The USA has enough nukes to make China the world's largest parking lot, and can activate enough others on standby to make it a solid glass parking lot.
Here on the West Coast, we get enough dust from China already to mess with our Clean Air Act quotas, and pollute the Willamette River.
Seems a bit costly to go that route, not that it matters in these kinds of calculations.
I've tried learning more about conservative and libertarian values, and they contrast very strongly with what the last> administration did too. The frustration I find among people goes beyond partisanship, notwithstanding what anyone may be seeing through flag / stained glass / pot - colored lenses. Both sides are big juicy targets for mockery; the real straw man is the idea that the major parties differ in matters of real import.
If Stewart and Colbert do a creditable job sending up both sides, then good on 'em. We should evaluate this stunt on that basis. If they don't, they'll simply blend in with the current phalanx of distractors and apologists for the (very bipartisan) lawlessness that proceeds apace to hollow out our Treasury.
How is it that the Party of "law and order" remains face-down in its oatmeal while:
- The Fed buys non-guaranteed securities without Congressional approval, then cites the adjacent paragraph in its charter (dealing in loans) as justification?
(see "Maiden Lane" and others)
- Banks foreclose on houses they never owned for loans they never touched, while running money to drug dealers and terrorists?
(half a dozen news stories in just the last six months!)
How is it that the Party of inclusion and fair compensation for labor:
- Creates conditions which isolate and impoverish whole neighborhoods and cultures?
( Uncontrolled welfare, Fannie/Freddie pushing housing prices out of reach, etc.)
- Works hammer and tongs to send jobs out of the country while abetting a virtual slave trade within?
( NAFTA/free trade, refusal to bust corps who hire illegals and abuse them)
You may still be dazzled by the Punch and Judy illusion, but please realize that those who operate the supposedly opposed puppets will merrily sit down to drinks with each other afterward, counting the gate money.
The real constructive thing about these rallies is that they mock the worst excesses of the media circus, and put out a plea for all of us to stop fighting among ourselves (the desired result of the "programming"!).
You do realize that death is guaranteed to all anyway? You waste your breath arguing from bad semantics.
A 'penalty' connotes a 'pain' or 'loss', i.e. negative feedback to discourage malfeasance. How do you perceive this when you are no longer extant? The only ones experiencing loss are the rest of us, particularly the families of the recipients. (Note to those entertained by this form of homicide, and rationalizing it by 'boogie man' tropes: For every 'boogie man' hard-core beast, history shows at least one innocently executed person. When is it your turn, voter-debtor?)
Get it right. You're talking about 'state-sponsored executions', and given the State's track record, I claim that it's a monumentally shitty habit for the State to cultivate. However much it gladdens those who'll willingly pay extra for a spectacle of cruelty, this is the core reason that it "doesn't work".
I say that's an argument that appeals to every reasonable person without reference to political stripe. Wallow in the notion of 'penalty', and you fade to the margins by inviting metaphysics in, and the First Amendment forbids that when the Gummint is involved.
When you pretend not to understand what someone is saying because they didn't spell it out in legalease on 8x20 stationery in double-spaced Times New Roman, you only make yourself look like an ass^W^Wa talk-radio pundit.
NEVER! The death panels should remain in corporate hands! We have so much data showing how well that has worked out - please don't fiddle with our gravy train^W^W^W a good thing!
Have you ever tried to explain an idea that matters to someone else? If they have a stake in what you're talking about, and you go around qualifying your statements with doubts and hedges, they freak. If they want you to be right, you're a waffling doubletalker and a muddler of their agenda. If they want you to be wrong, you're a threatening goon who's just shown them a weakness.
Pitchforks and torches ensue either way. Those who propose to speak to the public at all are duly warned.
Your best bet is to speak with authority, as far as you can substantiate, and spent the rest of your time correcting the misapprehensions caused by poor listening, third-hand accounts of your message, and the media agenda of fitting everything into an entertaining narrative.
saying it comes from "the left" is still a true statement.
"Statements" like this harm democratic dialogue. Large media companies derive an advantage from divisive tropes which divert people's energy from substantive problem-solving to destructive quarrels. One major such trope involves conditioning the audience to expect an "equal" treatment or response whenever the discourse names one side.
