The Base of both parties sees most of their own politicians as liars and sell outs. This is true of democrats and republicans. As such there is a hunger in both camps for "authenticity"...
In this, I would say the democrats found someone with Bernie Sanders that at least believes what he says.
With Trump, the belief by many republicans is that he also believes what he says... but I personally doubt his sincerity on many levels which I think I explained above.
Regardless, neither candidate is a good presidential pick.
We need someone that will unite the nation. Bernie is unacceptable to about 75 percent of the country. And I would be shocked if trump were acceptable to as much as 10-15 percent of the country.
Either one will be divisive and that is not good for the country. Whatever you might think about Obama, he has been a very controversial president and he replaced another controversial president.
We need an Eisenhower... a Washington... someone everyone can get behind without a lot of shit. And the only way that is going to work is if whomever takes the seat allows everyone to win.
A big issue in the US is that we have this increasing tendency to go for "all or nothing" or "one size fits all" systems and that is at the heart of a lot of our tensions. The ACA for example would be fine if the states that opted out of it were truly allowed to opt out.
If the very left wing states want to go for full blown socialism, I think they should be allowed to do it. States that want a different system or to simply keep things a certain way and not mess with it... let them.
Its a big country and its supposed to be a free country. If the given presidents didn't force things on people then we wouldn't have this tension. If the tension keeps amping up... some sort of crack up between the states and the feds could be very likely. I'm not talking about a civil war. Just various states refusing to comply in the way that the sanctuary cities don't comply with ICE or the drug cities don't cooperate with the DEA. The trend increasingly is that instead of exemptions written into law, states are simply refusing to comply and then daring the feds to do something about it.
I think Texas has done that in a few cases with the EPA, BLM, and a few other agencies and so far has gotten away with it.
Your grammar is odd. I'm assuming this is a second language for you. I will be patient.
As to Marx obsessing me... only to the extent that a lot of political and academic theory is rooted in an attempt to validate marxism. Basically, if people stop using marxist dogma to make arguments then I'll stop referencing him.
As to "all"... we're not talking about all. we're talking about genetics which are statistical in nature. All people don't like sweet things for example but most people do because we are genetically programmed to associate sweetness with sugar and sugar with energy dense carbohydrates.
Some people like to eat soap or foam rubber. But those are outliers and not to be confused with genetic tendencies.
As to your point that women don't mind competing against women, I actually said that so we agree there. The issue is that women feel uncomfortable competing against men.
I think you could over come a lot of this with socialization. But you'd have to teach the girls to "man up" and compete against boys even though there would be a part of their psychology warning them that it is dangerous. Historically those instincts might have been valid. Today in our culture they are not. So we could teach girls to overcome their instincts and compete. But you'd have to make an effort there and politically the various groups have decided that masculinity is what needs to be corrected and not femininity. There are many problems with that course of action which I won't get into here. But the underlying problem with doing that is that the world is competitive and training people to not be ready for it simply leaves them unprepared.
As to IT people being cave dwellers... only in so far as they don't spend a lot of time in the Sun. We're quite sophisticated in most ways. We simply do not share the same culture as those that presume to be our cultural superiors.
By the very standards of those same people, they are guilty of cultural imperialism. The presumption that their culture is superior and must be imposed on everyone else. I wouldn't impose the IT culture on them... it would be nice if they were as tolerant and open minded as the IT community as regards tolerance of other cultures.;-)
I'm not talking about microaggressions. That's basically a progressive censorship campaign that has very little to do with anything. Also these political movements are not always logically self consistent and are very prone to hypocrisy.
Do you want me to show you links to feminist making the argument that gender is a social construct or do you acknowledge that is the prevailing argument?
I'm not talking about chimps or bonobos... I'm talking about human beings. Quote where I mentioned chimps? Contrary to what YOU said, it is intellectually dishonest on YOUR part to suggest that I did talk about chimp and not bonobos. I talked about neither.
As to ad hominem... I didn't say you were wrong because you were a marxist shit head. I said rather that some marxist shit head would argue the other side because Marxism believes pretty much everything is a social construct. And the reason that you are taught that is because marxism itself is antithetical to human nature. And for marxism to ever work, you must be able to reprogram human nature at a very fundamental level. The fact that marxists have never been able to do that with much success has never stopped you from claiming that you can. And given THAT position, the last people that should be lecturing ANYONE on intellectual honesty are marxists.
So no, it was not ad hominem. I didn't say you were wrong because you've got a stupid ideology. I said rather that because you have a stupid ideology you're going to say stupid things.
But I'm open to hear your argument.
