So if YOU were sent to war, you'd prefer if I gave you inferior weapons? You'd prefer to sit in your fox hole with only a rifle, no artillary support, no close support air bombardment of the enemy, no air recon... you just want your rifle?
The anti war stuff has its place. Employ it to argue against war. But when battle is joined I'm going to ask you to sit down and shut the fuck up because its killing time. And the killing will be as efficient, painless, and merciless as possible. Because THAT is war.
You don't like war? join the club. No one likes war but crazy people. But when war is happening... you want the nastiest, fierciest, most ruthless force you can muster. And you want to lay into your enemy and grind them down to bloody mush.
Where people like you need to be is in working out the diplomacy such that war doesn't happen in the first place. But when it does... the objective to break the enemy. The objective is not to break ourselves.
If your intention is to see more of our soldiers die in a war... then you're the enemy. And in that situation... no offense... I'd blow your brains out and sleep like a baby.
Peace is for peace and war is for war. You need to adapt your mentality to each context.
hmmm... how many people would actually own hand grenades if you could buy them? You're making an assumption that a ban is leading to a lack of ownership.
Who is going to buy a hand grenade?
Psychos? Various survivalist people that are sitting in weird cabins somewhere? Possibly some rural people f'ing around with explosives?
Who else is going to buy a hand grenade?
So lets go through our list here.
psychos really have lots of options for how to kill people. Some people seem to be under the impression that its hard to kill lots of people. Its really not. Wait for a big movie to come out, get in your car, and plow through that line that goes around the movie theater. I could probably kill a dozen people doing that easy. Off the top of my head... and I could get far more vicious than that if I really put my mind to it.
Survivalist nuts are going to be making explosives themselves anyway out of chemicals that you're not regulating using chemistry manuals off the internet. So your little ploy here fails entirely.
Then rural people playing with explosives... they already do that. They blow up stumps and knock boulders around all the time with legally purchased explosives. Wrap those explosives in old nails and you have a nasty frag grenade.
So I generally disagree with the premise that X is uncommon because it is banned. Often as not, it is uncommon for other reasons.
I mean, we could legalize heroine tomorrow and you think everyone would try heroine? No... Junkies would be all over it but the general public would steer clear for the same reason they do now. It isn't anti drug laws that keeps people from taking drugs. I could be on every drug imaginable if I wanted to. I'm not because I choose not to be on them. The DEA has no role in that.
1. explain why gaming on windows is compromised in any way by something MS did in any meaningful way?
2. PC developers are not paid to keep their titles exclusive to a console. The console makers pay the console game makers to keep their games exclusive. There is no parity.
3. No, we actually pay less. You can buy a full blow PC that is better than the consoles for 400 dollars. There are build videos of people doing it all over youtube. Consoles are inferior. And that's okay so long as you know it. But if you don't know it, then you're an ignorant person playing an inferior machine.
4. As to piracy, the PC gaming market has thrived for ages and quite a few PC game devs openly laugh at the console devs that can't get people in the PC world to actually pay for their games. There are a lot of articles where PC devs explain what is going on. You either get it or you don't. And that's fine. Remain a console peasant.
5. As to mods only existing because PC gamers are cheap... You really are an ignorant little monkey. Skyrim without mods is a shitty game. With mods it is pretty f'ing awesome. I pity you.
I also like that you continue to cite that your over paying for games and inability to control your experience is a mark of sophistication. You're basically bragging about the chains around your neck and telling me about how wide your ass hole got spread the last time sony fucked you.
6. PC gamers have never had to pay for servers with the exception of the MMOs. And only the subscription MMOs at that... most PC MMOs are moving to a free model there as well.
We wear no chains. That is why we don't pay. You do. And you're so deluded that you've been taught to love your chains.
The PC ports of all the games you love that have MP... we don't pay for the servers there either. We do not pay for MP.
7. As to interface being right or wrong... this was proven actually when MS put PC Halo players against Xbox Halo players. The console halo players got skull fucked. And you'll note that console MP tends to be segregated from PC MP even if the game is on both platforms. Why is that? Because you silly fucks are meat. The best console first person shooter players would get torn up by average PC first shooter players simply because the interface on the console is garbage for first person shooters.
8. As to you not bragging about the graphics, then play nintendo. Its the only console maker that knows what it is... the PS and the Xbox both sell themselves as cut down PCs. The Nintendo product line knows it is a console and doesn't try to scalp games from the PC market.
Its a good point... I'd just say that there are many ways to put pressure on someone. Giving weapons to an allied third party or provoking a neutral party into dealing with regional problems instead of forcing us to shlep all the way over there are some options.
The US is going to increasingly start backing off. The collapse of nuclear containment is going to compel American strategists to start preparing for WW3... which will be nuclear.
