Pretty sure nationalizing various parts of the economy, threatening to nationalize others unless they towed the line, destroying individual freedoms, disregard for life, lack of property ownership, eugenics, etc, are NOT policies of the right.
Let's see. The Nazis weren't big on nationalization. What they did was take stuff from anti-Nazis and give it to Nazis. Destroying individual freedoms and disregard for life are standard for extreme left and extreme right. The Nazis believed in property ownership as long as everybody did what they were told, and were friendly to capitalism. Eugenics has been a policy of the right and also of the left. Anti-semitism, and hence rabid anti-semitism, has tended to be a right-wing thing.
In other words, you have a religious belief that the right is good and the left is bad, and you will reject any ideas or evidence to the contrary. You insist that a nationalist movement that embraces capitalism must be left-wing because you don't like it.
Strange...at the Democrat events I've been at, nobody was displaying an ISIS flag. At the Republican events I've seen, I didn't see Nazi flags. There was this other recent event that looked like a deliberate reproduction of a classic Nazi rally, and people were carrying Nazi flags, so am I wrong in calling them Nazis? I don't like modern Republicans, and I think they're on the wrong side. I really really don't like Nazis, and am absolutely sure that they're on the wrong side.
It's worth noting that the Versailles treaty wasn't as bad as German nationalists said it was, and not out of line considering treaties Germany had earlier forced on defeated foes.
The South Pole is neither east nor west. The log sheet of USS Nautilus going over the North Pole had a little dash in the longitude field. Once you move north from the South Pole (easy to do if you're not already frozen), you have a longitude that will be either east or west (or 0 or 180, I guess). Antarctica is not the South Pole except for a set of measure zero, so there is an East and a West Antarctica.
We're burning lots of fossil carbon, and putting more CO2 into the air. There's more CO2 in the air now than there was, because we put it there (isotopic analysis confirms this). CO2 causes global warming, as has been known for over a century. You could change the analogy to not believing evolution depends on natural selection, I guess.
Also, there seem to be plenty of idiots around who deny that we're experiencing global warming.
Neither are the results of astronomy. Much like climate science, we can look at things while they're going on but we can't experiment with them.
Are you saying astronomy isn't a real science? It's been considered a real science for centuries, so I'm not sure what definition you think is being redefined.
Read that again a few times. If I understand you correctly you believe volcanos become more active because the air or water gets warmer. Rather than the air or water gets warmer because there's more volcanoes spewing mass amounts of heat into the atmosphere / oceans.
Read that again a few times. GP claimed that volcanoes became much more active during warming periods, which is very far from saying that warmer air itself causes volcanoes. If correct, it's an observation, not an explanation.
The credit union has the ability to change things going forward, and you have the ability to accept that or find another provider (or try to negotiate the changes you don't like - that sometimes works).
When you buy a house, you pay money. Some of that goes to the realtor(s) involved, most to the seller. If you've agreed on a price, and a new expense comes up, then either you as the buyer pay more money or the seller accepts less. In the latter case, the seller paid for it. (I negotiated last-minute expenses when buying my present house. We decided to split them, and the seller was grateful.)
It wasn't hundreds of pages of legalese in any of my mortgages, and I did read through the agreements. Moreover, Wells Fargo almost certainly acquires mortgages from other companies, and can't change the contract retroactively.
Officially started when she voted for the Iraq war in the senate.
Most Senators voted for that, as I recall. That was based on misleading information provided by the Bush administration that made the war appear urgent and necessary. (By the "administration", I mean the White House staff, not the Cabinet, which was kept out of it.)
She is a big time arms dealer (smuggler actually, that's what they're trying to hide about Benghazi,
Benghazi was about the Republicans voting insufficient money for security and blaming Clinton for it. If the Republicans wanted to bring up arms dealing, why didn't they investigate it? If they wanted to keep it quiet, why keep investigating Benghazi? As far as I can tell, you aren't making sense.
If you don't like the whole idea behind the banking system, that's one thing. If you don't like individual banks (or even most banks), that's another and more rational stand. There's a difference.