I told you... COME AT ME. Your first argument was to claim I talked about chimps and not bonobos... that was clearly some scripted argument you had stored up that you tried to shoe horn into the discussion. I obviously said nothing about chimps. So rather than play back scripted arguments like a fucking parrot, why don't you actually try to think for the first time in your life and come up with your own argument.
Try it. I know it hurts... you're not used to thinking. Try anyway. I'll be patient with you and very respectful IF you think. I don't need you to agree with me. I do need you to not play back scripted arguments you memorized like a religious radical.
I don't see what the need for babies to be cared for has to do with what we're talking about. Be specific please.
As to low status meaning genetic death... are you claiming that the worst male in a tribe could get laid? Keep in mind, women prefer GOOD genetic material... not shit. They might let you care for their baby but when you're not looking she's going to be having sex with higher status males hoping that her child will be better.
At best you'll get to form an emotional relationship with the child.
Infidelity amoungst women is much higher than most cultures will openly admit and it is not equally distributed.
Women associated with high status males cheat less or not at all. Women associated with low status males cheat frequently.
If you are low status your chances of suffering genetic death are quite high as a male.
It is a big reason men do almost anything. It strongly influences the way men operate. Why go off to war for example? Are you familiar with the White Feather campaign? Basically it involved women handing out feathers to men that hadn't joined the army which signified that they would not sleep with, marry, bare the children of cowards.
Now what are your chances dying in a war? Now compare that to your chances of genetic death if you don't go to war.
Right or wrong, a reason for going to war for males is often the threat of genetic death. You come back from war and the society rewards you with higher status. You don't and the society threatens that they have convinced the females to not breed with you.
It underlies most of the differences in male and female psychology.
It is why men will take dangerous jobs. It is why men will work longer hours. It is why men will seek out difficult and risk high reward tasks for this society.
Men MUST risk to obtain status. And men are born with no sure things in their lives. Women almost always pass on their genetic material. Its pretty much a sure thing. Women neither have to risk nor are conditioned to risk. Men are given no guarantee of anything. They must challenge, compete, risk, venture, master, or die.
As to the schism... It appears to be the result of language translation to some extent. The Vatican says that if they used the terms the Orthodox Church uses to describe their teachings they would be heretical but if they used other terms than the y would not be. Apparently the original statements from the Pope at the time had used the wrong terms and this is believed to be a mistranslation.
As to politics... yes... that was what most of the protestant reformation was about as well.
The Vatican kept trying to dictate things to kingdoms. There was a perceived favoritism for some kingdoms especially those close to rome while those farther away tended to be treated badly. This is in large part why the kingdoms farther away from the Vatican were upset with the Vatican.
Similar in a way to what happened with the US and England. The US at the time of the revolution had a large population but no representation in the English Government. By rights, the American colonies should have had about 25 percent of the total votes in the English Parliament... and growing quickly. Instead, the colonies had no formal vote. The issue of course was less the lack of the vote than what that meant for the Colonies. The Crown would do things that were very unpopular in the Colonies and there was nothing the Colonies could really do about it.
Wired or GTFO. the only thing I permit on the wifi network is facebooking. I encourage them to do it on the wifi. Do all your personal crap on it. But the company servers, etc... not connected to the wifi. You want to talk to those... plug yourself in with an eithernet cable.
Where the NSA will start creeping me out again is when they get little robots that can scurry between my walls and link into the ethernet using a little rodent sized drone.
As to meeting one for the first time... I am truly honored then.
*tips hat*
I've looked for such as you for a long time... I went looking for someone like you on Russian forums... I found little more than deluded children fantasizing about the return of the old USSR. It was not encouraging.
I had actually given up hope of ever finding any one from Russia with your background.This is genuinely interesting for me now.
As to origin, most of the Russians I talked to traced themselves back to Steppe people of the Russian planes rather than old Byzantium.
As to Putin crowning himself Tsar effectively... it has not gone unnoticed. We have been watching the whole thing and we did make the connections that all the old imperial trope are being reinvigorated.
It doesn't matter to me, my people, or our wider civilization beyond worries of aggression and instability in the region. America normally doesn't care what a country does internally so long as they keep it to themselves. What is agitating the US is the action in Georgia and Ukraine. The free press getting destroyed, the political enemies getting shot in the street... we are aware of it but it doesn't bother us. What worries us is if this means we need to go back into cold war mode with Russia... aspects of our society have already done that. The conversion is not total yet but it is trending that way rather quickly. The people that seem to fantasize about the USSR think the US is going to give them a battle. That won't be our way. We'll use trade, sanctions, and diplomacy to starve Russia. As I said... the same mistake Byzantium made with Venice.
