The EPA is no longer about clear air and water. It's about punishing the political enemies of the elite.
So here's what's going to happen. EPA funding will be slashed. You're going to be buttmad. Nothing is really going to change in the environment, the water will be fine, the air will be fine. Fewer industries will be crushed by unnecessary regulation, the economy will grow, more people out in flyover country will have jobs and be generally happy with the state of the country, and Trump will be re-elected. You will continue to be assblasted.
Nobody's suggesting the US stop doing science and engineering. Just a little less of it controlled by Washington D.C. Why do we need continued funding for climate change research? Isn't it settled since? Move on to something else.
How is this budget different from what Trump said he would do on the campaign trail? Why would Trump supporters stop supporting after he did exactly what he said he would do: gut federal agencies and expand the military?
The counterargument is that reducing federal bureaucracy and regulations like the EPA creates a more productive environment for business. If this increases US manufacturing and energy production then tax revenues increase. Will this work? We'll see.
Ultimately it's all shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic until you tackle entitlements. But I don't think you can do that until there are jobs for people to do.
Americans will be damned if we'll pay for some lazy foreigner to sit around eating their food but they'll gladly pump 'em full of lead that costs 5x as much.
Feed a man a fish and he won't be hungry for a day. Feed a man lead and he'll never be hungry again.
We need a new generation of kids who understand science and computers
This will never happen. Average IQ is 100. Half of people are below that. They are not going to be scientists or engineers. We need simple jobs for simple people.
The "dissenters" seem to want to serve the foreign illegal immigrants and foreign migrant terrorists. I don't think those are part of the nation. Keep telling yourself that though.
The entire point of my post was that history disagrees with your assertion. It IS better, as the West triumphed over the Muslims and pretty much every other culture who did not turn their women into office drones.
And I'm saying the office drone phenomenon is new. It's basically the last ~30 years. History agrees with me because the west was doing gender roles (i.e., the evil "control of women") right, has changed to not doing them correctly, and now birth rates are in the toilet and 75% of men 18-35 are not married. This is not good and will not be sustained. And this is far more than just "the regressive left." 75% of young men are not regressive leftists.
And yet, the Muslims have failed to succeed for 1500 years of basically the same strategy.
And during that time the west was populated by religious people. And the muslims are succeeding now, against people who have lost their faith. The west is shrinking and Islam is expanding, and expanding into the west. Fewer kids to factory workers than farm workers isn't so bad when you aren't replacing those kids with foreigners who hold values opposite those of your culture. In past immigration waves the US brought in people who were of similar stock to the pre-existing population, and then beat the shit out of them until they stopped acting like Poles or Irishmen or whatever and started acting American. Now we bring in Mulsims and beat the shit out of any American who dares to criticize the Muslims.
You're confusing secularists with regressive leftists. The rest of your comments against "secularism" is simply barking up the wrong tree.
Secularists don't really care about pushing people towards or away families. As above, secularists care about freedom.
No, regressive leftists are a subset of secularists. Regressive leftists are pushing people away from families, and secularists are at best indifferent to this and at worst frequent opponents of traditionalists who are pushing people towards families. So your secularists are opposing the people who are pro-family and not against the people who are anti-family. That does not win against the explicitly pro-babies pro-conquest Islamic hordes, so my point stands.
What do you think Europe (particularly western Europe) will look like in 100 years?
like your dogmatic hatred of secularism...
I wouldn't call my hatred of secularism dogmatic, but pragmatic. I look at history, I look at current trends, and I do not ever, anywhere, see secular societies in the long run winning over religious societies. Every secular system dies after just a few generations while religious systems thrive for thousands of years.
really, you too are one of those "westerners who hate western culture"
I hate what it's become, yes. But I hate what it'll become next even more.
I'm saying he screams at the aspiring chefs on Hell's Kitchen, or the failed restauranteurs on Kitchen Nightmares, offering what appears to me to be really good (if harshly delivered) advice, and then appears genuinely pleased when they take said advice to heart and become successful. Ramsey behaves like a well-meaning asshole, not a psychopath.
They might have called them "tyrants" or "complete fucking assholes" rather than diagnosing them with a mental disorder, but it's the same concept. It's not like people just discovered some people really, really, really don't give a shit about anyone else. I think that's been well understood through all of human history.
What makes you think Ramsey is a psychopath? Being mean doesn't make you a psycho. A psycho would tell you sweet lies to extract short-term resources from you, he wouldn't tell you harsh truths and scream at you to fix your fuck-ups so you can accomplish your dreams in life.
