These guys really don't seem to get that laws are generally only as enforced as people want them to be. They keep this shit up and no jury is going to stand with them. And at that point, what is their copyright worth?
They need to charge a reasonable rate in a reasonable cost structure.
He might be, but no one is new to the AC trolls shitting all over other people's posts from the shadows.
Tell me little one, what is your post history? Oh that's right, you don't have one.
So to judge me based on a criteria you go out of your way to not have is at best hypocritical and at worst discietful.
As I assume you're proobably the recurring AC troll that follows me around everywhere, you're just a liar. You say stupid shit all the time and who is going to judge you for it?
I won't because unlike you, I don't have any interest in sniffing your panties.
And no one else will because they can't keep you fucks straight.
People like you provide NOTHING of value to the community. You just go around spreading negativity, take no responsibility for anything, and trolololol.
The anti gene lobby is about as reasonable as the anti nuclear lobby and I don't have a lot of patience for either.
As to the idea of just fixing everything through education... that's a stop gap at best. Long term we're going to genetically engineer ourselves and our food.
We stand at the cusp of the third revolution evolution on this planet.
First we had random mutation. Second we had sexual selection. Third we're going to have intelligent design.
Its happening. All you can do is slow it down a little. That's it. Nothing more.
I don't see the point. I'd just assume embrace it especially since it is the only hope most of us have for much expanded lifetimes. Yes, I want to live longer. Its in my blood. I make no apologies and offer no excuses for it.
As to IQ not being interesting, you're not understanding the impact that stupid people have on society or the benefits of having a society of geniuses.
As to more wisdom etc, don't talk to me about not wanting more technology on an internet forum. Go form a drum circle somewhere if you want to sell that.
Again, I just have very little patience for this new age hippy dippy Luddite stuff. Possibly you don't see yourself that way. Well, I don't see the genetics issue the way you do either. You're suggesting it is unwise. I disagree. I think it is extremely wise. I see not doing it as unwise.
Wise and unwise is often used as a code word for ideological dogma. hold this arbitrary code and you're wise. Don't do it and you're unwise. Its totally unlinked to any empirical measure of wisdom.
Lets look at what our society has accomplished with my mentality. You see risks. You're worried about things. But look at what we've done. We wouldn't have this without that boldness.
So if you want to preach the virtues of your philosophy, please show me what your philosophy has ever accomplished? Because I don't see it.
My intention is not to be rude or hurt your feelings. My point is rather to be brutally honest because frankly this is too important for that nonsense.
Again, it is going to happen. You cannot stop it. All you can do is slow it down. That's it. Nothing more. What is that worth? Not a whole lot. You might as well embrace it. Its going to happen regardless.
As to the sort of proof... I mean for any kind of firm scientific position you need to have some empirical evidence. My position is admittedly my own guess as to the issue. But your point about temperature, some new chemical in our environment. or a virus is possible.
I question the virus... I think we'd find that. I'm not sure about the chemical.
I think what you'd want to do is feed the mouse some food that is linked to the conventional human food supply chain. And then feed another group of rats something that is specially grown under very controlled circumstances.
As to your hostility, my views aren't actually debunked until you've proven them wrong.
Your point could be irrelevant. You don't know. It could all be a coincidence. You don't know.
We eat too much, we exercise too little, and we eat the wrong things.
More fruits, veg, and yes meat... and less starchy food.
As to getting people to move their fat asses every so often... good luck with that.
My ultimate solution to all this is massive genetic engineering.
First there's no reason we couldn't make our staple crops more nutritious. If we can put beta carotene in the rice of third world farmers just imagine what we could do with our OWN food. You could turn your staple crop of choice into a fucking multivitamin.... shift the resources in it to fats and proteins. And that is just the ONE crop.
A more reeasonable way to do it would be to have about 20 different breeds of wheat etc and have each one have its own special characteristics. THEN you just blend them together in the desired ratios at the flour mill. The health nuts will blend their own and most people will be happy with a standard blend.
We can also do stuff like change gultin to something else that people aren't sometimes allergic to.
Then of course there is the human body. The body does not NEED exercise to build muscle. It is TRIGGERED to build muscle by exercise. Those triggers can be adjusted. Ideally you want them to be related to food intake. If in some future we go into famine, the body must not keep assuming it has access to our 21st century food supply. It has to adapt. And of course, if you're getting lots of food, the body shouldn't stock pile excessive amounts of fat but rather build up some healthy muscle.
On top of that, we should awaken the portions of our genes that permit regeneration. Currently we have only a few parts of our bodies that regenerate. The intestines for example still regenerate. But there is no reason it couldn't grow new internal organs, grow new limbs, grow new eyes, new ears, regenerate nerves, etc.All of that is latent in our biology.
