except that chamberlain gets a bad rap from people (like you) who only learned the surface of history, and not the rest of it. like the fact that chamberlain didn't actually believe it was a lasting peace and immediately began ramping up the british industry for the coming conflict.
he knew it would be only temporary at best. but he also knew that his country, still reeling from the depression and with a cratered industrial base like most European nations, was in no condition to engage in conflict with Germany at the time. without the delay afforded by his actions, England would likely have never survived the Blitz. as it was, it was a very near thing. and if England had fallen, Germany would have been free to focus its attention elsewhere.
there would have been no friendly base of operations for the allies; the US would have had to base its operations from either the sea or north Africa. or from Russia and join the Eastern front. Germanys focus being divided between the African, Russian, and Western fronts is the biggest reason for their loss. Just taking England would very likely have resulted in a very different outcome. They may still have been defeated, but the cost would have been far higher, and the war far longer.
yes. its a totally binary decision. because we're just gonna completely ignore the massive solar infrastructure already in place in Germany and set to continue expanding. Germany, a country further north than the US yet with a much larger installed solar area and larger portion of energy delivered from it. because that's just how Mi rolls.
yes, lets just completely ignore the massive solar infrastructure already in place in Germany and set to continue expanding. Germany, a country further north than the US yet with a much larger installed solar area and larger portion of energy delivered from it.
-we have more allies than just Israel. and most of them were alienated by bush the lesser, and those relationships repaired by Obama. -our military is in NO WAY in shambles -labor participation is dropping regardless of anything any one does. it has to do with the boomers retiring, not the economy. -inequality is horrible, but its not thanks to the current occupant, but rather the past several decades of structural issues in the economy -maybe you forgot, but the economy crashed a few years ago. of course stamps are up, and will remain up until people get back to where they were. that's what they are for -illegal immigration is at an all time low. deportations at a record high. next immigration across the Mexican border is flowing the other way....back to mexico. -economic growth does not suck, and has been positive for 74 consecutive months. the last president to do this well with the economy was Clinton. -its racist because they're mostly false claims directed at the black guy because he's black
I love how you folks try to define one part of the sentence as if its both everything and nothing (depending on situation and argument you're making), but ignore the rest.
specifically "bear arms", which too has a specific meaning. a meaning related to membership in a militia or army.
but set aside that the 2A was more about membership in a militia, than protecting firearms ownership. and set aside the concept of "bearing arms", and focus just on "arms".
"arms" has a broader definition than gun nuts ever want to acknowledge. at the time "arms" means guns, knives, axes, swords, cannon, etc. IE, its synonym is not "gun" but rather "weapon".
but these days we have quite a bit more in the way of weaponry. the obvious conclusion of the logic of gun nuts is that they should be able to own any weapon, including bombs, jets, and nukes. yet no one seriously takes that position (outside of some libertarian kooks).
No you don't have a right to an F16. No you don't have a right to a tank. No you don't have a right to nukes or weaponized anthrax.
which means gun nuts implicitly accept limitations to the rights enumerated by the 2A, even while arguing that amendment prohibits any limitations.
im gonna go out on a limb and say that im pretty sure that given the choice, "the terrorists" prefer we continue to kill ourselves at a rate several times higher than more civilized countries. and that if we did successfully reduce our firearm related death rate, that'd be a win for our society, regardless of the opinion of "the terrorists."
what word describe it when the mass citizenry of the nation gets its concerns addressed to their satisfaction less than 10% of the time, but when broken down along financial term, the folks below the 1% find that satisfaction less than 1% of the time, but the top 1% find that satisfaction more than 30% of the time?
sure sounds like the rich get an awful lot more power and influence to me. now what's the word for that?
gee, I think its "plutocracy":
government by the wealthy. a country or society governed by the wealthy.
so instead we should have a weak government that cant actually address the needs of the people?
lobbyists have always been around even int eh days of kings and queens. people seeking to peddle and obtain influence.
that doesn't mean that the problem lies in the strength of government itself, with the implication that the solution is a weak one.
the problem is in the strength of the people, government and citizen, specifically their strength of character. the solution is in installing people of character, and creating or maintaining oversight for when they do act inappropriately. by say preventing or restricting acceptable lobbying, and ever better: actually voting the bums out when you're dissatisfied instead of reelecting them anyway 96% of the time.
the east solution is rarely the best. the best typically takes work, which is why "democracy is the finest form of government...if you can keep it" (paraphrase) and keeping it means being involved and vigilant and willing to put in the effort.
