yes

And I'm sure the nun found it hard to swallow as well

Will do, thanks

I do agree being an isolationist isn't always the best answer but how can we go to other countries and such telling them how they should rule and live... when we can't even do that stably for ourselves , we need to fix ourselves first before we try and help others. And I do agree if he is using chemical weapons that it is necessary to step in then.

Even though you didn't ask me, for the sake of increasing discussion.

1. Because of the nature of the war, and neither side really being the 'good' side, I'd simply try to begin peacekeeping operations. Setting up refugee camps, and protecting them, whilst simultaneously encouraging peaceful resolutions.

2. I'm reviewing my opinion.

3. Treat usage as a medical issue, but come down hard on dealers. I used to be in favour of legalising softer drugs, but now I'm not sure. But as for hard drugs, like heroin, come down on the dealers hard.

i know you didnt ask me but ill just climb in there too.

>Same as Medew

>Do what asian countries are doing, fire teachers who do the bare minimum, raise pay a bit. it must be mandatory for children to attend at least one extra curricular activity, stronger education on computer science, give more money to primary schools, secondary schools, colleges and universities, remove the bullshit no child left behind, if a child is retarded enough to fail, it fails.

>War on drugs takes too much money. allow Class D/C and Cannabis drugs to be legal, regulated and taxed to high heavens. Class A drugs still illegal, Class B drugs only allowed in groups with a medical supervisor.

I do agree with his 2nd one as well.

*I'm just going to go ahead and jump in this don't mind me.*

1. Look I am deeply saddened of what is going on, half a million children having to flee Syria between the clash of President Al-Assad's Government forces and the rebels but as I see... America has gone and shoved its face into everyone's business for far too long. if it's not directly effecting us, then we should not bother.

2. How I would tackle education, look cutting teachers pay isn't going to solve anything. it's both sides kids not wanting to learn and go to school, and teachers who are just teaching the basic and not going further from there on. I want teachers who are going to push students to study further, question why this happened or why this didn't. now let's say your one of those kids "Too Cool for School" then alright! sweet, Leave go get a job and start working stop wasting the schools time, teachers time, and your time. you have life figured out! get a job, move out, don't complain about how your life sucks since you were too cool for school.

3. The War on Drugs is flawed, look I'm saying we legalize the drugs, apply restrictions such as you have to be over 20 to legally purchase it and have it so that no child would be able to gain access to it *which is still flawed because if there is a will there is a way*. It wouldn't be a crime to carry the drugs but what I am saying is if you get bad about it, it's a public health issue, you go to rehab and not jail.

I would probably vote for you, im no isolationist but you seem to have your head rooted in more pragmatic solutions. I believe that if the Syrian government is using chemical weapons its an obligation of the international community to unite and personally fuck Al-Assads metaphorical ass, the only problem being that the UN has little power.

I do agree being an isolationist isn't always the best answer but how can we go to other countries and such telling them how they should rule and live... when we can't even do that stably for ourselves , we need to fix ourselves first before we try and help others. And I do agree if he is using chemical weapons that it is necessary to step in then.

I would ask the Public

Cut teachers pay and spend it on things that will actually help the students
also fire the teachers that don't do shit and are only in it for the money

I would end it and legalize some drugs but have some restrictions on them

Bad move on cutting teacher's pay.

Teachers already have a shit pay as it is, and you end up having newer teachers who would have more experience with the newer generation and be more able to communicate with the students better, leave due to even worsened interest, or even straight up laid off.

It depends on the area that the teachers live in on how much they get paid
In States like Illinois teachers get paid 200% above average so it would be better to make it even for the whole country.

Well I wouldn't vote for you, nothing personal but the public is a bad reference for foreign policy. They are too easily misled and they have a reliably poor understanding of issues, especially considering the whole 'tyranny of the majority' thing that James Madison even feared way back when. I also don't understand the concept of cutting teachers pay, that seems very counter-productive. Teaching isn't an honorary obligation that people do as a passion, at least not reliably so. If I were to be paid more in my job I would have more of a reason to care about the quality of my work. But I do like your opinion on the drug war, as a civil libertarian I don't think that the banning of any drug should be a factor when dealing with the issue, but a healthy regulation is inevitably a good thing.

I seriously doubt there's something like that in my country. Also they'll have to close all businesses here because most of them sell alcohol and tobacco to minors

They don't close down the businesses, it is just a series of fines. If you have laws against the sale of tobacco to minors I would look into it.

Will do, thanks

I try to take mine regularly. Here's my most recent results.

