In the old Trek series the humans were colorblind, and gender issues were pretty much ignored. I liked that. It was a bright future where everyone moved past that shit. I will not be shocked though if in Discovery in every episode we have to hear the captain explain that she's a strong independent wymynz what don't need no man as she triumphs over institutionalized discrimination against strong independent wymynz what don't need no man.
Depends on your market. In most developed nations you need to give it a phone number. If you want an account without a phone number attached, set your tor exit node to India and make an account from there.
Can you explain your comment? I don't understand what you mean. Was McMullin involved in spreading propaganda of some kind about government involvement in AIDS?
And comrade, as soon as world communism is established the Politburo will disband but until then it is only reasonable for ministers to have second dacha to recuperate from all hard work they do on behalf of the people.
If you side with the people instead of the businesses the media companies the businesses own call you a racist sexist islamophobe homophobe xenophobe and pay a bunch of whores to say you traumatized them with a kiss.
Do the what the businesses want and fuck you can do whatever you want. Threaten your husband's rape victims and they'll call you a champion for women, and steal money from Haitian reconstruction and they'll call you an advocate for the poor.
I'm not saying the leaks aren't from Russia. The leaks could be from:
1. Russian government.
2. Non-state Russian hackers.
3. Disgruntled DNC staffer/IT guy.
4. The NSA.
It could be any one or all of these. They could have been hacked by Putin for general spying/blackmailing purposes, but then also leaked by a staffer. We don't actually know.
So I'm not the one jumping to conclusions here. You're the one blindly believing the government, which has a long, long history of lying about foreign attacks in order to justify war. You have your pre-formed doctrine ("Dems r gud guys dey wuldnt lie!!!11!") and will not look at the evidence and speculate about what it means, since then you'd have to wonder if you're Obama and Hillary's dupe.
They lied to get us into Vietnam (the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened). They lied to get us into Iraq. They're probably lying about this, too.
Note that Obama has made a diplomatic incident out of the break-in, which suggests (but doesn't confirm) that he knows of more reasons to think it's Russia.
No, it suggests he's spewing bullshit for political reasons to distract from the content of the leaks.
Do you understand the difference between shooting down an aircraft that continues to threaten your ships after warnings for them to stop, and creating a policy of deliberately seeking out their planes to shoot down, over territory to which you have no claim, in pursuit of a strategic goal?
Are you seriously trying to make the claim that Trump is more likely to start a war than Hillary?
Trump has said repeatedly that he wants to get along with Russia, and either leave them alone and let them bomb ISIS or join them in bombing ISIS. He would leave Assad (a bad dude, but better than Islamic terrorists) in place. Hillary has said removing Assad would be her number 1 priority and she would establish a no-fly zone in Syria. The only people flying in Syria are the Russians bombing ISIS.
I don't think it's possible to make a reasonable case that Trump, who's so friendly with Putin the left accuses him of being a Putin plant, is more likely to get the US into a war with Russia than Hillary, who is openly hostile to Putin and whose state department has a long history of working counter to Russian interests.
Which is why Russia is invading Ukraine and supporting terrorists when Ukraine wanted to go their own way and have closer trade relations with the West, right? Because the sovereign nation of Ukraine didn't want to live under the thumb of Russia any longer.
But the Euromaidan protests were sponsored by western governments and NGOs. Ukraine wanted to go their own way and have closer trade relations with Russia rather than the crumbling EU and the west said "fuck your shit" and ousted their elected government with violent protests they sponsored. Yes, Russia and the west are fighting over Ukraine but you can't act like Russia started it.
It would help if NATO weren't constantly trying to set up shop right outside Russia's borders. The west backed a coup in Ukraine to replace the pro-Russian government with a pro-NATO government. If you were Russia, would you consider that an act of aggression? How would you respond?
the RNC explicitly chose not to organize against him which let the vote be split.
Naw, that's not what happened. The RNC preselected Jeb! just like the DNC preselected Hildawg. They had the wide field explicitly to split the vote so there'd be no stand-out and everyone would eventually fall behind Jeb. Same thing with Romney in 2012 where nobody actually wanted Romney, and you'd have the not-Romney of the week who would go up in the polls and then crash until you were left with "well fuck it I guess it's Romney." So this cycle first they were behind Yeb, but when he got low energied they switched to Rubio who short circuited and then Ted who wanted to fuck...rats...or something. Anyway the Fox News machine and the paid-for pundits were clearly shilling for whoever the flavor of the week was, but not Trump. Like Rush Limbaugh who works for ClearChannel which is owned by Bain Capital (Romney). Was all behind Jeb and Trump was dangerous and then Rubio was a "full-throated conservative" and then Ted was a "True Conservative" and is only now behind Trump because well fuck it.
So, no, the RNC explicitly split the field, and then implicitly united behind whoever they thought had the best shot of beating Trump.
You can't just assume it was the Russian government, as the evidence doesn't back that up. It could have been anyone from a Russian proxy, or the phishing attacks could be unrelated to the leaked email. i.e., they could have both stupid users who fall for phishing attacks, and disgruntled employees leaking their shit.
