Jump to content

Free Radical

Pure Football
  • Content Count

    10,082
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Free Radical

  1. 36 minutes ago, pzummo said:

    I stated facts. How many breakthroughs in medicine were achieved with the healthcare system in France? Or Italy? Those are ranked 1 and 2 for their outstanding healthcare system. So let's compare contributions. Take France and Italy combined compared to the US. 

    I'll give you a hint. In the past 15 years, 19 Americans compared to 3 for France and Italy combined. 

    Great, now how about providing basic care for our citizens. 

  2. We can deal with diseases that have ravaged humanity for centuries, harvest nuclear energy, send a man to a moon, create chips that can perform calculations billion of times in a second, etc., but addressing rising education and healthcare costs and our well our students are doing in reading, math, and science is just the god ****ed worst. 

    But we need to build a big **** wall to keep people out or blow up a village in some country is the Middle East, holy **** do we have all sorts of ways we can do that. 

  3. 27 minutes ago, pzummo said:

    Because they don't have the land mass, population, and cultural diversity we have in the US. States like Iowa have no problems with mass shootings or gun homicides and they have higher rates of gun ownership than most of the country. The problems are within certain state borders. Changing at the Federal level adds burden to states that do not have the same challenges as other states. 75% of the country does not have a homicide problem. So we are going to change Federal law to accomodate the 25% that can't handle their local issues. 

    None of those countries are kicking our ***** on healthcare or education. Their students want to go to our private universities, ranked the highest in the world. Our public education struggles because of Liberal concepts like no child left behind and common core. Our private institutions provide the best education anyone can find on the entire planet. Every single one of those rankings completely ignore the most important factors for both education and healthcare. The first open heart surgery was taught in theory by our universities before the procedure saved it's first child. We have developed medicine to manage such devastating illnesses like Ebola and AIDS. Diabetics live full lives thanks to our contributions with the at home administration of insulin. The medical and educational advancements of our country exceeds every other on the planet, yet these factors are ignored in rankings. 80% of all Nobel prizes in medicine come from the research funded and completed in the US. And the most beautiful aspect of our health system is we give our cures to other countries for free. 

    So quit reading these slant rankings and other crap about how great things are in other countries. Without the US, they would have another black plague wiping out a third of their population while the government quarantines areas to let the diseases die off before it reaches their palaces.

    Again, more excuses. You're essentially saying we're just not smart enough. 

    We're ranked 37th in healthcare by the World Health Organization. 
    We spend 150% more on healthcare than the OECD average.
    Medical bills are the biggest reason for bankruptcy in the U.S.
    The list goes on and on for healthcare.
    We're ranked in the 30s and 20s consistently in math, science, and reading scores. 
    We rank 12th in four year program graduates, versus 1st in 1985. 
    We've dropped to 12th in rate of college completion.
    Our education costs have gone up several times over in the past few decades. 
    Our high level education programs are almost entirely dominated by international students, in many cases over 80 or 90%. American students suck at higher education.

    Your full of **** if you want to call no child left behind a liberal concept. It was proposed by George W. ******* Bush. The complaint about Common Core is that it's too hard. You act like the only reason our costs are so high is because of the amount going into research, when every study ever done on the costs of our educational and health care systems says it's a load of crap. We'll be off to a great start on addressing the issues when "conservatives" can catch up to the rest of the world on fundamental concepts like, oh, I don't know, reality. Then maybe, these "conservatives" can start working on coming up with ways to address issues rather than shrugging their shoulders and saying, "It's too hard." 

  4. 1 minute ago, Dago 3.0 said:

    1) as I stated, it wouldn't be just a fence

    2) I agree on the war of drugs. However, we have no obligation to changed our immigration laws to suit others.