As to Stalin's rehabilitation as a cult icon of national strength... Yes. We are aware of that as well. We read reports of Russian textbooks being rewritten to put stalin in a better light. Again, it doesn't bother us so long as it doesn't mean aggression. if it does... things are likely to get very tense in eastern europe.
Here's a question for you, how serious are the Russians' about the Orthodox church? I would have thought that atheism would have been still very strong in Russia. But the way you're talking about it, it sounds like the country is being stirred into a religious fervor. That I had not heard.
Also, why is the Catholic Pope impure in the eyes of this third rome argument? I don't quite understand that.
Getting a paper through peer review is overrated... it really isn't that hard. Both sides manage it all the time.
How you people can think this is even that hard when there was that Korean fellow recently outed as having falsified the data for something like 180 peer reviewed papers that he got through peer review. Pretty much his entire career was a giant fraud. . And it wasn't caught until someone tried to reserve engineer his findings and couldn't.
I even quoted not long ago an essay by the chief editor of the Lancet saying that fraud and sloppyiness was running rampant in the peer review system. And according to him, its being hushed up by the government of England in his case as well as academia.
But he's just the chief editor of the Lancet... what does he know, dear child?
Read it... you rarely show any ability to read anything... I'll be shocked if you able to absorb even one page of contrary evidence so thick is your cognitive dissonance
How many of your peer reviewed papers are even capable of being empirically audited? But of course anyone that criticizes a paper that can't be audited must be a thought criminal. Right? Of course.
The point here was that that there was a claim of 4 independent datasets. I struck that down. There aren't. There are four datasets... but independent? Nope. All of it links back to the NOAA.
I've never met a Russian that knew anything about Byzantium. Russia certainly never learned from their Sires. They're repeating the same error they made with Venice all over again.
This doesn't end well.
As to the notion that they're pure after having the Soviets run their world... It is to laugh, is it not?
Additionally from the same source: ""Aforementioned differences in measurement could play a substantial role in the disparity between the U.S. and other nations. A non-viable live birth in the U.S. could be registered as a stillbirth in similarly developed nations like Japan, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, the Netherlands, and France â" thereby avoiding the infant death classification altogether.[77] Neonatal intensive care is also more likely to be applied in the U.S. to marginally viable infants, although such interventions have been found to increase both costs and disability. A study following the implementation of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 found universal resuscitation of infants born between 20â"23 weeks increased the neonatal spending burden by 313.3 million while simultaneously decreasing quality-adjusted life years by 329.3.[78]""
As to Russia having eastern european culture... no question... they're a product of the Eastern Roman empire after all... much as they might think they're something else.
Regardless, I was referring to the western europeans... if you look at the records you'll see eastern europeans actually do fairly well in that competition for some reason. The poles won somewhere in there. So sorry if you took offense for suggesting the Russians weren't Europeans... its hard to think of them that way when they go out of their way to tell us all the time how "different" they are... One tends to just think of them as different after a time. Saves them the trouble of telling us again how all our assumptions about their psychology and motivations and our interests are wrong.:)
From the same post where you cherry picked that quote to make a really sad attempt at strawmanning me: "Anything gets competitive... where men start trying really hard... the women sit down. They don't even try. Not because they can't but because they're programmed to not try."
Here's the thing, pudding... I'm a seasoned campaigner... I forget more about rhetoric on the john every day than you'll ever know. I know... Dick measuring... listen to me whip out my big throbbing e-peen and compare sizes. But you see, that's the point again. This is how it goes.
As to girls in little league... a relatively minor subset. And it doesn't help you because its only one place. There are a zillion other examples i can throw at you that would bury your occasional exception. And really none of it matters because the facts aren't even remotely in dispute.
Boys are more aggressive... more competitive... more assertive. And even the "kill all men" feminists agree. You can't fight it, sport. Its just sad.
As to canton, I can't evaluate that without access to their databases. I can't see individual student scoring. All you're showing me is that there are women on the team. When they compete, they're only allowed to send FOUR of the students to the meet. Which means the vast majority of those kids stay home.
So who do did they send and what did they score? Impossible to know isn't it?
As they say in math "show your work".:)
Your link about japanese exchange students didn't touch on competition so I don't know what you're talking about there.
As to the Naperville thing... you didn't actually read any of this did you? That isn't how you win, bucko! You're not going to get the virtual pussy at this rate.
