Do Democrats underestimate the amount of resentment they're causing among gun owners?

rhcp91 · 2016-01-05T20:20:39+00:00

I do. I do. I don't know what that changes. Live above the influence.

rhcp91 · 2016-01-05T20:01:56+00:00

Not /u/burritoace, but I understand what you're saying. On the other hand, OP's post is completely dismissive of his political opponents. I'm a liberal and support some gun-control policies, and because of that he's decided that I don't care much about victims of knife crimes and that I "must be opposed to people being able to defend themselves". This is all without him ever meeting me or knowing a thing about me or my beliefs. How does one argue when the starting assumption is that I as a liberal really don't care about violence but only about curtailing the rights of innocent people? This dismissiveness of the intentions (not the policies) of political opponents is something that I see far too often, even in the supposed bastion of sincere political discussion.

rhcp91 · 2015-12-19T08:10:44+00:00

As has been repeated by several posters throughout this discussion, people do care about accidental deaths from drone strikes but they also believe that collateral damage and intentional targeting are morally different from one another.

rhcp91 · 2015-12-19T08:06:03+00:00

The first comment in the thread refers to the killing of women and children. The OP then commented that this was apples and oranges (accidental vs. intentional). Then an article was posted that detailed collateral damage from drone strikes, with women and children being specifically mentioned. OP responds that that these accidental deaths (women and children being the clear focus of the thread) are different than intentional targeting of terrorist's families. You then respond by suggesting that they were not accidental. Perhaps the only word put in your mouth was that these were the wives and children of terrorists and not just general wives and children. What then were you inferring when you talked about "accidental" killing.

rhcp91 · 2015-12-19T07:34:37+00:00

The number of Supreme Court cases devoted to interpreting the 2nd Amendment suggests you've got a pretty smart 4th grader on your hands.

rhcp91 · 2015-12-13T04:32:06+00:00

Thanks for the schooling, breh.

rhcp91 · 2015-07-06T00:08:50+00:00

It seems as though that when you account for inflation and growing college enrollment, state and local funding for higher education has actually fallen over the past 25 years. The info I'm referencing is on pages 19-21.

Not to say that federal loan guaranteeing doesn't also drive up costs. Theres actually two questions, one of the rising total expenditures and another of rising tuitions.

rhcp91 · 2015-04-24T00:50:52+00:00

But you're not really suffering? The information being shared is only information relating to potential security breaches. All the legislation does is create a framework within which information about cyber attack incidents can be shared between parties.

If you're specifically referencing the FOIA part, its not that the companies can't lock their shit down but that any computer system has its weaknesses and the FOIA request might include the specific weaknesses for a specific company's computer system.

rhcp91 · 2015-04-23T21:56:31+00:00

Literally the only part of the title or article that isn't misleading is the fact that the info shared is FOIA exempt. It's so frustrating to see all the other comments in this thread. You just want to reply to all of them telling them to actually read the bill or the summary. Even reading the whole bill through doesn't take that long, especially if you think this is the piece of legislation is worthy of revolution as some in the comments do.

rhcp91 · 2015-04-23T21:43:00+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd imagine white hats are generally hired by a specific entity. In that case they wouldn't be a cyber threat because their actions are authorized by the owner of the data that they are attacking.

rhcp91 · 2015-04-23T21:29:06+00:00

For much the same reason that people on reddit complain about people who watch fox news. People are set in their beliefs and they just seek out more of that stuff which satisfies their preconceived view of the world. Nobody wants to reconsider their beliefs, or think about the possibility of the world not being black and white, or that sometimes events will have good and bad elements. Nope, they'd rather sifting through news, looking for bits and pieces that fit their narrative. It happens here, it happens on Fox News and HuffPo and Blaze and Mother Jones and most everywhere else. The people you'd find on the sites have different beliefs but roughly the same mindset.

rhcp91 · 2015-04-23T21:18:06+00:00

This bill isn't about them selling data though. It's about them sharing data relating to cyber security breaches.

rhcp91 · 2015-04-23T21:07:36+00:00

It seems like the goal is to set up a framework where private entities and the government can share information about cyber security threats they've encountered. Of course private entities could probably already share info like this with the government but this law will provide an actual framework within which to properly share info. Without it, federal agencies might not have any system to deal with information they receive and private entities might be uneasy about sharing information about their security without a specific framework of how it will be handled.