    3) That is nice that you don't think we have a big crime problems. I am sure the victims of the crimes I posted feel differently especially seeing as those senseless deaths could have been potentially avoided through better border security

    4) So your position is do nothing until someone manages to kill a crap load of people. Gotcha. I think that is an asinine position considering our government has admitted that terrorists have crossed the border illegally, 

    5) I agree. If that is your position, then you have to agree that allowing millions of uneducated, unskilled immigrants in without first addressing our issues would only make the positions of the lower and middle class worse.

    I know you like to say that Americans aren't lazy and that everything is the fault of rich people (and I do agree to some extent), but I can cite one particular industry that shows you are wrong. My wife worked for the Marriott corporation for about 10 years and the hotel and people working in the hotel and hospitality industry will tell you that it is very difficult to find supervisors. They have trouble finding employees with good work ethic and good customer service skills. This isn't something that requires a college education...these are skills anybody can develop and attain a middle class income. Yet the industry has trouble finding good employees. That isn't the fault of the CEO of a hotel chain...the positions are there for the taking.

    1. I'm saying that a fence is just a mild band-aid that is grossly expensive without really fixing the core issues. 

    2. I firmly believe that if someone wants to come here and contribute, we should give them that opportunity. Most of us wouldn't be here today if we held the same attitude when we were bringing in Chinese, Irish, Jewish, etc. immigrants.

    3. Emotional arguments aren't for dictating policy. The fact is that crime is at a 30 year low, and immigrants, illegal or not, is a lower than average crime demographic. 

    4. My position with dealing with terrorism is much like my position with dealing with the cartels and illegal immigration. Start dealing with the factors that are leading to the problems rather than finding half-*** ways to deal with the aftermath. Our foreign policy has created these terrorists, and pretending like closing off the border is going to protect us when a lot of these guys either come here legally or are home grown is just a false sense of security. 

    5. Not necessarily. Numerous studies show that illegal immigrants aren't really competing with native born workers. The only exception is in the case of high-school drop-outs, and even then it isn't large enough to warrant such a massive reaction. On top of that, the illegal population in this country has declined by nearly 1 million since 2009. 

    To your story: Are the positions compensated well enough and is it competitive to other positions in the industry? Do they properly advertise these positions through the correct channels? 

  5. 5 hours ago, pzummo said:

    I don't think they are either. I'm tired of wasting my time debating the issue. The reality is the Federal government cannot build efficient programs that scale the entire country and diverse set of circumstances people live in. The most successful programs I have seen have been state-led, not Federal. The Fed is a slow moving beast that can't adapt to the needs of 50 different economies. It needs to be smaller with more empowerment to the state level.

    The Hope program has been a raging success rewarding students with scholarships regardless of social class based on their desire to learn. State programs can be tested on a smaller scale, being far less wasteful. Dems want the Fed to do everything and that's a fundamental problem. If a state feels like they need a program for a certain use-case, the state needs to fund it. 

    It would take writing a book to cover all of the intricacies about how the Fed should function. Interstate and international commerce is something they should do. When they do something to drop the price of oil that makes transportation affordable for all, I can stand behind that because it's more in line with what I see as their responsibilities. When they dictate what our healthcare choices are, I see that as overreaching the power they should have. I don't agree with them manipulating markets in favor of certain sectors. I didn't raise **** when they provided subsidies or tax benefits for other power sources because it was meant to give the public more options and help drive innovation. 

    But I do have a problem whenever anyone wants a new support program because they are wasteful and it is abused by the general public. People work cash jobs and get foodstamps, welfare, and ACA subsidies. It's wasteful, and it makes it far more difficult to have upward mobility.

    Again, why not try to borrow from the several countries that have been highly successful at doing a variety of the things I've mentioned. Why can't the federal government push the states to adopt some of these measures, and help build the overall structure? Why is it that other countries can handle so many of the problems we have, and the only answers we have is essentially "we're not smart enough to figure out how to do it here."

