With respect, this is ignorance. Throughout most of the US's history, we had very loose gun laws and wide gun ownership. Shooting up places as you describe it didn't happen with any frequency. And if you had any grasp on the situation then why would that have not happened in the past but would happen today?
Is insanity new? Is the will to shoot the place up new? The only thing I can really point to as being an innovation here are all the mind altering drugs we feed to crazy people to "help" them. But maybe I'm missing something.
Who is and is not a frightened moron is debatable. Is that you or me or that guy with the AR15? You don't know that and neither do I. Which leaves you either making assumptions or leveling prejudicial judgements or just giving people the benefit of the doubt... as per the 2nd amendment... aka the fucking law of the land.
As to political responses and picking up guns... you can't equate someone "picking" a gun up and someone "blowing" a bomb up... Now picking a bomb up and picking a gun up... that's possibly comparable. But picking up and using are not the same thing. Obviously.
As to goat fuckers and fear... you're calling them goat fuckers. That's some what prejudicial on your part. I'm quite certain goat fucking is pretty uncommon in Islamic countries. If anything, it is probably less common what with the whole "women are cock sleeves" policy they have going on down there.
And then you close out with this judgment that said goat fuckers fill "me" with fear... even though I don't think I made any mention of them or stated my feelings about them one way or the other. Which means you're just making more assumptions... and this thing where you say I'm afraid... are you trying to call me a coward again because I won't make myself helpless? You're issuing a challenge that sounds like it would come from Daffy Duck. Its comically transparently childish. You're going to have to go beyond Bugs Bunny if you want to pull one over on me. Daffy Duck level ploys are just going to cause eyes to roll.
Look... you can't insult me. Its like a six year old trying to insult an adult. It just doesn't work. My psychology is not something you understand and more to the point, the things that actually bother me are so far beyond anything you'd think of that these sad insinuations that I'm a coward are beyond meaningless. That is not an insult against you by the way. I suspect you won't be able to believe that but it is actually just an honest suggestion that you stop wasting your time issuing childish insults. I mean, if you have more substantial insults, then have at it. But they're going to have to be military grade first world insults. Anything short of that just isn't going to do more then tickle. You're going to have to scorch my soul if you want to go that way. I question whether you have such insults in your strategic inventory.
The gun toting mostly happens as a political response to your attempt to take them away. You're therefore mostly complaining about protests and political demonstrations from rival political factions. That's not very "liberal" or "leftie" of you... is it?
As to frightened macho children... you say frightened not because they act frightened but as a taught to suggest that if they weren't frightened they'd put the guns away. To the contrary, you're probably more afraid than they are... aren't you? I mean, if you weren't... why is it that people like YOU want to change things? What do you "fear"?
Your entire statement was dishonest and an insult to the intelligence of anyone that is taking the issue seriously. Your argument would work on a confused teenager maybe. But not a fully formed adult. Try again.
You have to go pretty far out into the weeds to find those statements. Where as I can pull my quotes from major national newspapers, mainstream network TV, and sitting elected politicians.
We've had guns at conventions before... many many times before. Guns didn't used to be as restricted and regulated as they are today and there was no insane incidence of gun violence in those days.
What changed?
Look at the political rallies that have had a lot of people show up with AR15s... notice how many of them broke out into gun fights? You're spinning bad propaganda... bad because its easily disproven by looking at analogous situations... and propaganda because the only reason you're saying ANYTHING on this issue is because you have an axe to grind on guns... a very dull, rusty, and not very reliable axe. I suspect if you ground it into a point there wouldn't be much left of the metal... certainly not much that could cut if the analogy can bear my reference.
North Korea is a theocratic hereditary oligarchy. Not a republic.
China is an oligarchy as well.
As to a country being a democracy if there is an election, it depends on whether the people on the ballot are actually up to the people at all. Assuming they are, then sure... you have a democracy. If the only person on the ballot is Saddam or something then you don't have a democracy.
As to the 'we're a republic"/"we're a democracy"... The united states is a democratic republic. In that people have a vote but the day to day ruler of the country is "the law". Any country where the highest law "is the law"... is a republic. If the king is the highest law or the Kim family... then you do not have a republic. To have a democracy in china, it would have to be permissible for someone other than the communist party to run for election. So they do not have a democracy because the people do not actually choose. If the people voted for... I don't know... an anti communist to run a province in China, would that person be allowed on the ballot much less allowed to serve his term in office? Don't be silly. The fact that the military in China literally swears loyality to the Communist Party of China directly is another damning point of evidence in my favor here. China is not a democracy.
So why do people like me bring this up? Because people like YOU think you know what a democracy or a republic is... but you don't. I don't say that to be mean to "you" but rather to the PART of you that thinks it knows what a republic or a democracy is... it does not. You do not. You just proved that.
Its mostly wild and wacky because its detractors say it is... You have to remember that 10 years ago the "wall" idea was quiet popular and actually got sorta built... just not very well and with lots of holes in it. That wasn't that long ago and that should indicate to you that the politics for that to happen are quite viable.
As to what is possible... well, the democrats in basically no time flat went against standing healthcare policy in the US.