Compare for example the treatment Hillary is getting due to her private email “scandal” to that of General David Petraeus. Hillary has been accused of hosting a personal email server that “might” have made classified documents less secure, even though the documents in question were not classified as secret at the time she received and/or sent them. (Side note: some government documents receive secret classifications “at birth”, while other can be retroactively classified as secret.) In order for Clinton to have committed a criminal act, she would have had to knowingly and willfully mishandle material that was classified at the time she did so. After months of investigation no one has accused her of doing that, and it doesn’t appear as if anyone will.
General Petraeus on the other hand, while he was Director of the CIA, knowingly gave a journalist, who was also his mistress, a series of black books which according to the Justice Department contained, “classified information regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions quotes and deliberative discussions from high level National Security Council meetings and [Petraeus’] discussions with the president of the United States of America.” Petraeus followed that up by lying to numerous government officials, including FBI agents, about what he had done. And lets not forget that according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, adultery is itself a court-martial offense. And I remind you that none of this is in dispute. Petraeus admitted to all of it.
Petraeus’ violations were significantly more egregious than anything Clinton is even remotely accused of. And yet Republicans and other Hillary foes are howling about her issue, wearing “Hillary for Prison 2016” t-shirts while insisting that this disqualifies her from public office. Meanwhile even after pleading guilty to his crimes Petraeus continued to be the recipient of fawning sentiments from conservatives. Senator John McCain stated that, “All of us in life make mistakes and the situation now, I hope, can be put behind him” Politico quoted a former military officer who worked with Petraeus as calling the entire situation “silly”. Prominent Republicans have already made it clear that they would call him back to work in the highest levels of government if they win the Presidency. And some are still attempting to convince him to seek the Presidency himself.
Why is Hillary Clinton being held to such an obviously different standard than Petraeus? Is it really only politics
all of which were manufactured and amounted to nothing more than opposition bullshit generated for the express purpose of creating that very impression.
yes actually she is. she currently has the highest factual accuracy rating of any presidential candidate this election, and one of hte highest of any politician ever. you're thinking of Trump, who currently has the lowest accuracy of any politician ever.
The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible. Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one. E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.
The "trick," which was used in a paper published in 1998 in the science journal Nature, is to combine the older tree ring data with thermometer data. Combining the two data sets can be difficult, and scientists are always interested in new ways to make temperature records more accurate.
Tree rings are a largely consistent source of data for the past 2,000 years. But since the 1960s, scientists have noticed there are a handful of tree species in certain areas that appear to indicate temperatures that are warmer or colder than we actually know they are from direct thermometer measurement at weather stations.
"Hiding the decline" in this email refers to omitting data from some Siberian trees after 1960. This omission was openly discussed in the latest climate science update in 2007 from the IPCC, so it is not "hidden" at all.
Why Siberian trees? In the Yamal region of Siberia, there is a small set of trees with rings that are thinner than expected after 1960 when compared with actual thermometer measurements there. Scientists are still trying to figure out why these trees are outliers. Some analyses have left out the data from these trees after 1960 and have used thermometer temperatures instead.
Techniques like this help scientists reconstruct past climate temperature records based on the best available data.
Much has been made about emails regarding a certain paper that some scientists did not think should have been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. These emails focus on a paper on solar variability in the climate over time. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal called Climate Research, but under unusual circumstances. Half of the editorial board of Climate Research resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process. The paper, which argued that current warming was unexceptional, was disputed by scientists whose work was cited in the paper. Many subsequent publications set the record straight, which demonstrates how the peer review process over time tends to correct such lapses. Scientists later discovered that the paper was funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
In a later e-mail, Phil Jones references two other papers he didn't hold in high esteem. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Yet, the papers in question made it into the IPCC report, indicating that no restrictions on their incorporation were made. The IPCC process contains hundreds of authors and reviewers, with an e
sanity means doing something about it instead of not doing something because youre scared of the precedent of making the world a better place to live. the only one peddling hysteria here is you.
Slashdot Mirror
if you cant see the difference between "Mexicans are rapists" and "an illegal file sharing site originating in china" then there is no hope for you.
except that chamberlain gets a bad rap from people (like you) who only learned the surface of history, and not the rest of it.
like the fact that chamberlain didn't actually believe it was a lasting peace and immediately began ramping up the british industry for the coming conflict.
he knew it would be only temporary at best. but he also knew that his country, still reeling from the depression and with a cratered industrial base like most European nations, was in no condition to engage in conflict with Germany at the time. without the delay afforded by his actions, England would likely have never survived the Blitz. as it was, it was a very near thing. and if England had fallen, Germany would have been free to focus its attention elsewhere.
there would have been no friendly base of operations for the allies; the US would have had to base its operations from either the sea or north Africa. or from Russia and join the Eastern front. Germanys focus being divided between the African, Russian, and Western fronts is the biggest reason for their loss. Just taking England would very likely have resulted in a very different outcome. They may still have been defeated, but the cost would have been far higher, and the war far longer.
and here's mi reading into statements things that weren't actually stated.
