Rockpile233

I've been layed off due to lack of work, I really do feel for the people. States are upping efforts to retrain. You can't pretend it's going to go back to what is was. There will continue to be global investment in clean energy and we have some of the best in that industry. I personally hate that we refuse to lead, but the disenfranchised have spoken. Notice there isn't the "personal responsibility" lecture going on.

Any conversation about coal is hilarious. You don't need a single talking point on environmental issues. More expensive + less efficient = RIP.

The way I understand, Jon is already dead and being kept alive until his role is fulfilled.

I expect most major characters to be killed off before the end. I'm having trouble even coming up with someone I'd expect to survive.

I wasn't against the "ban", but I think you could objectively say it was rolled out poorly. The backlash is still backlash against Trump, which at this point it is what it is. I'm not in favor of completely closing the country to refugees, but if you are traveling to one of these hotbeds in the ME, that obviously needs to raise some damn red flags. Most will probably hate this solution, but I want surveillance. We don't know the extent of which it's already happening, but it didn't seem long for the Manchester bombers online history to be dragged up. How was this guy not picked up? Spare me rights on this. The issue I take, which I've mentioned elsewhere, is turning any of this into an anti refugee/anti immigration conversation. The trend is homegrown. The stricture immigration/refugee conversation deserves it's day, but it's not as pressing as the homegrown terrorist issue. The first argument could me to stop the source and go back to the points above. Sure, this would help, but wouldn't solve the problems completely. I do believe this is also contrary to our country's larger values. So they here and are defecting and their sons/daughters are defecting. I think you need to both fight and install preventative measures. They are defecting online for the most part. Yes, it's an unpopular opinion with small government people, but targeted surveillance of online activity followed by arrests. You are getting to government cencored content at this point, which I'm struggling with, but frankly can't get past. It would be more effective. I mentioned in another thread preventative measures. Google had an idea: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/09/googles-clever-plan-stop-aspiring-isis-recruits/amp/ It's a start.

I did in fact renew for a 9th season. I'm a glutton for punishment. My crew has thinned considerably. I'm not sure how much longer I can keep going. It doesn't really even have to do with the product anymore, just getting harder to go through the motions.

There is this crazy scenario where BOTH the murder and Russian collusion are both BS. More pot meet kettle from people standing on one of the poles.

We were talking about my post about the analogy of the firearm manufacturer to facebook. It was four sentences....BUT a single sentence can in fact be a paragraph for the record. You seem to be out for zingers today, but keep missing the mark.

You just said you don't care to read second paragraphs, but then still offer opinions. You must be a liberal.

Time is on my side old man winter.

The fact you thought that was really what I was saying is pretty embarrassing for you. I even added the second paragraph to explain the analogy. I don't think you read this thread.

I'm far from idealistic. If you can't see the parallels between complaining that facebook is in business despite knowing the potential negative side effects from being in business and firearm manufacturers... well then you're just a moron. Unless you missed the point that it was an analogy, in which case you're still a moron.

To throw a wrench in here... I argue that recruiting online is a bigger issue than preventing refugees/immigration. (although I'm fine with far stricter policies on both.) I'm struggling with how to confront this. An interesting read from the private sector: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/09/googles-clever-plan-stop-aspiring-isis-recruits/amp/ I would actually like this to be applied more to surveillance/arrests, but I'm interested to hear from some of you who hate large government and probably balk at the idea of surveillance of online activity. While I think the slippery slope argument actually does apply here, I'm generally in favor of targeted online surveillance.

I'm referring to post #5. To me that clearly reads that they made a morally reprehensible decision to allow user content streams knowing the potential horrible things that could be posted.

The chimney sweep conversation was in jest, I'm hoping your comment was not taking that literally. I'm not totally buying your dismissal of that analogy, but that's not important. I was with you earlier in the thread when I thought you were arguing that FB's policy on user content needed some common sense updates, but once we got into the territory of "it should never have been spawned because of all the potential bad" I had to disagree. There are good things to come from social media platforms, but I'd probably agree that the mundane and the negative outweigh those things.

Chimney sweep companies know they are putting their labor force in harms way with black lung and all that. They have the right to their business and there is consumer demand, but damn them for proceeding knowing the harmful side effects. I had to reach for that one. I'm sure we use a mechanical process these days anyway. Maybe "most industries" is a little strong, but plenty.

Where did I say that? I'm actually in favor, despite being a "liberal", of stricter border security and immigration. I just think the border issue, in relation to radicalization, is nowhere near as large a part of the problem as recruiters targeting susceptible individuals online. I don't know where you could possibly pull "all or nothing" out of what I posted.

You're trying to drag my argument down into absurdity. Comment on the analogy of the firearm manufacturer specifically.

Ok, fair call out. Replace with Violent tendencies. He absolutely was. I've pointed out elsewhere we have white suburban Americans falling victim to radicalization online. My point is closing the borders will not stop radicalization at home. We are too connected.

All manufacturers of firearms and/or ammunition are morally bankrupt scumbags. They know full well that for every dad and son shooting clay pigeons, there is a poor sad individual planning a spree killing or holding up a gas station. While I'm not debating their right to manufacture these instruments of violence, I'm calling them out to be the scumbags they are. ...now I most certainly don't really believe or argue this, but it's definitely in the same vein. There is a tremendous demand for social media or platforms to post user content. I don't participate in social media, but I'm in the minority. I just think you can make an argument like this towards most businesses.

Superbad

The hatred of western culture will still prevail among the radicals even with full withdrawl. The belief structure has been so perverted. While I'm not an open borders guy, securing the borders will accomplish little considering the growing problem is homegrown terrorists easily accessible with social media. I fail to see how you can prevent that without more government monitoring of our citizens, which most of you will also hate. I still argue that won't make the dent you anticipate in the issue. We have white suburban Americans turning radical Islamist in some circumstances. I agree with those who argue it's a sociopathic tendencies taking a specific form. Take it away and their tendencies will express in a different form.

The Manchester incident is yet another homegrown terrorist LA, unless you are arguing his parents should have never been let in as refugees in the first place.

Solid jackalope reference. You don't see that everyday.

I have always understood the sword verse to be the platform upon which the delusions are built. I think most reasonable people understand that it's not the religion itself, but generations of brainwashing susceptible individuals. I think the US style gang analogy someone pointed out is a pretty good one, but the differences in the groups' overarching goals lend to these tragic murders of innocent people. I don't have a good answer for what to do. It's important to put things in proper perspective and not stoop to your enemies level. So anyone who wants to just wipe out the Middle East is way off base, but I don't think ignoring it is the way to go either. As with most things it will take time, but I would focus on improving relations with the young disenfranchised muslim community at home. In many cases their situations make them prone to radicalization from recruiters. I'm sure this will be labeled a weak response.