seems like the russians just reacted pre-emptively in paris.
(everybody knows that isis is a proxy front for the saudi-nato alliance, right?)
http://www.latinopost.com/articles/27191/20151113/isis-threatens-russia-kremlin-will-be-ours.htm
Friday, November 13, 2015
i'm sorry, but these are not logical targets. josh homme may be the master of desert rock, but that alone doesn't make him a target for religious extremists. rather, this strikes me as a disgusting attempt to derail the climate talks. the only question in my mind is whether it's being derailed by nato or russia - and i would suggest russia is the more likely culprit, given their history of this (see climategate).
www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-shooting-attacks-explosion-1.3318444
--
still no claim of responsibility.
when a terrorist group carries out an attack, the first thing they do is claim responsibility. this is true of every terrorist group, from the ira to aum shinrikyo. if it was isis, or al qaeda, we'd know by now - because they'd have told us.
terrorism is not about committing a crime and then trying to get away with it. it's about brazenly creating a disruption, then trying to draw as much attention to the cause as possible. it's a protest tactic.
there are a number of possible other suspects that may have motives that are more stealth, but understand this: every single one of them is going to stage it as an attack by muslims. if it's some kind of excuse to create a police state for the cop21 [i doubt that - this is far too extreme], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists. if it's some kind of attempt by the oil industry to derail cop21 [i doubt that - this is the thing of science fiction], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists. if it's an operation by russian black ops to derail the cop21 [this is my guess....and perhaps with other goals as well], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists.
on it's own, this consequently suggests nothing of value - other than that whomever organized it set it up to look like an attack by muslim extremists.
i think the russians are the only really serious suspect, right now. the organization. the kalashnikovs. chechens? they've derailed climate talks before but not like this. and, there's a much broader scope in which to put this in context.
in the end, we may be fed the line that it's al qaeda, even though we'd have expected them to claim responsibility by now - and the fact that they haven't all but rules them out.
but, i think this is far more than it appears.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-shooting-attacks-explosion-1.3318444
--
still no claim of responsibility.
when a terrorist group carries out an attack, the first thing they do is claim responsibility. this is true of every terrorist group, from the ira to aum shinrikyo. if it was isis, or al qaeda, we'd know by now - because they'd have told us.
terrorism is not about committing a crime and then trying to get away with it. it's about brazenly creating a disruption, then trying to draw as much attention to the cause as possible. it's a protest tactic.
there are a number of possible other suspects that may have motives that are more stealth, but understand this: every single one of them is going to stage it as an attack by muslims. if it's some kind of excuse to create a police state for the cop21 [i doubt that - this is far too extreme], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists. if it's some kind of attempt by the oil industry to derail cop21 [i doubt that - this is the thing of science fiction], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists. if it's an operation by russian black ops to derail the cop21 [this is my guess....and perhaps with other goals as well], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists.
on it's own, this consequently suggests nothing of value - other than that whomever organized it set it up to look like an attack by muslim extremists.
i think the russians are the only really serious suspect, right now. the organization. the kalashnikovs. chechens? they've derailed climate talks before but not like this. and, there's a much broader scope in which to put this in context.
in the end, we may be fed the line that it's al qaeda, even though we'd have expected them to claim responsibility by now - and the fact that they haven't all but rules them out.
but, i think this is far more than it appears.
at
18:08
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
what if i told you that i thought it was the russians?
evidence:
- too organized for a terrorist group
- pattern fits with russian operations
- who else gets kalashnikovs into france?
anybody doing this would set it up to look like a muslim attack. if it was france trying to create a police state for cop21, they'd make it look like muslims. if it was the oil industry trying to create a diversion for cop21, they'd make it look like muslims. if it's nato trying to create an excuse to increase the attacks on syria, they'd make it look like muslims.
but, ironically, we can be pretty sure that it's not - because they didn't take responsibility. isis has no motive to kill people in france, unless everybody knows it was isis. now, isis may take responsibility for something they didn't do, sure. but, they'd never carry out an attack and then deny it. that would make no sense, relative to how they operate.
so, we can actually rule out immediately that it's not isis or al qaeda.
that doesn't mean we won't be told it is, or that nato won't use it as an excuse to further their own goals.
motives for the russians:
- to pre-empt increasing threats of terrorist attacks in russia
- to divert attention from cop21
- to create pressure for france to pull back from syria. are the french prepared for the consequences of further involvement, or will they pull back like spain did?
