The Dominator

I agree with Sanders and O'Malley, ISIS> Assad on the priority list.

That was a very excellent line. I'm all for people fighting their own fight. Surprised it didn't get a louder ovation actually.

I know it's obvious that O'Malley has no chance in this race. I just don't like a candidate being eligible for a debate, and then essentially being left out of a majority of the debate when generic questions are asked. Same thing just happened to Sanders; when generic questions are asked, each candidate should be allowed to explain their position on that subject. Moderators are flexing their muscles a little too much right now

Sanders also seems to go back to his main talking points too much. He needs to broaden his message more and expand beyond "wealth created going directly to the top 1%" when the question asked doesn't have anything to do with that. I also feel a little bad for O'Malley when the other two are asked generic questions that any candidate could chime in on but he isn't given an opportunity to speak on it.

I think Sanders has a much more measured, sensible approach towards gun control.

"The legislation is a compromise no one liked but both parties could live with." I really like the sound of that.

Luckily the hard part is behind me. The beginning of this week was never-ending. A presentation, a final paper, and a final all on Monday. Then another final paper and presentation on Tuesday. Wednesday was our "reading day" so no classes, and I had 2 finals today. One final left on Friday and one on Monday.

Finals week...

Had the Great Lakes Christmas Ale yesterday. I was happy! Has the flavor profile you expect out of a Xmas brew. Not too fruity, didn't get too crazy with the spices, very balanced, and can't complain with 7.5%.

Hopefully that skill will never matter, but yeah. Also, Zimmerman is pond scum. Maybe that's giving him too much credit...

Oh c'mon! You don't know some shapshooters that can shoot down a drone with a pistol??

I'm interested! Same distribution area as most in this thread though

This is my inner battle. All of these measures in bold I fully support. At the same time, I share your sentiment that they probably won't have the desired effect. Why are we the only nation with this problem? What are other nations doing that we aren't? Are European countries' families structured better than ours? Do they receive substantially better mental health treatment? Or is the only solution to this problem removing guns from the equation? Is this issue high enough on people's list of concerns that they would relinquish a right for the greater good of the country? Disclaimer: What I suggested above (especially the final two questions) isn't what I personally believe. This is just my mind drifting. I tend to believe we have a greater issue with mental health than any other first world country. People who need help receive no treatment, just them and their unraveling thoughts. Funny, same scenario plays out from the war on drugs from behind bars... Anyways, I tend to believe the minority in the wrong shouldn't take away from the majority in the right (We can also redirect this concept towards Syrian refugees who have been in the relocation process for over a year).

Ok, I think that's a good distinction to make. Another example of language being a very important factor in discussions that take place in this thread. I don't actively search for news regarding shootings so I can't say whether or not I agree with your assessment, so I won't go any further. Interesting to think about though I'm assuming the NRA is against background checks and mental health screenings? Are background checks and mental health assessments the types of limits and checks you would like without the presence of loopholes such as gun conventions?

Are you suggesting white males are treated unfairly by the media in regards to stories involving a shooting?

Anyone tried Great Lakes Christmas Ale? That has good reviews on Beer Advocate http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/73/1576/

Flattered! But I don't belong anywhere near this list. I don't have anywhere near the experience with whiskey as others on here. I'm simply looking to learn the in's and out's like everyone else.

If he's white, it CANT be a terrorist attack! He must be crazy! Actually, I think we should definitely have a discussion about language in these scenarios involving a shooter.

I say let's not allow any Radical Christian refugees into this country!!! Wait a minute...

Happy Thanksgiving my political compadres! Don't get into too many political debates with the fam.

This was the situation I had in my mind when seeing the word union. I should have also thought about the difference when looking at public sector unions. When making that distinction, I agree wholeheartedly with the above. You were more direct and precise than I. Of course, Civil Rights Act and Titles I-IX, good. This would be a very interesting topic to discuss. In theory, I say yes. In a free market setting, supply and demand inherently lead to fair rates when viewed in a vacuum. Of course, there are many other variables at play in a real world setting when determining labor wages, prices, etc.

I know you said not good or bad for this conversation, but I would plead that we get into whether it is good or bad. Isn't that the endgame to every political subject or issue? Whether a program/Act/regulation is good or bad for society? Shouldn't all political decisions be viewed through a philosophical scope that discusses its utility not only for segments of civilization, but for society as a whole?

A panel of scientists fact-checked the presidential candidates on their remarks in regards to climate change and then gave them a score out of 100. http://news.yahoo.com/ap-fact-check-climate-science-most-gop-candidates-080125499--election.html Results: Clinton: 94, O'Malley with 91; Sanders, 87; Bush, 64; Christie, 54; Ohio Gov. John Kasich, 47; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, 38; Fiorina, 28; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, 21; businessman Donald Trump, 15; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, 13; and Cruz with 6. This got a chuckle out of me: Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas had the lowest score, an average of 6. All eight put Cruz at the bottom of the class. "This individual understands less about science (and climate change) than the average kindergartner," Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University meteorology professor, wrote of Cruz's statements. "That sort of ignorance would be dangerous in a doorman, let alone a president." Bernie Sanders was the lowest Dem on the scale as he was dinged for over exaggerating the effects of climate change in more than one instance. For those who are wondering how they removed bias from the process and don't want to check the entire article out, "At the request of The Associated Press, eight climate and biological scientists graded for scientific accuracy what a dozen top candidates said in debates, interviews and tweets, using a 0 to 100 scale. To try to eliminate possible bias, the candidates' comments were stripped of names and given randomly generated numbers, so the professors would not know who made each statement they were grading. Also, the scientists who did the grading were chosen by professional scientific societies."

This is what I was wondering about, but I didn't want to frame the article in any way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-syrian-refugees_564cb1f9e4b00b7997f878f3 Thoughts? Excerpts: Legislation to restrict the flow of Syrian refugees into the United States will not include a religious test, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said on Wednesday. In response, the House will take up legislation this week that will effectively "pause" the Syrian refugee program. But "I will also point out that we will not have a religious test, only a security test," Ryan said of the bill in one of his first speeches as speaker on the House floor. The plan introduced by Republicans would mandate that officials at the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the director of National Intelligence certify to Congress that each Syrian or Iraqi refugee admitted is not a threat to security. The bill also stipulates that the FBI would need to certify that each refugee admitted received a background check and was determined to not be a threat. Finally, the bill would require monthly reports on refugee certifications to Congress from the DHS inspector general.