tshile

http://wogcc.state.wy.us/SundryPassWord.cfm hey guys we're really bad at web development and database administration so please just don't try to hack into our system or break it. k? thnx!

that jacket almost costs as much as my bike

Bad game for the refs

Like everything you said but wanted to comment on this. We've been rolling out surface pros and everyone loves them. Developers, accountants, designers, execs. I just set one exec up that's the definition of an Apple fanboi. Since 2007 the guy has used nothing but apple products. Even for his home router. He loves his surface. I was worried because he had to switch to PC for job requirement changes, and I really pitched the surface the same way I did above. I was concerned he wouldn't like it. He absolutely loves it. Amazing what having control of your hardware does. Sounds less like a cord problem more like an amperage of the powerblock problem. Look at the amp output on the one that came with the phone, find one that matches.

Further complicating the issue: Obama comes out and says he'll veto it before there is any vote. As a Democrat in fear of having a Nay vote held against you, there's no downside. You won't have it held against you, and the President already told you he'll veto it if it passes.

Wait, was it the current FBI director that questioned it? I thought it was a former director or former assistant director? It's hard to keep it straight because they all come out with commentary when stuff like this happens, even ones that haven't actually been close to the process for years (but imply they are an authority figure on the subject)

I'm enjoying it too, even though I'm coming form the admitted perspective of being ignorant on it. You're giving me information instead of just calling me stupid for not knowing, which you're not really obligated to do I agree with you. The bill the house passed is absurd. And I say that as someone who's not exactly for bringing in the refugees (and thought that way before the Paris attacks) because I just do not trust anything about the middle east right now (or what our politicians say about it.) The problem is that the fear is real. It's not based in unfounded paranoia. The reality is that these groups are relentless, they are vicious, and they have time on their side. Their cause is one they believe comes from a God that will reward them in the end. They have nothing but time to come up with ways to do things, which is why this 18-24 month process bullet point is meaningless to me. Many people seem to only follow attacks against The West. But if you've been following what these group shave been doing to other Muslims (which is far worse, arguably, and definitely at a significantly higher rate than what is done to The West) it's really disturbing and scary. That said, the idea of not letting in refugees is still heart breaking. It's not an easy decision to make for me. The whole situation is just sad, infuriating, and heartbreaking all at the same time. Of course, I have the luxury of deciding without having any say in the actual policy. There are no real ramifications for my opinion. Which makes considering either side and putting aside the emotional/moral side of the issue, and arguing on the internet ( ), easier.

I'm out of likes, so you'll have to settle for a simple thank you

Let me preface this by saying I understand why someone might view my comments about this article as unreasonable. I do not think they are, however... - There's a lot of mentions of extensive background checks but we don't know what those actually are. We're back to the issue of how do we really verify who these people are, considering where they're coming from. Do we have some close working relationship with the Syrian government? - I don't care that it takes 2 years, seems irrelevant. - We "know the refugees aren't terrorists" because they're not on existing suspected terrorist lists that we have. Well.. that doesn't seem like all that great of a requirement, to be honest. Unless I'm significantly underestimating our intelligence agencies' ability to catalog all the extremists in the middle east. - The only reassuring thing I read in that article is that only 2% of the people admitted are single males of "combat age". I don't know that I like that 'single male' had to be put in as a qualifier, but it's at least reassuring on some level. It's almost enough to completely change my view, but I'd want to see how that number changes when you remove the 'single' qualifier. I'd also like to see the number for women because I think it's becoming a mistake to continue to profile the extremists as males; I think that may be changing...

That seems like a rather empty article there Hersh. First thought - It verifies what I said to Larry earlier about the bill. It's basically a clever (although, not so much to be honest) way to block all the Syrian refugees without saying "Block all the Syrian refugees." It's putting perosonal responsibility for something in an unfair way. You have to get all 3 people to personally put their name on every single approval process to allow a person in. It's clear what the intent is. Second - the FBI director said nothing except that he firmly believes the FBI process is a good one. That's all he said, at least in that article. I wouldn't expect him to really say anything else...

Right. I'm not really aware of the process, which is why I'm not offering solutions. What I'm aware of are: a 2-3 year process an 'extensive' background check. To which my gut reaction is: - What does how long it takes have to do with it? That seems like an arbitrary point thrown around a lot as if it's supposed to mean something. I'm supposed to believe it taking 18 months is what's going to stop the terrorists? They're playing the long game here... I don't care if it takes 18 days or 18 years, it's the hit/miss rate on the process that interests me. - How extensively can we possibly check the background of a person with no paperwork (or why should we trust the paperwork they have), from an area that is nothing like what we're used to dealing with when we consider background checks? I'm not trying to make blanket statements about what the policy should be. If you want to write my view on the issue of as ignorant that's fine, because at least to a certain degree it is.

Well, if it's any consolation I definitely am as frustrated with that as you are. You think it's incredible frustrated to hear someone say something like - We should only let the Christian Syrians in! - ? Try being someone who wants to actually have a discussion about it, because you don't really understand how extensive these 'checks' can be given the entire situation, and just be lumped in with those people. I got in it with predicto the other day because of his ranting after I read Trump and Paul's tweets; one of which seemed perfectly reasonable. Little did I know at the time the types of people coming out of the woodwork on the issue. damn near 3/4 of Americans do not support bringing Syrian refugees here (in some fashion, some of which are ridiculous ones.) the standard boogeymen of the GOP, Christians, Xenophobes, and people who hate Muslims/Think all Muslims are terrorists just doesn't account for the number of people who have an issue with admitting refugees from Syria..

