I think you've got it reversed. the reason Kim came to the table is because with Obama he was convinced the U.S would do nothing. With Trump he is absolutely convinced that having a few nukes will not protect him from the U.S. taking him out. Since survival is the thing most important to him he is now willing to negotiate, convinced that he can control his own people (Gaddafi was taken out by his own people not the U.S.), and make a deal with the U.S. even if he has to give up his nukes.
We'll see what happens.
Keep spreading the propaganda. American troops were exposed to chemical e\weapons during the attack. Biological weapon facilities were found, but actual stores of biological stocks were destroyed, so they wouldn't be found. WMDs are not just nuclear weapons.
What we found were records that showed that subordinates were lying to Saddam about the viability of their program. So he thought that Iraq was much closer to nuclear weapons than they were. That erroneous information was what fooled all of the intelligence agencies, U.S., Israeli and European.
Meanwhile during the war the chemical weapons people say Suddam didn't have were used on U.S. troops.
Trump could cure cancer, elevate world hunger, and invent weather control and the left would still attack him. There is literally no way for him to be successful in their eyes.
I work with a lot of physicists. I have three masters degrees myself. There is no such thing a 'scientist' is the sense that there is someone who is qualified advise on nuclear weapons, cybersecurity and AGW. As I said I work with physicist and to many of them think they are competent to speak on any subject, which is of course bollocks.
If you want to know about nuclear weapons find a nuclear weapons expert, who might be a physicist, but more likely is a nuclear engineer or might even be a historian or a political science major, who has specialize in disarmament and disarmament verification.
if you want to know about cybersecurity ask a cybersecurity expert. Having a physicist science adviser and asking them about cybersecurity makes as much sense as asking a biologist or a philosopher.
As for AGW I'm sure there's a propagandist around to give pointers on how to use panic to transfer wealth or you could find someone who knows statistics and model building to explain to the credulous how science really works.
The Romans had it right until they screwed it up. When a crisis happens pick the best guy to deal with the crisis who doesn't want the job. As soon as the crisis is over he runs back to the farm because he didn't want the job in the first place.
The U.S. started out that way, with Washington, but quickly degenerated into parties full of people who wanted to be in charge.
You seem to somehow be under the impression that leftist don't support slave labor. I suggest you take a good look at both the old Soviet Union and China, particularly.
That leftist are for 'the people' is a myth. One they've been very good at perpetuating, but then leftist are masters of propaganda, and always have been.
Which is why whenever the FBI asks to speak to you your answer should be, "I have nothing to say in the absence of my lawyer."
When they ask you to go with them ask if you are under arrest or detainment. If the answer is no, politely decline. If the take you anyway say nothing until you can contact your lawyer.
Lying to the FBI:
FBI Agent: Where were at 2:45a.m. on May 27th?
Patsy: Uh. I don't know. Asleep?
FBI Agent: You're lying. We have wiretap data that shows you were talking on your phone,
Patsy: Oh. that's right. It was a wrong number that woke me up in the middle of the night.
FBI Agent: Too late. Book him Dano. Charge: lying to the FBI.
This just isn't true. In cases of identity theft the direct financial cost is almost always born by either the banks or the credit card companies.
It is the indirect financial cost which is born by the victim. This typically is the inability to procure future loans due to erroneously damaged credit history caused by the thief. Civil problems due to fraudulent contracts signed by the thief which must be litigated and such.
If anybody is keeping their 'life savings' in a bank they're doing it wrong. A bank is a place to keep working funds, not life savings. Anything you have in a bank is losing money to inflation. It's not working for you, it's working for the bank.
I call BS. My place of employment just hired a programmer. We have three more positions posted, all of which will be filled within the next month. All four of these people will be trained in our systems, since there is no other way to get workers who can perform these jobs.
Yes delusional. You'd think that the War to End All Wars would have taught them something. But no their delusions of grandeur taught them nothing.
Historically the Hundred Years War is a more likely result of armed conflict than the Seven Days War.
It doesn't take an enormous amount of genius to know that a degree in Library Science or Transgender Eskimo Woman Studies is not going to pay off. Let me break down for you. Markets don't change that fast. An engineering degree will pay off. A English Lit, not so much. I pretty much guarantee the top five academic degree fields for employment this year will still be top fields for employment four years from now.