- to give their allies in france (like the national front) an opportunity to campaign against muslims.
if the russians were going to do something like this right now, the reality is that france is the most strategic target.
jessica
+Michael P none of the previous attacks in france have been like this.
and, i don't think 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, either. i actually think it was....the germans. no, really. i know that's out of nowhere, but if you look at the information carefully, it all points to berlin. the motive was to crash the dollar.
i don't know if this was ever figured out. and, i don't expect to hear anybody blame the russians, even if it's understood that they did this. nato reacted to 9/11 by carrying out plans it wanted to do anyways - afghanistan is strategic, and iraq had nothing to do with it. as mentioned, i could very well see america reacting to this similarly. or, perhaps, you could interpret escalation in syria as a direct response, anyways.
Michael P
+jessica ISIS claimed responsibility now...that part of the russion conspiracy?
jessica
as i stated: isis will take responsibility for things that they did not do, but they will not deny things they did do.
i don't feel that isis has the capability to pull this off, and i think they would have taken credit immediately if they were actually responsible. they're taking credit for somebody else's work.
but, this is what the russians wanted. it's up to american intelligence to work it through, if they want to. it may serve their own aims to have people think it was isis, too.
there are other reasons to doubt the narrative. if you understand the real dynamics on the ground, the idea that it was isis doesn't really make any sense.
i'll give you a condition to look out for in the upcoming days and weeks: if nato responds by increasing pressure on assad (or even taking him out directly), you'll know what the claim of responsibility is really about.
and, i'd keep an eye on how the french public reacts to what marine le pen has to say about this. that's what the russians would really be angling for. we'll see if it works.
Michael P
+jessica How exactly do you "understand the real dynamics on the ground"?
You are making connections without connecting them...Just because nato responds a certain way does not mean your vague theory is correct unless you can actually connect the dots with something more than a hypothesis.
I just gave you a list of the "dynamics on the ground" by the way.
jessica
+Michael P i want to be clear that i'm not making authoritative claims about who is responsible. there are other explanations, too. we are at the whim of what we're told. we'll never really know.
what i'm arguing is that the russians are the most likely culprit, for the reasons i'm suggesting, and that isis is a very unlikely culprit - even if they took responsibility after the fact, after nobody else did, and after they took the time to prepare a statement.
understanding what's happening in the region of the middle east is very complicated. there's about ten wars happening at the same time. but, the biggest war that's happening is a struggle between a handful of american allies (mostly the saudis and turks - who are themselves in conflict with each other over who is taking the lead) and the russians for control over syria. this relies on the neo-con perspective that russia is weak due to the collapse of the soviet union and must be dismantled before it can regain it's power. removing assad from power is a part of the greater post cold war geo-political struggle between russia and the united states that, until recently, was a process of the americans knocking off russian client states.
isis exists within this context. it's an organization that is funded at arms length by saudi oligarchs to increase their own control in the region. the saudi long plan is the collapse of the borders in the region and the establishment of a larger, integrated arab-sunni state that includes most of iraq, jordan, kuwait, egypt and syria. in the short run, this would operate basically as an arab league. this goal itself goes back to the first world war.
the conflict you're seeing is far too complicated, and yet far too transparent, to call a conspiracy. it's more like a tactic to break the region up. and, france is ultimately in the alliance that is in favour of this.
an isis attack on france would be an attack on their own benefactors.
yet, it makes sense for them to claim responsibility, too, even if they did not do it - if it results in increased pressure on assad.
we live in a world where the conflicts that exist around us are kept obscure so that we do not understand them, because if we did understand them then we would oppose them.
it's consequently very hard to have these discussions in a medium such as this, as there is so much disinformation to cut through.
but, the dynamics on the ground - along with the way events have unfolded, and the complexity of the attack - all but rule isis out, despite what the media says, and what they say themselves, and how the military reacts.
you can surely agree that responding to these attacks by stepping up pressure on assad has no clear causal basis.
so, you should agree that i'm on to something if that is, in fact, what happens.