I'd bet that Wells Fargo owns a lot of mortgages it didn't initiate. There's plenty of companies that specialize in arranging mortgages and then selling them immediately. My contract is with one of those, not with Wells Fargo, so denying special Wells Fargo treatment, even with lube, is not violating any agreement.
When thinking about the Battle of Britain, you have to realize that this was the first battle of its kind ever, and the Germans were seriously limited in finding out what was working.
First, they attacked radar stations, and the British found that keeping the stations transmitting was a whole lot easier than keeping them working. Second, they attacked the air defense system. This was working, but the Germans didn't realize that. Then they switched to cities, like all the prewar theorizing had suggested, and the RAF could recover.
If they had defeated the RAF, the RAF would have pulled back from southern England, and kept its tactical forces ready to intervene in case of an invasion. Any German invasion would have failed horribly. The Germans could possibly get enough forces ashore (although that's really iffy) but never could have supplied them. By then, the British Army had strong formations, although most were underequipped.
Three nukes a month would have devastated Germany in short order. It would have been difficult to get the bombers in after the first couple, but it might not have been necessary, and the Allies would find ways to get the bombers through. They could send formations of B-29s if they had to, expecting to lose some to the detonation.
Hitler wasn't that bad. It wasn't so much that he was an idiot in military affairs as that his generals were idiots about the overall situation. They thought that the correct thing to do, when losing the war, was to negotiate terms, accept an unfavorable peace, and rebuild. Hitler knew that was not going to happen.
Therefore, Hitler was only interested in winning, and his generals were interested in losing slowly when things went bad. As things got worse, Hitler had to call for more and more extreme action, since doing something crazy might possibly succeed and win the war, while doing something that looked right would not win the war. Superweapons might not win the war, but by the time they were coming into play the ordinary ones clearly weren't. As long as the war was going well, he put a moratorium on their development. Moreover, Hitler could not trust his generals, since after about mid-1943 they were at cross-purposes, so he couldn't believe them. Does this retreat lead to a potential victory, or is it just going to lose slow? Can I trust this general in a position of power?
The whole idea of the war, besides killing Jews, was Lebensraum in the East, which meant he had to defeat the Soviet Union. (He was also fanatically anti-Communist.) The initial attack was extremely successful, far more effective than the years of fighting on the Eastern Front in WWI, which caused two revolutions and forced the Russians to accept pretty much what terms the Germans wanted to impose. However, the Soviet Union was far more resilient than either the Tsar's government or Kerensky's provisional republic, which was hardly obvious at the time. Delaying by a year would have given the Soviets time to train and equip the forty tank divisions they had facing Germany, and the attack would have been far less successful.
Some of the stuff you mentioned won't necessarily be on the hangar deck, and if such things as weapons stores are on the hangar deck, they will be secured by hatches..
I'm not aware of foam gliders that can carry a kilo. We didn't have them when I was a kid. If you're foregoing long range, then it isn't any sort of stealth attack, and you can kill me more easily with other weapons. (Now that you've added controls, the camera, and the computer control, how much of that kilo is left?)
If you can get a drone with a thermite grenade to target something on the hangar deck, you can destroy a plane. Aircraft carriers have been designed to resist hangar deck fires for a long time.
While the cost is all up front, the benefits aren't. If I go to a restaurant and buy dinner, I'm enjoying it that evening, and I can consider that night whether it was worth it. Durable goods don't work that way, and it's easier to compute per-day cost and compare it with per-day benefit. Obviously, I'm the only one qualified to say how valuable it is for me, and you're the only one qualified to say how valuable it is for you.
What's unreasonable about a daily rate? Is a better computer worth $1500 more? I'm really at a loss how to figure it. If I ask myself "Is it worth spending $2/day to have the better computer," I can decide more easily. I can picture that. If I like the more expensive computer more, and I'm going to use it for hours a day most days, I'm getting good value for $2. I spent a lot more than that getting a car I liked, and I use that maybe an hour a day on the average.