As for getting a job without a degree. There are lots of them, but no mistake if they're for trades you're not getting in them without some kind of vocational training school. So the point isn't don't get education past high school. It's don't borrow $80,000 to get a college degree in a field that doesn't pay. Spend $5,000 getting a one year certificate from a trade school.
I'll tell you why people think Millennials are entitled.
The typical baby boomer or Gen X member realized that their parents, who had basically worked their whole lives to reach the particular stage of economic prosperity at which they lived. They also realized that when they started out living at that stage would be untenable. Prosperity and the collection of possessions held by their parents was the result of years of work, savings and wealth management.
Millennials seem to feel that they have a right to that level of prosperity and accumulation of possessions without having to earn them. And they expect them now.
Here's an example. I've got a Gen X worker. Guy has pounded out projects for years. Comes in early/works late when necessary to get things done. When work is light he sometimes asks for some slack and I give it to him.
Millennial barely completes adequate work output. Gets pissed when he gets reprimanded because he's not on time or leaves early. Doesn't understand why the other guy gets slack and he doesn't.
Coming from a military background I have no trouble realizing that there is a lot of information that should not be made public for perfectly reasonable and legal reasons. Not every piece of classified data is classified for bad reasons. As a matter of fact most of them are classified for very valid reasons.
The Senate Intelligence Committee is tasked with oversight of the TLA. If they can't keep information that is necessary and important to U.S. security secret then the TLA just won't keep them in the loop. That is not a better situation for the country, the citizenry or freedom.
Reporters do not have some kind of magic get out of jail card when they solicit or receive classified information they are not cleared to know. Public officials, employees and contractors have no legal right to release classified material because they disagree with policy or don't like specific elected officials.
The liberal fantasy that people who break the law should be immune from legal consequences because of their politics or which side their on is irrational. Henry David Thoreau understood that, which is why he went to jail instead of paying a tax in support of a war with which he did not agree. He did not expect to escape consequences for his actions. He expected to take the consequences because the stand he was taking was, to him, right and important.
if you believe something is important enough to break the law to take a stand you should be willing to accept the consequences of taking that stand.
It is pretty clear that the reason Hillary Clinton set up a private email server was to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act and to prevent her emails from being officially recorded.
On the other hand anyone who works for the Federal Government or is a Federal official better have a private email account if they are conducting any business that relates to political efforts or fund raising. it is illegal for them to carry on these activities from their official email.
So does Kushner have a private email account? I sure hope so, because I wouldn't want him to be breaking the law by communicating with donors or members of the RNC about election matters in violation of the law.
I think you better check out your physics. Explaining orbital motion correctly is impossible without using Relativity, since Mercury's orbit is Relativistic due to it's position in the sun's gravity field.
Yes real Conservatives are pro science and they don't support pollution. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a necessary part of the ecological system.
If AGW supporters had a coherent model with supporting data serious, knowledgeable Conservatives would support them. However they do not. Their methodology is flawed. When called to account for why their models don't work their response was to close out peer review so that only their friends were allowed to review their work. They destroyed raw data so that no one but them could analyze it. And they colluded to hide data that did not support their conclusions.
Add to that the production of reports to international organizations like the UN containing journalistic cross referencing rather than serious scientific research and it is quite easy to see why serious Conservatives don't support AGW.
I would content the exact opposite. The liberal elite are actually the least educated. They have been indoctrinated in progressive ideology and mistake that for education. The rest of us have a well understood and rational based knowledge of human nature, natural law and the world as it actually exists.
That's a great liberal talking point that you've got there. Its a shame it has nothing to do with historical reality.
Let me help you. The United States is a Federated Republic. That means that each state is sovereign. In a right thinking world not only would we not get rid of the electoral college, we would roll back the 17 Amendment too.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
As for the U.S. not creating scientists that's just not true. Our biggest problem is actually the opposite. We don't need free universities, we need fewer universities. In almost every country where university education is free there is an enormously difficult barrier to get over to get that free education. Only the hardest working, most qualified individuals are given those free positions and when it comes to post graduate work students must work extra hard because in your third or forth year going for that PhD you can still be pushed out by a better student.