And while we're doing that... how about raise the standard human IQ to something less obnoxiously pitiful. Because boy oh boy are there are a lot of morons.
As to what the British Empire told you... consider ulterior motives. This is an unavoidable consequence of the sort of power I'm talking about.
A lot of an empire's power is based on pretense... image... machismo... fear... respect... love... some kind of emotion. And the best application of that is to get people to do what you want them to do.
I know that the British were fighting the Crimean War around 1853. Do you have a date on when the British said "oh hey, you should totally go in that direction because its your destiny and stuff."?
If it lines up at all trouble the british were having in the vicinity of wherever they told you to go, then it is possible they simply wanted you to be a stablizing force in the region. After all, what does it cost them if you dominate people that aren't them and in the process serve their interests?
The US does this with some regularity. Though we tend to feel it is important that whatever we're telling you to do actually can work out well for you... and whomever might be getting suppressed.
Again, it goes back to the "win- win" scenario. We ideally like outcomes where in our opinion everyone profits.
So for example, dictator gets toppled... we tend to view that as a win win because freedom is awesome and tyranny sucks for everyone. Trade deals where various countries agree to not fuck with free trade that therefore allows other countries to trade freely with those countries. The net result is generally a common economic boom. win win.
Anyway, the old British Empire was not above such things. Great powers never are. They handle it differently sometimes based on the internal philosophies of each culture. But the core ethics of it are "this is a tool and using it will save our people time, money and life."
The problem is that that isn't what happens. There is a sudden change in mentality.
You could say Russia or China or any country just changes the tools. They don't send their general to negotiate a trade deal or their diplomat to command their armies.
And yet this sudden change in US posture is unique to the United States so far as I know. I've seen no other nation that shifts that fast and will make changes that extreme to its policy.
The US will make 180 degree turns in policy in an instant. There's no other power that does that.
Now why does the US do that? I offered my theory for it. You don't like that theory? Okay... Do you have one of your own that explains the shift and why it is unique?
As to the US turning into a military dictatorship, to the contrary we had people in internment camps, we were executing German spies almost daily, we had rationing, a mandatory draft, and a great many other hallmarks of a militarized society.
What is more it isn't just that we gave the Okay to the generals. It was that prior to that point the Generals had very little influence. They were suggesting a firmer hand with Japan long before Pearl harbor. And this was overruled by the diplomats.
Then Pearl Harbor happened. No one gave a fucking shit what the diplomats said at that point. All anyone wanted to hear was what the Generals and Admirals wanted to do.
It was a sudden shift. You say this is just a change in tools? How is that any different from my comment if the tools ultimately control how things are done and your PREVIOUS tools are utterly ignored for the duration and they controlled how things were done in their time?
The answer is that you've cited a distinction without meaning.
As to mexico and sweden: ""I think of it less as "lose all power", than "authorizing a temporary grant of power" to the "General Ripper" and "The Blood Knights".
Think of the US as "The Federation", who is quite willing to be the Picard most of the time, but if they think you're a credible threat, then you discover that those "exploration cruisers" are actually heavily armed battleships.""
The point appears to be to render some kind of moral or ethical judgement. To suggest the US isn't so pure or so sweet.
I say "compared to whom?" I'm not competing against a fictional ideal. Real world comparisons only. And lets keep it to hegemonic powers.
Cite a hegemonic power purer than the US. You won't find one.
Do we match up to some goalposting fictional ideal? No one can. I'm not even going to take that challenge seriously.
he was saying the Russians failed to produce a prosperous democracy because the Evile Amerikanzis looted his country and some how instituted the oligarchy.
So we're on the same page that that guy had his head up his ass... sorry for the confusion.:)
I'm well aware. The super power claim wasn't taken seriously.
I only brought up that tangent because I could smell the moral equivalency coming and I had to head it off by insisting on ACTUAL equivalency. Such arguments tend to rely on conflating very minor powers that couldn't do anything really nasty even if they wanted with huge powers that often have no choice but to do nasty things. It comes with the power.
So if the US is to be judged morally or ethically, it should be judged against its peers... which are other hegemonic powers. Powers capable of dictating policy on a word. That narrows the field considerably and also puts the US in a context where it is hard to actually impugn the US in any great extent.
That's a distinction without meaning. First, you're not talking about modern sweden but about 17th century Sweden which had a very different character and nature than the modern Sweden. Compare the US morally and ethically against 17th century Sweden, and it is unlikely the modern US would look worse.
