Werthless wrote:OK, I googled. Michael D Brown the politician is the shadow senator representing Washington DC. The other Michael D Brown has a radio talk show and is a failed government beaurocrat who headed the FEMA response team. Not a politician, but easy to dislike. Not sure about the whole racism thing on this... I think he was just making fun of New Orleans for being riotous, just like the rest of the country makes fun of Philadelphians for being asshole fans.

That context might have been helpful to understanding the tweet.

Werthless wrote:
We need to stop romanticizing the college decision and ensure that 17 year old high school seniors are not being led into debt whose lengthy payoff has been hidden behind a flashy brochure and exhortations to "listen to your heart." The federal government throwing money and guarantees at it has been a net positive, sure, but too many kids have been made worse off. The fact that many of these decisions were bad even without the benefit of hindsight suggests that some market indicators should be welcomed.

Youseff wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Youseff wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:He was a) repeating something that someone had just posted and b) badly misrepresenting what was said. His post was crap coming and going, so I dismissed it snarkily.

In the future I will make sure to have long, well footnoted posts on this baseball message board - the zenith of human discourse - in response to every poor post any of you make, since this has troubled you all so much.

Not really buying what you're selling but you're the same guy that doesn't seem troubled by Drudge posting pics of Obama, Stalin and Hitler above an article conflating the 3 of them, so I'm not surprised.

jerseyhoya wrote:Drudge posted something insane to get page views?! Well I'll never

It's almost as if you have no idea what words mean. I called the post "insane" and you bring it up a month later as a mark against me with the recollection/translation I wasn't troubled by it.

reading it again and I still think it's a shitty response by you. oh that Drudgy. boys will be boys!

Youseff wrote:Well I'll just say I think it's a shame a smart guy like you also seems to be such a shitty person. You seem way too tolerant, defensive and down right blase about hate speech and bs imagery. The first thing I do after posting a really, really, really rotten article by Drudge is imply it's to be expected and not something to be disgusted.

Youseff wrote:The first thing you do after Calvin posts an accurate synopsis of a really rotten analogy is to imply Soren was foolish to bring it up. Shitty.

Werthless wrote:I will ask the same thing that docsmooth asked me about a year ago, in reference to a video I posted... Why are you posting that?

Here is a handy guide that I found helpful to predict responses. When these responses occur, do not be surprised

1. Technical article you agree with: "I disagree with this sentence, thus the entire article is worthless."
2. Opinion piece from the partisan blog of your choice: "LOL partisan blog."
3. a) Tweet/quotation by a famous politician: "what was said is not racist."
3. b) Tweet/quotation by a famous politician: "what was said is obviously racist and this person will step down."
4. Tweet/quotation by obscure ex member of opposition party: "who cares? s/he's an idiot."
5. Video you agree with: Silence
6. Video of something offensive to your political sensibilities: "What you posted is not absurd at all, and here is why this is reasonable."


I hope this helps.

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

Youseff wrote::lol: You are such a phony.

Werthless wrote:We need to stop romanticizing the college decision and ensure that 17 year old high school seniors are not being led into debt whose lengthy payoff has been hidden behind a flashy brochure and exhortations to "listen to your heart." The federal government throwing money and guarantees at it has been a net positive, sure, but too many kids have been made worse off. The fact that many of these decisions were bad even without the benefit of hindsight suggests that some market indicators should be welcomed.

dajafi wrote:I'm also with pacino that more public funding is appropriate. One of the most depressing things I've ever read was about how state level spending on prisons has crowded out spending on higher education over the last four decades or so.

Youseff wrote:Fair. Of course me posting that is based on some sort of self-validation, but it was part of a larger conversation that continues to leave me dumbfounded. I cannot fathom how vociferous cheerleaders of the Republican party don't seem willing to acknowledge how rotten huge contingents of their party are.

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:We need to stop romanticizing the college decision and ensure that 17 year old high school seniors are not being led into debt whose lengthy payoff has been hidden behind a flashy brochure and exhortations to "listen to your heart." The federal government throwing money and guarantees at it has been a net positive, sure, but too many kids have been made worse off. The fact that many of these decisions were bad even without the benefit of hindsight suggests that some market indicators should be welcomed.

I'm pretty much on board with this. We as taxpayers shouldn't be expected to regard educational assistance for an engineering student and for an art history student equally.

I'm also a big believer that "Postsecondary for all" is a good idea, though "college for all" is incredibly wasteful and arguably cruel.

I'm also with pacino that more public funding is appropriate. One of the most depressing things I've ever read was about how state level spending on prisons has crowded out spending on higher education over the last four decades or so.

TenuredVulture wrote:A huge chunk of student loan default is generated by the for profit post-secondary educators who supposedly specialize in preparing students for careers and offer on-line phoney degrees. These institutions have lobbied long and hard to ensure their continued access to these dollars with little oversight. People also believe, generally incorrectly, that these are low-cost institutions, when in fact their per-credit hour charges are usually much, much higher than community colleges and much higher than state supported institutions. Default rate at these institutions is twice that at not for profit institutions. And I'm not talking the fly by night outfits, but places like Corinthian, Kaplan, and Phoenix. Bill's Barber College and Taxidermy Academy probably has a much higher rate.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-2 ... -grow.html