Thus, if you upbraid the "Left", you obviously approve of ordinary, hard-working, rock-ribbed Conservative Republican/Tea Party/spittle-flecked wingnut values.
And if you rebuke the "Right", you obviously approve of working-class, egalitarian, compassionate Liberal Democrat/Peace & Freedom/spittle-flecked collectivist values.
And if you want to gainsay that pigeonholing, or indeed add any analysis, nuance, or new concept to the discussion, you'll find yourself instantly interrupted for the sin of exceeding the sponsor-recommended attention span interval - they have to keep you off balance, agitated, and thoughtless going into the commercial break.
What comes from "both sides" remains outside the narrative.
Homework questions:
Could a sustained 'bipartisan' effort produce harm to the populace without them noticing the plan in action? How?
Do you prefer to pay income tax or property tax to reduce the national deficit? Spend a long time justifying why (pausing for a word from our sponsor).
Calm down, nanny-state boy, the free market will take care of this.
The phones will provide streaming data to your insurance company about how much exposure you're getting to, say, second-hand smoke, and adjust your rates accordingly. The accelerometer and GPS data will tell them when you're speeding, etc.
Can't afford insurance after that? Why, then we'll just take the children to a better home, you slacking deadbeat. We have to respect the rule of law, you know.
Slashdot Mirror
Your attempt at humor has foundered. Try a different tack. (And weigh your anger before your next volley.)
It's a simple question of weight ratios. A five-ounce swallow cannot carry a one-pound coconut.
You need two swallows, with a strand of creeper held under the dorsal guiding feathers.
The majority of open ocean is a nutrient-poor environment even for algae and plankton.
It is a less productive desert than just about anywhere else on Earth.
What 'nutrient-rich zones that died off' am I missing?
Here on the West Coast, we get enough dust from China already to mess with our Clean Air Act quotas, and pollute the Willamette River.
Seems a bit costly to go that route, not that it matters in these kinds of calculations.
Then the problem isn't people doing research, it's people finishing their research. Without that, we won't have results happening nearly as often.
As a bonus, grad students can stay on longer and defer those ugly student loan payments (which also happen far too often, from their perspective).
Whenever I've had to work on Windows, I've needed a tablet or two alright.
If theirs are so good, they should include them with the install disks.
No, they just appreciate puns differently than wouche bags do.
But that's his Kodos operandi!
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
-- Charles Mackay
I've tried learning more about conservative and libertarian values, and they contrast very strongly with what the last> administration did too. The frustration I find among people goes beyond partisanship, notwithstanding what anyone may be seeing through flag / stained glass / pot - colored lenses. Both sides are big juicy targets for mockery; the real straw man is the idea that the major parties differ in matters of real import.
If Stewart and Colbert do a creditable job sending up both sides, then good on 'em. We should evaluate this stunt on that basis. If they don't, they'll simply blend in with the current phalanx of distractors and apologists for the (very bipartisan) lawlessness that proceeds apace to hollow out our Treasury.
How is it that the Party of "law and order" remains face-down in its oatmeal while:
- The Fed buys non-guaranteed securities without Congressional approval, then cites the adjacent paragraph in its charter (dealing in loans) as justification?
(see "Maiden Lane" and others)
- Banks foreclose on houses they never owned for loans they never touched, while running money to drug dealers and terrorists?
(half a dozen news stories in just the last six months!)
How is it that the Party of inclusion and fair compensation for labor:
- Creates conditions which isolate and impoverish whole neighborhoods and cultures?
( Uncontrolled welfare, Fannie/Freddie pushing housing prices out of reach, etc.)
- Works hammer and tongs to send jobs out of the country while abetting a virtual slave trade within?
( NAFTA/free trade, refusal to bust corps who hire illegals and abuse them)
You may still be dazzled by the Punch and Judy illusion, but please realize that those who operate the supposedly opposed puppets will merrily sit down to drinks with each other afterward, counting the gate money.
The real constructive thing about these rallies is that they mock the worst excesses of the media circus, and put out a plea for all of us to stop fighting among ourselves (the desired result of the "programming"!).
"For great justice" ;)
Actually it refers to 'great' or 'greatness', I think. 'Allah u Akbar' is commonly translated as 'God is great'.
