dajafi wrote:I don't understand how someone claiming expertise on economics can be so simpleminded and straight up wrong about immigration. Does he not know the disproportionately high rate of new business ventures launched by immigrants? Is it so hard to grasp that the people who bother to try coming across, courting enormous risk and hardship to do so, probably hew more closely to the John Galt profile than, say, the Kochs who inherited most of their lucre and are trying to manipulate gummit to further grow the pile?

It's tough to make Cantor seem well informed and coherent, but I think Prof. Brat has cleared that bar.

dajafi wrote:I don't understand how someone claiming expertise on economics can be so simpleminded and straight up wrong about immigration. Does he not know the disproportionately high rate of new business ventures launched by immigrants?

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:I don't understand how someone claiming expertise on economics can be so simpleminded and straight up wrong about immigration. Does he not know the disproportionately high rate of new business ventures launched by immigrants? Is it so hard to grasp that the people who bother to try coming across, courting enormous risk and hardship to do so, probably hew more closely to the John Galt profile than, say, the Kochs who inherited most of their lucre and are trying to manipulate gummit to further grow the pile?

It's tough to make Cantor seem well informed and coherent, but I think Prof. Brat has cleared that bar.

Is he calling for an end to or a decrease of legal immigration?

Harry Reid is proud of you for getting the Koch brothers into this post.

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:I don't understand how someone claiming expertise on economics can be so simpleminded and straight up wrong about immigration. Does he not know the disproportionately high rate of new business ventures launched by immigrants?

A person with an anti-immigrant belief is one who is ignorant of American history. Immigrants made us great and keep us in growth mode.

When a guy like Brat takes an anti-immigrant stance, I have to think it's not a belief or core value, but simply a political tactic, like when Bill Clinton goes to church.
And it may be a tactic to get elected in his xenophobic corner of VA, but it's a non-starter in national politics.

jerseyhoya wrote:And people for limited government aren't anarchists, just those who want government to be restricted to its legitimate roles. Protecting the country's borders/sovereignty isn't incompatible with that.

CalvinBall wrote:could you provide a bit more commentary on that dr

Youseff wrote:

good party filled with good folks.

pacino wrote:the vitriol thrown at cantor by his own party is weird.

Also, it suggests that maybe spending tons of effort trying to get campaign finance reform passed isn't really worth it. Cantor had a ton of money and still got creamed. Moreover, we've seen how the interweb can be leveraged to provide lots of money from small contributors.

pacino wrote:

Also, it suggests that maybe spending tons of effort trying to get campaign finance reform passed isn't really worth it. Cantor had a ton of money and still got creamed. Moreover, we've seen how the interweb can be leveraged to provide lots of money from small contributors.

the vast majority of the time, the candidate with more money ends up winning. it's still a huge issue.

Of the five, only Mullah Mohammad Fazl and Mullah Norullah Noori were significant military commanders. In November 2001, as their movement was collapsing around them, they surrendered, along with their foot soldiers, to the U.S.-backed warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum. (Fazl is a notorious human rights violator, as is Dostum).

Years earlier, Fazl had helped Dostum escape a precarious battlefield situation, and he engineered the deal in the hopes of having the favor returned. But Dostum sold them to the Americans and massacred hundreds—some sources say thousands—of their foot soldiers and conscripts by suffocating them in shipping containers.

Instead of being recalcitrant terrorists bent on fighting America, this history indicates that all five can make pragmatic deals if the conditions are right. Does this mean they won't pose a threat upon their release?

It's difficult to say; two Taliban commanders who surrendered to Dostum alongside Fazl and Noori were also sent to Guantanamo. Upon their release in 2007, they quickly joined the insurgency and rose to its top ranks. Ghulam Rohani, who was arrested with Wasiq, has rejoined the fight since his release that same year. On the other hand, other Taliban leaders have successfully returned to civilian life after their Guantanamo release, including Taliban Ambassador Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, Commerce Minister Mullah Abdul Razak, and Gov. Naim Kuchi.

What is clear, though, is that with the ongoing turnover of the Taliban's mid- and senior-level leadership in recent years, the arrival of a few individuals to Qatar is unlikely to make a significant impact on the battlefield in Afghanistan.