Second, while Sweden might have been threatening to their immediate neighbors, they had no where near the projection of true empires. I grant they were formidable. But only within their region.
The NSA doesn't permit you do that. Why do you think that is?
In fact, they don't let you bring a phone into some areas PERIOD. Not any kind of electronics what so ever.
Why? Because they know something you don't. That's why.
And they should be priming the rest of security apparatus to grasp the ACTUAL vulnerability of these systems especially when attacked not by shithead 12 year old scriptkiddies but actual state sponsored hacker corpse.
The entire conceit of a SCIF is that the information inside is protected. But is it actually? Or is it just security theater for the fucktwits?
Wrong. Welfare spending has been increasing radically over the last 50 years.
Medicare, medicaid, EBT, disability insurance, etc etc etc.
You add it up and it is about 60-70 percent of the US federal budget... and growing.
To cite anything but the welfare as the problem with the budget is to declare your personal ignorance or deceit.
As to whether you're a socialist or not... Guessed right. You are a socialist.:D
You people are so predictable and obvious. You fuck up everything you touch and take no responsibility for any of it.:D
We can't have a productive discussion. You're not going to be capable of the inherent honesty and good faith required for such a discussion. You'll just get selectively stupid or lie if I corner you. So... change the subject off your pathetic ideology or simply don't presume to talk me further about it.
Is the US debt load increasingly unsustainable? Yep. Comes from having an out of control welfare system pushed by idiot socialists.
Are you a socialist? Then it is people like you that create this sort of problem. If not, then welcome to the few that aren't responsible for fucking it all up.
That said, we have a 12 trillion dollar economy and our debt's interest rates are very low. So really it isn't so bad.
As to Wallstreet being out of control, yep. But again how does this grant Russia any superiority? Russia couldn't create an economic problem if it wanted to because it is irrelevant. The US creates global economic problems when it fucks up because it is the most relevant economy in the world.
As to trade imbalances, that is actually not quite true. You have to keep in mind that a lot of things are not tracked in those trade statistics. For example, if I sell or license my intellectual property to you and in return you sell me steel... my IP is not counted as trade and your steel is. The US has a larger portion of its economy in IP than any other economy in the world. So it is natural that we'd have a big trade imbalance because the statistics do not count all trade.
As to the Fed being a slimy organization... yep. I don't see how this proves Russia is better though. You're poorer than us by an extreme degree. We're about four times more wealthy than you per person. That is, you're paid about 25 percent what we're paid. Think about that. So yeah... we have problems and we're not perfect. But that's life. Russia is still a joke.
As to too big to fail... yep again, though is Russia any better there? Do you let your core institutions fail and die when they fuck up? The only difference is that ours are larger than yours and require proportionally larger bail outs when they collapse.
Look, I'm a libertarian, buddy. I don't like the fed. I'd like it abolished entirely. It was only brought into law through trickery in the first place. The law that brought the Fed into existence was passed on a Christmas.
But we at least have rule of law. Enemies of Putin are murdered in the streets. Media outlets critical of the regime are thrown in jail on trumped up charges.
Your people are mushrooms. You're kept in the dark and fed shit.
We at least know what our problems are... you don't even know what yours are.
The Russians are fed so much propaganda that their opinions aren't worth a lot.
You believe what you're told. Like good little peasants.
As to the Soviets descending into the economic crapper, they were in the crapper before that. Your standard of living has been much lower than ours since always. Your people are poor and have been poor for a very long time.
And that is despite having great resources, great industrial capability, and a relatively well educated technical population that could have made Russia very rich. You stand between east asia and europe.
The trade between those countries could flow THOUGH you. And along the way you'd get manufacturing jobs and service jobs to manage that trade or do assembly or manufacture things or something.
But what happens? The trade bypasses you. You profit NOTHING from the trade between Europe and East Asia.
And why is that? Because you're untrustworthy. We believe you'll steal the good or hold them hostage for political concessions. Look at what you did to Germany with your oil? Germany doesn't trust you now. They trusted you enough to depend on you but they don't want to rely on you anymore because you're an extremely foolish people. You don't know how to conduct business.
And you did the same thing to the US with our shared space program. Do you honestly think the US needed your help to maintain a space program? You are meaningless to us. It was a test. We wanted to see if you'd betray us. And you did. Its what your people do. And as a result, the US is going to break off its space program with yours. Which means you'll have to fund it entirely on your own. Good luck with that.
Our goal at this point is to make you poor and primitive enough that you aren't even a chimp with a shotgun. Your people already have a per person economy worse than Slovaks. It is going to get a lot worse.