Michael P
+jessica I'm not buying any of this. You're a person on their computer postulating and theorizing. It's all very clever and imaginative and would make for a great alex jones video. You talk about all this disinformation....your comment is a big part of that disinformation. Others read it, it sounds cool and scandalous, but its nothing but imagination and theories, and then it gets repeated, and it soon becomes misinformation.
jessica
+Michael P well, i actually think that alex jones is a russian spy, too.
i don't claim it's more than theorizing, but we don't have another option if we want to understand what's happening. if you're serious about understanding world events, you have to begin with the basic starting point of being skeptical about official explanations and then try and deduce what's happening from there.
but, i do think that my perspective is educated. i'm not talking about aliens or new world orders. it's all very rooted in well understood academic themes. further, i've provided you with a predictive empirical test to check whether what i'm saying makes sense or not. we'll find out in a few days.
Michael P
+jessica Islamic terrorists coordinated an attack on French civilians and then admitted to it. Same as last time and the time before and the time before. There is really not much to it. And obviously since the attackers were Islamic terrorists claiming allegiance to ISIS that world leaders will put more pressure on Assad. Thats the logical progression. It doesnt mean some wild conspiracy theory is proven true. That is not an empirical test.
jessica
+Michael P so, the way to combat isis is to help them carry out their goals? intriguing.
the logical response would be to co-ordinate with assad in helping him stamp out isis.
evidence:
- too organized for a terrorist group
- pattern fits with russian operations
- who else gets kalashnikovs into france?
anybody doing this would set it up to look like a muslim attack. if it was france trying to create a police state for cop21, they'd make it look like muslims. if it was the oil industry trying to create a diversion for cop21, they'd make it look like muslims. if it's nato trying to create an excuse to increase the attacks on syria, they'd make it look like muslims.
but, ironically, we can be pretty sure that it's not - because they didn't take responsibility. isis has no motive to kill people in france, unless everybody knows it was isis. now, isis may take responsibility for something they didn't do, sure. but, they'd never carry out an attack and then deny it. that would make no sense, relative to how they operate.
so, we can actually rule out immediately that it's not isis or al qaeda.
that doesn't mean we won't be told it is, or that nato won't use it as an excuse to further their own goals.
motives for the russians:
- to pre-empt increasing threats of terrorist attacks in russia
- to divert attention from cop21
- to create pressure for france to pull back from syria. are the french prepared for the consequences of further involvement, or will they pull back like spain did?
- to give their allies in france (like the national front) an opportunity to campaign against muslims.
if the russians were going to do something like this right now, the reality is that france is the most strategic target.
jessica
+Michael P none of the previous attacks in france have been like this.
and, i don't think 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, either. i actually think it was....the germans. no, really. i know that's out of nowhere, but if you look at the information carefully, it all points to berlin. the motive was to crash the dollar.
i don't know if this was ever figured out. and, i don't expect to hear anybody blame the russians, even if it's understood that they did this. nato reacted to 9/11 by carrying out plans it wanted to do anyways - afghanistan is strategic, and iraq had nothing to do with it. as mentioned, i could very well see america reacting to this similarly. or, perhaps, you could interpret escalation in syria as a direct response, anyways.
