I thought it more like a big brother taking care of younger, smaller and somewhat unruly siblings, they may fuss and fight a lot, but it would be unwise for an outsider to try and take advantage.
I'm unsure if the British have any Aircraft carriers with catapults, my suspicion is the Brit's fighter jets are either Harriers or F35B. If they are going short on ship-borne anti-ship missiles, my hunch is there is going to be a considerable gap between the Harriers being retired and the F35B being procured as well.
I don't see how Britannia would be more powerful on a global scale alone / outside of the EU.
Dragging less deadweight maybe? The British Military is quite formidable even with their lack of proper provisioning. The truth is the Brits play harder than most fight.
A Clinton News Network article on currency valves from 4 months ago? That wasn't an OMG the sky is falling, that was a buy opportunity missed. Just get a paperbag and breath into it until the hyperventilating stops, you'll be fine.
Trump was correct about NATO being based on an increasingly false premise, and most of the member states really aren't shouldering their fair share; that doesn't mean that there aren't new equally valid premises and I know there is metric but-loads of pork that can be cut without effecting military readiness.
Making changes in bureaucracies the size of NATO is like steering a battleship, you turn the rudder and nothing seems to happen for a long long time, then when it does, it takes a long, long time to get it to stop turning and go straight again.
My thought on it is that if the nation went to war in which naval battles were a possibility (or actually happening), the budget would be instantaneously available to them to do whatever necessary to protect their seas. I'm sure they also have a rather large stockpile they could draw on in the meantime as well.
That would be possible if the ships had the Launchers and Fire Control systems installed, you know "the expensive parts" that take a while to actually install, troubleshoot and calibrate while the ship is in drydock.
They say when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail; What happens when the only weapon you have is a nuclear ICBM?
That's called Affirming the consequent fallacy; in your line of reasoning" If P, then Q, Q; Therefore, P. If increased CO2 levels cause warming, it's warming, therefore anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the only cause of Warming.
Of course if you could get away with these emissions levels while your competitors are hamstringing themselves to reduce emissions, and quite successfully too, would you be quick to end the gravy train!
Using either SkepticalScience or Wattsupwiththat as a reference is generally inflammatory and counter-productive to your arguments. Claims that a Consensus is somehow relevant in scientific endeavors is nonsensical.
Nobody wastes Mod Points on Anonymous Cowards, most rarely reply to ACs. If you want a conversation, login, otherwise you're just background noise. The only exception is if you're revealing some insider information you don't want traced back to you.
Oh don't worry, the Donald will call Angela on the phone and explain that because the Navy is getting sued for $600 million, he's going to have to make some cut-backs on civilian staffing at US bases in Germany to take up the slack, how NATO is kind of obsolete and our allies really need to step up and be more responsible for paying for their own defense. After that the DOD is going to ask the vendor how they knew about the over-installs and how the DOD frowns on call-home features in software on DOD computers, because it's, well it's spying.
The next thing you know, the software vendor apologise and work something out with the Navy, just after the Navy announces it'll investigate funding a competing open-source software project, and all will be forgotten or forgiven.
Again with the magic fairies !
Look you said "Whoever gave you that number was lying through their teeth." I showed the number while not exact was very far from lying through their teeth, and referenced it through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) a scientific and intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations, in their 4th Assessment Report, as referred to via a well known Climate Change Alarmist's website. If you want to talk about lies, take a look at this Infographic USA CO2 emissions trending down, European Union CO2 emissions trending down, Japan's CO2 emissions trending down, Russia's CO2 emissions trending down? How about China and India CO2 emissions trending up sharply; where are the lies of omission now.
People on 4chan are more like a bunch of ADHD teenagers who's med status is speculative and have a generous dose of Oppositional/Defiant syndrome added in for good measure.
I think of it as a evolutionary step toward a quasi-parliamentary system, one that still provides a higher degree of continuity in our government.
What might be interesting is having two electors selected on the states popular vote, then the remainder selected based on the congressional district votes. 1. That would still give the smaller States enough disproportionate power to resist being bullied by the bigger states, 2. Bring the Electoral votes more in line with the popular vote, 3. Force candidates to work the whole country rather than focusing on a couple swing states, 4. Might even give third party candidates a few votes to bargain with to establish a coalition.
Right now the real democratic process occurs in the primaries and the party conventions, then we vote on which presents the best solution.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought it more like a big brother taking care of younger, smaller and somewhat unruly siblings, they may fuss and fight a lot, but it would be unwise for an outsider to try and take advantage.
How many aerial torpedoes can an F35B carry? Guess what the Brits don't know because nobody has them yet.
I'm unsure if the British have any Aircraft carriers with catapults, my suspicion is the Brit's fighter jets are either Harriers or F35B. If they are going short on ship-borne anti-ship missiles, my hunch is there is going to be a considerable gap between the Harriers being retired and the F35B being procured as well.
I don't see how Britannia would be more powerful on a global scale alone / outside of the EU.
Dragging less deadweight maybe? The British Military is quite formidable even with their lack of proper provisioning. The truth is the Brits play harder than most fight.