"" Senior Tom Gannon of Downers Grove set the tone early in the day by winning the state championship in the Oral competition with 48 out of a possible 50 points. Later in the day, in a large jam packed auditorium, Tom and Junior Brendan Caseria of Naperville finished 2nd in the State in the Junior-Senior 2-person competition. To wrap up a terrific day, Tom capped it off with an 8th place finish in the Pre-Calculus written competition. The senior team of Rachel Berry of Naperville, Sabrina Lichon of Naperville, Brian Meier of Downers Grove, Robbie Stanley of Warrenville, Jeff Sweeney of Downers Grove and Gannon finished in 4th place, their highest finish ever at the State Math Meet. ""
From your citation.
The champ was Tom Gannon, followed by Brendan Caseria, then tom won something else... and apparently some collection of people with no apparent individual scoring that was the only segment with the females got 4th.
Just saying, bucko... I think this means my pubic hair is slightly glossier than yours.
As to being wrong... okay... Fine... you want me to bury you in science? You asked for it.:-D
The point of the citations was not to support my thesis. It was so you understood you weren't arguing against some guy that is more fit for breeding with the internet females than you. The point was rather to show you that you're arguing against an entire field of science and citing some anecdotal refer
If I were losing that many people to malaria I don't think I'd care much what the WHO had to say about it. I'd place an order for the stuff and spray away.
If the WHO wants to get dosed in DDT they can show up and complain about it.
As to studies... I have to believe they can do lab studies on it in the US. Use it in the open? No... but in a lab? Feed it to the rats? Sure. Why not? They take apart the cute little critters brains and feed them worse so why not a little DDT in the kibble?
Geographically... they have territory in Europe... I don't know if I would call them a european country. Eurasian maybe.
Regardless my point was that the English, the French, the Swedes, the Swiss, the Dutch, etc didn't win... I'm going over the scores and they haven't even gotten into the top ten in ages... and yet we're supposed to be the big math dummies? What do you know... stupid country that runs the CPU industry isn't that bad at math. Who would have guessed?
The Eastern europeans actually seem to do better in this thing than the western europeans. That's a funny one.
Truisms? Really? Women admit to this quite freely sport. Its not even remotely controversial. Even the most hardcore of the hardcore feminists admit that women have an issue with competing. Its often referred to by euphemisms like "assertiveness". How the girls don't like to stand up in class put their neck out but the boys do. More aggressive... see? And where does all that hesitation from the girls and aggressiveness from the boys come from?
Nowhere? Did we just make it up? Are girls just as aggressive as boys and we've just never noticed it until now? Are you saying the boys are less aggressive than we've been thinking and no one realized it until you brought it up?
See what I'm doing? I'm competing. I'm taking your status for myself... so I can have sex with your sister or something. I don't know... its what my cave man lizard brain is probably thinking. But boy do I get a charge out of that. I really do. Not saying that to be a dick by the way... but to make a point.
I get that charge. The girls don't. I get a charge out of grinding my rivals into the dirt... kicking them while they're down... and then laughing at them. Again... just making a point.
Now am I unusual or remarkable in this? Not that I've seen. I'm batting retards off like flies here every day. Every one of the little twits desperate to take a stripe out of me. And it fills me with primordial glee to slap them around despite the fact that no where is there a woman on the internet that will throw herself at me for it. Sad in a way. But that's genetics for you. Always a few generations behind the times.
Your position is to laugh.
Remember Ellen Poe saying she wasn't going to let people bargain for higher pay because MEN asked for it and women didn't? Competition, sparky.
It isn't some bit of specious witchdoctorism I'm talking about... I'm talking about evolutionary psychology. Its a real subject based on real science. Have arrived at the part of the discussion where I start citing studies or something? Would you read them if I did?
You want to counter that with some anecdote about hockey when growing up? You must be joking.
google is really easy to use. Try this search term:
"DDT bird shell fraud" I got a few hits. I didn't know that the bird shell thing was a fraud as well. That is truly despicable. This means much of the enviro movement was predicated on a complete fabrication.
The price in lives can thus be justifiably hung around the necks of the people that did it. Horrific.
That said... the links were not entire conclusive... but enough to put the issue strongly into question.
Slashdot Mirror
He's got no establishment support and from what I can see very little grass roots support.
Anything can happen but he's campaign is looking pretty bleak.
We'll see... a lot of things happened to make carter credible... a lot of things will need to happen to make someone not already known credible.
The Base of both parties sees most of their own politicians as liars and sell outs. This is true of democrats and republicans. As such there is a hunger in both camps for "authenticity"...
In this, I would say the democrats found someone with Bernie Sanders that at least believes what he says.
With Trump, the belief by many republicans is that he also believes what he says... but I personally doubt his sincerity on many levels which I think I explained above.