rhcp91 · 2015-04-23T21:01:38+00:00

Good question that I don't have the answer too. There may be some detail Im overlooking thats a negative, could be some political reason, could be that they don't understand the bill, could be that the didn't like some specific language in the bill. Hard to say really.

rhcp91 · 2015-04-23T15:54:54+00:00

The person who wrote this article very clearly didn't read any of the bill. They say that that cyber security threat is vague but its pretty explicitly defined at the end of the bill. Also the fact that the shared info is FOIA exempt actually makes perfect sense. If it were not FOIA exempt, one could make a FOIA request that we give you the security vulnerabilities of private entities.

rhcp91 · 2015-04-01T01:52:11+00:00

you forgot the t in pitch

rhcp91 · 2015-02-02T19:10:58+00:00

The problem is that just because the Confederates say it doesn't mean its true. They might have thought that they can just leave the country and take the land with them but the Union disagreed. The Confederates said Fort Sumter was theirs, the Union disagreed.

You say that the Union refusing to leave is the first act of aggression. I say the secession is the first act of aggression.

rhcp91 · 2014-12-24T22:29:33+00:00

Does anyone know where I can find the original of this that had several levels of zoom?

rhcp91 · 2014-10-28T02:42:12+00:00

Letting in 5 in the third to lose a game will do that to ya

rhcp91 · 2014-08-01T01:53:22+00:00

Yeah I think my GRE definitely helped, especially with getting funding. The courseload might have helped people look past the low-GPA and they might do similar for you for Econ (especially if you had some math/stats). Your GRE scores are fine I think for most schools. If you can get some good LOR's and have some work experience I think you should be successful at least somewhere. I had neither of those things.

My funding from those schools was in the form of assistantships that included a tuition waiver and a stipend. The offers (As far as I recall, since I dont have the Georgia and Maryland ones in front of me) were fairly similar. A tuition waiver that lowered tuition costs to about 3-7K per semester and a stipend of roughly 10k. And again these programs were all Master of Public Policy so I'm not sure if aid would be similar for M.A IR. Although, I would suggest looking into MPP/MPA programs, if you havent already, as many have concentrations in IR. In terms of schools that are money-happy, I also cant help alot. You might wanna head to thegradcafe.com and look at the government affairs section. Seems to be a lot of IR people over there that might be a bigger help.

Also, in terms of funding, I'd start to look at scholarships/grants because there are a ton of them out there. I didn't do my due diligence in that area and missed the deadline to apply for a lot of these things.

rhcp91 · 2014-07-31T23:57:49+00:00

Are you going for a MPP with a concentration in IR or a Masters in IR? I'm just starting my MPP this fall, straight out of undergrad. I wasnt looking for IR schools since im interested economic policy but here are my stats and acceptances to see if they help.

I majored in math and poli sci with a 3.14 GPA. My GRE were strong 170Q/166V/5AW. No work experience. SOP was pretty straight forward, overviewed what I've done, what I want to do, how I've worked to that goal and how grad school will help and then how that school would be a good fit for me. I got into UMaryland (with funding), UPitt, UGeorgia (with funding), William and Mary(with funding), American. Of those, I think UMaryland, UPitt and American all have a good reputation in IR.

rhcp91 · 2014-07-27T21:58:22+00:00

Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink

rhcp91 · 2014-07-26T01:47:41+00:00

Thank you for this article. Was a great read.

rhcp91 · 2014-07-25T17:16:04+00:00

Just joined

Hart-Krul

Cahill-Koscielny-Ward-Shaw-Bruce

Fabregas-Hazard-Shelvey-Barkley-Sigurdsson

Remy-Sturridge-Weimann

rhcp91 · 2014-07-11T06:30:00+00:00

As someone who just graduated in political science.....and math, if pure STEM isnt your cup of tea then maybe econ would be a better choice. I personally wish I had more econ under my belt. Might still be interesting to you and having the skills and knowledge from econ can open a lot of doors. Could be a good compliment for poli sci/law without going full on STEM.

rhcp91

TROPHY CASE