I think the universal thing that we can all agree on is that cooperation is better than division. We should all be able to agree that there is a universal basis for morality that has nothing to do with religion or parenting and it is largely based on cooperation for the benefit of everyone and the reduction of human suffering.
I disagree with this because you're essentially discussing a collective morality. This leaves room for individual bad action, if it doesn't harm the collective or even helps the collective. Tell a little lie here and there to, in your opinion, "benefit everyone." But how do you know it benefits everyone? Also the capacity for human self-deception is limitless. It's not hard to talk yourself into doing really awful shit "for that greater good" that is really just better for yourself. We have proverbs to warn us against this kind of thought, like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
The hurdles in front of that evolving are people that are tightly held onto what I would refer to as out-dated systems. They served a important purpose in the evolution of human systems and cultures, but they are obsolete.
This is a very arrogant viewpoint and quite dangerous. You may not like traditional religious cultural values because they restrict your behavior, but they worked. They got us here. If you're going to start chucking those values overboard now you better be damn sure the unintended consequences are not catastrophic.
In some ways we're already seeing the crumbling of our civilization because of an abandonment of traditional values. For example, the sexual revolution and "gender equality." So starting about 50 years ago feminists, with the support of the big businesses that run major media started propagandizing for women to go into the workforce. That's great for cheap labor, and sure, some women get to feel more "fulfilled" as doctors or whatever, but most women aren't doctors. They went from being chained to the oven to chained to the desk at the call center. Overall women report lower levels of happiness today than in the 50s. They're having children later, or not having children at all. Birthrates are way down and we're having to import mexicans in the US and mulsims in Europe to replace the aging population. So, great, we abandoned the effective, traditional gender roles and replaced them with something that's today called "moral," but leads to less-happy overall populace and demographic collapse and eventual replacement by civilizations that do not, at all, share this non-productive morality. What good is a morality that doesn't work and can't propagate itself into the future?
Slashdot Mirror
In the old Trek series the humans were colorblind, and gender issues were pretty much ignored. I liked that. It was a bright future where everyone moved past that shit. I will not be shocked though if in Discovery in every episode we have to hear the captain explain that she's a strong independent wymynz what don't need no man as she triumphs over institutionalized discrimination against strong independent wymynz what don't need no man.
Depends on your market. In most developed nations you need to give it a phone number. If you want an account without a phone number attached, set your tor exit node to India and make an account from there.
What was he doing in the NGOs?
The ride-hailing company will bring together private companies and the government to deal with the larger issues of making this project a reality
"We don't actually want to do any of the work. You guys handle that. We just want the profits."
Can you explain your comment? I don't understand what you mean. Was McMullin involved in spreading propaganda of some kind about government involvement in AIDS?
discovered that both gays and straight people have roughly the same amount of luck getting laid via dating sites
There is not nearly as large a population of heterosexuals who meet at rest stops for anonymous sex.
The only safe sex is virtual one.
Silly ~Opportunist, he doesn't know about computer viruses!
what could be better?
Gallows in the public square?
And comrade, as soon as world communism is established the Politburo will disband but until then it is only reasonable for ministers to have second dacha to recuperate from all hard work they do on behalf of the people.
If you side with the people instead of the businesses the media companies the businesses own call you a racist sexist islamophobe homophobe xenophobe and pay a bunch of whores to say you traumatized them with a kiss.
Do the what the businesses want and fuck you can do whatever you want. Threaten your husband's rape victims and they'll call you a champion for women, and steal money from Haitian reconstruction and they'll call you an advocate for the poor.
They just want to be a middleman who does nothing but skim a few dollars from every transaction, with no accountability to anyone.
They should start a bank instead.
the economy sucks balls. On the other hand, if you have a better idea, we're all ears.
Deport illegals, shut down immigration, ban H1-Bs, kill NAFTA, kill TPP, enact protectionist tariffs as needed, vote Trump.
I'm not saying the leaks aren't from Russia. The leaks could be from:
1. Russian government.
2. Non-state Russian hackers.
3. Disgruntled DNC staffer/IT guy.
4. The NSA.
It could be any one or all of these. They could have been hacked by Putin for general spying/blackmailing purposes, but then also leaked by a staffer. We don't actually know.
So I'm not the one jumping to conclusions here. You're the one blindly believing the government, which has a long, long history of lying about foreign attacks in order to justify war. You have your pre-formed doctrine ("Dems r gud guys dey wuldnt lie!!!11!") and will not look at the evidence and speculate about what it means, since then you'd have to wonder if you're Obama and Hillary's dupe.
They lied to get us into Vietnam (the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened). They lied to get us into Iraq. They're probably lying about this, too.
Note that Obama has made a diplomatic incident out of the break-in, which suggests (but doesn't confirm) that he knows of more reasons to think it's Russia.
No, it suggests he's spewing bullshit for political reasons to distract from the content of the leaks.
Look at my UID and post history you fucking retard. I'm an American.
Yes, you know Russian media is propaganda, but you're stupid enough to believe anything Anderson Cooper tells you. He's so pretty.