And that means distancing ourselves from targets in Eurasia which will be ground zero.
The US doesn't want to suffer the fate of WW1 Great Britain. We're going to get out of the way and let other countries eat it. We have no choice really. They only way to stop this was to maintain containment. We kept that going for as long as we could... but its collapsing and that means WW3 is coming. The only way to win a nuclear war is to not be involved in one. We've got Iran fantasizing about nuking everyone else in the middle east, everyone else in the middle east getting their own nukes, we have Putin authorizing the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine IF his forces run into superior conventional resistance... etc etc etc. Its brewing. And it might not pop for decades but its coming.
Since when is the enemy my responsibility as well?
Tell you what, you pay US taxes or fucking behave yourself at the very least as nation and I'll either regard you as someone that my country has to actually worry about or we likewise won't have a reason to show up.
You think we like to go to war? Fucking peasants.
I can't wait until the US starts actually putting out of global affairs. The shocked looks on your stupid faces as you realize the US was actually doing something vital for you the whole time... I'll be giggling at your expense for the rest of my days.
If we can get those stats I think we'll have a better idea of what is going on in the Euro grid.
In the US grid... our renewables are pretty low. There are some spots in the system with lots but they make up a relatively tiny portion of the total grid. Germany might be like America's california... very earnest about going to renewables... but in the larger picture... likely irrelevant.
I make a point of not getting into it with ACs... they're mostly sock puppets for other accounts where people are trying to make it appear like they have people with them when they don't... or they're basically too chicken shit to stand behind an issue with even a fake name.
Or they're just trolls that like to start shit.
Either way... i'm not getting into it with you unless you log in.
I'm hearing the same thing from US utilities and as I said... I have family that work as engineers on our hydro electric dams telling me that they CANNOT do what you're saying they can do. They in fact went so far as to say that people started running them that way and it broke the dams they were doing it to requiring very expensive repairs.
All my information from first hand sources are telling me you're wrong. I've also seen graphs of the power output from these renewables... wind and solar... they're jumping around all over the place. Look at them on a minute to minute basis... The grid has to be stabilized on a second to second basis. having the output jump and drop like that is very problematic. Maybe the output over the course of a day is predictable but the output from one minute to the next is not. You can't say the same thing about a coal or nuclear or hydro plant. They can hold a reliable out figure for decades baring the occasional maintenance cycle.
I actually clicked on a lot of the walker links and they turned out to be misleading points.
For example they said he lied when he said that the state of Wisconsin would begin its fiscal budget with a surplus of X dollars then they say that is false because as of this moment they actually have a deficit. That isn't what he said though. He said at time Y we have a balance of X. What they said was because at time Y+5 they have a balance of X-700... he lied when he said that at time Y they had a balance of X.
That's deceitful. I've noticed this with poli"fact" before... they are more interested in advocacy from what I've seen than in actual accurate reporting or integrity. So... not a great source to be honest.
lets go through the rest of the list...
As to paul... given that he left Baylor to go to Duke where he got a medical degree and completed his residency... I'm not feeling that as something that really matters. I mean, warren lied about being a native american and did so in the media and used the point to win diversity points. Where is paul's angle here?
As to Carson... a stupid opinion is not evidence of lying. And I should point out I'm not endorsing any of these people. Carson is a f'ing joke in my opinion. The guy has no record in public office. I prefer governors and generals for the presidency. Historically they make the best presidents. Its not a lock that they will... Bush was a governor and was terrible. But generally that job experience leads to effective presidents. The generals especially. Go through the US presidents that were generals before and they're pretty bullet proof. I know that sounds jingoistic or something because everyone hates the military for largely kneejerk reasons. But look at the data. They were pretty good.
Anyway, Carson was what... CEO of a pizza chain? Get the fuck out of here. What he was CEO of doesn't really matter. CEO is not something I consider job experience for that position. Of course, neither do I credit experience in the legislature. Most of our senator presidents turned out to be shitty as well.
As to Cruz... if we call that a lie then there hasn't been an honest politician running for office since I've been living. Not even bernie could pass the standard you're putting out there. This is a bit of rhetorical hyperbole. I can't think of any politician that hasn't crossed that line.... anyway, I said I was just reading off a list I found of people running. I can't cite these people off the top of my head... you know outside of the top four or five. The republican field is a circus as I said... you'd apparently agree.