Nothing the protest industry is doing is as big as the civil rights movements. You know why? Because race segregation was a far bigger deal than any cuts the government has made, or any war it has gone into.
Think about it - how much have these austerity measures, bailouts and wars really done to you? You can still walk into any shop and not be discriminated against for being a particular race, which you might not necessarily have been able to if it wasn't for the civil rights movement.

My point here is that the civil rights movement wasn't some petty bunch of protesters that were essentially complaining about money (Despite still having one of the best standards of living in the world), it was about freedom through equality.

And this sequester was a doomsday option for a reason, that it ended happening is to be lamented. We have a bloated military budget, something few people I have seen disagree with. We spend more than the next few countries on the list combined, and that is unacceptable. But we have a political party in control of the house that scarcely stands to talk about it. Who by the way also at times have had no trouble blocking veteran aid, and that 9/11 first responders bill that Jon Stewart almost single handedly forced down congress. We have gotten to a point where comedians do more almost good for politics than our own elected officials. I wouldn't belittle the civil rights movement, but I certainly don't do that when I call for its spirit when pressing these issues. Discrimination was a virus, but so is this war, so are the faulty and corrupt practices of government. Human lives with all that entails are affected, partly because the people are too apathetic. I could ask the next five people I see something about them and they would deny any interest in politics. Well that is not something that Martin Luther King stood for, nor many other virtuous heroes hailed across the political aisle. "The time is always right to do what is right" did not just count for what MLK was actively fighting against at the time. It is a mantra for the correct and moral. Change takes everyone who is great acting and leading by example, by voting and advocacy. But protests are instrumental in that goal. And while you have a point about the OWS protesters seeming petty and entitled, it does not undercut the significance of things like income inequality. Having a high living standard on average does not duct tape my or anyone else's mouth. Freedom through equality was the theme of the civil rights movement, but it is also the theme for gay marriage and immigration reform. Freedom also is a staple of the anti drug war lobby/protest industry.

I take issue with much of what you replied to me with. Perhaps on a practical scale there has been little in the protest industry that could compare to the civil rights movement, but not because there is a lack of issues as worthy of attention. For one thing I'd like to correct you on this 'war ain't so bad' sentiment. The 'wars' (more like a series of occupations and conflicts) have resulted in the deaths of many men women and children. Most of these deaths in the name of collateral damage. Far too often for any righteously based people to accept. The murder of strangers is not just another issue to be doled out in Washington DC over time. The war having not taken anyone from my family or line of friends, nor resulted in any hostile confrontations on the homeland is an invalid reason not to fervently oppose it. When the fuck did the protest industry need to concern itself with things 'done to' me? We have people dying because the GOP and other uncle tom democrats are thriving off of a military industrial complex that brings bank, through the use of taxdollars. Maybe you don't feel how I do but I get sick when I think about the shit that ultimately a part of my spending and earning in this country has aided. There is no reason for these wars that stands up to scrutiny. How there aren't riots about it does not surprise me but does make me think less of my people. And these bailouts were a symbol of corrupting private-public relations, in a capitalistic market people should not be rewarded for their greedy or unwise economic decisions. The problem being was that not doing it risked a greater suffering. Therefore the conditions that lead to it should be recognized and dealt with so that it will never become another problem. And these austerity measures are in many ways draconian. There is a healthy debate on how to trim fat in the budget and how we allocate funds. But there are entitlements that need to stand, and some that may need to be beefed the fuck up.

Note - by any war it has gone into - I mean post 1970s

You're comparing the civil rights movement to the austerity cuts measures?

That's like comparing an axe wound to a paper cut.

The protest industry is concerned with a lot more than just austerity, as bad as austerity is as economic policy. The bailouts, wars, immigration, I mean there is a wide array of shit to be mad about. Many of these things are terrible burdens on certain everyday people, just like segregation was to the minority segment of the population.

Nothing the protest industry is doing is as big as the civil rights movements. You know why? Because race segregation was a far bigger deal than any cuts the government has made, or any war it has gone into.
Think about it - how much have these austerity measures, bailouts and wars really done to you? You can still walk into any shop and not be discriminated against for being a particular race, which you might not necessarily have been able to if it wasn't for the civil rights movement.

My point here is that the civil rights movement wasn't some petty bunch of protesters that were essentially complaining about money (Despite still having one of the best standards of living in the world), it was about freedom through equality.