Do you understand the difference between shooting down an aircraft that continues to threaten your ships after warnings for them to stop, and creating a policy of deliberately seeking out their planes to shoot down, over territory to which you have no claim, in pursuit of a strategic goal?
Are you seriously trying to make the claim that Trump is more likely to start a war than Hillary?
Trump has said repeatedly that he wants to get along with Russia, and either leave them alone and let them bomb ISIS or join them in bombing ISIS. He would leave Assad (a bad dude, but better than Islamic terrorists) in place. Hillary has said removing Assad would be her number 1 priority and she would establish a no-fly zone in Syria. The only people flying in Syria are the Russians bombing ISIS.
I don't think it's possible to make a reasonable case that Trump, who's so friendly with Putin the left accuses him of being a Putin plant, is more likely to get the US into a war with Russia than Hillary, who is openly hostile to Putin and whose state department has a long history of working counter to Russian interests.
Which is why Russia is invading Ukraine and supporting terrorists when Ukraine wanted to go their own way and have closer trade relations with the West, right? Because the sovereign nation of Ukraine didn't want to live under the thumb of Russia any longer.
But the Euromaidan protests were sponsored by western governments and NGOs. Ukraine wanted to go their own way and have closer trade relations with Russia rather than the crumbling EU and the west said "fuck your shit" and ousted their elected government with violent protests they sponsored. Yes, Russia and the west are fighting over Ukraine but you can't act like Russia started it.
It would help if NATO weren't constantly trying to set up shop right outside Russia's borders. The west backed a coup in Ukraine to replace the pro-Russian government with a pro-NATO government. If you were Russia, would you consider that an act of aggression? How would you respond?
Trump: "Let's not fight those guys."
Hillary: "We should shoot down their planes over Syria."
Which one is more likely to get one of those missiles launched? I wonder, I wonder...
the RNC explicitly chose not to organize against him which let the vote be split.
Naw, that's not what happened. The RNC preselected Jeb! just like the DNC preselected Hildawg. They had the wide field explicitly to split the vote so there'd be no stand-out and everyone would eventually fall behind Jeb. Same thing with Romney in 2012 where nobody actually wanted Romney, and you'd have the not-Romney of the week who would go up in the polls and then crash until you were left with "well fuck it I guess it's Romney." So this cycle first they were behind Yeb, but when he got low energied they switched to Rubio who short circuited and then Ted who wanted to fuck...rats...or something. Anyway the Fox News machine and the paid-for pundits were clearly shilling for whoever the flavor of the week was, but not Trump. Like Rush Limbaugh who works for ClearChannel which is owned by Bain Capital (Romney). Was all behind Jeb and Trump was dangerous and then Rubio was a "full-throated conservative" and then Ted was a "True Conservative" and is only now behind Trump because well fuck it.
So, no, the RNC explicitly split the field, and then implicitly united behind whoever they thought had the best shot of beating Trump.
How do you figure? It worked.
Also I don't get the impression Trump is relying heavily on email to coordinate his campaign strategy. I think he's mostly winging it.
You can't just assume it was the Russian government, as the evidence doesn't back that up. It could have been anyone from a Russian proxy, or the phishing attacks could be unrelated to the leaked email. i.e., they could have both stupid users who fall for phishing attacks, and disgruntled employees leaking their shit.
I think the universal thing that we can all agree on is that cooperation is better than division. We should all be able to agree that there is a universal basis for morality that has nothing to do with religion or parenting and it is largely based on cooperation for the benefit of everyone and the reduction of human suffering.
I disagree with this because you're essentially discussing a collective morality. This leaves room for individual bad action, if it doesn't harm the collective or even helps the collective. Tell a little lie here and there to, in your opinion, "benefit everyone." But how do you know it benefits everyone? Also the capacity for human self-deception is limitless. It's not hard to talk yourself into doing really awful shit "for that greater good" that is really just better for yourself. We have proverbs to warn us against this kind of thought, like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
The hurdles in front of that evolving are people that are tightly held onto what I would refer to as out-dated systems. They served a important purpose in the evolution of human systems and cultures, but they are obsolete.
This is a very arrogant viewpoint and quite dangerous. You may not like traditional religious cultural values because they restrict your behavior, but they worked. They got us here. If you're going to start chucking those values overboard now you better be damn sure the unintended consequences are not catastrophic.
In some ways we're already seeing the crumbling of our civilization because of an abandonment of traditional values. For example, the sexual revolution and "gender equality." So starting about 50 years ago feminists, with the support of the big businesses that run major media started propagandizing for women to go into the workforce. That's great for cheap labor, and sure, some women get to feel more "fulfilled" as doctors or whatever, but most women aren't doctors. They went from being chained to the oven to chained to the desk at the call center. Overall women report lower levels of happiness today than in the 50s. They're having children later, or not having children at all. Birthrates are way down and we're having to import mexicans in the US and mulsims in Europe to replace the aging population. So, great, we abandoned the effective, traditional gender roles and replaced them with something that's today called "moral," but leads to less-happy overall populace and demographic collapse and eventual replacement by civilizations that do not, at all, share this non-productive morality. What good is a morality that doesn't work and can't propagate itself into the future?