Anyway, without any advocacy, I'd just like to have a president that unites Americans for a change. I don't care if they're democrats or republicans or independents. Someone that tries to be a nation's president instead of a crusading against the opposing political camp. The infighting in my country has grown toxic and I believe if it doesn't stop there are going to be serious structural political problems where states are going to just stop complying with orders at a certain point. We already have this with certain issues but it could start to get more overt. The feds can say they'll send in the army or cut off funding... but that assumes the state that bucks them does everything in the dumbest way possible. If they boil the frog then it will be hard for the feds to muster the political will to do anything violent. And the funding issue is complicated as well because the feds have radically less power than they presume to have... most of it is sustained through voluntary funding programs... aka cooperate and you get money. if they cut off the money they'll also remove most of the reasons to cooperate with them.
It is somewhat analogous to what is going on with Greece. You cut them off from aid and they have less reason to play the EU game.
If DC keeps strong arming people the nation is going to start becoming like herding cats. They're all going to go off in their own directions.
I have never lied to a business associate or a boss or a subordinate about something that was work related.
I've never run for office so I can neither say nor not say I haven't lied to political constituent since I've never had one.
Some politicians are well known to lie and lie often. Hillary has become pathetic on the issue lately. I mean, even her supporters know she's a fucking liar. They don't even deny it anymore.
But not all politicians have that sort of record.
Warren is another well known liar.
Please pick a candidate that isn't a well known piece of shit.
while first past the post definitely causes there to be only two parties it would be a mistake to think that you'd get more than two sides with more parties.
Look at countries with lots of parties and you'll find that there are still only two power blocks.
In WW2 we had the US, GB, USSR on one side and the NAZIs, fascist italians whatever they called themselves, and the Imperial Japanese.
That's all you get with multiply party systems. You get two powerful sides with subfactions within them.
But with first past the post you really have the exact same thing because within both parties you have subfactions.
Some of the democrats for example are greens in that their most important issue is the environment. Then you have other democrats where their most important issue is protecting and supporting industrial unions. Those are not compatible positions. But they exist under the same "big tent" or "big umbrella" of their respective party.
And both parties work that way. You have at LEAST five or six factions in each party. Arguably they could all be seperate political parties in their own right. But as you say because of first past the post they have to unite under only two parties total.
Fine... but that doesn't change that those factions are still operating under the skin.
The whole thing is a debate over whether you want the organs inside the meat bag or on the outside. Either way its going to work the same way.
If you have 10 parties for example, then you're going to have about five of them form a coalition government to dominate the other five which is generally how the parliamentary system works.
How is the same group of parties forming a coalition any different from how the two US parties operate?
Again, you can't get away from the two sides because the stakes are too high to stand on principle. When you can't lose you will make alliances with people you don't like to put up a common defense.
The only way you're going to stop people from doing this is if the stakes of losing become low enough that people feel comfortable telling potential allies to choke on their own severed penises because they'd rather lose than ally with them.
There is no party or faction in any situation where the stakes are high that will do that. They will ally with anyone to win. If you want this to stop then you have to make people feel comfortable with losing if it means keeping their principles.
And that is going to mean radically scaling back the power of government. There is too much to lose in modern American politics to not fight to the death over these issues. And that means you'll shake hands with the devil if it means you might win.
Look at Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. No one likes either of them.
Hillary is a lying sell out that basically has gotten everything she has in return for not divorcing Bill Clinton after he got caught with an intern's mouth around his dick. Her accomplishments are what? Getting elected to the Senate for a term where she did nothing to distinguish herself. And then basically forcing herself on Obama's state department even though he didn't want her... but it was give her that or fight the Clinton machine. And by all indications she was comically incompetent. Say what you like about Bush, but he put a black woman in charge of the state department that spoke Russian... and Hillary couldn't even get one word translated properly for a symbolic state gift. Her entire tenure was full of incompetence and its dumb for democrats to pretend otherwise. If god help you she wins you're going to be spending the next 4 years minimum making excuses for this person. Think the republicans liked making excuses for Bush Jr? Well, why would you do that to yourself?
And Jeb is another fucking Bush. I really don't care about anything beyond that point. He's just utterly unacceptable on that basis alone. That family got two presidents into the white house... that's enough for the next 100 years. I don't want to see them again in m
... Okay... so... you have an option to use a kill bot against the enemy that wants to kill you... and if you go out there... you could be killed.
Or... you send in your terminator bot and worst case they scrag the robot.
What are you going to prefer here?
A lot of people offering opinions here are not speaking from that perspective. They're speaking often as not from the perspective of some civilian ideologue that knows they're not going to go to war.
I know that if I go to war... I am going to want the best weapons my society can make for me along with the best defenses the best training and ideally leaders that are not complete fuckwits.
That means I want the robots. I want them and I want them to be fucking vicious.
Go on youtube and you'll see US soldiers cheering when air support shows up and blows the fuck out of someone shooting at them. https://youtu.be/1IcvjD4VVjY?t...
Now... if you are a country that has the ability to build kill bots... and you might be on the firing line... do you or do you not want to use killer robots to kill your enemies?