And then your neighbors in the south and the east are going to start nibbling at your territory. Eating your rotting society alive.
And America will watch and smile.
Your one chance as prosperity was maintaining good relations with the West. We're the only people that could have been your friends. We could have injected capital and given business contracts to your people. We could have helped you build up your infrastructure. We could have made you rich and powerful. Not our slave any more than Australia is our slave.
You're missing the point in an attempt to gain some sort of illusory high ground.
The point I'm making is that when certain thresholds are crossed, the US is prone to rapid changes in nature and character.
This is not the case for Russia. Putin for example would remain in power regardless of the situation and the various people that advise him would remain largely static.
This means there is no sudden change in character.
The US is different. When the thresholds are crossed, different groups of people gain and lose power in the system. This causes a sudden change in the nature of the nation.
Again... you can look at Pearl Harbor and 9/11 as examples. Other world powers don't change like that.
They start out more prepared to engage in hostility and then make a relatively subtle transition in posture.
The US changes are not subtle. They are sudden and extreme.
This was my point.
Your point is what? That the US isn't full of nice people? Compared to whom? We're nicer than anyone else of similar power levels and responsibilities.
I love the fuckwits that try to compare the US to Sweden or Mexico or something when it comes to geopolitics. Those powers have no international responsibilities. No one stops and says "the Swedish will save us!"... and because of that, they're not comparable.
Powers you can compare the US to?
The old British Empire. The Soviet Union. Ancient China Imperial Japan Nazi Germany The Holy Roman Empire The Turkish Empire The Mongol Empire
Etc. And if you limit your comparison to nations and peoples that actually had REAL power, you'll find the US is pretty much the nicest hegemonic empire EVER in the history of the world.
Here I presume you're going to find my point inconvenient because you really wanted to compare the US to Sweden or something. Tough shit. Its an unreasonable comparison.
Well thank you for a typically illuminating comment from another gifted AC. It is because of minds like yours that most people have such a high regard for the common ACs on this site.
Its not a productive discussion. If you don't accept evidence when presented then you can't ask for evidence. At the very least you'd need to show why the evidence was wrong but you don't do that. You just ask for evidence again.
From my perspective I could show you god coming down and saying "karma is right, here are the mysteries of the universe that prove it"... and you'd mulishly deny it.
If we "looted" russia, what did we loot and where did that loot go? Did we steal Lenin's mummified corpse and put it in the white house as a hat stand?
Nope.
As to your oligarchs looting the country... how is that our fault? First the soviets had been looting the country for years. They were living high on the misery of millions. And when it fell, did the country really change? Not really. Some people that ARE Russian looted the country as they always had so they could live high.
And point of order, a lot of them are Putin supporters. Who do you think keeps Putin in power? The oligarchs.
If the US were in control, would we keep Putin in power? No. He's a meanie beanie. Why would we support someone that doesn't like us?
Basically you're doing the same thing that all failed states do... blame an external power for your own failures.
Typical of banana republics, war torn african shitstorms, and of course... Russia has decided to join that club.
Congrats. Do you know how many successful countries blame their problems on the US?
Zero. Not fucking one of them does well.
So by all means, blame the US instead of your own resident cleptocrats. That way your people will never escape poverty and domination.
You're basically pushing a belief system that is believed exclusively by ignorant peasants. So good work there.;)
I'm not a peasant. I take responsibility for the shitshow my country is on occasion. That is because I am a citizen. And citizens take responsibility. Peasants are taught that they are powerless and so take responsibility for nothing.
The citation you listed was evidence in my favor. Not yours.
yawn yawn yawn.
Also you're not taking the previous posts into the context.
If I say something with an argument in post 1 and then in post 4 just say "you're an idiot" it does not mean my argument is based on ad hominem. It means rather that the argument was cited previously and can be assumed to stand without citation.
Slashdot Mirror
These guys really don't seem to get that laws are generally only as enforced as people want them to be. They keep this shit up and no jury is going to stand with them. And at that point, what is their copyright worth?
They need to charge a reasonable rate in a reasonable cost structure.
He might be, but no one is new to the AC trolls shitting all over other people's posts from the shadows.
Tell me little one, what is your post history? Oh that's right, you don't have one.
So to judge me based on a criteria you go out of your way to not have is at best hypocritical and at worst discietful.
As I assume you're proobably the recurring AC troll that follows me around everywhere, you're just a liar. You say stupid shit all the time and who is going to judge you for it?
I won't because unlike you, I don't have any interest in sniffing your panties.
And no one else will because they can't keep you fucks straight.
People like you provide NOTHING of value to the community. You just go around spreading negativity, take no responsibility for anything, and trolololol.