"American Exceptionalism" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. It's not "American Betterism.
that's pretty much exactly how most americans who believe in it interpret it.
yes. its a totally binary decision.
because we're just gonna completely ignore the massive solar infrastructure already in place in Germany and set to continue expanding.
Germany, a country further north than the US yet with a much larger installed solar area and larger portion of energy delivered from it.
because that's just how Mi rolls.
yes, lets just completely ignore the massive solar infrastructure already in place in Germany and set to continue expanding. Germany, a country further north than the US yet with a much larger installed solar area and larger portion of energy delivered from it.
reality would like a word with you, but doesn't have the time to type everything up for the 20 millionth time. so here:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
https://slashdot.org/comments....
-we have more allies than just Israel. and most of them were alienated by bush the lesser, and those relationships repaired by Obama.
-our military is in NO WAY in shambles
-labor participation is dropping regardless of anything any one does. it has to do with the boomers retiring, not the economy.
-inequality is horrible, but its not thanks to the current occupant, but rather the past several decades of structural issues in the economy
-maybe you forgot, but the economy crashed a few years ago. of course stamps are up, and will remain up until people get back to where they were. that's what they are for
-illegal immigration is at an all time low. deportations at a record high. next immigration across the Mexican border is flowing the other way....back to mexico.
-economic growth does not suck, and has been positive for 74 consecutive months. the last president to do this well with the economy was Clinton.
-its racist because they're mostly false claims directed at the black guy because he's black
I love how you folks try to define one part of the sentence as if its both everything and nothing (depending on situation and argument you're making), but ignore the rest.
specifically "bear arms", which too has a specific meaning. a meaning related to membership in a militia or army.
but set aside that the 2A was more about membership in a militia, than protecting firearms ownership.
and set aside the concept of "bearing arms", and focus just on "arms".
"arms" has a broader definition than gun nuts ever want to acknowledge.
at the time "arms" means guns, knives, axes, swords, cannon, etc. IE, its synonym is not "gun" but rather "weapon".
but these days we have quite a bit more in the way of weaponry. the obvious conclusion of the logic of gun nuts is that they should be able to own any weapon, including bombs, jets, and nukes. yet no one seriously takes that position (outside of some libertarian kooks).
No you don't have a right to an F16.
No you don't have a right to a tank.
No you don't have a right to nukes or weaponized anthrax.
which means gun nuts implicitly accept limitations to the rights enumerated by the 2A, even while arguing that amendment prohibits any limitations.
im gonna go out on a limb and say that im pretty sure that given the choice, "the terrorists" prefer we continue to kill ourselves at a rate several times higher than more civilized countries. and that if we did successfully reduce our firearm related death rate, that'd be a win for our society, regardless of the opinion of "the terrorists."
Well, then what word would you use?
what word describe it when the mass citizenry of the nation gets its concerns addressed to their satisfaction less than 10% of the time, but when broken down along financial term, the folks below the 1% find that satisfaction less than 1% of the time, but the top 1% find that satisfaction more than 30% of the time?
sure sounds like the rich get an awful lot more power and influence to me.
now what's the word for that?
gee, I think its "plutocracy":
government by the wealthy.
a country or society governed by the wealthy.
Sure seems to fit the situation.
you've certainly earned your 8 pieces of silver for the day.
so instead we should have a weak government that cant actually address the needs of the people?
lobbyists have always been around even int eh days of kings and queens. people seeking to peddle and obtain influence.
that doesn't mean that the problem lies in the strength of government itself, with the implication that the solution is a weak one.
the problem is in the strength of the people, government and citizen, specifically their strength of character.
the solution is in installing people of character, and creating or maintaining oversight for when they do act inappropriately. by say preventing or restricting acceptable lobbying, and ever better: actually voting the bums out when you're dissatisfied instead of reelecting them anyway 96% of the time.
the east solution is rarely the best.
the best typically takes work, which is why "democracy is the finest form of government...if you can keep it" (paraphrase)
and keeping it means being involved and vigilant and willing to put in the effort.
wow the shills for the Chamber of Commerce and FEE are out in force today.