The republicans have majorities in the House and Senate... if they take the presidency as well... at the same time... just as Obama did... then what happens is whatever that coalition wants to happen.
As we sow... so shall we reap? There is enormous frustration with the politics in this country. And while either party will pretend that the frustration only goes one way, a more honest appraisal will note that it goes BOTH ways. Things are getting heated.
Assuming business as usual will be the order of the day in this environment where sacred cows are getting slaughtered and paradigms are shifting... and people are getting very angry with anything status quo...
Doesn't that sound... tone deaf? Because it is... Feel the pulse of the climate... its not going to be business as usual. Maybe that will suit your particular politics whatever they are or maybe not.
The nature of chaos is "chaos"... its not predictable.
You start out saying you're joking, then you double down.
Saying that the US would just dump people in a place they would shortly die from exposure or dehydration is not supportable. We don't do that and we didn't do it in the past when we deported people quiet freely. It wasn't that long ago.
As to the Mexican government not caring about their own people... as much is obvious by the way they treat their own people. It makes accusations against the US along these lines from mexico... Laughable. Their own people would rather live in the US than in Mexico because to the contrary, it is the mexicans that are the bigots. They have many classes and ethnic groups in Mexico and they associate and rank each other on that basis fairly freely.
As to spending huge sums on a wall or whatever... we spend huge sums on the existing immigration problem. Negating the need to pay out the welfare claims alone would pay for a whole army to guard the stupid border.
As to the future of politics... everything is crazy and no one knows what is going to happen.
The establishment picks were Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.
The Republican field is a slaughterhouse at this point and I frankly wouldn't be surprised if the democrat primary didn't start to get mean very shortly. First, Hillary's lead over Bernie is almost entirely super delegates which if they decide the election could have very unpredictable results. And second, Bernie is mostly concerned with people listening to him. He's been left out in the cold for too long and REEEEEAAALLY wants to tell everyone about "democratic socialism". Hillary is refusing to debate him and is basically telling him to give up and stop talking. Bernie is quite likely to take that badly. He's been treated like a kook for most of his political career. "THIS" is his high point even if he doesn't win anything... that moment in the spotlight. And Hillary is kicking the power cord out of the wall. So we'll see.
As to the political scene after the primary? Totally unpredictable. Statistically we've seen candidates that were down in the polls do very well later on... If its Hillary vs Trump for example... Running a negative campaign against either one is largely counter productive. Its going to come down to POSITIVES. And finding a positive in either one is going to be interesting. Hillary after all is an unlikable, likely corrupt, machine politician. Trump is so politically incorrect that its almost blinding, and all of his positions appear to be entirely at odds with what the Washington taste-makers would make the flavor of the day.
We'll see what happens... its the establishment vs populism. Either could win and which ever wins things are going to change. This whole election is a paradigm shift. You can see the democrats abandoning blue collar labor... and the republicans if trump wins might go anti big business to some extent. Which side is getting bigger donations from the Wall Street bankers?
Regardless... as I said... its a mess and no one knows what is going to come of it.
So, you're so ignorant of basic logic that you think a strawman is a valid rebuttal?
Try harder to be less of a failure. Because this is pathetic.
As to the liberal bias of reality, Is that why Genghis Khan didn't just slaughter everyone and make a pyramid of skulls? Reality has no ideological bias. It is zealots like you along with the religious nuts that think universe cares at all what any of us thinks.
As to stats... how many legal guns do we have in the US?
How many legal gun owners commit crimes with those guns?
What is the ratio of ownership to illegal use?
You can also look at places like northern mexico where people are not allowed to own guns. And the result is the cartels are pushing people into human ovens to dispose of the bodies. They can't even mass grave the death toll anymore. Heads are being jammed on spikes. Human heads. Body parts are being arranged like modern art. Guns are banned.
What sort of stats would you accept? I can find them if you'll specify the criteria.
As to you not wanting to be in a room, that is your own choice. I'd feel safer in that room because I do not fear free citizens. I also find it to be contradictory that you trust people with a right to vote but not a right to be dangerous.
if I want to immigrate to mexico illegally and gain full citizenship without gaining the permission of the mexican government, make no effort to learn the language, integrate into the culture, and basically just do what I please...
Will the mexican government let me do that or will they deport me?
They will neither grant me citizenship, allow me to work, nor will they even allow me to stay if I flout their laws.
So... the mexicans are hitler as well I guess.
Saying enforcing borders is fascist basically just redefines what fascist means to extensively that it doesn't retain any of its original meaning or context. You might as well just jam your elbow into a keyboard and call it that instead.
I do find it amusing that you think they're being sent back to a desert where they'll just die in the sun or something. It betrays a total lack of knowledge of the geography of that country. Most of the population of mexico does not live in a desert. And while large portions of mexico are deserts so are large portions of the US. It would be like saying that someone getting deported back to the US was being sent to die in the desert because the US has some big deserts. it makes no sense.
Look, you don't like trump? Cool. We have a democracy. Like or don't like whomever you like. But comparing people to genocidal maniacs that INTENTIONALLY killed millions of people frankly damages your credibility more than it argues for whatever your politics are...