The anti gene lobby is about as reasonable as the anti nuclear lobby and I don't have a lot of patience for either.
As to the idea of just fixing everything through education... that's a stop gap at best. Long term we're going to genetically engineer ourselves and our food.
We stand at the cusp of the third revolution evolution on this planet.
First we had random mutation.
Second we had sexual selection.
Third we're going to have intelligent design.
Its happening. All you can do is slow it down a little. That's it. Nothing more.
I don't see the point. I'd just assume embrace it especially since it is the only hope most of us have for much expanded lifetimes. Yes, I want to live longer. Its in my blood. I make no apologies and offer no excuses for it.
As to IQ not being interesting, you're not understanding the impact that stupid people have on society or the benefits of having a society of geniuses.
As to more wisdom etc, don't talk to me about not wanting more technology on an internet forum. Go form a drum circle somewhere if you want to sell that.
Again, I just have very little patience for this new age hippy dippy Luddite stuff. Possibly you don't see yourself that way. Well, I don't see the genetics issue the way you do either. You're suggesting it is unwise. I disagree. I think it is extremely wise. I see not doing it as unwise.
Wise and unwise is often used as a code word for ideological dogma. hold this arbitrary code and you're wise. Don't do it and you're unwise. Its totally unlinked to any empirical measure of wisdom.
Lets look at what our society has accomplished with my mentality. You see risks. You're worried about things. But look at what we've done. We wouldn't have this without that boldness.
So if you want to preach the virtues of your philosophy, please show me what your philosophy has ever accomplished? Because I don't see it.
My intention is not to be rude or hurt your feelings. My point is rather to be brutally honest because frankly this is too important for that nonsense.
Again, it is going to happen. You cannot stop it. All you can do is slow it down. That's it. Nothing more. What is that worth? Not a whole lot. You might as well embrace it. Its going to happen regardless.
I think the rich being thinner has more to do with better food and better exercise.
As to the sort of proof... I mean for any kind of firm scientific position you need to have some empirical evidence. My position is admittedly my own guess as to the issue. But your point about temperature, some new chemical in our environment. or a virus is possible.
I question the virus... I think we'd find that. I'm not sure about the chemical.
I think what you'd want to do is feed the mouse some food that is linked to the conventional human food supply chain. And then feed another group of rats something that is specially grown under very controlled circumstances.
As to your hostility, my views aren't actually debunked until you've proven them wrong.
Your point could be irrelevant. You don't know. It could all be a coincidence. You don't know.
the corn subsidies and the silly food pyramid.
We eat too much, we exercise too little, and we eat the wrong things.
More fruits, veg, and yes meat... and less starchy food.
As to getting people to move their fat asses every so often... good luck with that.
My ultimate solution to all this is massive genetic engineering.
First there's no reason we couldn't make our staple crops more nutritious. If we can put beta carotene in the rice of third world farmers just imagine what we could do with our OWN food. You could turn your staple crop of choice into a fucking multivitamin.... shift the resources in it to fats and proteins. And that is just the ONE crop.
A more reeasonable way to do it would be to have about 20 different breeds of wheat etc and have each one have its own special characteristics. THEN you just blend them together in the desired ratios at the flour mill. The health nuts will blend their own and most people will be happy with a standard blend.
We can also do stuff like change gultin to something else that people aren't sometimes allergic to.
Then of course there is the human body. The body does not NEED exercise to build muscle. It is TRIGGERED to build muscle by exercise. Those triggers can be adjusted. Ideally you want them to be related to food intake. If in some future we go into famine, the body must not keep assuming it has access to our 21st century food supply. It has to adapt. And of course, if you're getting lots of food, the body shouldn't stock pile excessive amounts of fat but rather build up some healthy muscle.
On top of that, we should awaken the portions of our genes that permit regeneration. Currently we have only a few parts of our bodies that regenerate. The intestines for example still regenerate. But there is no reason it couldn't grow new internal organs, grow new limbs, grow new eyes, new ears, regenerate nerves, etc.All of that is latent in our biology.
And while we're doing that... how about raise the standard human IQ to something less obnoxiously pitiful. Because boy oh boy are there are a lot of morons.
As to what the British Empire told you... consider ulterior motives. This is an unavoidable consequence of the sort of power I'm talking about.
A lot of an empire's power is based on pretense... image... machismo... fear... respect... love... some kind of emotion. And the best application of that is to get people to do what you want them to do.
I know that the British were fighting the Crimean War around 1853. Do you have a date on when the British said "oh hey, you should totally go in that direction because its your destiny and stuff."?