Regardless, neither candidate is a good presidential pick.
We need someone that will unite the nation. Bernie is unacceptable to about 75 percent of the country. And I would be shocked if trump were acceptable to as much as 10-15 percent of the country.
Either one will be divisive and that is not good for the country. Whatever you might think about Obama, he has been a very controversial president and he replaced another controversial president.
We need an Eisenhower... a Washington... someone everyone can get behind without a lot of shit. And the only way that is going to work is if whomever takes the seat allows everyone to win.
A big issue in the US is that we have this increasing tendency to go for "all or nothing" or "one size fits all" systems and that is at the heart of a lot of our tensions. The ACA for example would be fine if the states that opted out of it were truly allowed to opt out.
If the very left wing states want to go for full blown socialism, I think they should be allowed to do it. States that want a different system or to simply keep things a certain way and not mess with it... let them.
Its a big country and its supposed to be a free country. If the given presidents didn't force things on people then we wouldn't have this tension. If the tension keeps amping up... some sort of crack up between the states and the feds could be very likely. I'm not talking about a civil war. Just various states refusing to comply in the way that the sanctuary cities don't comply with ICE or the drug cities don't cooperate with the DEA. The trend increasingly is that instead of exemptions written into law, states are simply refusing to comply and then daring the feds to do something about it.
I think Texas has done that in a few cases with the EPA, BLM, and a few other agencies and so far has gotten away with it.
Your grammar is odd. I'm assuming this is a second language for you. I will be patient.
As to Marx obsessing me... only to the extent that a lot of political and academic theory is rooted in an attempt to validate marxism. Basically, if people stop using marxist dogma to make arguments then I'll stop referencing him.
As to "all"... we're not talking about all. we're talking about genetics which are statistical in nature. All people don't like sweet things for example but most people do because we are genetically programmed to associate sweetness with sugar and sugar with energy dense carbohydrates.
Some people like to eat soap or foam rubber. But those are outliers and not to be confused with genetic tendencies.
As to your point that women don't mind competing against women, I actually said that so we agree there. The issue is that women feel uncomfortable competing against men.
I think you could over come a lot of this with socialization. But you'd have to teach the girls to "man up" and compete against boys even though there would be a part of their psychology warning them that it is dangerous. Historically those instincts might have been valid. Today in our culture they are not. So we could teach girls to overcome their instincts and compete. But you'd have to make an effort there and politically the various groups have decided that masculinity is what needs to be corrected and not femininity. There are many problems with that course of action which I won't get into here. But the underlying problem with doing that is that the world is competitive and training people to not be ready for it simply leaves them unprepared.
As to IT people being cave dwellers... only in so far as they don't spend a lot of time in the Sun. We're quite sophisticated in most ways. We simply do not share the same culture as those that presume to be our cultural superiors.
By the very standards of those same people, they are guilty of cultural imperialism. The presumption that their culture is superior and must be imposed on everyone else. I wouldn't impose the IT culture on them... it would be nice if they were as tolerant and open minded as the IT community as regards tolerance of other cultures. ;-)
I'm not talking about microaggressions. That's basically a progressive censorship campaign that has very little to do with anything. Also these political movements are not always logically self consistent and are very prone to hypocrisy.
Do you want me to show you links to feminist making the argument that gender is a social construct or do you acknowledge that is the prevailing argument?
I'm not talking about chimps or bonobos... I'm talking about human beings. Quote where I mentioned chimps? Contrary to what YOU said, it is intellectually dishonest on YOUR part to suggest that I did talk about chimp and not bonobos. I talked about neither.
As to ad hominem... I didn't say you were wrong because you were a marxist shit head. I said rather that some marxist shit head would argue the other side because Marxism believes pretty much everything is a social construct. And the reason that you are taught that is because marxism itself is antithetical to human nature. And for marxism to ever work, you must be able to reprogram human nature at a very fundamental level. The fact that marxists have never been able to do that with much success has never stopped you from claiming that you can. And given THAT position, the last people that should be lecturing ANYONE on intellectual honesty are marxists.
So no, it was not ad hominem. I didn't say you were wrong because you've got a stupid ideology. I said rather that because you have a stupid ideology you're going to say stupid things.
But I'm open to hear your argument.
I told you... COME AT ME. Your first argument was to claim I talked about chimps and not bonobos... that was clearly some scripted argument you had stored up that you tried to shoe horn into the discussion. I obviously said nothing about chimps. So rather than play back scripted arguments like a fucking parrot, why don't you actually try to think for the first time in your life and come up with your own argument.