If I made a website called "Me-Right-You-Wrong.com" and then just wrote whatever I needed it to say to support whatever it was I was arguing... and then cited that site... would you accept it?
No? Then why would any halfway informed person cite "politifact"? Since when and how did they become an authority?
Get a better source or I'm going to cite Me-Right-You-Wrong.com... and you'll just lose every time. We can argue about whether all the politicians are secretly genetically engineered space dinosaurs... and I'll argue that they are and I'll prove it with a citation from my website which will say "yeah they're all space dinosaurs"... BOOOM!!! 100% confirmed accurate!
Please understand. Politifact is less credible than wikipedia and as anyone knows that has edited wikipedia... you can pretty much put whatever you want into most wikipedia entries. I mean... just total insane crap. I once inserted an edit into a company's wikipage that said they were all self identified vampires from uranius. it remained in their page unnoticed for months. And wikipedia at least has some kind of auditing system.
Politifact however basically operates on the pulling shit out of their ass school of fact checking. Its shit.
I don't see anyone claiming Hillary is literally going to be Hitler. I don't see anyone saying that about Bernie either.
The worst anyone says about Hillary really is that she might have committed a felony with the whole email thing... and I guess they say that Bernie is a old communist crank. But I don't think anyone is saying they'd be jamming people in ovens or something.
As to the attempt to say everything is equal... maybe... it isn't a reason to not be armed so much as a reason for both sides to be armed. The issue is the crazies. They're going to have weapons and they're going to take a shot at you. The crazies that are met by anyone that has a gun in response tend to not do much damage. Its the crazies that are met with ZERO opposition that rack up the body count. Saying 'well, the police can deal with it" is probably valid at a convention or something where there will obviously be armed security. However, in a lot of places that takes awhile to arrive and by the time they do... many mags have been slapped home and slides locked.
I'd just assume they meet lethal resistance as soon as possible. That's all.
third possibility... they'll be attacked like that draw Muhammad competition in Texas and the whole thing will go down like an attempted armed robbery of a gun store... you know... with some idiot getting shot in the face followed by lots of people in camo laughing at him.
and yeah... I'm a monster because I think its funny too. Seriously though, the demonetization is fever pitched enough at this point that I really wouldn't be surprised if someone went there to shoot up the place. You know, maybe shoot Donald Trump, after all he's the second coming of Hitler right? Or just shoot republicans because after all they're just cis white male scum, no? The demagoguery has gotten so fucking crazy that an attempted mass shooting along those lines is inevitable. And that being the case, honestly being armed is probably a great idea. The vast majority of gun owners never hurt anyone with their guns and never would or will. So if things are going to get crazy the more armed people we have the better. Because statistically the more people that are armed the more likely those armed people are to not be crazy. Its when only a few people are armed that mass graves start getting bodies pushed into them.
Thin laptops... By this you refer specifically and basically exclusively to the macbook air.
So because your stupid laptop is too much of a hipster shithead to design itself around existing technological standards because it might look ugly... I have to change my cabling standards? For the turtleneck cult?
I'm looking for other "thin" laptops that don't have ethernet ports and I'm not finding them. Its the macbook air that did that. Even the netbooks which are pretty fucking tiny have ethernet ports.
As to RJ.5... Go for it. No one is stopping you from implementing that. And if at some point in the future that seems like a reasonable use of my time, I'll use that standard. But most data centers don't use it. The only value is that the connectors take up less space and that isn't the concern in data centers.
Datacenters care about POWER, COOLING, STAFFING, SECURITY, LOCATION, and COST COST COST.
The space that connectors take up is not on the list. No one cares that works for a living.
The macbook air users care. But that's what they get for buying a badly designed computer. Use the USB break out or use wifi. But don't ask me to change my cabling standard on the vain hope that the turtlenecks will let you have a built in ethernet jack next time.
As to positions, arguing with me is taking a position. You took positions in your post above. You were talking about mac book airs etc. You don't get to attack my position without exposing yourself to rebuttal. It isn't possible. Your argument exists or it doesn't exist. If it exists then it can be argued against. If it doesn't exist then it isn't there in the first place and wouldn't be noticed in the first place.
As to tear gas grenades... Actually it is extreme apt because imagine how efficiently the argument could be addressed that way? It would be amazing. I'd post the video on youtube and it would never stop being funny.
As to headlines and out of touch, do you or do you not want to change the ethernet cabling standard away from RJ45? Because if the answer is yes... I am on topic. If the answer is no, then you apparently agree with me.
My point is mine to define and not yours to strawman.
You want to be obtuse and play word games? Arguments like yours are why contracts have gone from 20 pages to 2000 pages. Statements have obvious implications and implicit understandings put into them. Going through the effort to make it impossible for you to strawman me is not worth my time. First because you're generally not worth my time. But beyond that, my experience is that even if you go through that effort people like you will basically gloss over the bit of text that proves you wrong and attempt to take the statement out of context anyway. And when that is pointed out, people like YOU tend to just get salty and stubborn on the issue.
The connector and cable standard that is RJ45 isn't going anywhere. Its got too much market penetration, it is too much a standard, it is easily maintained and fabricated in the field, and why for the love of god would anyone go with something else?