Michael P
+jessica ISIS claimed responsibility now...that part of the russion conspiracy?
jessica
as i stated: isis will take responsibility for things that they did not do, but they will not deny things they did do.
i don't feel that isis has the capability to pull this off, and i think they would have taken credit immediately if they were actually responsible. they're taking credit for somebody else's work.
but, this is what the russians wanted. it's up to american intelligence to work it through, if they want to. it may serve their own aims to have people think it was isis, too.
there are other reasons to doubt the narrative. if you understand the real dynamics on the ground, the idea that it was isis doesn't really make any sense.
i'll give you a condition to look out for in the upcoming days and weeks: if nato responds by increasing pressure on assad (or even taking him out directly), you'll know what the claim of responsibility is really about.
and, i'd keep an eye on how the french public reacts to what marine le pen has to say about this. that's what the russians would really be angling for. we'll see if it works.
Michael P
+jessica How exactly do you "understand the real dynamics on the ground"?
You are making connections without connecting them...Just because nato responds a certain way does not mean your vague theory is correct unless you can actually connect the dots with something more than a hypothesis.
I just gave you a list of the "dynamics on the ground" by the way.
jessica
+Michael P i want to be clear that i'm not making authoritative claims about who is responsible. there are other explanations, too. we are at the whim of what we're told. we'll never really know.
what i'm arguing is that the russians are the most likely culprit, for the reasons i'm suggesting, and that isis is a very unlikely culprit - even if they took responsibility after the fact, after nobody else did, and after they took the time to prepare a statement.
understanding what's happening in the region of the middle east is very complicated. there's about ten wars happening at the same time. but, the biggest war that's happening is a struggle between a handful of american allies (mostly the saudis and turks - who are themselves in conflict with each other over who is taking the lead) and the russians for control over syria. this relies on the neo-con perspective that russia is weak due to the collapse of the soviet union and must be dismantled before it can regain it's power. removing assad from power is a part of the greater post cold war geo-political struggle between russia and the united states that, until recently, was a process of the americans knocking off russian client states.
isis exists within this context. it's an organization that is funded at arms length by saudi oligarchs to increase their own control in the region. the saudi long plan is the collapse of the borders in the region and the establishment of a larger, integrated arab-sunni state that includes most of iraq, jordan, kuwait, egypt and syria. in the short run, this would operate basically as an arab league. this goal itself goes back to the first world war.
the conflict you're seeing is far too complicated, and yet far too transparent, to call a conspiracy. it's more like a tactic to break the region up. and, france is ultimately in the alliance that is in favour of this.
an isis attack on france would be an attack on their own benefactors.
yet, it makes sense for them to claim responsibility, too, even if they did not do it - if it results in increased pressure on assad.
we live in a world where the conflicts that exist around us are kept obscure so that we do not understand them, because if we did understand them then we would oppose them.
it's consequently very hard to have these discussions in a medium such as this, as there is so much disinformation to cut through.
but, the dynamics on the ground - along with the way events have unfolded, and the complexity of the attack - all but rule isis out, despite what the media says, and what they say themselves, and how the military reacts.
you can surely agree that responding to these attacks by stepping up pressure on assad has no clear causal basis.
so, you should agree that i'm on to something if that is, in fact, what happens.
Michael P
+jessica I'm not buying any of this. You're a person on their computer postulating and theorizing. It's all very clever and imaginative and would make for a great alex jones video. You talk about all this disinformation....your comment is a big part of that disinformation. Others read it, it sounds cool and scandalous, but its nothing but imagination and theories, and then it gets repeated, and it soon becomes misinformation.
jessica
+Michael P well, i actually think that alex jones is a russian spy, too.
i don't claim it's more than theorizing, but we don't have another option if we want to understand what's happening. if you're serious about understanding world events, you have to begin with the basic starting point of being skeptical about official explanations and then try and deduce what's happening from there.
but, i do think that my perspective is educated. i'm not talking about aliens or new world orders. it's all very rooted in well understood academic themes. further, i've provided you with a predictive empirical test to check whether what i'm saying makes sense or not. we'll find out in a few days.