    We have countries with free college and healthcare that are kicking our ***** in a variety of indexes and rankings by thinking outside the box, challenging the standard, and being pragmatic in their approach to issues instead of passively sitting around accepting the status quo and adhering to ridiculous dogmatic notions about what we can and can't do if we set out to accomplish something. The fact that the people who are so quick to call America the best country on Earth look at so many issues we fact and shrug their shoulders and never have any solutions to problems is profound in my opinion.

    Mass shootings, education, healthcare, wages, shrinking opportunities for the lower-middle class, decreasing upward mobility, etc... Why aren't there any answers for this.

  6. 1. The fence doesn't stop them from going over right there. It isn't much of a deterrent. If people can sneak across the N-S Korean DMZ, which has happened numerous times, we're not going to be blocking them from coming across something over 10 times the length.

    2. Start addressing the issues we're creating would be a good start. The war on drugs has fueled the cartels for thirty years, and our pathway to legal immigration here is ridiculous.

    3. I don't believe we have a big crime problem, and I'm not putting any special note on victims of crime either way.

    4. Name the last terrorist act committed on U.S. soil where the perpetrator came across the border illegally. I'll wait.

    5. My point is that our system is set up against the lower and middle class. Anti-union, corporations snuggled up with government, a party that wants to completely remove any and all assistance at any chance it can get, etc.

  7. 7 hours ago, Flip Flop said:

    There is nothing counter to American values about restricting immigration.  We have no duty to accept immigrants and immigrants have no right to demand entry.  As it relates to rights, immigration policy is arbitrary.

    Caution is a completely legitimate reason to impede immigration.  The threat of importing terrorism is very real.

    No more of a threat than how terrorists have always come here legally or were grown natively and did there damage. Your argument could be used to support going into complete isolation like 19th century Japan.

  8. On 5/26/2016 at 11:36 AM, Dago 3.0 said:

    1)awhile back I did some research and crunched some numbers of an analysis of building a barrier that is wall, trench, motion sensors, and seismic sensors compared to the cost of the increased border patrol since Obama took over and it was comparable over a ten year period. that barrier would be a far larger impediment to illegal immigration than our border patrol is

    2)we already have a pretty good idea of how many are coming in

    3)the why really isn't important. the needs of the citizens of other countries shouldn't be what makes us change our laws

    4)see #3

    5)in Texas alone  
    https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/pages/txCriminalAlienStatistics.htm

    6)a lack of border security is an immediate and major threat and not just because of drugs, crime, and potential terrorists
    http://www.abc15.com/news/national/immigrants-bringing-diseases-across-border

    7)part of the reason we have the refugees we do is because of the lies being told in Central America. It is to the point that flyers are being circulated advertising that the United States is welcoming all illegals with open arms and providing support

    8) our lower and middle class is having severe problems in the job market already. do you think adding millions of immigrants to that pool of people looking for blue collar work will help or hurt?

    I dunno....maybe with the permission of these countries we can set up a chain of humanitarian aid. I would support that spending more than I support a lot of our other overseas expenditures

    1. You're not going to convince me that a wall is going to solve the issue. The walls we've already put up haven't helped, and have caused numerous problems as it is, without really fixing anything. It costs tons of money, destroys and damages people's property, is ineffective, and doesn't really fix the issue.

    3. You can't work on a problem until you understand the root issue.

    5. Illegal immigrants are no more likely to commit crimes than regular citizens, and in fact, commit less crime on average. This includes illegals from central America.

    6. The drugs and crime related to the south of the border is a result of the war on drugs more than anything else. Deal with that and you deal with the real problem. Terrorists can just as easily get here through legal means, and it's easier in fact. How many terrorists that have attacked America came in through illegal means?

    8. They are filling a demand. It's already been covered numerous times how immigrants don't really impact natives. In the case of very low-skill labor, you should deal with the companies that hire them rather than simply attack the immigrants.

  9. 1 hour ago, pzummo said:

    I wouldn't say it's just millenials. There were many in my generation like that. I think it's a societal or maturity thing. Whatever the reason, if you've been in the workforce, you would know how difficult it is finding good employees. We interview at least 100 people per month, and 99-100 of them do not even understand the technology they work with.