Yeah, from what little I understand/know, it honestly seems like a clever way of just banning all refugees. It seems like what they've basically done is try to hold a couple of people personally responsible for the safety of the entire country based on who they approve. They seem to have written it in such a way that it would be very hard for a person to pass all of those checks; not because they're a threat, but because of the way the system is written. Which I have a problem with. The more meaningful information to me is just how many people voted which way on it. 1/4 of the Democrats in the house voted for it, and a handful didn't care enough either way to even cast a vote. I don't know enough about the local politics, national (if that makes sense?) to know if those 1/4 are simply doing that because they're up for re-election in toss up areas, or what.

I don't think it's too much to ask to realize that certain areas of the world, at certain times, are going through unique circumstances that require unique considerations. I don't think having a discussion about admitting refugees from Syria, at a time when the area is going through what it is and is what it is, means you blanket cannot admit people form anywhere at any other time. It's just nonsense to follow that to such a conclusion. It's intentionally lacking context/nuance, and intentionally putting all decision making revolving the general idea of admitting people into a vacuum when doing so is completely unnecessary. The only point of doing all that is to squash the idea that it's something to discuss to begin with.

I was responding Hersh's very specific statement: "Under that rationale, we should never let anyone in cause how much accurate info do we have about anyone." I wasn't commenting on the issues with the rest of the world. Just pointing out his interpretation of the rationale is ridiculous. Yes I do realize that. You think I don't? What does that have to do with what I said? I haven't really posed my rationale anywhere. You're just painting me into that corner because I've challenged a few people on their ideals; namely that you can only be xenophobic to have an issue with admitting refugees and that only the GOP and Christians are thinking like this. I'm concerned about anything middle east related because I don't trust anything involving the middle east at this point; including what our politicians are proposing/doing/saying (on either side.) There's too many moving parts and to have a really informed opinion someone has to spend a lot of time studying what is going on here; somehow I doubt majority of the people throwing around their opinions (on ES, Facebook, in the media, and even some of our politicians) have spent anything close to the required time to have anything close to an informed opinion. I have as big of a problem with the people thinking there's no discussing to have here (majority of the people posting on ES about it) as i do with the idiots that think we should only let in Christians, or should close Mosques, or only spy on Muslims, or only let them in if they'll agree to be trained and sent back to fight ISIS. The big difference is we don't have a whole lot of people on ES posting from the viewpoint that we should only let in christians, close mosques, etc etc. So there's not really a whole to discuss in regards to that... Edit: I'm editing a bit because I realized I completely misread your last question. As for your last question: I don't know, maybe we could look at the people that inhabit the area? You think that because I think Syria is a breeding ground of terrorism we now have to go through every country and consider labeling them as such? You think I'm out on a limb saying Syria is a breeding ground for terrorism? Have you been paying attention the last 7 years?

Except that would ignore the fact that not every corner of the world is a breeding ground for terrorism. The votes for the bill on refugees in the house https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h643

No need to apologize Burgold I wasn't trying to say it was evenly split, I'm sure it's not even though I don't know the numbers. http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx 26% of people identify as Republican, 30% Democrats, and 43% Independent. I'm sure that hardly all of those 43% have a voting record that actually reflects they are independent, so let's just work loosely within those numbers. 72% of the american people chose an option other than: Yes, accept Syrian Refugees. My point was that the issue is a little past the standard GOP boogeyman. We're talking about an overwhelming majority being against this idea that many here are calling a fundamental part of America. But what we're seeing is blame being relentlessly focused on the GOP and Christians, even though we've had a few self-identifying Christians said accepting refugees aligns with tenets of their faith. That was all I was saying. (I hardly identify as Christian and really am not pleased with today's GOP and voted Democrat two of the last 3 times i went to the polls... so it's not like I have a personal link to the people being 'called out' here...)

Right but it didn't used to be that way. I believe their skin was called Moto Blur? Also I believe Google sold their Motorola phone division to Lenovo?

i rooted my android phones to get rid of the tracking carriers installed on their phones, or the apps they required you to have, and because android is frustratingly fragmented and you had to wait for manufacturer approval then carrier approval for updates to the OS. but above all i did it because, hands down, the reskinning of android done by motorola, samsung, htc, LG, sony, and whoever else is out there IS TERRIBLE. pure android is awesome, and every single one of them manages to make their phone have crappier battery, random sync issues with different services, delay OS updates, etc. why? Because they want something unique to their brand that makes you want their phone. ugh. so happy blackberry left pure android and all they did was secure the kernel and throw some apps on there that you could use, or not use, depending on preference.

I see a lot of blaming the GOP and Christians. But I just read this: http://themoderatevoice.com/210742/the-republican-hate-and-fear/ Which references a Bloomberg poll that found: 28% - Accept Refugees 53% - Do not accept Refugees 11% - Accept Christian Refugees 8% - Not sure That's not a GOP or Christian issue, it's a general public issue. People here constantly talk about how the GOP base is shrinking, myself included. Well, then whose representing this 72% of people that cannot agree to let them come here? That's a huge number. Edit: and this only accept christians thing, that's 11% of the country. Which, honestly, doesn't line up with how much it's referenced. I would have expected that number to be much higher, all things considered (which should not be mistaken for excusing the idea)

I like how the g is lower case and everything else is upper case.

Are you just now figuring this out? It's been that way for decades.

Peachpundit - Secretary of State released names and all identifying info on 6.1 million voters Good job Georgia. Well done.

My first question was going to be about ARC and how you're set up, but does the description of your setup in this sound like you? http://www.cnet.com/news/how-do-i-get-sound-from-my-tvs-apps/ If so, those might be the best solutions. --------------------------- on a side note my boss surprised me with a new blackberry priv yesterday... i love this phone.

Huffington Post - Mini Fedoras For Man Buns Now Exist, Apparently Heh....