Try it. I know it hurts... you're not used to thinking. Try anyway. I'll be patient with you and very respectful IF you think. I don't need you to agree with me. I do need you to not play back scripted arguments you memorized like a religious radical.
I don't see what the need for babies to be cared for has to do with what we're talking about. Be specific please.
As to low status meaning genetic death... are you claiming that the worst male in a tribe could get laid? Keep in mind, women prefer GOOD genetic material... not shit. They might let you care for their baby but when you're not looking she's going to be having sex with higher status males hoping that her child will be better.
At best you'll get to form an emotional relationship with the child.
Infidelity amoungst women is much higher than most cultures will openly admit and it is not equally distributed.
Women associated with high status males cheat less or not at all. Women associated with low status males cheat frequently.
If you are low status your chances of suffering genetic death are quite high as a male.
It is a big reason men do almost anything. It strongly influences the way men operate. Why go off to war for example? Are you familiar with the White Feather campaign? Basically it involved women handing out feathers to men that hadn't joined the army which signified that they would not sleep with, marry, bare the children of cowards.
Now what are your chances dying in a war? Now compare that to your chances of genetic death if you don't go to war.
Right or wrong, a reason for going to war for males is often the threat of genetic death. You come back from war and the society rewards you with higher status. You don't and the society threatens that they have convinced the females to not breed with you.
It underlies most of the differences in male and female psychology.
It is why men will take dangerous jobs. It is why men will work longer hours. It is why men will seek out difficult and risk high reward tasks for this society.
Men MUST risk to obtain status. And men are born with no sure things in their lives. Women almost always pass on their genetic material. Its pretty much a sure thing. Women neither have to risk nor are conditioned to risk. Men are given no guarantee of anything. They must challenge, compete, risk, venture, master, or die.
I await the conclusions of your report. My country is doing fine. :)
Login and I'll bury you alive in citations while singing a merry tune.
As to the schism... It appears to be the result of language translation to some extent. The Vatican says that if they used the terms the Orthodox Church uses to describe their teachings they would be heretical but if they used other terms than the y would not be. Apparently the original statements from the Pope at the time had used the wrong terms and this is believed to be a mistranslation.
As to politics... yes... that was what most of the protestant reformation was about as well.
The Vatican kept trying to dictate things to kingdoms. There was a perceived favoritism for some kingdoms especially those close to rome while those farther away tended to be treated badly. This is in large part why the kingdoms farther away from the Vatican were upset with the Vatican.
Similar in a way to what happened with the US and England. The US at the time of the revolution had a large population but no representation in the English Government. By rights, the American colonies should have had about 25 percent of the total votes in the English Parliament... and growing quickly. Instead, the colonies had no formal vote. The issue of course was less the lack of the vote than what that meant for the Colonies. The Crown would do things that were very unpopular in the Colonies and there was nothing the Colonies could really do about it.
It applies to all humans. Login and we'll talk about it.
Wired or GTFO. the only thing I permit on the wifi network is facebooking. I encourage them to do it on the wifi. Do all your personal crap on it. But the company servers, etc... not connected to the wifi. You want to talk to those... plug yourself in with an eithernet cable.
Where the NSA will start creeping me out again is when they get little robots that can scurry between my walls and link into the ethernet using a little rodent sized drone.
As to meeting one for the first time... I am truly honored then.
*tips hat*
I've looked for such as you for a long time... I went looking for someone like you on Russian forums... I found little more than deluded children fantasizing about the return of the old USSR. It was not encouraging.
I had actually given up hope of ever finding any one from Russia with your background.This is genuinely interesting for me now.
As to origin, most of the Russians I talked to traced themselves back to Steppe people of the Russian planes rather than old Byzantium.
As to Putin crowning himself Tsar effectively... it has not gone unnoticed. We have been watching the whole thing and we did make the connections that all the old imperial trope are being reinvigorated.
It doesn't matter to me, my people, or our wider civilization beyond worries of aggression and instability in the region. America normally doesn't care what a country does internally so long as they keep it to themselves. What is agitating the US is the action in Georgia and Ukraine. The free press getting destroyed, the political enemies getting shot in the street... we are aware of it but it doesn't bother us. What worries us is if this means we need to go back into cold war mode with Russia... aspects of our society have already done that. The conversion is not total yet but it is trending that way rather quickly. The people that seem to fantasize about the USSR think the US is going to give them a battle. That won't be our way. We'll use trade, sanctions, and diplomacy to starve Russia. As I said... the same mistake Byzantium made with Venice.
