Just curious. I did my MBA at UNC so I am sure we might have some overlap of professors. Though, Bylinski is gone.
It was worth electing Trump
- Thread starter TarHeelNation11
- Start date
For the most part, the MAC program has separate professors from the MBA majors. MAC is kinda its own entity underneath the Kenan-Flagler umbrella.
Bannon is leaving. Guess that cuts down on the number of racist right @BillyL?
Only 2 more to get rid of . .
Interesting, seems the only thing that our Prez can 'repeal and replace' is his own cabinet . .
How much longer before Cohn abandons Dollhands . . ?
He's not going anywhere. He wants to be the next Fed chairman. He won't get that if he leaves.
Which is a prime example of how NOTHING has really changed.
Bannon is leaving. Guess that cuts down on the number of racist right @BillyL?
Unfortunately the President would have had "mentors" with links to white supremacists and the KKK regardless of which way the election went...
http://www.newsweek.com/clinton-kkk-byrd-trump-652176
It still amazes me that fool was elected and reelected so many times.
Look at Strom Thurmond, Ted Kennedy, Daniel Inouye and even Ted Stevens. All of them, 40+ years!
I thought he said he was going to wage war on Trump's detractors?
You guys follow this stuff more than me, is this deal with him getting rid of people all the time unprecedented, common, a little above average, etc...?
And the dipshit Congressman Hank Johnson who literally believes an island could capsize if too many people occupy it.
I did, and I was impressed. I don't think he wants to be over there but I'd rather we fight them there than here. I also appreciate that he is leaving the military decisions to those that know what the hell they are doing rather than the former micromanager in chief.
yep, ditto all of that. he was very clear and concise. no Obama style pussy diplomatic approach to this stuff. we're gonna fight them one way or another, might as well be over there.
he's being dogged bc his position now is completely different than what he stated during the campaign, but as we've discussed in relation to other topics, i'm sure the access to intel and information as POTUS can change a lot of opinion compared to being a citizen or candidate.
We'll never win a war over there and we'll never establish a democratic state. At least not for a very long time. I was hopeful Trump would stick to his promise on this one. But war is good for ratings and the economy (short term).
Trump stated we aren't there to nation build. If we totally evacuate the middle east how long before ISIS, The Taliban or another terrorist group overthrows Pakistan and has nuclear capabilities. You OK with that?
You are making some big leaps from goat fvckers to nuclear armament.
Until the people of those countries throw off their chains, there will be some version of isis. Let them deal with it.
Those goat "fvckers" flew 2 planes into buildings and killed 1000's of Americans or did you forget that? If they can fly planes I'm pretty sure they can push a button.
I personally have no idea. I guess we could announce that we are leaving in 2 weeks at 3pm. I don't have the intel that our military leaders and intelligence officials have and I'm pretty sure you don't either.
You'd be surprised at what I might know.
Regardless, at some point we have to quit tinkering in the ME.
American military is still very much active in the Middle East. Nothing changes. As usual, the politicians are put there to give us the illusion that the electorate has some choice in what happens. Same shit, different day.
Ultimately I just don't want to half ass the war over there like we've been doing for the last 8-16 years.
I'd either want to go all in and raze the entire region to ensure we get rid of every last piece of ISIS/Taliban/Al-Qaeda/etc., or get the F out of there and let them deal with their own problems.
Since killing innocents to ensure killing terrorists won't get much love, I guess that'd leave us with option B. But if we go with option B we need to put some of the resources saved from withdrawing from the region towards shoring up our own borders and vetting processes so that their problems don't become our problems.
I'd either want to go all in and raze the entire region to ensure we get rid of every last piece of ISIS/Taliban/Al-Qaeda/etc., or get the F out of there and let them deal with their own problems.
Since killing innocents to ensure killing terrorists won't get much love, I guess that'd leave us with option B. But if we go with option B we need to put some of the resources saved from withdrawing from the region towards shoring up our own borders and vetting processes so that their problems don't become our problems.
Democrats will never go with option "B" because of borders and vetting. So we are still stuck.
Which speech are we speaking of . . ? The scripted, follow the bouncing ball, teleprompter speech in which he sounds like someone reading a Dr. Seuss book or the 'speak from the racist heart' speech in which he sounds and is the racist fvck he truly is . . ?
Secular liberal democracy could flourish in the M.E. if religion would get out of the way. Afghanistan is the kind of place that should make us all appreciate English Common Law and the separation of church and state.
The political and economic power is far too concentrated in that region to think that a hands off approach will magically make things better. It will only get worse until something is done about it.
The political and economic power is far too concentrated in that region to think that a hands off approach will magically make things better. It will only get worse until something is done about it.