Our biggest problem is there is absolutely no reasonable barrier to anyone wasting societal resources uselessly going to college. We loan vast sums of money to mediocre students who will never earn enough to pay it back. We allow people to study subjects for which society only requires minimal numbers of experts because they're easy or interesting or what ever.
Worse we push people who can make successful careers out of doing other societally useful tasks, like electrician, plumber, technician, builder into going to college when it is bad for them and bad for society.
The average Joe isn't interested in education because they've been duped into believing that you can accumulate wealth without hard work, doing something you don't like to do. They look at pro sports players, for example, and see that they are getting rich for basically playing, but they are never told how hard athletes work to be successful.
Being successful through education is hard. You have to do your homework when you'd rather be playing games. You have to forgo getting pregnant or fathering children through hook-ups so that you don't have responsibilities when you need to be working 3-5 hours a night on homework. You have to be willing to delay starting your work life for four to six to eight extra years to get that advanced degree. And more important than anything else, you have to pass by studying English Literature, or Anthropology, or Rhetoric, just because they're easy and you like them and study engineering, biology, or geology cause that's where the money is. And making money is where success lies.
Because when you have enough money to not have to worry about where you're going to live, what you're going to eat and what you're going to do if you get sick then you can care about knowledge for it's own sake as a concept.
After all, if you're successful enough you can quit that job you hate at a young age and do what you actually want to do. Sometimes you actually get lucky and fall into something you like eventually and keep working because you like what you do. But that's really the exception. Most people hate their job and only do it because they are paid. But that's the real world.
The only motivation for moon colonization that I can see is the same motivation for colonizing Antarctica. Scientific research. That basically means the prospect of a self-sustaining moon colony is pretty slim. It also means that a small multinational scientific installation might actually be possible. After all we've done it on Antarctica. But wit will require a lot of money and a political reason to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you've got it reversed. the reason Kim came to the table is because with Obama he was convinced the U.S would do nothing. With Trump he is absolutely convinced that having a few nukes will not protect him from the U.S. taking him out. Since survival is the thing most important to him he is now willing to negotiate, convinced that he can control his own people (Gaddafi was taken out by his own people not the U.S.), and make a deal with the U.S. even if he has to give up his nukes. We'll see what happens.
Keep spreading the propaganda. American troops were exposed to chemical e\weapons during the attack. Biological weapon facilities were found, but actual stores of biological stocks were destroyed, so they wouldn't be found. WMDs are not just nuclear weapons. What we found were records that showed that subordinates were lying to Saddam about the viability of their program. So he thought that Iraq was much closer to nuclear weapons than they were. That erroneous information was what fooled all of the intelligence agencies, U.S., Israeli and European.
Meanwhile during the war the chemical weapons people say Suddam didn't have were used on U.S. troops.
Trump could cure cancer, elevate world hunger, and invent weather control and the left would still attack him. There is literally no way for him to be successful in their eyes.
I work with a lot of physicists. I have three masters degrees myself. There is no such thing a 'scientist' is the sense that there is someone who is qualified advise on nuclear weapons, cybersecurity and AGW. As I said I work with physicist and to many of them think they are competent to speak on any subject, which is of course bollocks.
If you want to know about nuclear weapons find a nuclear weapons expert, who might be a physicist, but more likely is a nuclear engineer or might even be a historian or a political science major, who has specialize in disarmament and disarmament verification.
if you want to know about cybersecurity ask a cybersecurity expert. Having a physicist science adviser and asking them about cybersecurity makes as much sense as asking a biologist or a philosopher.
As for AGW I'm sure there's a propagandist around to give pointers on how to use panic to transfer wealth or you could find someone who knows statistics and model building to explain to the credulous how science really works.
The Romans had it right until they screwed it up. When a crisis happens pick the best guy to deal with the crisis who doesn't want the job. As soon as the crisis is over he runs back to the farm because he didn't want the job in the first place.
The U.S. started out that way, with Washington, but quickly degenerated into parties full of people who wanted to be in charge.