Michael P
+jessica Islamic terrorists coordinated an attack on French civilians and then admitted to it. Same as last time and the time before and the time before. There is really not much to it. And obviously since the attackers were Islamic terrorists claiming allegiance to ISIS that world leaders will put more pressure on Assad. Thats the logical progression. It doesnt mean some wild conspiracy theory is proven true. That is not an empirical test.
jessica
+Michael P so, the way to combat isis is to help them carry out their goals? intriguing.
the logical response would be to co-ordinate with assad in helping him stamp out isis.
at
17:10
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
well, that was fairly "presidential".
i like bernie...
....but i still don't know who the bank is running to beat hillary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCvvODhy1xM
i will say this though...
canadians pride themselves on...how can i say this...on differentiating themselves from americans. don't get me wrong: canadians are broadly pretty similar to americans. if you were to take a bunch of surveys, in aggregate, you'd find there's not a lot of differences. but, the few differences that do exist are things we hold very close to ourselves. it's a complicated, multidimensional thing. there's an outward manifestation that we state openly, like i am in this post. but, there's an inward manifestation that is only truly observed from a distance, too - things we innately live, without fully even realizing.
with the rise of the xenophobic rhetoric from the republicans, it's easy to draw parallels and craft a political strategy that learns from the recent election in canada. but, it's an open question as to whether such a strategy will be effective.
hey: if america wants to prove this canadian wrong, it'll be the most delicious crow i've ever had.
i like bernie...
....but i still don't know who the bank is running to beat hillary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCvvODhy1xM
i will say this though...
canadians pride themselves on...how can i say this...on differentiating themselves from americans. don't get me wrong: canadians are broadly pretty similar to americans. if you were to take a bunch of surveys, in aggregate, you'd find there's not a lot of differences. but, the few differences that do exist are things we hold very close to ourselves. it's a complicated, multidimensional thing. there's an outward manifestation that we state openly, like i am in this post. but, there's an inward manifestation that is only truly observed from a distance, too - things we innately live, without fully even realizing.
with the rise of the xenophobic rhetoric from the republicans, it's easy to draw parallels and craft a political strategy that learns from the recent election in canada. but, it's an open question as to whether such a strategy will be effective.
hey: if america wants to prove this canadian wrong, it'll be the most delicious crow i've ever had.
at
11:49
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
nononono, you don't get it.
see, there's a hierarchy. white people are at the top of it. black people are at the bottom of it. it's the natural order of things, and can't be altered.
therefore, black people cannot be racist - because they're inferior. when black people say racist things, they're just being uppity.
get it?
Issac Hopson
+jessica Wrong spokesman for white superiority.
jessica
+Issac Hopson well, perhaps i'm making the error of excluding the middle. but, in context, i don't think it's irrational. if one is inherently and irreversibly inferior, it certainly follows that they can never genuinely express feelings or perceptions of superiority, does it not? if one follows these perspectives closely, and i have, it does appear that this is legitimately the crux of the argument.
fwanksajerk
+jessica "black people cannot be racist - because they're inferior" Poor wording. Sounds like something I would write.
jessica
+fwanksajerk you may want to read between the lines a little. i tried to make it pretty obvious.
Lo Cas
+fwanksajerk oblivious much?
eye emoji
+jessica no. a hiearchy has nothing to do with racism. racism means thinking your race is better than others. if i, a mexican, were to say ''fuck those blacks'' i would be RACIST. if a white person said ''fuck the muslims!'' then they would be racist. and if a black person said ''fuck those spics!'' they would be racist. i don't know who made up the whole black people cant be racist because they're the systematically most oppressed blahblahblah because that's a whole other type of racism.
jessica
+eye emoji well, i actually think they're on to something in differentiating between what could be called "casual racism" (they toss this aside as discrimination) and really meaningful "systemic racism" (which they elevate to the status of Real Racism).
i mean, there's obviously a difference between somebody slowing down in a car and yelling something at somebody and somebody firing or refusing to interview somebody. the second option can seriously limit somebody's positive freedom. the first is really just harmlessly being an asshole.
it even makes sense to suggest that in certain societies - like the apartheid systems in the american south and in south africa - that racism against whites (in the second sense) is basically impossible, because the systemic realities are such that it really can't occur.
the error that arises is two-fold:
1) the american south is far from an egalitarian society, but it's not the hierarchically enforced system of white supremacy that it once was. it's consequently disingenuous to continue the same arguments. there are blacks with real power in the southern states, and they're every bit as capable of abusing it as whites are.