And this sequester was a doomsday option for a reason, that it ended happening is to be lamented. We have a bloated military budget, something few people I have seen disagree with. We spend more than the next few countries on the list combined, and that is unacceptable. But we have a political party in control of the house that scarcely stands to talk about it. Who by the way also at times have had no trouble blocking veteran aid, and that 9/11 first responders bill that Jon Stewart almost single handedly forced down congress. We have gotten to a point where comedians do more almost good for politics than our own elected officials. I wouldn't belittle the civil rights movement, but I certainly don't do that when I call for its spirit when pressing these issues. Discrimination was a virus, but so is this war, so are the faulty and corrupt practices of government. Human lives with all that entails are affected, partly because the people are too apathetic. I could ask the next five people I see something about them and they would deny any interest in politics. Well that is not something that Martin Luther King stood for, nor many other virtuous heroes hailed across the political aisle. "The time is always right to do what is right" did not just count for what MLK was actively fighting against at the time. It is a mantra for the correct and moral. Change takes everyone who is great acting and leading by example, by voting and advocacy. But protests are instrumental in that goal. And while you have a point about the OWS protesters seeming petty and entitled, it does not undercut the significance of things like income inequality. Having a high living standard on average does not duct tape my or anyone else's mouth. Freedom through equality was the theme of the civil rights movement, but it is also the theme for gay marriage and immigration reform. Freedom also is a staple of the anti drug war lobby/protest industry.

I take issue with much of what you replied to me with. Perhaps on a practical scale there has been little in the protest industry that could compare to the civil rights movement, but not because there is a lack of issues as worthy of attention. For one thing I'd like to correct you on this 'war ain't so bad' sentiment. The 'wars' (more like a series of occupations and conflicts) have resulted in the deaths of many men women and children. Most of these deaths in the name of collateral damage. Far too often for any righteously based people to accept. The murder of strangers is not just another issue to be doled out in Washington DC over time. The war having not taken anyone from my family or line of friends, nor resulted in any hostile confrontations on the homeland is an invalid reason not to fervently oppose it. When the fuck did the protest industry need to concern itself with things 'done to' me? We have people dying because the GOP and other uncle tom democrats are thriving off of a military industrial complex that brings bank, through the use of taxdollars. Maybe you don't feel how I do but I get sick when I think about the shit that ultimately a part of my spending and earning in this country has aided. There is no reason for these wars that stands up to scrutiny. How there aren't riots about it does not surprise me but does make me think less of my people. And these bailouts were a symbol of corrupting private-public relations, in a capitalistic market people should not be rewarded for their greedy or unwise economic decisions. The problem being was that not doing it risked a greater suffering. Therefore the conditions that lead to it should be recognized and dealt with so that it will never become another problem. And these austerity measures are in many ways draconian. There is a healthy debate on how to trim fat in the budget and how we allocate funds. But there are entitlements that need to stand, and some that may need to be beefed the fuck up.

Note - by any war it has gone into - I mean post 1970s

I can agree with that. I try to change the world for the better by working hard, treating people with respect, and not being a whiney cunt.

Yeah, but it had an organizing morale-boosting leader (MLK) and it was against a socially-mediated menace. The economy is more technical.

I would NEVER argue in the favor of Nazis.

I'm saying that her efforts, despite her heart being in the right place, were ultimately in vain.

There are countless instances of people who paid the ultimate price for doing things that actively contributed towards fucking the Nazis over; be it through active fighting or espionage. She stirred up minor discontent in a country that was already embroiled in active hatred for its government.

Her mindset was admirable. Her actions were useless.

I was contending that you were arguing against resisting the Nazi's for the sake of a perceived futility. Germany was a democracy before 40% of its constituency put in officials that were members of the nazi party. Paul von Hindenberg their president had put Hitler as chancellor in good faith, as a means of keeping his enemies closer than his friends. This turned out to be a mistake as Hitler took advantage of this position to assume control. But the spirit of democracy was still within Germany. It only makes sense therefore that anti-nazi activists would hand out pamphlets. Imagine if everyone used violence against the nazi's before they had begun their heavy handed killings. They probably would wonder just like people do today why the opposition felt the need to resort to violence, losing much of the public and honing the hatred of that same 40%. So her actions were understandable, especially when it is considered that she was not a trained combatant but a regular citizen. I think that the intent was really to warn the people about the monstrous nature of the Nazi's, something that they could have used. Even though the holocaust was not a secret there were people who threw up when they discovered the truth. If anything she was a hero of journalism. When you belittle her as a historical figure, you make yourself look like a contrarian without an understanding of the bigger picture. Every corpse created by the Nazi's to make an example is a testament to the greatness of humanity and shines on as a medal. To belittle that is rotten.