Hurlshort

The San Bernadino shooting was committed by an American citizen and his wife, what sort of scrutiny do you suggest that will prevent that? http://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-immigration-file-san-bernardino-shooter-tashfeen-malik/story?id=35912170 The wife was admitted in spite of terrorist links. This is primarily about illegal immigration, not terrorism, no? Btw, do you believe that foreign criminals should not be deported? The administration is working very hard to tie the two together. I think foreign criminals deserve the rights of due process, and I tend to side with the police chiefs on this specific scenario. As for the wife, I think you are giving the government a tremendous amount of power over the rights of an American citizen. Does he not have the right to marry who he wants and have her live in his country? How long do you plan on denying her entry based on those links? How many real families are you willing to break up in order to prevent one of these situations from happening again?

The San Bernadino shooting was committed by an American citizen and his wife, what sort of scrutiny do you suggest that will prevent that? http://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-immigration-file-san-bernardino-shooter-tashfeen-malik/story?id=35912170 This is an example of ramping up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/03/01/police-chiefs-immigration-task-force-outlines-opposition-to-trump-policy/?utm_term=.7fcfef384afa

No, I'm not saying we haven't done enough, but you can't just say we've done enough and stop. We have to keep taking measures, because they haven't stopped trying to attack us. I don't think anyone is arguing to stop the measures that are already in place right now. The Trump administration is not simply maintaining measures, it is aggressively ramping them up. Where is the justification for that?

Ok WoD, let's start from the beginning. First we have the threat of terrorism. Is it your argument that we have not done enough to prevent another attack? We can get to the threat of other world nations next. Let's focus on one aspect at a time.

Did you not notice I'm answering your question in two parts? Did you not notice I answered your first question before you even asked it? So you do nothing and just wait for it to happen again? We've done a ton already.

You are basically asking if diplomacy is more effective than an arms race. edit: The answer would seem to be that both are important. So why is one being cut in favor of the other? edit 2: Look, I found some money! https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.8a2a5c10b839

Wait, first you reference terrorism with 9/11, and now we are dealing with Russia, China, and North Korea?

It's also good to remember that 9/11 happened 15 years ago. We have already given up rights to try and prevent another attack, we've waged two costly wars to root out bad guys, and we are still actively involved in those areas. How much more do we need to do? We are fighting an ideology, not an enemy nation. The odds are there will be another major attack someday. Will throwing money stop that? Will giving up our privacy stop that? Will closing off our borders stop that? I guess that last one might work, but I am not sure drawing an iron curtain around our country is a great look.

See this is fear talking. How much power are you willing to give our government to protect us from the next 9/11? How much of your tax dollars should be going to that? How effective is all this really going to be at stopping the next 9/11? Our military is massive. I want them to spend money smarter instead of just throwing it at them. Given that they are also cutting the diplomacy budget by a third, it is clear this administration is playing into the fears of the American people instead of trying to create long lasting peace. If that were the real goal, the diplomacy budget should be growing as well.

Isn't that roughly a third? Yep, it's a travesty! ok, maybe some of those people are students and old people.

Where is that 1 trillion coming from with the 54 billion bucks the defense department is getting and the 10-20 billion the wall is going to cost? Also according to Trump there is 96 million unemployed Americans!

We just seem to be ramping up government spending based on fear instead of actually doing stuff to make America great again. Does a big border wall make America great? We already have a huge military budget, is that really where we need more spending? Who are we fighting here? Illegal immigrants and ISIS? The actual chances of either of those groups affecting me in a negative way are miniscule. My tax dollars are being wasted.

So a special police force just to handle crimes committed by illegal immigrants? Okey dokey, I'm curious what they will call the special police force that will handle people from the Middle East.

Teachers have something called STRS or PERS, which is a pension. It's great.

Did my taxes. I owe $5400. Ouch. I even set aside some money this year to prepare, but it still turned out worse than I thought. Stupid tax brackets.

As long as cis gender, "white privelege", BLM, gender pay gap and other meaningless words and expressions are floating around I will use feminazi. Alas, my warning comes too late!

Are his movies and shows good? That is all that I care about. It's so weird how folks get caught up in this stupid social media stuff nowadays. Who cares? Unless his 'agenda' starts making its way into his work, I could care less. Also throwing around the word feminazi as if it means something makes you sound silly. Be careful not to become what you are condemning.

I'm not going to say deep, but the characters are fun. Being in a buddy cop movie with Garrus was pretty much the appeal of the first three games.

Combat is pretty low on the reasons I play ME games.

None in that long list of reviews are lower tier? He means the underground reviews, like TheSubWay, DwarfLand, and MoleManGaming

Is it, though? And what do you mean that science teachers don't have the educational background to effectively teach evolution? Aren't HS science teachers supposed to be, uh, scientists themselves? Not at private schools. They are not held to the same standard as public schools when it comes to credentialed teachers.

That's completely typical of any religious school. The science teacher likely does not have the educational background to really effectively teach about evolution. You get that all over the US in Christian schools.

I just don't get the appeal. I never sit down to play a video game and think "I really want to see some blue boobs after I shoot a bunch of stuff." The romances are dumb enough.

That might be amazing.