I don't care nearly as much about Google. I can stop using Google in a moment (well, except for my almost unused gmail address), but I can't evade Microsoft nearly that easily.
Slashdot Mirror
We know he was a white supremacist and neo-Nazi. What we don't know is how representative he was of the groups he at least tried to associate with.
Let's see. The Nazis weren't big on nationalization. What they did was take stuff from anti-Nazis and give it to Nazis. Destroying individual freedoms and disregard for life are standard for extreme left and extreme right. The Nazis believed in property ownership as long as everybody did what they were told, and were friendly to capitalism. Eugenics has been a policy of the right and also of the left. Anti-semitism, and hence rabid anti-semitism, has tended to be a right-wing thing.
In other words, you have a religious belief that the right is good and the left is bad, and you will reject any ideas or evidence to the contrary. You insist that a nationalist movement that embraces capitalism must be left-wing because you don't like it.
Yeah, I feel sorry for those conservatives who haven't had a major party since 1980.
Strange...at the Democrat events I've been at, nobody was displaying an ISIS flag. At the Republican events I've seen, I didn't see Nazi flags. There was this other recent event that looked like a deliberate reproduction of a classic Nazi rally, and people were carrying Nazi flags, so am I wrong in calling them Nazis? I don't like modern Republicans, and I think they're on the wrong side. I really really don't like Nazis, and am absolutely sure that they're on the wrong side.
It's worth noting that the Versailles treaty wasn't as bad as German nationalists said it was, and not out of line considering treaties Germany had earlier forced on defeated foes.
The South Pole is neither east nor west. The log sheet of USS Nautilus going over the North Pole had a little dash in the longitude field. Once you move north from the South Pole (easy to do if you're not already frozen), you have a longitude that will be either east or west (or 0 or 180, I guess). Antarctica is not the South Pole except for a set of measure zero, so there is an East and a West Antarctica.
We're burning lots of fossil carbon, and putting more CO2 into the air. There's more CO2 in the air now than there was, because we put it there (isotopic analysis confirms this). CO2 causes global warming, as has been known for over a century. You could change the analogy to not believing evolution depends on natural selection, I guess.
Also, there seem to be plenty of idiots around who deny that we're experiencing global warming.
Neither are the results of astronomy. Much like climate science, we can look at things while they're going on but we can't experiment with them. Are you saying astronomy isn't a real science? It's been considered a real science for centuries, so I'm not sure what definition you think is being redefined.
Read that again a few times. GP claimed that volcanoes became much more active during warming periods, which is very far from saying that warmer air itself causes volcanoes. If correct, it's an observation, not an explanation.
The credit union has the ability to change things going forward, and you have the ability to accept that or find another provider (or try to negotiate the changes you don't like - that sometimes works).
When you buy a house, you pay money. Some of that goes to the realtor(s) involved, most to the seller. If you've agreed on a price, and a new expense comes up, then either you as the buyer pay more money or the seller accepts less. In the latter case, the seller paid for it. (I negotiated last-minute expenses when buying my present house. We decided to split them, and the seller was grateful.)
It wasn't hundreds of pages of legalese in any of my mortgages, and I did read through the agreements. Moreover, Wells Fargo almost certainly acquires mortgages from other companies, and can't change the contract retroactively.
Most Senators voted for that, as I recall. That was based on misleading information provided by the Bush administration that made the war appear urgent and necessary. (By the "administration", I mean the White House staff, not the Cabinet, which was kept out of it.)
Benghazi was about the Republicans voting insufficient money for security and blaming Clinton for it. If the Republicans wanted to bring up arms dealing, why didn't they investigate it? If they wanted to keep it quiet, why keep investigating Benghazi? As far as I can tell, you aren't making sense.
If you don't like the whole idea behind the banking system, that's one thing. If you don't like individual banks (or even most banks), that's another and more rational stand. There's a difference.