You have to put your brain into war mode to understand the question.
The issue with US healthcare is not the lack of subsidization but the high cost. And the ACA did nothing to address that. And contrary to the broken record of the supporters of socialized healthcare, the costs in the US are not high due to the lack of single payer.
If you don't just offer simplistic arguments where you cite big conflated numbers that give no detail... if instead you go into the nitty gritty as to what costs what and why. You'll find that the issue is more complicated and also... more easily solved.
Rather than arguing about shit we disagree about, we could simply do all the stuff we agree on and solve nearly the entire problem.
Get costs low enough and companies will be happy to offer healthcare with employment again and won't be so prone to push part time labor etc to avoid having to deal with that.
The problem with so many of these issues is that people are so lazy... especially the politicians that they have no patience for complex problems that have to be dealt with piecemeal. You break it up into the thousand issues is really is... and you go through them one at a time. And the reality is that most of the issues would not be controversial this way.
There is a hospital in Texas that was able to cut medical expenses for patients by about 75 percent or something crazy by changing the way the hospital is administered. They don't have those upper 3 floors that most hospitals have that are just people doing paper work. The hospital is 100 percent run by the shift nurses. There are no hidden costs and everything is billed what it actually costs. So if you took an aspirin... they literally put on the bill "aspirin 5 cents".
The cost reductions vary. But they tend to be somewhere between 75 percent to 50 percent cheaper than their local equivalents with roughly the same capabilities.
Now who talks about that?
If you could drop medical costs by half that would address most of the problem.
And then we can go over the drugs which is another complex issue... you have protectionism for the US drug industry, you have the DEA/FDA making it complicated to get drugs or making the cost of drugs artificially higher than it should be.... there are a lot of issues.
Every one of these issues is also a generalization and to really address any of them you'd have to go into them in great detail and be very patient as you do so.
And anyone too lazy to do that really has no business in the discussion. Its like someone coming into an engineer's meeting over a problem with a car and just saying over and over again "the car uses too much gasoline"... yeah okay... but the reasons for that will be complicated. Weight, engine design, average use profile... and dealing with it isn't helped by throwing money at it either.
Sometimes you have to be patient and you have to be willing to deal with the details.
Did you have a complete argument/thought or just a random baseless insult that can be brushed off as the typical internet white noise from retards?
Tell me what you want evidence for specifically and I'll argue my case. As it stands, I couldn't respond to your stupid comment if I wanted to... its so vague pathetically focused on delivering a baseless and thus meaningless insult that you actually forgot to get to the bit where you try to make sense.
I haven't chosen anyone yet. The election season is too new.
Bernie would be fine though... I don't think he's been caught lying yet.
as to the GOP field... I'll just cite people that I know have lied... I don't know about the rest:
I know Trump has lied... about many things over many years. I know Jeb has flip flopped a lot and that basically counts as a lie in my book without a reason not including polling for the change. I know Rubio has been caught lying about a few things. I'm not sure about Huckabee but I don't trust him and don't like him. That isn't to say I like anyone else on the list but Huck pisses me off. I know christie has lied about a couple things. I'm not sure about Rick Perry but the guy is such a terrible politician that I don't care. By that I mean, he's bad at speaking to people, he sounds stupid, he doesn't know how to deal with the media... and this makes him bad at politics which makes him a bad politician. Bush was the same way. Texas needs to send more polished and competent baby kissers to DC. I know Carly Fiorina has a very odd history with HP that I'd classify as dishonest. Wasn't she wire tapping board members or something? That's just creepy shit. I'm not sure about Lindsey graham... but he reads the same way that huckabee does and I actively dislike him.
I don't know about the rest.
People I didn't mention that could be honest so far as I know: Scott Walker Ben Carson Rand Paul Ted Cruz John Kasich Bobby Jindal George Pataki Jim Gilmore
I'm reading off a list here... I couldn't name all these people off the top of my head. the GOP field is a three ring circus at this point.
There are two or three people in the DNC line up that aren't known liars and there have to be a hand full or so in the GOP field if only because there are so many of them.
Slashdot Mirror
So you have nothing?
Okay... I regret your stupidity and general lack of worth to the community.
Better luck next life.
Only if you can manage to express a complete thought and support it in that space.
If you can't... verbosity is a lesser evil than vagueness.
So if YOU were sent to war, you'd prefer if I gave you inferior weapons? You'd prefer to sit in your fox hole with only a rifle, no artillary support, no close support air bombardment of the enemy, no air recon... you just want your rifle?
The anti war stuff has its place. Employ it to argue against war. But when battle is joined I'm going to ask you to sit down and shut the fuck up because its killing time. And the killing will be as efficient, painless, and merciless as possible. Because THAT is war.