First, no, we cannot. Psychos are psychos because they don't care about you. You can't "get" them to do anything iif they don't care about you.
godzilla-let-them-fight-quote.jpg. I didn't say get the psychopaths to care about us and help us. I said give them a different target: other psychopaths.
The Founders understood this. This is why we have 3 separate but co-equal branches of government. They knew psychos would go into government (monopoly on violence, WAY better than money), so make the psychos in the legislature fight the psychos in the executive branch fight the psychos in the judicial branch and hopefully mostly ignore the little people on the ground. The problem is now the psychos on Wall Street have bought all the psychos in Washington D.C..
You didn't specify women in the last post when talking about drones.
It was pretty heavily implied, though, when the entire point of my post was that women have been "freed" from their homes where they slaved for a loving family to become office drones in which they slave for a soulless corporation. It is not better. The TV shows you working women who are doctors and scientists and shit, but few women are doctors and scientists. Most of them are in shitty, boring, unrewarding office jobs. This is not better for anyone, and it certainly isn't "less controlling." Women bombarded with "grow up to be an office drone!" propaganda are just as much puppets of their culture as women bombarded with "grow up to be a mother!" propaganda. The difference is mothers propagate their culture and people into the future whereas office drones give their prime child bearing years to the corporation and their ovaries shrivel and die.
This is a change from the sexual revolution, not the industrial revolution. The men went into the factories, the women stayed home and took care of the babies.
Muslim women may be staying home and taking care of more kids, but the western working mom can just press a button and a drone wipes out half the village. If Hillary won, her button can turn large parts of the Middle East uninhabitable.
You're like the generals always prepared to fight the last war. The current and future front of the conflict of cultures is not with weapons in foreign countries but with wombs and welfare in our own countries. The problem is 15% of French teenagers are Muslim. 40% of Germans under 5 are from a "migrant background." Every "value" of the secular west pushes people away from families: women working during their prime childbearing years, easy divorce, fewer acceptable marriage partners due the advancement of women over men on the socioeconomic ladder (since women only marry across or up in status due to billions of years of the evolution of mate selection), overpopulation propaganda, divorce of sex from marriage, homosexuality, etc. On the other hand the values and explicit goals of the Muslims is move in, collect benefits, have kids, grow, expand, demand or take power, convert by word or sword.
Note I'm not advocating for or against anything here. I'm not saying "therefore women in the workforce and gays are bad and everyone should be forced to be Christians" or something. I'm saying that the clash of cultures has not ended and will never end because this is what cultures do: they collide, and the strongest cultures dominates the weakest culture. The useful features of the weak culture may survive as window dressing. But the secular western left acts like this is the end of history. Like we're playing Civilization and they've unlocked the final ideology on the tech tree "White Western Liberalism" and they're just waiting on everyone else to catch up. No. No.
And it's a real study in cognitive dissonance because the western secularists believe that if they invite in Muslims that the Muslims are going to, through osmosis or something, adopt their feminist/leftist values and decadent culture. But why would they? Westerners don't even like western culture, and cry about the soulless corporations and the crass materialism and the shit music and the shit movies. But Muslims like their culture. They like Islam. Why on earth would they give that up to join a culture that doesn't even like itself?
A secular culture that doesn't have explicit goals (like preservation, expansion, conquest) and values that provide perverse incentives against those things will never win against a culture that has explicit goals (Islam will conquer the world) and values that reinforce that goal (make babies, convert or kill infidels). It's bringing a spoon to a gun fight. And all the drones in the world won't help you because the Europeans are inviting them in and giving them free resources. They can't even tell the Muslim invaders "no, you can't come here" so they're sure as shit not going to start dropping bombs on them in their own welfare tenements. Your drones are useless against the power of belief.
The fact all the psychos in SV and the rest of the government are opposed to Trump is a decent indicator he's not a psycho. Or if he is, he's at least one opposed to them.
How about Hildawg, though? Any psychopathic tendencies there?
Slashdot Mirror
Then sue the state that polluted yours.
The EPA is no longer about clear air and water. It's about punishing the political enemies of the elite.
So here's what's going to happen. EPA funding will be slashed. You're going to be buttmad. Nothing is really going to change in the environment, the water will be fine, the air will be fine. Fewer industries will be crushed by unnecessary regulation, the economy will grow, more people out in flyover country will have jobs and be generally happy with the state of the country, and Trump will be re-elected. You will continue to be assblasted.
Handle those matters by suing the other state or the responsible parties for damages.
The EPA hasn't really been about "clean water" or "clean air" for a long time.