You seem to somehow be under the impression that leftist don't support slave labor. I suggest you take a good look at both the old Soviet Union and China, particularly. That leftist are for 'the people' is a myth. One they've been very good at perpetuating, but then leftist are masters of propaganda, and always have been.
Not in the Constitution directly. It comes form a USSC decision in Boumediene vs Bush.
Which is why whenever the FBI asks to speak to you your answer should be, "I have nothing to say in the absence of my lawyer."
When they ask you to go with them ask if you are under arrest or detainment. If the answer is no, politely decline. If the take you anyway say nothing until you can contact your lawyer.
Lying to the FBI: FBI Agent: Where were at 2:45a.m. on May 27th? Patsy: Uh. I don't know. Asleep? FBI Agent: You're lying. We have wiretap data that shows you were talking on your phone, Patsy: Oh. that's right. It was a wrong number that woke me up in the middle of the night. FBI Agent: Too late. Book him Dano. Charge: lying to the FBI.
This just isn't true. In cases of identity theft the direct financial cost is almost always born by either the banks or the credit card companies.
It is the indirect financial cost which is born by the victim. This typically is the inability to procure future loans due to erroneously damaged credit history caused by the thief. Civil problems due to fraudulent contracts signed by the thief which must be litigated and such.
The direct financial cost is covered in the U.S..
If anybody is keeping their 'life savings' in a bank they're doing it wrong. A bank is a place to keep working funds, not life savings. Anything you have in a bank is losing money to inflation. It's not working for you, it's working for the bank.
I call BS. My place of employment just hired a programmer. We have three more positions posted, all of which will be filled within the next month. All four of these people will be trained in our systems, since there is no other way to get workers who can perform these jobs.
True. Got the biggest raise I've seen in at least a decade this year.
Yes delusional. You'd think that the War to End All Wars would have taught them something. But no their delusions of grandeur taught them nothing. Historically the Hundred Years War is a more likely result of armed conflict than the Seven Days War.
It doesn't take an enormous amount of genius to know that a degree in Library Science or Transgender Eskimo Woman Studies is not going to pay off. Let me break down for you. Markets don't change that fast. An engineering degree will pay off. A English Lit, not so much. I pretty much guarantee the top five academic degree fields for employment this year will still be top fields for employment four years from now.
As for getting a job without a degree. There are lots of them, but no mistake if they're for trades you're not getting in them without some kind of vocational training school. So the point isn't don't get education past high school. It's don't borrow $80,000 to get a college degree in a field that doesn't pay. Spend $5,000 getting a one year certificate from a trade school.
I'll tell you why people think Millennials are entitled.
The typical baby boomer or Gen X member realized that their parents, who had basically worked their whole lives to reach the particular stage of economic prosperity at which they lived. They also realized that when they started out living at that stage would be untenable. Prosperity and the collection of possessions held by their parents was the result of years of work, savings and wealth management. Millennials seem to feel that they have a right to that level of prosperity and accumulation of possessions without having to earn them. And they expect them now.
Here's an example. I've got a Gen X worker. Guy has pounded out projects for years. Comes in early/works late when necessary to get things done. When work is light he sometimes asks for some slack and I give it to him.
Millennial barely completes adequate work output. Gets pissed when he gets reprimanded because he's not on time or leaves early. Doesn't understand why the other guy gets slack and he doesn't.
Entitled Millennial
Coming from a military background I have no trouble realizing that there is a lot of information that should not be made public for perfectly reasonable and legal reasons. Not every piece of classified data is classified for bad reasons. As a matter of fact most of them are classified for very valid reasons.
The Senate Intelligence Committee is tasked with oversight of the TLA. If they can't keep information that is necessary and important to U.S. security secret then the TLA just won't keep them in the loop. That is not a better situation for the country, the citizenry or freedom.
Reporters do not have some kind of magic get out of jail card when they solicit or receive classified information they are not cleared to know. Public officials, employees and contractors have no legal right to release classified material because they disagree with policy or don't like specific elected officials.