You don't like war? join the club. No one likes war but crazy people. But when war is happening... you want the nastiest, fierciest, most ruthless force you can muster. And you want to lay into your enemy and grind them down to bloody mush.
Where people like you need to be is in working out the diplomacy such that war doesn't happen in the first place. But when it does... the objective to break the enemy. The objective is not to break ourselves.
If your intention is to see more of our soldiers die in a war... then you're the enemy. And in that situation... no offense... I'd blow your brains out and sleep like a baby.
Peace is for peace and war is for war. You need to adapt your mentality to each context.
hmmm... how many people would actually own hand grenades if you could buy them? You're making an assumption that a ban is leading to a lack of ownership.
Who is going to buy a hand grenade?
Psychos?
Various survivalist people that are sitting in weird cabins somewhere?
Possibly some rural people f'ing around with explosives?
Who else is going to buy a hand grenade?
So lets go through our list here.
psychos really have lots of options for how to kill people. Some people seem to be under the impression that its hard to kill lots of people. Its really not. Wait for a big movie to come out, get in your car, and plow through that line that goes around the movie theater. I could probably kill a dozen people doing that easy. Off the top of my head... and I could get far more vicious than that if I really put my mind to it.
Survivalist nuts are going to be making explosives themselves anyway out of chemicals that you're not regulating using chemistry manuals off the internet. So your little ploy here fails entirely.
Then rural people playing with explosives... they already do that. They blow up stumps and knock boulders around all the time with legally purchased explosives. Wrap those explosives in old nails and you have a nasty frag grenade.
So I generally disagree with the premise that X is uncommon because it is banned. Often as not, it is uncommon for other reasons.
I mean, we could legalize heroine tomorrow and you think everyone would try heroine? No... Junkies would be all over it but the general public would steer clear for the same reason they do now. It isn't anti drug laws that keeps people from taking drugs. I could be on every drug imaginable if I wanted to. I'm not because I choose not to be on them. The DEA has no role in that.
1. explain why gaming on windows is compromised in any way by something MS did in any meaningful way?
2. PC developers are not paid to keep their titles exclusive to a console. The console makers pay the console game makers to keep their games exclusive. There is no parity.
3. No, we actually pay less. You can buy a full blow PC that is better than the consoles for 400 dollars. There are build videos of people doing it all over youtube. Consoles are inferior. And that's okay so long as you know it. But if you don't know it, then you're an ignorant person playing an inferior machine.
4. As to piracy, the PC gaming market has thrived for ages and quite a few PC game devs openly laugh at the console devs that can't get people in the PC world to actually pay for their games. There are a lot of articles where PC devs explain what is going on. You either get it or you don't. And that's fine. Remain a console peasant.
5. As to mods only existing because PC gamers are cheap... You really are an ignorant little monkey. Skyrim without mods is a shitty game. With mods it is pretty f'ing awesome. I pity you.
I also like that you continue to cite that your over paying for games and inability to control your experience is a mark of sophistication. You're basically bragging about the chains around your neck and telling me about how wide your ass hole got spread the last time sony fucked you.
6. PC gamers have never had to pay for servers with the exception of the MMOs. And only the subscription MMOs at that... most PC MMOs are moving to a free model there as well.
We wear no chains. That is why we don't pay. You do. And you're so deluded that you've been taught to love your chains.
The PC ports of all the games you love that have MP... we don't pay for the servers there either. We do not pay for MP.
7. As to interface being right or wrong... this was proven actually when MS put PC Halo players against Xbox Halo players. The console halo players got skull fucked. And you'll note that console MP tends to be segregated from PC MP even if the game is on both platforms. Why is that? Because you silly fucks are meat. The best console first person shooter players would get torn up by average PC first shooter players simply because the interface on the console is garbage for first person shooters.
8. As to you not bragging about the graphics, then play nintendo. Its the only console maker that knows what it is... the PS and the Xbox both sell themselves as cut down PCs. The Nintendo product line knows it is a console and doesn't try to scalp games from the PC market.
Its a good point... I'd just say that there are many ways to put pressure on someone. Giving weapons to an allied third party or provoking a neutral party into dealing with regional problems instead of forcing us to shlep all the way over there are some options.
The US is going to increasingly start backing off. The collapse of nuclear containment is going to compel American strategists to start preparing for WW3... which will be nuclear.
And that means distancing ourselves from targets in Eurasia which will be ground zero.