2) to jump from "whites cannot be meaningfully discriminated against in an apartheid society" to "racism against whites is universally impossible" is a tremendous leap of specious logic that, when heard, broadly suggests that the speaker is not truly familiar with the source material, but is carrying on slogans that they heard second hand.
see, there's a hierarchy. white people are at the top of it. black people are at the bottom of it. it's the natural order of things, and can't be altered.
therefore, black people cannot be racist - because they're inferior. when black people say racist things, they're just being uppity.
get it?
Issac Hopson
+jessica Wrong spokesman for white superiority.
jessica
+Issac Hopson well, perhaps i'm making the error of excluding the middle. but, in context, i don't think it's irrational. if one is inherently and irreversibly inferior, it certainly follows that they can never genuinely express feelings or perceptions of superiority, does it not? if one follows these perspectives closely, and i have, it does appear that this is legitimately the crux of the argument.
fwanksajerk
+jessica "black people cannot be racist - because they're inferior" Poor wording. Sounds like something I would write.
jessica
+fwanksajerk you may want to read between the lines a little. i tried to make it pretty obvious.
Lo Cas
+fwanksajerk oblivious much?
eye emoji
+jessica no. a hiearchy has nothing to do with racism. racism means thinking your race is better than others. if i, a mexican, were to say ''fuck those blacks'' i would be RACIST. if a white person said ''fuck the muslims!'' then they would be racist. and if a black person said ''fuck those spics!'' they would be racist. i don't know who made up the whole black people cant be racist because they're the systematically most oppressed blahblahblah because that's a whole other type of racism.
jessica
+eye emoji well, i actually think they're on to something in differentiating between what could be called "casual racism" (they toss this aside as discrimination) and really meaningful "systemic racism" (which they elevate to the status of Real Racism).
i mean, there's obviously a difference between somebody slowing down in a car and yelling something at somebody and somebody firing or refusing to interview somebody. the second option can seriously limit somebody's positive freedom. the first is really just harmlessly being an asshole.
it even makes sense to suggest that in certain societies - like the apartheid systems in the american south and in south africa - that racism against whites (in the second sense) is basically impossible, because the systemic realities are such that it really can't occur.
the error that arises is two-fold:
1) the american south is far from an egalitarian society, but it's not the hierarchically enforced system of white supremacy that it once was. it's consequently disingenuous to continue the same arguments. there are blacks with real power in the southern states, and they're every bit as capable of abusing it as whites are.
2) to jump from "whites cannot be meaningfully discriminated against in an apartheid society" to "racism against whites is universally impossible" is a tremendous leap of specious logic that, when heard, broadly suggests that the speaker is not truly familiar with the source material, but is carrying on slogans that they heard second hand.
at
11:29
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this guy is throwing around so much bullshit, i don't even know where to start. i mean, do i want to get into a discussion about the euro crisis on this thread? probably not. suffice it to say that greece's problem is not that they're "broke". it's that they lost sovereignty over their banking institutions to the ecb.
universities charge a fee to enter, and it gets paid as it is. how can there be less money than they collect in fees? i believe that pewdiepie should have really been on this panel to address this issue. really. a subset of gdp is greater than gdp. that's not even ordinal. you'd need a new system of logic to get your head around this.
demagogues pick their battles wisely. they have to! i hear his next interview will be a discussion of planetary mechanics with the hula champion in a local kindergarten class. he'll show her good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o
the way the system currently works is that you put people into debt when they're young and have them pay that debt off - + interest - when they graduate.