As to Stalin's rehabilitation as a cult icon of national strength... Yes. We are aware of that as well. We read reports of Russian textbooks being rewritten to put stalin in a better light. Again, it doesn't bother us so long as it doesn't mean aggression. if it does... things are likely to get very tense in eastern europe.
Here's a question for you, how serious are the Russians' about the Orthodox church? I would have thought that atheism would have been still very strong in Russia. But the way you're talking about it, it sounds like the country is being stirred into a religious fervor. That I had not heard.
Also, why is the Catholic Pope impure in the eyes of this third rome argument? I don't quite understand that.
Untrue, Davy my adorable child.
Getting a paper through peer review is overrated... it really isn't that hard. Both sides manage it all the time.
How you people can think this is even that hard when there was that Korean fellow recently outed as having falsified the data for something like 180 peer reviewed papers that he got through peer review. Pretty much his entire career was a giant fraud.
.
And it wasn't caught until someone tried to reserve engineer his findings and couldn't.
I even quoted not long ago an essay by the chief editor of the Lancet saying that fraud and sloppyiness was running rampant in the peer review system. And according to him, its being hushed up by the government of England in his case as well as academia.
But he's just the chief editor of the Lancet... what does he know, dear child?
Want to give it a read, little one?
here you go:
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/...
Read it... you rarely show any ability to read anything... I'll be shocked if you able to absorb even one page of contrary evidence so thick is your cognitive dissonance
How many of your peer reviewed papers are even capable of being empirically audited? But of course anyone that criticizes a paper that can't be audited must be a thought criminal. Right? Of course.
The point here was that that there was a claim of 4 independent datasets. I struck that down. There aren't. There are four datasets... but independent? Nope. All of it links back to the NOAA.
The methodology isn't disclosed and neither is the raw data... so technically no one knows but the NOAA indifferent to their diplomas.
I missed you Davy... where did you go?
I've never met a Russian that knew anything about Byzantium. Russia certainly never learned from their Sires. They're repeating the same error they made with Venice all over again.
This doesn't end well.
As to the notion that they're pure after having the Soviets run their world... It is to laugh, is it not?
Login... ask the question again and all shall be revealed.
You do no research at all. You could have looked at wikipedia and it would have enlightened you but you didn't because you're a fraud:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Additionally from the same source:
""Aforementioned differences in measurement could play a substantial role in the disparity between the U.S. and other nations. A non-viable live birth in the U.S. could be registered as a stillbirth in similarly developed nations like Japan, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, the Netherlands, and France â" thereby avoiding the infant death classification altogether.[77] Neonatal intensive care is also more likely to be applied in the U.S. to marginally viable infants, although such interventions have been found to increase both costs and disability. A study following the implementation of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 found universal resuscitation of infants born between 20â"23 weeks increased the neonatal spending burden by 313.3 million while simultaneously decreasing quality-adjusted life years by 329.3.[78]""
You've got nothing left, shithead.
I win... again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
?
As to Russia having eastern european culture... no question... they're a product of the Eastern Roman empire after all... much as they might think they're something else.
Regardless, I was referring to the western europeans... if you look at the records you'll see eastern europeans actually do fairly well in that competition for some reason. The poles won somewhere in there. So sorry if you took offense for suggesting the Russians weren't Europeans... its hard to think of them that way when they go out of their way to tell us all the time how "different" they are... One tends to just think of them as different after a time. Saves them the trouble of telling us again how all our assumptions about their psychology and motivations and our interests are wrong. :)
From the same post where you cherry picked that quote to make a really sad attempt at strawmanning me:
"Anything gets competitive... where men start trying really hard... the women sit down. They don't even try. Not because they can't but because they're programmed to not try."
Here's the thing, pudding... I'm a seasoned campaigner... I forget more about rhetoric on the john every day than you'll ever know. I know... Dick measuring... listen to me whip out my big throbbing e-peen and compare sizes. But you see, that's the point again. This is how it goes.
As to girls in little league... a relatively minor subset. And it doesn't help you because its only one place. There are a zillion other examples i can throw at you that would bury your occasional exception. And really none of it matters because the facts aren't even remotely in dispute.
Boys are more aggressive... more competitive... more assertive. And even the "kill all men" feminists agree. You can't fight it, sport. Its just sad.
As to canton, I can't evaluate that without access to their databases. I can't see individual student scoring. All you're showing me is that there are women on the team. When they compete, they're only allowed to send FOUR of the students to the meet. Which means the vast majority of those kids stay home.
So who do did they send and what did they score? Impossible to know isn't it?
As they say in math "show your work". :)
Your link about japanese exchange students didn't touch on competition so I don't know what you're talking about there.