    A.S. in Programming, B.S. in Computer Science, and working on my masters. Working full time in software before I graduated with an associates. Paid my own way through college, and worked in the restaurant business before that waiting tables. Worked as an intern for six months before I was hired, and they hired me because I busted my *** off and the only time I wasn't up there was when I wasn't working my day job or handling school. Most of my work has been in .NET programming, C++ and C# mostly.

    Again, I don't believe people are fundamentally different than they were 20 years ago. It's just a fact that the challenges and issues we have now are different than they were 20 years ago, and we need to adjust or it's going to hurt. Our educational system needs and overhaul, and the political climate is very hostile to the solutions we need.

  10. On 5/22/2016 at 11:12 AM, pzummo said:

    The billions going towards the oil and gas industry is the only reason the poor can afford to drive a car in this country. It's the only reason the poor can afford to have stable electricity and air conditioning in their homes. Without the subsidies, a gallon of gas would have been $5-7 like it has been in the UK. Why do you think air travel has been so cheap?

    Dems act like they want to help the poor but they crap on any policy that helps the poor take care of themself and live a more comfortable life. Dems only want to invest in programs that keep the poor dependent on the government, and want to remove the policies that enable the poor to work their way out of poverty. 

    I'm not referring to Republicans when I say this. I am referring to true Conservatives. Conservative is about keeping the government small so that it is not a burden or holding back the people. Real Conservatives are the only one's wanting to stop the government from impeding on our individual right to pursue happiness. Dems don't give a crap about that. They pretend like they want to help the needy, but in reality they want to help themselves to everyone else's hard work. 

    Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. This is a Conservative value. Dems want to focus on giving a man a fish, so that man will have to come back tomorrow for another one. Conservatives want to teach men to fish, make sure they have places to go fishing, and they can afford to get to the places with the most fish available. That is why the economy and new business growth is important. That is why transportation shouldn't be so expensive that only the rich can afford it. That is why we had great upward mobility with a smaller government and why we have diminishing upward mobility as policies have gone toward social support instead of social enablement.

    More ********. When states are pushing for laws that has severely limited companies like Tesla from selling cars to the consumer, how is that not directly trying to shut down competition against gas and oil driven industry? When there are oil and gas lobbying groups directly fighting against installing electric car charging stations around the country, how is that helping? When Reagan pulled down the solar panels on the White House, what cause did that support? When there have been government and corporate initiatives against non-fossil fuel driven cars or power, how can you sit here and justify subsidies for the oil and gas industry. Corporate interests are using every tool they can to keep us hooked on fossil fuels, and it comes at the cost of jobs, modernization, pollution, etc. I mean, even going back to the 30s, the auto industry systematically bought out electric rail companies in urban areas and destroyed them in order to further the automobile. It's wrong and you know it.

    I'm not referring to Republicans when I say this. I am referring to true Liberals. Liberalism is about is about making sure individual rights are respected, and the majority cannot infringe upon the minority, nor can the individual trample of the rights of the many. Real liberals are the only one's wanting to stop big entities, government or corporate, from impeding on the greater collective from the right to pursue happiness. Repubs don't give a crap about that. They pretend like they want to help the individual, but in reality they want to help protect the most powerful from having to be responsible and answer for trampling on the common man.

    But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? This is a liberal value. Repubs want to never give a man a fish, because they look down on anyone in a moment of need. Liberals want to give a man a fish, make sure the places for fishing are protected for him, and help that man get to the places where there are more fish available. This is why a fair economy and ensuring fair competition is important. This is why corporations shouldn't be able to trample on up-and-coming companies and technology, so that there are more alternatives and better solutions, including cheaper ones can become available. This is why we had great upward mobility when government was more concerned with promoting the welfare of the people and advancing technology than simply working hand-in-hand with corporate interests that are seeking maximum profit in the short-term at the expense of all else.
     