The only thing I can think of that would be a reasonable rival would be an SFP connection... which is bigger but of course has higher bandwidth.
Short of that... RJ45 or use wifi with the hipsters.
Space in this context is not at a premium especially when you consider that the "price" of this space saving idea would not be applied to data centers for logistical reasons.
As such you'd only save "space" on your macbook in a non-congested environment where space is not actually anything more than an aesthetic consideration.
As such... the point is utterly without merit. None.
The people pushing it are pissed that the style of the ethernet plug clashes with their stupid hipster machines. No one cares. The industry doesn't care. Home users don't care.
And really, if it bothers you so much, then use wifi with the other hipsters.
Look, changing the plug or the cable means you create a new network cable standard that is less flexible, more expensive, is not backward compatible, and has less space for future upgrades.
Its a dumb idea.
And why do you want it? Space you say? Where would this be implemented where this would matter? The only place that actually has enough cables that they'd care would be a data center. But they're not going to implement this either because it would be more expensive and less flexible.
Says the AC troll that is so desperately salty about getting serially spanked that he follows me around from post to post just to whine about how horribly he got reamed?
As you're an AC shithead and other AC shitheads are commenting in the same thread, I can't keep you fucks straight. I've addressed a similar comment by another AC shithead in the same thread and consider that sufficient for your post as well. You can rebut that if you like or go off and cry somewhere.
1. You did nothing to undermine a requirement for transparency. So this objection is either incomplete and thus cannot be judged until complete or is null and of no value. Please complete your point or it has to be assumed null by default.
2. Complexity serves the interests of those that understand it which is not you or me. To surrender to complexity means to surrender to the elites that craft it or cause it to be crafted. So if you've no problem with it, then I'm going to just add an extra page in there that gives a loophole where I can just effectively do whatever I want.
It needs to be simple enough that you understand it. That is the limit on the complexity. if it is so complex that not even the professional tax accountants understand all of it then what hope does the common voter have? None. Your position is a suicide pact. You might as well deep throat a shotgun and pull the trigger because you're not going to understand what you've signed or how it works. Neither will your congressmen or senators understand it. Neither will the president. And this includes literally everyone in the IRS as well. Its so complex that no one understands it. Its a fucking maze of bullshit that is designed for you not to understand it. Its basically encrypted law.
And being okay with that means you'd rather let people dominate you rather freely than deal with the reality that some things cannot be that finely controlled. You make a simple law that everyone understands and if someone gets around it then at least you're aware of it when it happens. With the current system you just THINK you're addressing all the complexity. But really all you've done is confuse yourself so badly that you have no idea what is going on.
I'd much rather have a simple system that everyone understands and everyone can audit rather than a complex one that no one understands, no one can audit, and is basically a play ground for people to exploit at will without anyone even realizing what you've done.
3. A single variable calculation does not imply that the world is that simple. It merely implies the law would be that simple. You say "but what if things operate differently under different circumstances"... The obvious answer is that "then they do"... but the law wouldn't care. It would just work the same way.
This would encourage people to do things in a manner that optimizes their tax position. And while I'm sure you're going to say "ah ha!" as if you have a point there, people already do that to an extreme extent. So its at BEST a zero sum game. Which is to say, you enjoy ZERO superiority in your system by observing that flaw because the flaw exists in your system as well. To enjoy any kind of superiority you'd have to show that your system addresses the problem either completely or even just better. But looking at the double dutch dodge as well as a million other loopholes that are only created to get around taxes... you basically can't win. There is huge evidence of finance policy and business practices being built around optimizing tax posture. As such, you'd have to show that my system would do that more than yours. And that's very unlikely because the very complexity in your system actually encourages that behavior whilst mine would create relatively simple adaptations which would be self evident and at the very least commonly understood by everyone.
4. As to vigilance being impossible, then get rid of the government entirely because that is basically their entire job.
Ironically you're the nihilist and this rebuttal was very disappointing.
Your first point was incoherent. Your second argued that it is better in a democracy for no one but elites to understand anything. Your third argued that a hugely complex system with a million loopholes distorts the economy less than a simple system with no loopholes. And your fourth argued that basically there's no point trying to control corruption so we might as well not even try.
I mean... seriously, dude? Really? No... really? Are you just wasting my time and trolling me? Because your entire post was fucking retarded.
And what would be sufficient data in this situation? Do you want charts, graphs, and tables?
Possibly a peer reviewed study?
Your argument doesn't pass the laugh test. You're saying that any opinion offered on the internet is contemptible if it doesn't include a full report?
You're an idiot.
What is more, you response to me was also just your opinion, jackass. If you want to elevate the discussion then why don't YOU offer up some evidence to support your rebuttal and then we can see who has more data to back up their position. Absent that, your laughable rebuttal is laughable.
Slashdot Mirror
With respect, this is ignorance. Throughout most of the US's history, we had very loose gun laws and wide gun ownership. Shooting up places as you describe it didn't happen with any frequency. And if you had any grasp on the situation then why would that have not happened in the past but would happen today?
Is insanity new? Is the will to shoot the place up new? The only thing I can really point to as being an innovation here are all the mind altering drugs we feed to crazy people to "help" them. But maybe I'm missing something.