The US doesn't want to suffer the fate of WW1 Great Britain. We're going to get out of the way and let other countries eat it. We have no choice really. They only way to stop this was to maintain containment. We kept that going for as long as we could... but its collapsing and that means WW3 is coming. The only way to win a nuclear war is to not be involved in one. We've got Iran fantasizing about nuking everyone else in the middle east, everyone else in the middle east getting their own nukes, we have Putin authorizing the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine IF his forces run into superior conventional resistance... etc etc etc. Its brewing. And it might not pop for decades but its coming.
Since when is the enemy my responsibility as well?
Tell you what, you pay US taxes or fucking behave yourself at the very least as nation and I'll either regard you as someone that my country has to actually worry about or we likewise won't have a reason to show up.
You think we like to go to war? Fucking peasants.
I can't wait until the US starts actually putting out of global affairs. The shocked looks on your stupid faces as you realize the US was actually doing something vital for you the whole time... I'll be giggling at your expense for the rest of my days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Login and I'll explain in greater detail why you're wrong.
If we can get those stats I think we'll have a better idea of what is going on in the Euro grid.
In the US grid... our renewables are pretty low. There are some spots in the system with lots but they make up a relatively tiny portion of the total grid. Germany might be like America's california... very earnest about going to renewables... but in the larger picture... likely irrelevant.
login and I will.
I make a point of not getting into it with ACs... they're mostly sock puppets for other accounts where people are trying to make it appear like they have people with them when they don't... or they're basically too chicken shit to stand behind an issue with even a fake name.
Or they're just trolls that like to start shit.
Either way... i'm not getting into it with you unless you log in.
Actually first past the post usually filters out extremists. The people that tend to make it through the system tend to be as boring as dish water.
I'm hearing the same thing from US utilities and as I said... I have family that work as engineers on our hydro electric dams telling me that they CANNOT do what you're saying they can do. They in fact went so far as to say that people started running them that way and it broke the dams they were doing it to requiring very expensive repairs.
So with all due respect, you're sounding like this to me on this issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
All my information from first hand sources are telling me you're wrong. I've also seen graphs of the power output from these renewables... wind and solar... they're jumping around all over the place. Look at them on a minute to minute basis... The grid has to be stabilized on a second to second basis. having the output jump and drop like that is very problematic. Maybe the output over the course of a day is predictable but the output from one minute to the next is not. You can't say the same thing about a coal or nuclear or hydro plant. They can hold a reliable out figure for decades baring the occasional maintenance cycle.
login and I'll debate the point.
I actually clicked on a lot of the walker links and they turned out to be misleading points.
For example they said he lied when he said that the state of Wisconsin would begin its fiscal budget with a surplus of X dollars then they say that is false because as of this moment they actually have a deficit. That isn't what he said though. He said at time Y we have a balance of X. What they said was because at time Y+5 they have a balance of X-700... he lied when he said that at time Y they had a balance of X.
That's deceitful. I've noticed this with poli"fact" before... they are more interested in advocacy from what I've seen than in actual accurate reporting or integrity. So... not a great source to be honest.
lets go through the rest of the list...
As to paul... given that he left Baylor to go to Duke where he got a medical degree and completed his residency... I'm not feeling that as something that really matters. I mean, warren lied about being a native american and did so in the media and used the point to win diversity points. Where is paul's angle here?
As to Carson... a stupid opinion is not evidence of lying. And I should point out I'm not endorsing any of these people. Carson is a f'ing joke in my opinion. The guy has no record in public office. I prefer governors and generals for the presidency. Historically they make the best presidents. Its not a lock that they will... Bush was a governor and was terrible. But generally that job experience leads to effective presidents. The generals especially. Go through the US presidents that were generals before and they're pretty bullet proof. I know that sounds jingoistic or something because everyone hates the military for largely kneejerk reasons. But look at the data. They were pretty good.
Anyway, Carson was what... CEO of a pizza chain? Get the fuck out of here. What he was CEO of doesn't really matter. CEO is not something I consider job experience for that position. Of course, neither do I credit experience in the legislature. Most of our senator presidents turned out to be shitty as well.
As to Cruz... if we call that a lie then there hasn't been an honest politician running for office since I've been living. Not even bernie could pass the standard you're putting out there. This is a bit of rhetorical hyperbole. I can't think of any politician that hasn't crossed that line. ... anyway, I said I was just reading off a list I found of people running. I can't cite these people off the top of my head... you know outside of the top four or five. The republican field is a circus as I said... you'd apparently agree.
Anyway, without any advocacy, I'd just like to have a president that unites Americans for a change. I don't care if they're democrats or republicans or independents. Someone that tries to be a nation's president instead of a crusading against the opposing political camp. The infighting in my country has grown toxic and I believe if it doesn't stop there are going to be serious structural political problems where states are going to just stop complying with orders at a certain point. We already have this with certain issues but it could start to get more overt. The feds can say they'll send in the army or cut off funding... but that assumes the state that bucks them does everything in the dumbest way possible. If they boil the frog then it will be hard for the feds to muster the political will to do anything violent. And the funding issue is complicated as well because the feds have radically less power than they presume to have... most of it is sustained through voluntary funding programs... aka cooperate and you get money. if they cut off the money they'll also remove most of the reasons to cooperate with them.