  11. 5 hours ago, pzummo said:

    Actually, there is a lot of relevance to the solution. People and their actions should be governed to keep them from impeding on other people's rights. Guns and corporations are innocuous. People operating them are what makes them dangerous. 

    For whatever reason, Dems seem to think this is "semantics" because they refuse to acknowledge the ENORMOUS difference. That is why we can never get to a solution, because Dems refuse to even acknowledge the problem. The problem is the actions of people.

    If I use a gun to protect my family or my livestock, I've used my gun for a good purpose with justifiable actions. If I use my gun to take your family or livestock, I've used my gun for bad. The gun is not the good or bad thing, as it is innocuous. The same for corporations. The people at Enron that were committing fraud were using it for bad things that hurt a lot of people. The people at Google that make enormous profits while investing a lot in innovation are using their corporation for good things. The government should focus their efforts on the good and bad things people do, not on making it more difficult for these innocuous things to exist. 

    These are not semantics. The difference is very clear.

    Awesome speech bro. Anything relevant about anything specific you can apply this to?

  12. 1 hour ago, pzummo said:

    I was referring to the fact that even Google is calling out the flawed approach kids have coming out of college. They have a set expectation of how they should be valued without having earned it, and they want it to be their way more than they want it to be the right way.

    Blah blah, the millenials are a bunch of no good entitled kids who don't have good ole fashioned values. I'll be waiting for something relevant when you got it. 

  13. 3 minutes ago, pzummo said:

    Having a job and being a hard worker are two differebt things. Read this article about Google's experience with college grads.

    http://qz.com/180247/why-google-doesnt-care-about-hiring-top-college-graduates/

    Okay, great for Google, but it's a fact that requirements for college degrees are quickly rising. What one edge-case company does, does not change this trend.

  14. Oh yes, kids these days are just inherently lazier than the previous generation. To quote Socrates, "The counts of the indictment are luxury, bad manners, contempt for authority, disrespect to elders, and a love for chatter in place of exercise."

    The fact of the matter is that college degrees are quickly becoming the bare minimum, and this isn't a shocking new thing millennials made up.

    http://burning-glass.com/research/credentials-gap/
    http://i.imgur.com/1MP5b9V.png

    So again, with the requirement more and more being that you should have a degree before you even step foot in at the entry level position, and college tuition having rapidly increased over the past two decades, what are we going to do about having a larger and larger ratio of college graduates having massive levels of debt.

    Also, why would you expect younger people to stick to a job long term when the previous recession and the current corporate culture has proven that there's absolutely no loyalty to the employee. Benefits are decreasing, jobs are quickly shipped across our borders, wage rates are flattening or decreasing when you adjust for inflation, and so forth

    And fun fact, ~80% of high school to college students work part-time jobs. So much for being lazy.

  15. 19 minutes ago, pzummo said:

    Mechanic. Cook. Fedex. Software developer. Web developer. Network engineer. Call Center first tier support. Telemarketing. Car salesman. 

    You do not need a college education for any career path. It helps to have one, but it is not required. I found a job for $10/hour when I was 20 working in a Call Center. I learned the details of what I was taking calls for, worked my way up to tier 2, tier 3 support, and into an $80k per year engineering job by the time I was 23 without a college degree. I didn't get my college degree until I was 25 because I put my career first and took night classes. 

    Based on personal experience, I went from being a mechanic at Goodyear making $8/hour to an $80k per year engineering job without a college degree. It was extremely difficult. I focused on outworking every person that sat on their degree thinking that made them worth more than me. 

    And FTR, in the industry I am in, we value certifications more than any college degree. My college degree added $0 to my salary. Obtaining my CCIE added $$$ to my salary. So forgive me if I call bull**** on all of these excuses about not being able to work in a freaking plant and there not being jobs for people with just a HS diploma. 

    Good for you, bootstraps, blah blah. I kicked *** too, now let's look at the actual numbers.

×
×
  • Create New...