Explain to me what changed between then and now?
Actually think about it.
strawman. I'm saying I don't care which option you choose... not that I don't care enough to not respond to anything.
Fuckwit.
Who is and is not a frightened moron is debatable. Is that you or me or that guy with the AR15? You don't know that and neither do I. Which leaves you either making assumptions or leveling prejudicial judgements or just giving people the benefit of the doubt... as per the 2nd amendment... aka the fucking law of the land.
As to political responses and picking up guns... you can't equate someone "picking" a gun up and someone "blowing" a bomb up... Now picking a bomb up and picking a gun up... that's possibly comparable. But picking up and using are not the same thing. Obviously.
As to goat fuckers and fear... you're calling them goat fuckers. That's some what prejudicial on your part. I'm quite certain goat fucking is pretty uncommon in Islamic countries. If anything, it is probably less common what with the whole "women are cock sleeves" policy they have going on down there.
And then you close out with this judgment that said goat fuckers fill "me" with fear... even though I don't think I made any mention of them or stated my feelings about them one way or the other. Which means you're just making more assumptions... and this thing where you say I'm afraid... are you trying to call me a coward again because I won't make myself helpless? You're issuing a challenge that sounds like it would come from Daffy Duck. Its comically transparently childish. You're going to have to go beyond Bugs Bunny if you want to pull one over on me. Daffy Duck level ploys are just going to cause eyes to roll.
Look... you can't insult me. Its like a six year old trying to insult an adult. It just doesn't work. My psychology is not something you understand and more to the point, the things that actually bother me are so far beyond anything you'd think of that these sad insinuations that I'm a coward are beyond meaningless. That is not an insult against you by the way. I suspect you won't be able to believe that but it is actually just an honest suggestion that you stop wasting your time issuing childish insults. I mean, if you have more substantial insults, then have at it. But they're going to have to be military grade first world insults. Anything short of that just isn't going to do more then tickle. You're going to have to scorch my soul if you want to go that way. I question whether you have such insults in your strategic inventory.
The gun toting mostly happens as a political response to your attempt to take them away. You're therefore mostly complaining about protests and political demonstrations from rival political factions. That's not very "liberal" or "leftie" of you... is it?
As to frightened macho children... you say frightened not because they act frightened but as a taught to suggest that if they weren't frightened they'd put the guns away. To the contrary, you're probably more afraid than they are... aren't you? I mean, if you weren't... why is it that people like YOU want to change things? What do you "fear"?
Your entire statement was dishonest and an insult to the intelligence of anyone that is taking the issue seriously. Your argument would work on a confused teenager maybe. But not a fully formed adult. Try again.
You have to go pretty far out into the weeds to find those statements. Where as I can pull my quotes from major national newspapers, mainstream network TV, and sitting elected politicians.
The two are not analogous.
We've had guns at conventions before... many many times before. Guns didn't used to be as restricted and regulated as they are today and there was no insane incidence of gun violence in those days.
What changed?
Look at the political rallies that have had a lot of people show up with AR15s... notice how many of them broke out into gun fights? You're spinning bad propaganda... bad because its easily disproven by looking at analogous situations... and propaganda because the only reason you're saying ANYTHING on this issue is because you have an axe to grind on guns... a very dull, rusty, and not very reliable axe. I suspect if you ground it into a point there wouldn't be much left of the metal... certainly not much that could cut if the analogy can bear my reference.
So we can agree that the ownership or lack there of is not the issue.
*shows there is nothing up his sleeves*
*smiles*
*pulls a win out of his hat*
North Korea is a theocratic hereditary oligarchy. Not a republic.
China is an oligarchy as well.
As to a country being a democracy if there is an election, it depends on whether the people on the ballot are actually up to the people at all. Assuming they are, then sure... you have a democracy. If the only person on the ballot is Saddam or something then you don't have a democracy.
As to the 'we're a republic"/"we're a democracy"... The united states is a democratic republic. In that people have a vote but the day to day ruler of the country is "the law". Any country where the highest law "is the law"... is a republic. If the king is the highest law or the Kim family... then you do not have a republic. To have a democracy in china, it would have to be permissible for someone other than the communist party to run for election. So they do not have a democracy because the people do not actually choose. If the people voted for... I don't know... an anti communist to run a province in China, would that person be allowed on the ballot much less allowed to serve his term in office? Don't be silly. The fact that the military in China literally swears loyality to the Communist Party of China directly is another damning point of evidence in my favor here. China is not a democracy.
So why do people like me bring this up? Because people like YOU think you know what a democracy or a republic is... but you don't. I don't say that to be mean to "you" but rather to the PART of you that thinks it knows what a republic or a democracy is... it does not. You do not. You just proved that.
So there's your answer. *wink*
Its mostly wild and wacky because its detractors say it is... You have to remember that 10 years ago the "wall" idea was quiet popular and actually got sorta built... just not very well and with lots of holes in it. That wasn't that long ago and that should indicate to you that the politics for that to happen are quite viable.
As to what is possible... well, the democrats in basically no time flat went against standing healthcare policy in the US.
The republicans have majorities in the House and Senate... if they take the presidency as well... at the same time... just as Obama did... then what happens is whatever that coalition wants to happen.