It is somewhat analogous to what is going on with Greece. You cut them off from aid and they have less reason to play the EU game.
If DC keeps strong arming people the nation is going to start becoming like herding cats. They're all going to go off in their own directions.
your example contradicted your position. You're done.
I'm not going to respond to you again in this thread. You lost horribly.
I'm not, login and I'll explain why.
I think you're being paranoid by assuming the our own robots will turn against us or be a general hazard to our soldiers.
At worst, they'll be like land mines... sure... dangerous... if you walk through the minefield. Stay back a bit and you're fine.
the military isn't going to use weapons that put our own soldiers at risk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Have fun with that idea.
Your old garbage will be trashed before you even know you're under attack.
Relying on retrograde cold war tech for your front line is a mistake.
I have never told a lie professionally.
I have never lied to a business associate or a boss or a subordinate about something that was work related.
I've never run for office so I can neither say nor not say I haven't lied to political constituent since I've never had one.
Some politicians are well known to lie and lie often. Hillary has become pathetic on the issue lately. I mean, even her supporters know she's a fucking liar. They don't even deny it anymore.
But not all politicians have that sort of record.
Warren is another well known liar.
Please pick a candidate that isn't a well known piece of shit.
while first past the post definitely causes there to be only two parties it would be a mistake to think that you'd get more than two sides with more parties.
Look at countries with lots of parties and you'll find that there are still only two power blocks.
In WW2 we had the US, GB, USSR on one side and the NAZIs, fascist italians whatever they called themselves, and the Imperial Japanese.
That's all you get with multiply party systems. You get two powerful sides with subfactions within them.
But with first past the post you really have the exact same thing because within both parties you have subfactions.
Some of the democrats for example are greens in that their most important issue is the environment. Then you have other democrats where their most important issue is protecting and supporting industrial unions. Those are not compatible positions. But they exist under the same "big tent" or "big umbrella" of their respective party.
And both parties work that way. You have at LEAST five or six factions in each party. Arguably they could all be seperate political parties in their own right. But as you say because of first past the post they have to unite under only two parties total.
Fine... but that doesn't change that those factions are still operating under the skin.
The whole thing is a debate over whether you want the organs inside the meat bag or on the outside. Either way its going to work the same way.
If you have 10 parties for example, then you're going to have about five of them form a coalition government to dominate the other five which is generally how the parliamentary system works.
How is the same group of parties forming a coalition any different from how the two US parties operate?
Again, you can't get away from the two sides because the stakes are too high to stand on principle. When you can't lose you will make alliances with people you don't like to put up a common defense.
The only way you're going to stop people from doing this is if the stakes of losing become low enough that people feel comfortable telling potential allies to choke on their own severed penises because they'd rather lose than ally with them.
There is no party or faction in any situation where the stakes are high that will do that. They will ally with anyone to win. If you want this to stop then you have to make people feel comfortable with losing if it means keeping their principles.
And that is going to mean radically scaling back the power of government. There is too much to lose in modern American politics to not fight to the death over these issues. And that means you'll shake hands with the devil if it means you might win.
Look at Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. No one likes either of them.
Hillary is a lying sell out that basically has gotten everything she has in return for not divorcing Bill Clinton after he got caught with an intern's mouth around his dick. Her accomplishments are what? Getting elected to the Senate for a term where she did nothing to distinguish herself. And then basically forcing herself on Obama's state department even though he didn't want her... but it was give her that or fight the Clinton machine. And by all indications she was comically incompetent. Say what you like about Bush, but he put a black woman in charge of the state department that spoke Russian... and Hillary couldn't even get one word translated properly for a symbolic state gift. Her entire tenure was full of incompetence and its dumb for democrats to pretend otherwise. If god help you she wins you're going to be spending the next 4 years minimum making excuses for this person. Think the republicans liked making excuses for Bush Jr? Well, why would you do that to yourself?
And Jeb is another fucking Bush. I really don't care about anything beyond that point. He's just utterly unacceptable on that basis alone. That family got two presidents into the white house... that's enough for the next 100 years. I don't want to see them again in m
... Okay... so... you have an option to use a kill bot against the enemy that wants to kill you... and if you go out there... you could be killed.
Or... you send in your terminator bot and worst case they scrag the robot.
What are you going to prefer here?
A lot of people offering opinions here are not speaking from that perspective. They're speaking often as not from the perspective of some civilian ideologue that knows they're not going to go to war.
