc. so it reasons that you were also commenting on the intentional decision to not serve.

I can agree that I could grow a thicker skin, but you also need to recognize the carelessness in how that post came across and what it unintentionally implied. This ain’t all on me.
(12-13-2017 01:07 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]But what about Aaron Burr?!?!?! He killed Alexander Hamilton!

Therefore Trump has a freebie coming. People saying he shouldn't shoot someone on fifth avenue have partisan blinders on!

01-wingedeagle
(12-13-2017 01:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 12:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Blame = assign responsibility for a fault or wrong (literally, the exact definition).
So since your statement was assigning some responsibility for the fault (polarization) because young people aren't serving in the military, how were you not assigning some blame to them with that statement?
I get what you meant to say now, but the way you wrote it then laid some blame on our young people. It's not just young people that haven't served, it's pretty much everyone after the Greatest Generation that hasn't served. Service participation has been going down more and more with each generation, and the generations between the Greatest and Gen X aren't any different.
So perhaps I took your statement in a way it wasn't meant, but many people are so quick to blame my generation for problems we haven't caused that I'm quick to refute those accusations when they need to be refuted.

You need to get a thicker skin. Either that or read more carefully. My proposal was to provide opportunities that don't exist now. How you construed the to mean that I was blaming people for not taking opportunities that don't exist is quite frankly beyond me. Do you parse every single sentence separately without regard to context, like fundamentalists quoting Bible verses?
Young people can’t server right now? Your post wasn’t about opportunities that don’t exist, it was about a policy that doesn’t force young people into those opportunities.
It’s not as if you can’t volunteer for military service, Peace Corps, etc. so it reasons that you were also commenting on the intentional decision to not serve.
I can agree that I could grow a thicker skin, but you also need to recognize the carelessness in how that post came across and what it unintentionally implied. This ain’t all on me.

I’m sorry you did not comprehend the point I was making. If you read it in the context of the post to which I was replying, I think it’s pretty obvious, although perhaps not when stripped of that context. Yes you CAN volunteer for those things now, but those opportunities don’t exist in large numbers.

As for your definition of blame, I agree, and nothing I wrote assigned responsibility to anyone, except the collective us for not making the opportunities. If you want blame, that’s where I assign it.

In some ways I think this personifies a much greater problem. It seems we can’t solve anything until we blame somebody, and we get so bogged down figuring out blame that we fail to solve anything. I’m proposing a solution, in the context of a discussion of proposed solutions. How blame got there requires that someone was looking to be offended, instead of contributing positively.
Couple of thoughts. No my idea is not very Libertarian. But Mormons are pretty
Libertarian, and they do it, so why can’t we? That brings up another issue. Would we give Mormons credit for Service to others by doing their missions. I’m inclined to say yes, but no benefits, but am open to suggestions.

As far as benefits, I’d put them on some kind of sliding scale based on time and degree of difficulty. One thing I do like is the French approach to medical school. You agree to work ten years on the “free” side for a salary, and we pay for your med school.
(12-13-2017 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 12:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 12:16 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2017 11:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]A little history for the youngsters
For the record, I'm familiar with Chappaquiddick. :-) I'm just saying it happened nearly 50 years ago. Bill Clinton's impeachment happened 20 years ago. (And the Republican Speaker of the time is now in jail for child molestation.)
Trump's tweet about Gillibrand happened yesterday.

And my point is that the left (collectively, to be clear) calmly looked the other way when one of their own killed a woman, and are now going ballistic over tweets. To be candid, the right does the same thing. Let's come up with a standard that we apply to everyone. If that standard says that killing a woman is okay, then nobody needs to resign. And if it says the killing a woman is not okay, then any reminders of Ted Kennedy ned to go the way of the confederate generals.

I agree that we need to come up with a standard, but there is no reason to apply it so retroactively.

People's thoughts, opinions, social norms, etc. change over time, and that is OK. It's why when you watch shows about the 60s, like Mad Men, things feel so foreign, because we as a society have evolved past some of the behavior we used to think was socially acceptable. So we now must look at how one reacts, in real time, to these changes. Do they admit that what they did decades previously was wrong and ask for forgiveness and try and mend old wounds? Or do they deny and obfuscate what happened to try and avoid dealing with the consequences?

Why look back at how Dems or Reps acted at the time, and instead hold them accountable for either how they act now or how they respond today to how they acted then? So bring up Kennedy or Clinton, but not in response to how people let them off the hook back then. Bring them up as a way to show how we shouldn't act now, and try to understand how actions would be, should a similar situation present itself today (a few decades down the road).

A friend and I were discussing historic context and wondering how things we've done in the past would be viewed today. I agree that we have to appreciate past standards and how they may need to be revised.

But I remember Barbara Fields from Ken Burns' Civil War asking in what context was it ever OK for humans to own other humans.

In 1960, LBJ thought the most damaging information he could leak about JFK was that he had Addison's Disease.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
Reference URL's