Sam said "What ACTUAL institutional changes would occur in the US by declaring English as the official language?"

I'm sure you're familiar with your tenses, so why would you say that he's referring to past when he's clearly referring to what changes would happen in the future?

In fact, in your first attempt at correcting him, you said he couldn't ask for what the results would be before changes are implemented (which is in its own right is a pretty moronic idea to try and pass off as an argument).

Then, in your second effort, you tell me that Sam's use of the word "actual" implies that he's referring to what has occured, when he was obviously talking about concrete consequences/benefits to the proposed legislation.

So really skrum, you're arguing semantics (for no reason) and then declaring yourself the winner of a policy argument because it.

If you're trolling for the sake of trolling, by all means continue, but if you're actually trying to defend the policies - step your game up.

I think he is really replying to #4 with that statement. Who could say how many deaths would be prevented by *potential* actions that a Muslim terrorist could take? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? We certainly know they have the capability to work in harmony to *at least* achieve the thousands mark with examples all over the world (including one sobering example right in our own backyard). I don't know... how many potential lives lost would make it worth it to you?

And yes... I, at least, will readily admit to being at least half-trolling ;)

Oh, and real glad to see Obama putting us into the Libya 'conflict'. That might sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. He had the balls to let the US continue to be the country others look to when injustices are occurring. Of course, we only seem helpful when there is something in it for us too (see Sudan), but at least we are engaged in the effort.

By doing so, he does kind of make himself into a hypocrite (again), but at least he is doing the right thing.

Libya was the right move, Europe wanted to go in and we have a shit ton of missiles we can launch, then we can spend money to build more. So really it was the smart move from an international policy perspective and a potential miniature stimulus.

I was a little lazy in my rebuttal to skrum on point 4. So in another lazy rebuttal with some historical context I would point to the House Committee on Un-American Activities, did this cost money? Yes. Did it save lives, I would argue no more than would have been saved without it. So based on past US House forays into investigating groups I would say the potential gains would never equal the costs, especially considering we have Law Enforcement Agencies that already do this, just outside of the public eye.

I would say that it is all done outside the public eye and we will never know how much good these programs or agencies are *actually* doing. Obviously if we are creating too many redundancies, that is a bad thing (but typical government bureaucracy at work). I don't know enough about what the current clandestine agencies are covering and not covering... or if these investigations would be stepping on toes. I doubt any 'outsider' really has this information... so I at least support having our representatives in DC talk about whether it would be a benefit and 'cost effective'. I am generally on the 'smaller government' side of things myself, so if this activity is or can be done within the current system, I would go with that option.

The US Congress is the worst body ever to have investigating something that actually matters to national security. At best they should only be oversight of our Federal agencies. This is really my issues with Rep. Kings (R-NY) desire to form committees on Muslims, it is hacky political grandstanding. Seriously congress needs to fuck off if they think they should be investigating anything, fucking Steroids in Baseball would be a great example of their complete incompetence when it comes to being anything more then a venue to score political points.

MonteHotWife:

4. Sam himself admits to being lazy in his rebuttal, so, accepting that, and measuring what might happen, we may not know the whole story until some time in the future when everything can be dug out with the Freedom of Information Act. The Muslim investigation thing is just starting to unfold. But it is an economic fact that our resources are limited. Maybe in the past, racism and the Klan, or communism, was the thing to investigate. But now, Islam seems to be the thing to investigage. If you have outbreaks of violence that seem to have Islam as a common attribute, this warrants more attention, like looking for a common factor in outbreaks of say, autism.

No point in focusing your efforts on the wrong problem. Why this emphasis on Libya when Syria or Iran might be a better place to look for threats to the United States.

5. I don't see what the big deal is about an official language. Integrated societies and markets tend to do better than segregated ones. If by the word ACTUAL Sam means what will happen on the ground, that depends on the wording of the legislation, which I haven't read. If it is merely a piece of puffery that Congress enacts from time to time, such as "March is national rabbit month", then obviously is is a waste of time.

Every piece I have ever seen offered in reference to a national language trends towards national rabbit month style. Which again is my issue with it much like my issue with Muslim Investigation Committees, it is political grandstanding looking to score points and get votes, not actually help our nation.

"All 6 of the ideas will help put a dent in the deficit."

Definition of Dent: a noticeable effect, especially of reduction: to leave a dent in one's savings; a dent in one's pride.

Percentage of the budget that goes to NPR, PP, Abortions = not noticeable. Ergo, through logical syllogism your statement is false. Regardless of opinions on the issues, you spoke a fallacy. And that is one of the reasons I and most other people do not trust conservatives.

Quote:
6. Reaffirmin the "In God We Trust" motto confirms that authority established by God through government flows through different channels that the authority that flows through his Church. The motto does not address trust in a church. Government authority, ordained by God, does not have to be Christian. It was not Christian authority that ran the Roman Empire at the time the New Testament was written.


This sound like something that would Louis the XIV say.. You know, that modern liberal politician..

Neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party has any interest in creating jobs. They are both neoliberal, business-friendly parties that have no actual interest in the well-being of their average party members (see: defunding of LIHEAP and the hundreds if not thousands of people that will freeze to death in the coming years). By fighting their line of bullshit you are effectively buying into it.

That being said, if jobs were ever going to be created, it would have been roughly a year ago. Despite the fact that we are in a recession/depression, American corporations have seen record profits and productivity in the past two or so years. However, the jobless rate is still (offically) hovering around 10%, while others estimate that the actual un/underemployment rate is somewhere near 25 or 28%. Those jobs are probably not coming back ever, or at least within the next 10 years. Chinese and African workers are too busy being exploited.