If it lines up at all trouble the british were having in the vicinity of wherever they told you to go, then it is possible they simply wanted you to be a stablizing force in the region. After all, what does it cost them if you dominate people that aren't them and in the process serve their interests?
The US does this with some regularity. Though we tend to feel it is important that whatever we're telling you to do actually can work out well for you... and whomever might be getting suppressed.
Again, it goes back to the "win- win" scenario. We ideally like outcomes where in our opinion everyone profits.
So for example, dictator gets toppled... we tend to view that as a win win because freedom is awesome and tyranny sucks for everyone. Trade deals where various countries agree to not fuck with free trade that therefore allows other countries to trade freely with those countries. The net result is generally a common economic boom. win win.
Anyway, the old British Empire was not above such things. Great powers never are. They handle it differently sometimes based on the internal philosophies of each culture. But the core ethics of it are "this is a tool and using it will save our people time, money and life."
The problem is that that isn't what happens. There is a sudden change in mentality.
You could say Russia or China or any country just changes the tools. They don't send their general to negotiate a trade deal or their diplomat to command their armies.
And yet this sudden change in US posture is unique to the United States so far as I know. I've seen no other nation that shifts that fast and will make changes that extreme to its policy.
The US will make 180 degree turns in policy in an instant. There's no other power that does that.
Now why does the US do that? I offered my theory for it. You don't like that theory? Okay... Do you have one of your own that explains the shift and why it is unique?
As to the US turning into a military dictatorship, to the contrary we had people in internment camps, we were executing German spies almost daily, we had rationing, a mandatory draft, and a great many other hallmarks of a militarized society.
What is more it isn't just that we gave the Okay to the generals. It was that prior to that point the Generals had very little influence. They were suggesting a firmer hand with Japan long before Pearl harbor. And this was overruled by the diplomats.
Then Pearl Harbor happened. No one gave a fucking shit what the diplomats said at that point. All anyone wanted to hear was what the Generals and Admirals wanted to do.
It was a sudden shift. You say this is just a change in tools? How is that any different from my comment if the tools ultimately control how things are done and your PREVIOUS tools are utterly ignored for the duration and they controlled how things were done in their time?
The answer is that you've cited a distinction without meaning.
As to mexico and sweden:
""I think of it less as "lose all power", than "authorizing a temporary grant of power" to the "General Ripper" and "The Blood Knights".
Think of the US as "The Federation", who is quite willing to be the Picard most of the time, but if they think you're a credible threat, then you discover that those "exploration cruisers" are actually heavily armed battleships.""
The point appears to be to render some kind of moral or ethical judgement. To suggest the US isn't so pure or so sweet.
I say "compared to whom?" I'm not competing against a fictional ideal. Real world comparisons only. And lets keep it to hegemonic powers.
Cite a hegemonic power purer than the US. You won't find one.
Do we match up to some goalposting fictional ideal? No one can. I'm not even going to take that challenge seriously.
sorry, i was still basically reacting to this guy:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
he was saying the Russians failed to produce a prosperous democracy because the Evile Amerikanzis looted his country and some how instituted the oligarchy.
So we're on the same page that that guy had his head up his ass... sorry for the confusion. :)
I'm well aware. The super power claim wasn't taken seriously.
I only brought up that tangent because I could smell the moral equivalency coming and I had to head it off by insisting on ACTUAL equivalency. Such arguments tend to rely on conflating very minor powers that couldn't do anything really nasty even if they wanted with huge powers that often have no choice but to do nasty things. It comes with the power.
So if the US is to be judged morally or ethically, it should be judged against its peers... which are other hegemonic powers. Powers capable of dictating policy on a word. That narrows the field considerably and also puts the US in a context where it is hard to actually impugn the US in any great extent.
... the whole "snowden's leaks did it" could be a cover for what other hacks did.
That's a distinction without meaning. First, you're not talking about modern sweden but about 17th century Sweden which had a very different character and nature than the modern Sweden. Compare the US morally and ethically against 17th century Sweden, and it is unlikely the modern US would look worse.
Second, while Sweden might have been threatening to their immediate neighbors, they had no where near the projection of true empires. I grant they were formidable. But only within their region.
The NSA doesn't permit you do that. Why do you think that is?
In fact, they don't let you bring a phone into some areas PERIOD. Not any kind of electronics what so ever.
Why? Because they know something you don't. That's why.
And they should be priming the rest of security apparatus to grasp the ACTUAL vulnerability of these systems especially when attacked not by shithead 12 year old scriptkiddies but actual state sponsored hacker corpse.