As we sow... so shall we reap? There is enormous frustration with the politics in this country. And while either party will pretend that the frustration only goes one way, a more honest appraisal will note that it goes BOTH ways. Things are getting heated.
Assuming business as usual will be the order of the day in this environment where sacred cows are getting slaughtered and paradigms are shifting... and people are getting very angry with anything status quo...
Doesn't that sound... tone deaf? Because it is... Feel the pulse of the climate... its not going to be business as usual. Maybe that will suit your particular politics whatever they are or maybe not.
The nature of chaos is "chaos"... its not predictable.
You start out saying you're joking, then you double down.
Saying that the US would just dump people in a place they would shortly die from exposure or dehydration is not supportable. We don't do that and we didn't do it in the past when we deported people quiet freely. It wasn't that long ago.
As to the Mexican government not caring about their own people... as much is obvious by the way they treat their own people. It makes accusations against the US along these lines from mexico... Laughable. Their own people would rather live in the US than in Mexico because to the contrary, it is the mexicans that are the bigots. They have many classes and ethnic groups in Mexico and they associate and rank each other on that basis fairly freely.
As to spending huge sums on a wall or whatever... we spend huge sums on the existing immigration problem. Negating the need to pay out the welfare claims alone would pay for a whole army to guard the stupid border.
As to the future of politics... everything is crazy and no one knows what is going to happen.
The establishment picks were Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.
The Republican field is a slaughterhouse at this point and I frankly wouldn't be surprised if the democrat primary didn't start to get mean very shortly. First, Hillary's lead over Bernie is almost entirely super delegates which if they decide the election could have very unpredictable results. And second, Bernie is mostly concerned with people listening to him. He's been left out in the cold for too long and REEEEEAAALLY wants to tell everyone about "democratic socialism". Hillary is refusing to debate him and is basically telling him to give up and stop talking. Bernie is quite likely to take that badly. He's been treated like a kook for most of his political career. "THIS" is his high point even if he doesn't win anything... that moment in the spotlight. And Hillary is kicking the power cord out of the wall. So we'll see.
As to the political scene after the primary? Totally unpredictable. Statistically we've seen candidates that were down in the polls do very well later on... If its Hillary vs Trump for example... Running a negative campaign against either one is largely counter productive. Its going to come down to POSITIVES. And finding a positive in either one is going to be interesting. Hillary after all is an unlikable, likely corrupt, machine politician. Trump is so politically incorrect that its almost blinding, and all of his positions appear to be entirely at odds with what the Washington taste-makers would make the flavor of the day.
We'll see what happens... its the establishment vs populism. Either could win and which ever wins things are going to change. This whole election is a paradigm shift. You can see the democrats abandoning blue collar labor... and the republicans if trump wins might go anti big business to some extent. Which side is getting bigger donations from the Wall Street bankers?
Regardless... as I said... its a mess and no one knows what is going to come of it.
So, you're so ignorant of basic logic that you think a strawman is a valid rebuttal?
Try harder to be less of a failure. Because this is pathetic.
As to the liberal bias of reality, Is that why Genghis Khan didn't just slaughter everyone and make a pyramid of skulls? Reality has no ideological bias. It is zealots like you along with the religious nuts that think universe cares at all what any of us thinks.
As to stats... how many legal guns do we have in the US?
How many legal gun owners commit crimes with those guns?
What is the ratio of ownership to illegal use?
You can also look at places like northern mexico where people are not allowed to own guns. And the result is the cartels are pushing people into human ovens to dispose of the bodies. They can't even mass grave the death toll anymore. Heads are being jammed on spikes. Human heads. Body parts are being arranged like modern art. Guns are banned.
What sort of stats would you accept? I can find them if you'll specify the criteria.
As to you not wanting to be in a room, that is your own choice. I'd feel safer in that room because I do not fear free citizens. I also find it to be contradictory that you trust people with a right to vote but not a right to be dangerous.
I am not a peasant.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...
Please cite an example of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west please. Links or it didn't happen!
Bitch please. *rolls eyes*
if I want to immigrate to mexico illegally and gain full citizenship without gaining the permission of the mexican government, make no effort to learn the language, integrate into the culture, and basically just do what I please...
Will the mexican government let me do that or will they deport me?
They will neither grant me citizenship, allow me to work, nor will they even allow me to stay if I flout their laws.
So... the mexicans are hitler as well I guess.
Saying enforcing borders is fascist basically just redefines what fascist means to extensively that it doesn't retain any of its original meaning or context. You might as well just jam your elbow into a keyboard and call it that instead.
I do find it amusing that you think they're being sent back to a desert where they'll just die in the sun or something. It betrays a total lack of knowledge of the geography of that country. Most of the population of mexico does not live in a desert. And while large portions of mexico are deserts so are large portions of the US. It would be like saying that someone getting deported back to the US was being sent to die in the desert because the US has some big deserts. it makes no sense.
Look, you don't like trump? Cool. We have a democracy. Like or don't like whomever you like. But comparing people to genocidal maniacs that INTENTIONALLY killed millions of people frankly damages your credibility more than it argues for whatever your politics are...