the proposal would need to be to put the money down first, and then collect it in taxes when they graduate.
all that that does is remove the interest on the loan, which is really just a deadweight on the economy. it also socializes the investment, and along with that it socializes the losses - meaning those that do well will pay education costs for those that do not. this would ultimately be equivalent to a stimulative tax cut for low to middle wage earners at the expense of the bank. that's about the only effect you'd see, in terms of accounting.
if you did it intelligently, you'd set the system up so that tax revenue = theoretical debt - theoretical interest. so, the student (after graduation) would have their new income equal to their old income minus the interest. that is,
new income = previous income - (theoretical debt - taxes = 0) + theoretical interest
which is a net benefit.
then, they'd no doubt spend that and we get an economic stimulus out of it.
so, the simple way to think of it is that the government steps in to take the role of the bank, in collecting taxes instead of loan payments. it's really a very minor tweak from the fiscal side. but, it would open up opportunities on the youth side.
that said....this kind of model works best when standards are higher. "free" education is not the same thing as "universal" education. i do support "free" education, but i don't support "universal" education - or at least not at this level. this is how most countries with state-funded education function: they basically give everybody who deserves one a scholarship, and abolish the fee-for-entry status quo for those that do not.
universities charge a fee to enter, and it gets paid as it is. how can there be less money than they collect in fees? i believe that pewdiepie should have really been on this panel to address this issue. really. a subset of gdp is greater than gdp. that's not even ordinal. you'd need a new system of logic to get your head around this.
demagogues pick their battles wisely. they have to! i hear his next interview will be a discussion of planetary mechanics with the hula champion in a local kindergarten class. he'll show her good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o
the way the system currently works is that you put people into debt when they're young and have them pay that debt off - + interest - when they graduate.
the proposal would need to be to put the money down first, and then collect it in taxes when they graduate.
all that that does is remove the interest on the loan, which is really just a deadweight on the economy. it also socializes the investment, and along with that it socializes the losses - meaning those that do well will pay education costs for those that do not. this would ultimately be equivalent to a stimulative tax cut for low to middle wage earners at the expense of the bank. that's about the only effect you'd see, in terms of accounting.
if you did it intelligently, you'd set the system up so that tax revenue = theoretical debt - theoretical interest. so, the student (after graduation) would have their new income equal to their old income minus the interest. that is,
new income = previous income - (theoretical debt - taxes = 0) + theoretical interest
which is a net benefit.
then, they'd no doubt spend that and we get an economic stimulus out of it.
so, the simple way to think of it is that the government steps in to take the role of the bank, in collecting taxes instead of loan payments. it's really a very minor tweak from the fiscal side. but, it would open up opportunities on the youth side.
that said....this kind of model works best when standards are higher. "free" education is not the same thing as "universal" education. i do support "free" education, but i don't support "universal" education - or at least not at this level. this is how most countries with state-funded education function: they basically give everybody who deserves one a scholarship, and abolish the fee-for-entry status quo for those that do not.
at
11:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
you want to know why trump is the best bet for republicans?
because he has the best chance of swinging the most democrats.
the republican party does not have a monopoly on stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmi6a-Q29AA
because he has the best chance of swinging the most democrats.
the republican party does not have a monopoly on stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmi6a-Q29AA
at
10:16
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
serial killers seem harmless when they're toddlers, too.
Rose Red
+jessicaThank you for not drinking the kool-aid. <3
Gabby TheBest
Serial killers weren't born murderous their peers or caretakers taught them how to murder
jessica
+Gabby TheBest
i was unaware that there were serial killer classes. is that a ba or a bsc?
we would like to proudly announce this year's recipient for the jeffrey dahmer memorial scholarship...
Lizeth GonzaleZ
Stop comparing dogs to humans
jessica
+Lizeth GonzaleZ
you're right. we have far greater control over our emotions.
before i delete another stupid comment, ask yourself this question before posting:
why wouldn't you raise a wolf pup?