The entire conceit of a SCIF is that the information inside is protected. But is it actually? Or is it just security theater for the fucktwits?
No, their failures are their own. Denying this is merely self delusion.
As to the US having some negative consequences of fighting the drug war?... sure. Which nation would you rather be?
The US or Russia? Comparing the two isn't even close. Russia and has been for a long time... a sad joke.
If they weren't run by fools they could be very rich and very powerful.
But they are run by idiots and the price is to be an international laughing stock.
Wrong. Welfare spending has been increasing radically over the last 50 years.
Medicare, medicaid, EBT, disability insurance, etc etc etc.
You add it up and it is about 60-70 percent of the US federal budget... and growing.
To cite anything but the welfare as the problem with the budget is to declare your personal ignorance or deceit.
As to whether you're a socialist or not... Guessed right. You are a socialist. :D
You people are so predictable and obvious. You fuck up everything you touch and take no responsibility for any of it. :D
We can't have a productive discussion. You're not going to be capable of the inherent honesty and good faith required for such a discussion. You'll just get selectively stupid or lie if I corner you. So... change the subject off your pathetic ideology or simply don't presume to talk me further about it.
Is the US debt load increasingly unsustainable? Yep. Comes from having an out of control welfare system pushed by idiot socialists.
Are you a socialist? Then it is people like you that create this sort of problem. If not, then welcome to the few that aren't responsible for fucking it all up.
That said, we have a 12 trillion dollar economy and our debt's interest rates are very low. So really it isn't so bad.
As to Wallstreet being out of control, yep. But again how does this grant Russia any superiority? Russia couldn't create an economic problem if it wanted to because it is irrelevant. The US creates global economic problems when it fucks up because it is the most relevant economy in the world.
As to trade imbalances, that is actually not quite true. You have to keep in mind that a lot of things are not tracked in those trade statistics. For example, if I sell or license my intellectual property to you and in return you sell me steel... my IP is not counted as trade and your steel is. The US has a larger portion of its economy in IP than any other economy in the world. So it is natural that we'd have a big trade imbalance because the statistics do not count all trade.
As to the Fed being a slimy organization... yep. I don't see how this proves Russia is better though. You're poorer than us by an extreme degree. We're about four times more wealthy than you per person. That is, you're paid about 25 percent what we're paid. Think about that. So yeah... we have problems and we're not perfect. But that's life. Russia is still a joke.
As to too big to fail... yep again, though is Russia any better there? Do you let your core institutions fail and die when they fuck up? The only difference is that ours are larger than yours and require proportionally larger bail outs when they collapse.
Look, I'm a libertarian, buddy. I don't like the fed. I'd like it abolished entirely. It was only brought into law through trickery in the first place. The law that brought the Fed into existence was passed on a Christmas.
But we at least have rule of law. Enemies of Putin are murdered in the streets. Media outlets critical of the regime are thrown in jail on trumped up charges.
Your people are mushrooms. You're kept in the dark and fed shit.
We at least know what our problems are... you don't even know what yours are.
The Russians are fed so much propaganda that their opinions aren't worth a lot.
You believe what you're told. Like good little peasants.
As to the Soviets descending into the economic crapper, they were in the crapper before that. Your standard of living has been much lower than ours since always. Your people are poor and have been poor for a very long time.
And that is despite having great resources, great industrial capability, and a relatively well educated technical population that could have made Russia very rich. You stand between east asia and europe.
The trade between those countries could flow THOUGH you. And along the way you'd get manufacturing jobs and service jobs to manage that trade or do assembly or manufacture things or something.
But what happens? The trade bypasses you. You profit NOTHING from the trade between Europe and East Asia.
And why is that? Because you're untrustworthy. We believe you'll steal the good or hold them hostage for political concessions. Look at what you did to Germany with your oil? Germany doesn't trust you now. They trusted you enough to depend on you but they don't want to rely on you anymore because you're an extremely foolish people. You don't know how to conduct business.
And you did the same thing to the US with our shared space program. Do you honestly think the US needed your help to maintain a space program? You are meaningless to us. It was a test. We wanted to see if you'd betray us. And you did. Its what your people do. And as a result, the US is going to break off its space program with yours. Which means you'll have to fund it entirely on your own. Good luck with that.
Our goal at this point is to make you poor and primitive enough that you aren't even a chimp with a shotgun. Your people already have a per person economy worse than Slovaks. It is going to get a lot worse.
And then your neighbors in the south and the east are going to start nibbling at your territory. Eating your rotting society alive.
And America will watch and smile.