A Clinton News Network article on currency valves from 4 months ago? That wasn't an OMG the sky is falling, that was a buy opportunity missed. Just get a paperbag and breath into it until the hyperventilating stops, you'll be fine.
Trump was correct about NATO being based on an increasingly false premise, and most of the member states really aren't shouldering their fair share; that doesn't mean that there aren't new equally valid premises and I know there is metric but-loads of pork that can be cut without effecting military readiness.
Making changes in bureaucracies the size of NATO is like steering a battleship, you turn the rudder and nothing seems to happen for a long long time, then when it does, it takes a long, long time to get it to stop turning and go straight again.
My thought on it is that if the nation went to war in which naval battles were a possibility (or actually happening), the budget would be instantaneously available to them to do whatever necessary to protect their seas. I'm sure they also have a rather large stockpile they could draw on in the meantime as well.
That would be possible if the ships had the Launchers and Fire Control systems installed, you know "the expensive parts" that take a while to actually install, troubleshoot and calibrate while the ship is in drydock.
They say when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail; What happens when the only weapon you have is a nuclear ICBM?
Please, those papers have thoroughly discredited by numerous studies.
So it's a guilt by association thing, more an emotional rationalisation the logical.
Why would you think that the level of CO2 has any effect on the visual transparency of air?
I know the air in Bejing China is frequently smoggy, but that is do to photo-chemical reactions to hydrocarbons emitted by motor vehicle, not CO2.
That's called Affirming the consequent fallacy;
in your line of reasoning"
If P, then Q, Q; Therefore, P.
If increased CO2 levels cause warming, it's warming, therefore anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the only cause of Warming.
Of course if you could get away with these emissions levels while your competitors are hamstringing themselves to reduce emissions, and quite successfully too, would you be quick to end the gravy train!
Using either SkepticalScience or Wattsupwiththat as a reference is generally inflammatory and counter-productive to your arguments. Claims that a Consensus is somehow relevant in scientific endeavors is nonsensical.
The Ministry of Truth?
No, Russian Hackers, confirmed by snopes too.
Why should I trust the people you say I should trust to say who I should trust?
Well played Sir, every time I try to construct a sentence like that, half of the internet laughs at the result.
For the average person some warning would be helpful, not just on political stories but on stuff like anti-vaccination sites and religious cults.
If you just had a plagiarism alarm it would stop or warn about the vast majority of factually challenged materials, on any topic!
I challenge you to name any US mainstream news outlet that compares favourably to the BBC in terms of objectivity and bias.
The BBC may be a dung pile, as the saying goes, but Aunty Beeb grows very good roses.
The Christian Science Monitor
Nobody wastes Mod Points on Anonymous Cowards, most rarely reply to ACs. If you want a conversation, login, otherwise you're just background noise. The only exception is if you're revealing some insider information you don't want traced back to you.
...returned with bullet holes in it. They don't really care about the employees, but the CEO has this thing for the trucks...
Aren't most Independent Contractors?
Oh don't worry, the Donald will call Angela on the phone and explain that because the Navy is getting sued for $600 million, he's going to have to make some cut-backs on civilian staffing at US bases in Germany to take up the slack, how NATO is kind of obsolete and our allies really need to step up and be more responsible for paying for their own defense. After that the DOD is going to ask the vendor how they knew about the over-installs and how the DOD frowns on call-home features in software on DOD computers, because it's, well it's spying.
The next thing you know, the software vendor apologise and work something out with the Navy, just after the Navy announces it'll investigate funding a competing open-source software project, and all will be forgotten or forgiven.
Again with the magic fairies !
Look you said "Whoever gave you that number was lying through their teeth."
I showed the number while not exact was very far from lying through their teeth, and referenced it through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) a scientific and intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations, in their 4th Assessment Report, as referred to via a well known Climate Change Alarmist's website.
If you want to talk about lies, take a look at this Infographic USA CO2 emissions trending down, European Union CO2 emissions trending down, Japan's CO2 emissions trending down, Russia's CO2 emissions trending down? How about China and India CO2 emissions trending up sharply; where are the lies of omission now.
I've been involved in several news-worthy events, trust me, it's all fake, just some is more blatant than others.
People on 4chan aren't that stupid, are they?
People on 4chan are more like a bunch of ADHD teenagers who's med status is speculative and have a generous dose of Oppositional/Defiant syndrome added in for good measure.
When you say a candidate is a clown, a sex offender, Hitler reincarnate, etc, you have to specify which one for clarity, as it fits both.
I think of it as a evolutionary step toward a quasi-parliamentary system, one that still provides a higher degree of continuity in our government.
What might be interesting is having two electors selected on the states popular vote, then the remainder selected based on the congressional district votes.
1. That would still give the smaller States enough disproportionate power to resist being bullied by the bigger states,
2. Bring the Electoral votes more in line with the popular vote,
3. Force candidates to work the whole country rather than focusing on a couple swing states,
4. Might even give third party candidates a few votes to bargain with to establish a coalition.
Right now the real democratic process occurs in the primaries and the party conventions, then we vote on which presents the best solution.