And if another state fucks up your state's air or water, sue them.
Nobody's suggesting the US stop doing science and engineering. Just a little less of it controlled by Washington D.C. Why do we need continued funding for climate change research? Isn't it settled since? Move on to something else.
still support
How is this budget different from what Trump said he would do on the campaign trail? Why would Trump supporters stop supporting after he did exactly what he said he would do: gut federal agencies and expand the military?
The counterargument is that reducing federal bureaucracy and regulations like the EPA creates a more productive environment for business. If this increases US manufacturing and energy production then tax revenues increase. Will this work? We'll see.
Ultimately it's all shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic until you tackle entitlements. But I don't think you can do that until there are jobs for people to do.
Americans will be damned if we'll pay for some lazy foreigner to sit around eating their food but they'll gladly pump 'em full of lead that costs 5x as much.
Feed a man a fish and he won't be hungry for a day. Feed a man lead and he'll never be hungry again.
In fact it is criminal not not to borrow to the hilt and invest in infrastructure, at this low interest rates.
Remember that when Trump proposes the $1T infrastructure bill.
We need a new generation of kids who understand science and computers
This will never happen. Average IQ is 100. Half of people are below that. They are not going to be scientists or engineers. We need simple jobs for simple people.
The "dissenters" seem to want to serve the foreign illegal immigrants and foreign migrant terrorists. I don't think those are part of the nation. Keep telling yourself that though.
How about you let the states figure out how toxic and polluted they want their state to be, instead of dictating it from Washington?
That's racist.
Look, I agree they're doing these things, almost certainly. I'm saying Vault 7 doesn't prove it.
But a cog with the tiniest amount of power to fuck other people over. Like the DMV.
Or just the fact you can fuck off and it's very hard to get fired.
Is a business pandering to sexual acceptance really among the most disruptive and imposing societal affects you can think of?
More like a symptom of a fatal disease. Coughing up blood because of stomach cancer perhaps. The blood isn't going to kill you but it sure ain't good.
A society that cannot tell the difference between up and down, boys and girls, sickness and health will not survive.
The entire point of my post was that history disagrees with your assertion. It IS better, as the West triumphed over the Muslims and pretty much every other culture who did not turn their women into office drones.
And I'm saying the office drone phenomenon is new. It's basically the last ~30 years. History agrees with me because the west was doing gender roles (i.e., the evil "control of women") right, has changed to not doing them correctly, and now birth rates are in the toilet and 75% of men 18-35 are not married. This is not good and will not be sustained. And this is far more than just "the regressive left." 75% of young men are not regressive leftists.
And yet, the Muslims have failed to succeed for 1500 years of basically the same strategy.
And during that time the west was populated by religious people. And the muslims are succeeding now, against people who have lost their faith. The west is shrinking and Islam is expanding, and expanding into the west. Fewer kids to factory workers than farm workers isn't so bad when you aren't replacing those kids with foreigners who hold values opposite those of your culture. In past immigration waves the US brought in people who were of similar stock to the pre-existing population, and then beat the shit out of them until they stopped acting like Poles or Irishmen or whatever and started acting American. Now we bring in Mulsims and beat the shit out of any American who dares to criticize the Muslims.
You're confusing secularists with regressive leftists. The rest of your comments against "secularism" is simply barking up the wrong tree.
Secularists don't really care about pushing people towards or away families. As above, secularists care about freedom.
No, regressive leftists are a subset of secularists. Regressive leftists are pushing people away from families, and secularists are at best indifferent to this and at worst frequent opponents of traditionalists who are pushing people towards families. So your secularists are opposing the people who are pro-family and not against the people who are anti-family. That does not win against the explicitly pro-babies pro-conquest Islamic hordes, so my point stands.
What do you think Europe (particularly western Europe) will look like in 100 years?
like your dogmatic hatred of secularism...
I wouldn't call my hatred of secularism dogmatic, but pragmatic. I look at history, I look at current trends, and I do not ever, anywhere, see secular societies in the long run winning over religious societies. Every secular system dies after just a few generations while religious systems thrive for thousands of years.
really, you too are one of those "westerners who hate western culture"
I hate what it's become, yes. But I hate what it'll become next even more.
I'm saying he screams at the aspiring chefs on Hell's Kitchen, or the failed restauranteurs on Kitchen Nightmares, offering what appears to me to be really good (if harshly delivered) advice, and then appears genuinely pleased when they take said advice to heart and become successful. Ramsey behaves like a well-meaning asshole, not a psychopath.