Your one chance as prosperity was maintaining good relations with the West. We're the only people that could have been your friends. We could have injected capital and given business contracts to your people. We could have helped you build up your infrastructure. We could have made you rich and powerful. Not our slave any more than Australia is our slave.
And you pissed it all away for NOTHING.
you've asked dozens of times.
You just deny and contradict.
You're like some fucking retarded chatbot that just asks for proof of things without the requist processing to realize when questions were answered.
Here you'll say I didn't answer you questions... ex-fucking-actly. That's what you do. Over and over again... mindlessly.
Either accept the evidence when provided, show why the evidence is wrong, or you don't get to ask for evidence.
You were given evidence. So you can either address that or you don't get more.
You're missing the point in an attempt to gain some sort of illusory high ground.
The point I'm making is that when certain thresholds are crossed, the US is prone to rapid changes in nature and character.
This is not the case for Russia. Putin for example would remain in power regardless of the situation and the various people that advise him would remain largely static.
This means there is no sudden change in character.
The US is different. When the thresholds are crossed, different groups of people gain and lose power in the system. This causes a sudden change in the nature of the nation.
Again... you can look at Pearl Harbor and 9/11 as examples. Other world powers don't change like that.
They start out more prepared to engage in hostility and then make a relatively subtle transition in posture.
The US changes are not subtle. They are sudden and extreme.
This was my point.
Your point is what? That the US isn't full of nice people? Compared to whom? We're nicer than anyone else of similar power levels and responsibilities.
I love the fuckwits that try to compare the US to Sweden or Mexico or something when it comes to geopolitics. Those powers have no international responsibilities. No one stops and says "the Swedish will save us!"... and because of that, they're not comparable.
Powers you can compare the US to?
The old British Empire.
The Soviet Union.
Ancient China
Imperial Japan
Nazi Germany
The Holy Roman Empire
The Turkish Empire
The Mongol Empire
Etc. And if you limit your comparison to nations and peoples that actually had REAL power, you'll find the US is pretty much the nicest hegemonic empire EVER in the history of the world.
Here I presume you're going to find my point inconvenient because you really wanted to compare the US to Sweden or something. Tough shit. Its an unreasonable comparison.
Well thank you for a typically illuminating comment from another gifted AC. It is because of minds like yours that most people have such a high regard for the common ACs on this site.
Keep up the good work.
I did... many times. You just ask again.
Its not a productive discussion. If you don't accept evidence when presented then you can't ask for evidence. At the very least you'd need to show why the evidence was wrong but you don't do that. You just ask for evidence again.
From my perspective I could show you god coming down and saying "karma is right, here are the mysteries of the universe that prove it"... and you'd mulishly deny it.
You remind me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No, it was the thing you cited right before I made that comment. You can find the link very easily or you're just trying to waste my time.
Either way.
Man... I am so sick. I've had a fever for days. I'm just sitting here drinking tea trying to get a little rest.
We did no such thing. If we had, we'd own Russia.
Do we own Russia or are you wrong?
Because... one of the two is true.
If we "looted" russia, what did we loot and where did that loot go? Did we steal Lenin's mummified corpse and put it in the white house as a hat stand?
Nope.
As to your oligarchs looting the country... how is that our fault? First the soviets had been looting the country for years. They were living high on the misery of millions. And when it fell, did the country really change? Not really. Some people that ARE Russian looted the country as they always had so they could live high.
And point of order, a lot of them are Putin supporters. Who do you think keeps Putin in power? The oligarchs.
If the US were in control, would we keep Putin in power? No. He's a meanie beanie. Why would we support someone that doesn't like us?
Basically you're doing the same thing that all failed states do... blame an external power for your own failures.
Typical of banana republics, war torn african shitstorms, and of course... Russia has decided to join that club.
Congrats. Do you know how many successful countries blame their problems on the US?
Zero. Not fucking one of them does well.
So by all means, blame the US instead of your own resident cleptocrats. That way your people will never escape poverty and domination.
You're basically pushing a belief system that is believed exclusively by ignorant peasants. So good work there. ;)
I'm not a peasant. I take responsibility for the shitshow my country is on occasion. That is because I am a citizen. And citizens take responsibility. Peasants are taught that they are powerless and so take responsibility for nothing.
*Kiss Kiss*
The citation you listed was evidence in my favor. Not yours.
yawn yawn yawn.
Also you're not taking the previous posts into the context.
If I say something with an argument in post 1 and then in post 4 just say "you're an idiot" it does not mean my argument is based on ad hominem. It means rather that the argument was cited previously and can be assumed to stand without citation.
You're such an idiot :D
... if you had any respect for the US constitution or due process. But you don't. So fuck you.