The liberal fantasy that people who break the law should be immune from legal consequences because of their politics or which side their on is irrational. Henry David Thoreau understood that, which is why he went to jail instead of paying a tax in support of a war with which he did not agree. He did not expect to escape consequences for his actions. He expected to take the consequences because the stand he was taking was, to him, right and important.
if you believe something is important enough to break the law to take a stand you should be willing to accept the consequences of taking that stand.
It is pretty clear that the reason Hillary Clinton set up a private email server was to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act and to prevent her emails from being officially recorded.
On the other hand anyone who works for the Federal Government or is a Federal official better have a private email account if they are conducting any business that relates to political efforts or fund raising. it is illegal for them to carry on these activities from their official email.
So does Kushner have a private email account? I sure hope so, because I wouldn't want him to be breaking the law by communicating with donors or members of the RNC about election matters in violation of the law.
I think you better check out your physics. Explaining orbital motion correctly is impossible without using Relativity, since Mercury's orbit is Relativistic due to it's position in the sun's gravity field.
Yes real Conservatives are pro science and they don't support pollution. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a necessary part of the ecological system. If AGW supporters had a coherent model with supporting data serious, knowledgeable Conservatives would support them. However they do not. Their methodology is flawed. When called to account for why their models don't work their response was to close out peer review so that only their friends were allowed to review their work. They destroyed raw data so that no one but them could analyze it. And they colluded to hide data that did not support their conclusions.
Add to that the production of reports to international organizations like the UN containing journalistic cross referencing rather than serious scientific research and it is quite easy to see why serious Conservatives don't support AGW.
I would content the exact opposite. The liberal elite are actually the least educated. They have been indoctrinated in progressive ideology and mistake that for education. The rest of us have a well understood and rational based knowledge of human nature, natural law and the world as it actually exists.
That's a great liberal talking point that you've got there. Its a shame it has nothing to do with historical reality. Let me help you. The United States is a Federated Republic. That means that each state is sovereign. In a right thinking world not only would we not get rid of the electoral college, we would roll back the 17 Amendment too.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
As for the U.S. not creating scientists that's just not true. Our biggest problem is actually the opposite. We don't need free universities, we need fewer universities. In almost every country where university education is free there is an enormously difficult barrier to get over to get that free education. Only the hardest working, most qualified individuals are given those free positions and when it comes to post graduate work students must work extra hard because in your third or forth year going for that PhD you can still be pushed out by a better student.
Our biggest problem is there is absolutely no reasonable barrier to anyone wasting societal resources uselessly going to college. We loan vast sums of money to mediocre students who will never earn enough to pay it back. We allow people to study subjects for which society only requires minimal numbers of experts because they're easy or interesting or what ever.
Worse we push people who can make successful careers out of doing other societally useful tasks, like electrician, plumber, technician, builder into going to college when it is bad for them and bad for society.
The average Joe isn't interested in education because they've been duped into believing that you can accumulate wealth without hard work, doing something you don't like to do. They look at pro sports players, for example, and see that they are getting rich for basically playing, but they are never told how hard athletes work to be successful.
Being successful through education is hard. You have to do your homework when you'd rather be playing games. You have to forgo getting pregnant or fathering children through hook-ups so that you don't have responsibilities when you need to be working 3-5 hours a night on homework. You have to be willing to delay starting your work life for four to six to eight extra years to get that advanced degree. And more important than anything else, you have to pass by studying English Literature, or Anthropology, or Rhetoric, just because they're easy and you like them and study engineering, biology, or geology cause that's where the money is. And making money is where success lies.
Because when you have enough money to not have to worry about where you're going to live, what you're going to eat and what you're going to do if you get sick then you can care about knowledge for it's own sake as a concept.
After all, if you're successful enough you can quit that job you hate at a young age and do what you actually want to do. Sometimes you actually get lucky and fall into something you like eventually and keep working because you like what you do. But that's really the exception. Most people hate their job and only do it because they are paid. But that's the real world.
The only motivation for moon colonization that I can see is the same motivation for colonizing Antarctica. Scientific research. That basically means the prospect of a self-sustaining moon colony is pretty slim. It also means that a small multinational scientific installation might actually be possible. After all we've done it on Antarctica. But wit will require a lot of money and a political reason to do it.