They might have called them "tyrants" or "complete fucking assholes" rather than diagnosing them with a mental disorder, but it's the same concept. It's not like people just discovered some people really, really, really don't give a shit about anyone else. I think that's been well understood through all of human history.
What makes you think Ramsey is a psychopath? Being mean doesn't make you a psycho. A psycho would tell you sweet lies to extract short-term resources from you, he wouldn't tell you harsh truths and scream at you to fix your fuck-ups so you can accomplish your dreams in life.
First, no, we cannot. Psychos are psychos because they don't care about you. You can't "get" them to do anything iif they don't care about you.
godzilla-let-them-fight-quote.jpg. I didn't say get the psychopaths to care about us and help us. I said give them a different target: other psychopaths.
The Founders understood this. This is why we have 3 separate but co-equal branches of government. They knew psychos would go into government (monopoly on violence, WAY better than money), so make the psychos in the legislature fight the psychos in the executive branch fight the psychos in the judicial branch and hopefully mostly ignore the little people on the ground. The problem is now the psychos on Wall Street have bought all the psychos in Washington D.C..
Yeah, but it didn't say "TV chef," just "chef." Why do psychopaths want to work in the kitchen at Chili's so badly?
You didn't specify women in the last post when talking about drones.
It was pretty heavily implied, though, when the entire point of my post was that women have been "freed" from their homes where they slaved for a loving family to become office drones in which they slave for a soulless corporation. It is not better. The TV shows you working women who are doctors and scientists and shit, but few women are doctors and scientists. Most of them are in shitty, boring, unrewarding office jobs. This is not better for anyone, and it certainly isn't "less controlling." Women bombarded with "grow up to be an office drone!" propaganda are just as much puppets of their culture as women bombarded with "grow up to be a mother!" propaganda. The difference is mothers propagate their culture and people into the future whereas office drones give their prime child bearing years to the corporation and their ovaries shrivel and die.
This is a change from the sexual revolution, not the industrial revolution. The men went into the factories, the women stayed home and took care of the babies.
Muslim women may be staying home and taking care of more kids, but the western working mom can just press a button and a drone wipes out half the village. If Hillary won, her button can turn large parts of the Middle East uninhabitable.
You're like the generals always prepared to fight the last war. The current and future front of the conflict of cultures is not with weapons in foreign countries but with wombs and welfare in our own countries. The problem is 15% of French teenagers are Muslim. 40% of Germans under 5 are from a "migrant background." Every "value" of the secular west pushes people away from families: women working during their prime childbearing years, easy divorce, fewer acceptable marriage partners due the advancement of women over men on the socioeconomic ladder (since women only marry across or up in status due to billions of years of the evolution of mate selection), overpopulation propaganda, divorce of sex from marriage, homosexuality, etc. On the other hand the values and explicit goals of the Muslims is move in, collect benefits, have kids, grow, expand, demand or take power, convert by word or sword.
Note I'm not advocating for or against anything here. I'm not saying "therefore women in the workforce and gays are bad and everyone should be forced to be Christians" or something. I'm saying that the clash of cultures has not ended and will never end because this is what cultures do: they collide, and the strongest cultures dominates the weakest culture. The useful features of the weak culture may survive as window dressing. But the secular western left acts like this is the end of history. Like we're playing Civilization and they've unlocked the final ideology on the tech tree "White Western Liberalism" and they're just waiting on everyone else to catch up. No. No.
And it's a real study in cognitive dissonance because the western secularists believe that if they invite in Muslims that the Muslims are going to, through osmosis or something, adopt their feminist/leftist values and decadent culture. But why would they? Westerners don't even like western culture, and cry about the soulless corporations and the crass materialism and the shit music and the shit movies. But Muslims like their culture. They like Islam. Why on earth would they give that up to join a culture that doesn't even like itself?
A secular culture that doesn't have explicit goals (like preservation, expansion, conquest) and values that provide perverse incentives against those things will never win against a culture that has explicit goals (Islam will conquer the world) and values that reinforce that goal (make babies, convert or kill infidels). It's bringing a spoon to a gun fight. And all the drones in the world won't help you because the Europeans are inviting them in and giving them free resources. They can't even tell the Muslim invaders "no, you can't come here" so they're sure as shit not going to start dropping bombs on them in their own welfare tenements. Your drones are useless against the power of belief.
9. Chef
The fuck?
Amateurs. Balmer had Domokun.
The fact all the psychos in SV and the rest of the government are opposed to Trump is a decent indicator he's not a psycho. Or if he is, he's at least one opposed to them.
How about Hildawg, though? Any psychopathic tendencies there?