If I made a website called "Me-Right-You-Wrong.com" and then just wrote whatever I needed it to say to support whatever it was I was arguing... and then cited that site... would you accept it?
No? Then why would any halfway informed person cite "politifact"? Since when and how did they become an authority?
Get a better source or I'm going to cite Me-Right-You-Wrong.com... and you'll just lose every time. We can argue about whether all the politicians are secretly genetically engineered space dinosaurs... and I'll argue that they are and I'll prove it with a citation from my website which will say "yeah they're all space dinosaurs"... BOOOM!!! 100% confirmed accurate!
Please understand. Politifact is less credible than wikipedia and as anyone knows that has edited wikipedia... you can pretty much put whatever you want into most wikipedia entries. I mean... just total insane crap. I once inserted an edit into a company's wikipage that said they were all self identified vampires from uranius. it remained in their page unnoticed for months. And wikipedia at least has some kind of auditing system.
Politifact however basically operates on the pulling shit out of their ass school of fact checking. Its shit.
I don't see anyone claiming Hillary is literally going to be Hitler. I don't see anyone saying that about Bernie either.
The worst anyone says about Hillary really is that she might have committed a felony with the whole email thing... and I guess they say that Bernie is a old communist crank. But I don't think anyone is saying they'd be jamming people in ovens or something.
As to the attempt to say everything is equal... maybe... it isn't a reason to not be armed so much as a reason for both sides to be armed. The issue is the crazies. They're going to have weapons and they're going to take a shot at you. The crazies that are met by anyone that has a gun in response tend to not do much damage. Its the crazies that are met with ZERO opposition that rack up the body count. Saying 'well, the police can deal with it" is probably valid at a convention or something where there will obviously be armed security. However, in a lot of places that takes awhile to arrive and by the time they do... many mags have been slapped home and slides locked.
I'd just assume they meet lethal resistance as soon as possible. That's all.
third possibility... they'll be attacked like that draw Muhammad competition in Texas and the whole thing will go down like an attempted armed robbery of a gun store... you know... with some idiot getting shot in the face followed by lots of people in camo laughing at him.
and yeah... I'm a monster because I think its funny too. Seriously though, the demonetization is fever pitched enough at this point that I really wouldn't be surprised if someone went there to shoot up the place. You know, maybe shoot Donald Trump, after all he's the second coming of Hitler right? Or just shoot republicans because after all they're just cis white male scum, no? The demagoguery has gotten so fucking crazy that an attempted mass shooting along those lines is inevitable. And that being the case, honestly being armed is probably a great idea. The vast majority of gun owners never hurt anyone with their guns and never would or will. So if things are going to get crazy the more armed people we have the better. Because statistically the more people that are armed the more likely those armed people are to not be crazy. Its when only a few people are armed that mass graves start getting bodies pushed into them.
Thin laptops... By this you refer specifically and basically exclusively to the macbook air.
So because your stupid laptop is too much of a hipster shithead to design itself around existing technological standards because it might look ugly... I have to change my cabling standards? For the turtleneck cult?
I'm looking for other "thin" laptops that don't have ethernet ports and I'm not finding them. Its the macbook air that did that. Even the netbooks which are pretty fucking tiny have ethernet ports.
As to RJ.5... Go for it. No one is stopping you from implementing that. And if at some point in the future that seems like a reasonable use of my time, I'll use that standard. But most data centers don't use it. The only value is that the connectors take up less space and that isn't the concern in data centers.
Datacenters care about POWER, COOLING, STAFFING, SECURITY, LOCATION, and COST COST COST.
The space that connectors take up is not on the list. No one cares that works for a living.
The macbook air users care. But that's what they get for buying a badly designed computer. Use the USB break out or use wifi. But don't ask me to change my cabling standard on the vain hope that the turtlenecks will let you have a built in ethernet jack next time.
As to positions, arguing with me is taking a position. You took positions in your post above. You were talking about mac book airs etc. You don't get to attack my position without exposing yourself to rebuttal. It isn't possible. Your argument exists or it doesn't exist. If it exists then it can be argued against. If it doesn't exist then it isn't there in the first place and wouldn't be noticed in the first place.
As to tear gas grenades... Actually it is extreme apt because imagine how efficiently the argument could be addressed that way? It would be amazing. I'd post the video on youtube and it would never stop being funny.
As to headlines and out of touch, do you or do you not want to change the ethernet cabling standard away from RJ45? Because if the answer is yes... I am on topic. If the answer is no, then you apparently agree with me.
My point is mine to define and not yours to strawman.
You want to be obtuse and play word games? Arguments like yours are why contracts have gone from 20 pages to 2000 pages. Statements have obvious implications and implicit understandings put into them. Going through the effort to make it impossible for you to strawman me is not worth my time. First because you're generally not worth my time. But beyond that, my experience is that even if you go through that effort people like you will basically gloss over the bit of text that proves you wrong and attempt to take the statement out of context anyway. And when that is pointed out, people like YOU tend to just get salty and stubborn on the issue.
The connector and cable standard that is RJ45 isn't going anywhere. Its got too much market penetration, it is too much a standard, it is easily maintained and fabricated in the field, and why for the love of god would anyone go with something else?