As to the Naperville thing... you didn't actually read any of this did you? That isn't how you win, bucko! You're not going to get the virtual pussy at this rate.
""
Senior Tom Gannon of Downers Grove set the tone early in the day by winning the state championship in the Oral competition with 48 out of a possible 50 points. Later in the day, in a large jam packed auditorium, Tom and Junior Brendan Caseria of Naperville finished 2nd in the State in the Junior-Senior 2-person competition. To wrap up a terrific day, Tom capped it off with an 8th place finish in the Pre-Calculus written competition. The senior team of Rachel Berry of Naperville, Sabrina Lichon of Naperville, Brian Meier of Downers Grove, Robbie Stanley of Warrenville, Jeff Sweeney of Downers Grove and Gannon finished in 4th place, their highest finish ever at the State Math Meet.
""
From your citation.
The champ was Tom Gannon, followed by Brendan Caseria, then tom won something else... and apparently some collection of people with no apparent individual scoring that was the only segment with the females got 4th.
Just saying, bucko... I think this means my pubic hair is slightly glossier than yours.
As to being wrong... okay... Fine... you want me to bury you in science? You asked for it. :-D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.epjournal.net/wp-co...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.livescience.com/380...
The point of the citations was not to support my thesis. It was so you understood you weren't arguing against some guy that is more fit for breeding with the internet females than you. The point was rather to show you that you're arguing against an entire field of science and citing some anecdotal refer
If I were losing that many people to malaria I don't think I'd care much what the WHO had to say about it. I'd place an order for the stuff and spray away.
If the WHO wants to get dosed in DDT they can show up and complain about it.
As to studies... I have to believe they can do lab studies on it in the US. Use it in the open? No... but in a lab? Feed it to the rats? Sure. Why not? They take apart the cute little critters brains and feed them worse so why not a little DDT in the kibble?
Geographically... they have territory in Europe... I don't know if I would call them a european country. Eurasian maybe.
Regardless my point was that the English, the French, the Swedes, the Swiss, the Dutch, etc didn't win... I'm going over the scores and they haven't even gotten into the top ten in ages... and yet we're supposed to be the big math dummies? What do you know... stupid country that runs the CPU industry isn't that bad at math. Who would have guessed?
The Eastern europeans actually seem to do better in this thing than the western europeans. That's a funny one.
Truisms? Really? Women admit to this quite freely sport. Its not even remotely controversial. Even the most hardcore of the hardcore feminists admit that women have an issue with competing. Its often referred to by euphemisms like "assertiveness". How the girls don't like to stand up in class put their neck out but the boys do. More aggressive... see? And where does all that hesitation from the girls and aggressiveness from the boys come from?
Nowhere? Did we just make it up? Are girls just as aggressive as boys and we've just never noticed it until now? Are you saying the boys are less aggressive than we've been thinking and no one realized it until you brought it up?
See what I'm doing? I'm competing. I'm taking your status for myself... so I can have sex with your sister or something. I don't know... its what my cave man lizard brain is probably thinking. But boy do I get a charge out of that. I really do. Not saying that to be a dick by the way... but to make a point.
I get that charge. The girls don't. I get a charge out of grinding my rivals into the dirt... kicking them while they're down... and then laughing at them. Again... just making a point.
Now am I unusual or remarkable in this? Not that I've seen. I'm batting retards off like flies here every day. Every one of the little twits desperate to take a stripe out of me. And it fills me with primordial glee to slap them around despite the fact that no where is there a woman on the internet that will throw herself at me for it. Sad in a way. But that's genetics for you. Always a few generations behind the times.
Your position is to laugh.
Remember Ellen Poe saying she wasn't going to let people bargain for higher pay because MEN asked for it and women didn't? Competition, sparky.
It isn't some bit of specious witchdoctorism I'm talking about... I'm talking about evolutionary psychology. Its a real subject based on real science. Have arrived at the part of the discussion where I start citing studies or something? Would you read them if I did?
You want to counter that with some anecdote about hockey when growing up? You must be joking.
Here's a primer for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Its a real thing, Bub... Cross my heart and hope to die... stick a needle in my eye. ;-D
Sorry, I just watched an interview with Mark Hamill and he did a bit of the joker... and that always makes me a bit whimsical.
google is really easy to use. Try this search term:
"DDT bird shell fraud" I got a few hits. I didn't know that the bird shell thing was a fraud as well. That is truly despicable. This means much of the enviro movement was predicated on a complete fabrication.
The price in lives can thus be justifiably hung around the necks of the people that did it. Horrific.
That said... the links were not entire conclusive... but enough to put the issue strongly into question.