UghIt'sEmily
Oh and also it depends on how they are raised. Just like humans. If a child was raised around an abusive, hurtful family it would maybe have mental health issues. And a dog that is abused may become aggressive or scared around people because their past experiences. :)
jessica
+UghIt'sEmily
there is an underlying truth to what you're saying, but it's not some kind of causal law. it's not as though you can predict somebody's behaviour as an adult by their childhood. plenty of psychopathic assholes, some of them serial killers, have idyllic childhoods; some people that go through hell as children grow up into very generous, free-spirited adults.
likewise, you can't really predict a dog's behaviour by the way you treat it. if it was that easy, there wouldn't be a problem - and you could go ahead and have wolves and mountain lions and bears for pets, so long as you make sure they get lots of hugs when they're young.
pit bulls are bred for violence. over time, it can be bred out. as it is, they need to be approached with caution - or not at all.
Massive Fox
+jessica because you have to tame a wolf, but same with a bob cat, dogs aren't like yhe stereotypes that are passed around, "dogs are dangerous" pinché! thats all lies!
jessica
+Massive Fox
a wolf is a specific breed of dog. a pitbull is a specific breed of dog. a retriever is a specific breed of dog. dogs are individuals, but characteristics cluster along breed lines.
josephine vargas
Pitts were originally a breed that took care of children in Europe back in the day. They we are known as the "Nanny" dog
jessica
+josephine vargas
see, i actually took the time - ~10 minutes - to determine the veracity of this claim, and it should be pointed out that what we call a "pit bull" is an american invention.
it may be true that the old terrier breeds were reliable family dogs, but that is not what the pit bull in front of you is. not at all.
Rose Red
+jessicaThank you for not drinking the kool-aid. <3
Gabby TheBest
Serial killers weren't born murderous their peers or caretakers taught them how to murder
jessica
+Gabby TheBest
i was unaware that there were serial killer classes. is that a ba or a bsc?
we would like to proudly announce this year's recipient for the jeffrey dahmer memorial scholarship...
Lizeth GonzaleZ
Stop comparing dogs to humans
jessica
+Lizeth GonzaleZ
you're right. we have far greater control over our emotions.
before i delete another stupid comment, ask yourself this question before posting:
why wouldn't you raise a wolf pup?
UghIt'sEmily
Oh and also it depends on how they are raised. Just like humans. If a child was raised around an abusive, hurtful family it would maybe have mental health issues. And a dog that is abused may become aggressive or scared around people because their past experiences. :)
jessica
+UghIt'sEmily
there is an underlying truth to what you're saying, but it's not some kind of causal law. it's not as though you can predict somebody's behaviour as an adult by their childhood. plenty of psychopathic assholes, some of them serial killers, have idyllic childhoods; some people that go through hell as children grow up into very generous, free-spirited adults.
likewise, you can't really predict a dog's behaviour by the way you treat it. if it was that easy, there wouldn't be a problem - and you could go ahead and have wolves and mountain lions and bears for pets, so long as you make sure they get lots of hugs when they're young.
pit bulls are bred for violence. over time, it can be bred out. as it is, they need to be approached with caution - or not at all.
Massive Fox
+jessica because you have to tame a wolf, but same with a bob cat, dogs aren't like yhe stereotypes that are passed around, "dogs are dangerous" pinché! thats all lies!
jessica
+Massive Fox
a wolf is a specific breed of dog. a pitbull is a specific breed of dog. a retriever is a specific breed of dog. dogs are individuals, but characteristics cluster along breed lines.
josephine vargas
Pitts were originally a breed that took care of children in Europe back in the day. They we are known as the "Nanny" dog
jessica
+josephine vargas
see, i actually took the time - ~10 minutes - to determine the veracity of this claim, and it should be pointed out that what we call a "pit bull" is an american invention.
it may be true that the old terrier breeds were reliable family dogs, but that is not what the pit bull in front of you is. not at all.
at
09:47
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)