But then, I got that translation from the media, so don't start a war over it.
Oh, *phew*, you mean just *some* whisky ...
You do realize that death is guaranteed to all anyway? You waste your breath arguing from bad semantics.
A 'penalty' connotes a 'pain' or 'loss', i.e. negative feedback to discourage malfeasance. How do you perceive this when you are no longer extant? The only ones experiencing loss are the rest of us, particularly the families of the recipients. (Note to those entertained by this form of homicide, and rationalizing it by 'boogie man' tropes: For every 'boogie man' hard-core beast, history shows at least one innocently executed person. When is it your turn, voter-debtor?)
Get it right. You're talking about 'state-sponsored executions', and given the State's track record, I claim that it's a monumentally shitty habit for the State to cultivate. However much it gladdens those who'll willingly pay extra for a spectacle of cruelty, this is the core reason that it "doesn't work".
I say that's an argument that appeals to every reasonable person without reference to political stripe. Wallow in the notion of 'penalty', and you fade to the margins by inviting metaphysics in, and the First Amendment forbids that when the Gummint is involved.
How many nits could a nitwit pick if a nitwit could pick nits?
Fixed.
It has.
The "Flash Crash"
NEVER! The death panels should remain in corporate hands! We have so much data showing how well that has worked out - please don't fiddle with our gravy train^W^W^W a good thing!
Word salad 'Zippy the Pinhead'-style quotes go in the 'fortune' script at the bottom of the page.
When do we stop blaming Lincoln for the North prevailing in the Civil War?
Some acts have large, long-term impacts whose causes we should understand and remember for a long time.
"Prepare Shift Simulfax for human form"
"Prepare mirror clone"
"Clone me"
<passwd: illegal entry>
"Clone me, Doctor Memory!"
Have you ever tried to explain an idea that matters to someone else? If they have a stake in what you're talking about, and you go around qualifying your statements with doubts and hedges, they freak. If they want you to be right, you're a waffling doubletalker and a muddler of their agenda. If they want you to be wrong, you're a threatening goon who's just shown them a weakness.
Pitchforks and torches ensue either way. Those who propose to speak to the public at all are duly warned.
Your best bet is to speak with authority, as far as you can substantiate, and spent the rest of your time correcting the misapprehensions caused by poor listening, third-hand accounts of your message, and the media agenda of fitting everything into an entertaining narrative.
"Statements" like this harm democratic dialogue. Large media companies derive an advantage from divisive tropes which divert people's energy from substantive problem-solving to destructive quarrels. One major such trope involves conditioning the audience to expect an "equal" treatment or response whenever the discourse names one side.
Thus, if you upbraid the "Left", you obviously approve of ordinary, hard-working, rock-ribbed Conservative Republican/Tea Party/spittle-flecked wingnut values.
And if you rebuke the "Right", you obviously approve of working-class, egalitarian, compassionate Liberal Democrat/Peace & Freedom/spittle-flecked collectivist values.
And if you want to gainsay that pigeonholing, or indeed add any analysis, nuance, or new concept to the discussion, you'll find yourself instantly interrupted for the sin of exceeding the sponsor-recommended attention span interval - they have to keep you off balance, agitated, and thoughtless going into the commercial break.
What comes from "both sides" remains outside the narrative.
Homework questions:
Could a sustained 'bipartisan' effort produce harm to the populace without them noticing the plan in action? How?
Do you prefer to pay income tax or property tax to reduce the national deficit? Spend a long time justifying why (pausing for a word from our sponsor).
Don't forget the 'chupacabra', a bigfoot-ish phenomenon that seems to appear mainly in Hispanic communities, and not elsewhere.
I'd be happy to research and discuss the cross-cultural aspects of such phenomena, if the school will pay my retainer for monthly lectures.
Calm down, nanny-state boy, the free market will take care of this.
The phones will provide streaming data to your insurance company about how much exposure you're getting to, say, second-hand smoke, and adjust your rates accordingly. The accelerometer and GPS data will tell them when you're speeding, etc.
Can't afford insurance after that? Why, then we'll just take the children to a better home, you slacking deadbeat. We have to respect the rule of law, you know.
Flying Long Pig Flu?