I know that if I go to war... I am going to want the best weapons my society can make for me along with the best defenses the best training and ideally leaders that are not complete fuckwits.
That means I want the robots. I want them and I want them to be fucking vicious.
Go on youtube and you'll see US soldiers cheering when air support shows up and blows the fuck out of someone shooting at them.
https://youtu.be/1IcvjD4VVjY?t...
Now... if you are a country that has the ability to build kill bots... and you might be on the firing line... do you or do you not want to use killer robots to kill your enemies?
You have to put your brain into war mode to understand the question.
My vote... is yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
When I go to war... I go to WAR.
The issue with US healthcare is not the lack of subsidization but the high cost. And the ACA did nothing to address that. And contrary to the broken record of the supporters of socialized healthcare, the costs in the US are not high due to the lack of single payer.
If you don't just offer simplistic arguments where you cite big conflated numbers that give no detail... if instead you go into the nitty gritty as to what costs what and why. You'll find that the issue is more complicated and also... more easily solved.
Rather than arguing about shit we disagree about, we could simply do all the stuff we agree on and solve nearly the entire problem.
Get costs low enough and companies will be happy to offer healthcare with employment again and won't be so prone to push part time labor etc to avoid having to deal with that.
The problem with so many of these issues is that people are so lazy... especially the politicians that they have no patience for complex problems that have to be dealt with piecemeal. You break it up into the thousand issues is really is... and you go through them one at a time. And the reality is that most of the issues would not be controversial this way.
There is a hospital in Texas that was able to cut medical expenses for patients by about 75 percent or something crazy by changing the way the hospital is administered. They don't have those upper 3 floors that most hospitals have that are just people doing paper work. The hospital is 100 percent run by the shift nurses. There are no hidden costs and everything is billed what it actually costs. So if you took an aspirin... they literally put on the bill "aspirin 5 cents".
The cost reductions vary. But they tend to be somewhere between 75 percent to 50 percent cheaper than their local equivalents with roughly the same capabilities.
Now who talks about that?
If you could drop medical costs by half that would address most of the problem.
And then we can go over the drugs which is another complex issue... you have protectionism for the US drug industry, you have the DEA/FDA making it complicated to get drugs or making the cost of drugs artificially higher than it should be.... there are a lot of issues.
Every one of these issues is also a generalization and to really address any of them you'd have to go into them in great detail and be very patient as you do so.
And anyone too lazy to do that really has no business in the discussion. Its like someone coming into an engineer's meeting over a problem with a car and just saying over and over again "the car uses too much gasoline"... yeah okay... but the reasons for that will be complicated. Weight, engine design, average use profile... and dealing with it isn't helped by throwing money at it either.
Sometimes you have to be patient and you have to be willing to deal with the details.
Did you have a complete argument/thought or just a random baseless insult that can be brushed off as the typical internet white noise from retards?
Tell me what you want evidence for specifically and I'll argue my case. As it stands, I couldn't respond to your stupid comment if I wanted to... its so vague pathetically focused on delivering a baseless and thus meaningless insult that you actually forgot to get to the bit where you try to make sense.
Your move, cream puff.
I disagree. Login and we'll talk about.
I haven't chosen anyone yet. The election season is too new.
Bernie would be fine though... I don't think he's been caught lying yet.
as to the GOP field... I'll just cite people that I know have lied... I don't know about the rest:
I know Trump has lied... about many things over many years.
I know Jeb has flip flopped a lot and that basically counts as a lie in my book without a reason not including polling for the change.
I know Rubio has been caught lying about a few things.
I'm not sure about Huckabee but I don't trust him and don't like him. That isn't to say I like anyone else on the list but Huck pisses me off.
I know christie has lied about a couple things.
I'm not sure about Rick Perry but the guy is such a terrible politician that I don't care. By that I mean, he's bad at speaking to people, he sounds stupid, he doesn't know how to deal with the media... and this makes him bad at politics which makes him a bad politician. Bush was the same way. Texas needs to send more polished and competent baby kissers to DC.
I know Carly Fiorina has a very odd history with HP that I'd classify as dishonest. Wasn't she wire tapping board members or something? That's just creepy shit.
I'm not sure about Lindsey graham... but he reads the same way that huckabee does and I actively dislike him.
I don't know about the rest.
People I didn't mention that could be honest so far as I know:
Scott Walker
Ben Carson
Rand Paul
Ted Cruz
John Kasich
Bobby Jindal
George Pataki
Jim Gilmore
I'm reading off a list here... I couldn't name all these people off the top of my head. the GOP field is a three ring circus at this point.
There are two or three people in the DNC line up that aren't known liars and there have to be a hand full or so in the GOP field if only because there are so many of them.