Is that you Ted Cruz?
these arguments were tired when you first defended the buying of politicians two years ago, and they're still tired now.
they usually dodge the warranty anyway, so F it.
I've repaired million dollar test sets and multimillion dollar aircraft.
Gimme a screwdriver, a soldering iron, a hammer, some WD40, and some electrical tape, and i'll have it sorted in a jiffy.
normally i'd agree with your assessment, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
for the WT, this is one of those times.
classified because it was classified after the fact.
big difference.
Compare for example the treatment Hillary is getting due to her private email “scandal” to that of General David Petraeus. Hillary has been accused of hosting a personal email server that “might” have made classified documents less secure, even though the documents in question were not classified as secret at the time she received and/or sent them. (Side note: some government documents receive secret classifications “at birth”, while other can be retroactively classified as secret.) In order for Clinton to have committed a criminal act, she would have had to knowingly and willfully mishandle material that was classified at the time she did so. After months of investigation no one has accused her of doing that, and it doesn’t appear as if anyone will.
General Petraeus on the other hand, while he was Director of the CIA, knowingly gave a journalist, who was also his mistress, a series of black books which according to the Justice Department contained, “classified information regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions quotes and deliberative discussions from high level National Security Council meetings and [Petraeus’] discussions with the president of the United States of America.” Petraeus followed that up by lying to numerous government officials, including FBI agents, about what he had done. And lets not forget that according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, adultery is itself a court-martial offense. And I remind you that none of this is in dispute. Petraeus admitted to all of it.
Petraeus’ violations were significantly more egregious than anything Clinton is even remotely accused of. And yet Republicans and other Hillary foes are howling about her issue, wearing “Hillary for Prison 2016” t-shirts while insisting that this disqualifies her from public office. Meanwhile even after pleading guilty to his crimes Petraeus continued to be the recipient of fawning sentiments from conservatives. Senator John McCain stated that, “All of us in life make mistakes and the situation now, I hope, can be put behind him” Politico quoted a former military officer who worked with Petraeus as calling the entire situation “silly”. Prominent Republicans have already made it clear that they would call him back to work in the highest levels of government if they win the Presidency. And some are still attempting to convince him to seek the Presidency himself.
Why is Hillary Clinton being held to such an obviously different standard than Petraeus? Is it really only politics
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
come back when you have something factual to say.
and btw, judge not lest ye be judged, cause i fought for those freedoms too.
all of which were manufactured and amounted to nothing more than opposition bullshit generated for the express purpose of creating that very impression.
yes actually she is.
she currently has the highest factual accuracy rating of any presidential candidate this election, and one of hte highest of any politician ever.
you're thinking of Trump, who currently has the lowest accuracy of any politician ever.
The medical term for what you're doing is called "projection".
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/C...
The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.
The "trick," which was used in a paper published in 1998 in the science journal Nature, is to combine the older tree ring data with thermometer data. Combining the two data sets can be difficult, and scientists are always interested in new ways to make temperature records more accurate.
Tree rings are a largely consistent source of data for the past 2,000 years. But since the 1960s, scientists have noticed there are a handful of tree species in certain areas that appear to indicate temperatures that are warmer or colder than we actually know they are from direct thermometer measurement at weather stations.
"Hiding the decline" in this email refers to omitting data from some Siberian trees after 1960. This omission was openly discussed in the latest climate science update in 2007 from the IPCC, so it is not "hidden" at all.
Why Siberian trees? In the Yamal region of Siberia, there is a small set of trees with rings that are thinner than expected after 1960 when compared with actual thermometer measurements there. Scientists are still trying to figure out why these trees are outliers. Some analyses have left out the data from these trees after 1960 and have used thermometer temperatures instead.
Techniques like this help scientists reconstruct past climate temperature records based on the best available data.
Much has been made about emails regarding a certain paper that some scientists did not think should have been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. These emails focus on a paper on solar variability in the climate over time. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal called Climate Research, but under unusual circumstances. Half of the editorial board of Climate Research resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process. The paper, which argued that current warming was unexceptional, was disputed by scientists whose work was cited in the paper. Many subsequent publications set the record straight, which demonstrates how the peer review process over time tends to correct such lapses. Scientists later discovered that the paper was funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
In a later e-mail, Phil Jones references two other papers he didn't hold in high esteem. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Yet, the papers in question made it into the IPCC report, indicating that no restrictions on their incorporation were made. The IPCC process contains hundreds of authors and reviewers, with an e
Not how funding or science works.
sanity means doing something about it instead of not doing something because youre scared of the precedent of making the world a better place to live.
the only one peddling hysteria here is you.