The only thing I can think of that would be a reasonable rival would be an SFP connection... which is bigger but of course has higher bandwidth.
Short of that... RJ45 or use wifi with the hipsters.
I know I know... you're offended. I don't care.
Have a nice day.
Space in this context is not at a premium especially when you consider that the "price" of this space saving idea would not be applied to data centers for logistical reasons.
As such you'd only save "space" on your macbook in a non-congested environment where space is not actually anything more than an aesthetic consideration.
As such... the point is utterly without merit. None.
The people pushing it are pissed that the style of the ethernet plug clashes with their stupid hipster machines. No one cares. The industry doesn't care. Home users don't care.
And really, if it bothers you so much, then use wifi with the other hipsters.
Look, changing the plug or the cable means you create a new network cable standard that is less flexible, more expensive, is not backward compatible, and has less space for future upgrades.
Its a dumb idea.
And why do you want it? Space you say? Where would this be implemented where this would matter? The only place that actually has enough cables that they'd care would be a data center. But they're not going to implement this either because it would be more expensive and less flexible.
The idea is stupid. Move on.
Says the AC troll that is so desperately salty about getting serially spanked that he follows me around from post to post just to whine about how horribly he got reamed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
*kiss kiss* :D
My replies are all coherent in context but you are correct that if you take my posts out of context that they are hard to understand.
of course that is true of almost anything. So good job finding out that the best way to make a point is to render all logic impossible.
As you're an AC shithead and other AC shitheads are commenting in the same thread, I can't keep you fucks straight. I've addressed a similar comment by another AC shithead in the same thread and consider that sufficient for your post as well. You can rebut that if you like or go off and cry somewhere.
I demonstrably don't care.
1. You did nothing to undermine a requirement for transparency. So this objection is either incomplete and thus cannot be judged until complete or is null and of no value. Please complete your point or it has to be assumed null by default.
2. Complexity serves the interests of those that understand it which is not you or me. To surrender to complexity means to surrender to the elites that craft it or cause it to be crafted. So if you've no problem with it, then I'm going to just add an extra page in there that gives a loophole where I can just effectively do whatever I want.
It needs to be simple enough that you understand it. That is the limit on the complexity. if it is so complex that not even the professional tax accountants understand all of it then what hope does the common voter have? None. Your position is a suicide pact. You might as well deep throat a shotgun and pull the trigger because you're not going to understand what you've signed or how it works. Neither will your congressmen or senators understand it. Neither will the president. And this includes literally everyone in the IRS as well. Its so complex that no one understands it. Its a fucking maze of bullshit that is designed for you not to understand it. Its basically encrypted law.
And being okay with that means you'd rather let people dominate you rather freely than deal with the reality that some things cannot be that finely controlled. You make a simple law that everyone understands and if someone gets around it then at least you're aware of it when it happens. With the current system you just THINK you're addressing all the complexity. But really all you've done is confuse yourself so badly that you have no idea what is going on.
I'd much rather have a simple system that everyone understands and everyone can audit rather than a complex one that no one understands, no one can audit, and is basically a play ground for people to exploit at will without anyone even realizing what you've done.
3. A single variable calculation does not imply that the world is that simple. It merely implies the law would be that simple. You say "but what if things operate differently under different circumstances"... The obvious answer is that "then they do"... but the law wouldn't care. It would just work the same way.
This would encourage people to do things in a manner that optimizes their tax position. And while I'm sure you're going to say "ah ha!" as if you have a point there, people already do that to an extreme extent. So its at BEST a zero sum game. Which is to say, you enjoy ZERO superiority in your system by observing that flaw because the flaw exists in your system as well. To enjoy any kind of superiority you'd have to show that your system addresses the problem either completely or even just better. But looking at the double dutch dodge as well as a million other loopholes that are only created to get around taxes... you basically can't win. There is huge evidence of finance policy and business practices being built around optimizing tax posture. As such, you'd have to show that my system would do that more than yours. And that's very unlikely because the very complexity in your system actually encourages that behavior whilst mine would create relatively simple adaptations which would be self evident and at the very least commonly understood by everyone.
4. As to vigilance being impossible, then get rid of the government entirely because that is basically their entire job.
Ironically you're the nihilist and this rebuttal was very disappointing.
Your first point was incoherent. Your second argued that it is better in a democracy for no one but elites to understand anything. Your third argued that a hugely complex system with a million loopholes distorts the economy less than a simple system with no loopholes. And your fourth argued that basically there's no point trying to control corruption so we might as well not even try.
I mean... seriously, dude? Really? No... really? Are you just wasting my time and trolling me? Because your entire post was fucking retarded.
Very disappointing.
And what would be sufficient data in this situation? Do you want charts, graphs, and tables?
Possibly a peer reviewed study?
Your argument doesn't pass the laugh test. You're saying that any opinion offered on the internet is contemptible if it doesn't include a full report?
You're an idiot.
What is more, you response to me was also just your opinion, jackass. If you want to elevate the discussion then why don't YOU offer up some evidence to support your rebuttal and then we can see who has more data to back up their position. Absent that, your laughable rebuttal is laughable.