I'd bet that Wells Fargo owns a lot of mortgages it didn't initiate. There's plenty of companies that specialize in arranging mortgages and then selling them immediately. My contract is with one of those, not with Wells Fargo, so denying special Wells Fargo treatment, even with lube, is not violating any agreement.
When thinking about the Battle of Britain, you have to realize that this was the first battle of its kind ever, and the Germans were seriously limited in finding out what was working.
First, they attacked radar stations, and the British found that keeping the stations transmitting was a whole lot easier than keeping them working. Second, they attacked the air defense system. This was working, but the Germans didn't realize that. Then they switched to cities, like all the prewar theorizing had suggested, and the RAF could recover.
If they had defeated the RAF, the RAF would have pulled back from southern England, and kept its tactical forces ready to intervene in case of an invasion. Any German invasion would have failed horribly. The Germans could possibly get enough forces ashore (although that's really iffy) but never could have supplied them. By then, the British Army had strong formations, although most were underequipped.
Three nukes a month would have devastated Germany in short order. It would have been difficult to get the bombers in after the first couple, but it might not have been necessary, and the Allies would find ways to get the bombers through. They could send formations of B-29s if they had to, expecting to lose some to the detonation.
Hitler wasn't that bad. It wasn't so much that he was an idiot in military affairs as that his generals were idiots about the overall situation. They thought that the correct thing to do, when losing the war, was to negotiate terms, accept an unfavorable peace, and rebuild. Hitler knew that was not going to happen.
Therefore, Hitler was only interested in winning, and his generals were interested in losing slowly when things went bad. As things got worse, Hitler had to call for more and more extreme action, since doing something crazy might possibly succeed and win the war, while doing something that looked right would not win the war. Superweapons might not win the war, but by the time they were coming into play the ordinary ones clearly weren't. As long as the war was going well, he put a moratorium on their development. Moreover, Hitler could not trust his generals, since after about mid-1943 they were at cross-purposes, so he couldn't believe them. Does this retreat lead to a potential victory, or is it just going to lose slow? Can I trust this general in a position of power?
The whole idea of the war, besides killing Jews, was Lebensraum in the East, which meant he had to defeat the Soviet Union. (He was also fanatically anti-Communist.) The initial attack was extremely successful, far more effective than the years of fighting on the Eastern Front in WWI, which caused two revolutions and forced the Russians to accept pretty much what terms the Germans wanted to impose. However, the Soviet Union was far more resilient than either the Tsar's government or Kerensky's provisional republic, which was hardly obvious at the time. Delaying by a year would have given the Soviets time to train and equip the forty tank divisions they had facing Germany, and the attack would have been far less successful.
Some of the stuff you mentioned won't necessarily be on the hangar deck, and if such things as weapons stores are on the hangar deck, they will be secured by hatches..
I'm not aware of foam gliders that can carry a kilo. We didn't have them when I was a kid. If you're foregoing long range, then it isn't any sort of stealth attack, and you can kill me more easily with other weapons. (Now that you've added controls, the camera, and the computer control, how much of that kilo is left?)
If you can get a drone with a thermite grenade to target something on the hangar deck, you can destroy a plane. Aircraft carriers have been designed to resist hangar deck fires for a long time.
You can easily come up with situations that will kill any given organism.
If I'm in a cage with a hungry lion, there are various ways I might survive. None of them seem all that likely, considering how I'm trained.
While the cost is all up front, the benefits aren't. If I go to a restaurant and buy dinner, I'm enjoying it that evening, and I can consider that night whether it was worth it. Durable goods don't work that way, and it's easier to compute per-day cost and compare it with per-day benefit. Obviously, I'm the only one qualified to say how valuable it is for me, and you're the only one qualified to say how valuable it is for you.
What's unreasonable about a daily rate? Is a better computer worth $1500 more? I'm really at a loss how to figure it. If I ask myself "Is it worth spending $2/day to have the better computer," I can decide more easily. I can picture that. If I like the more expensive computer more, and I'm going to use it for hours a day most days, I'm getting good value for $2. I spent a lot more than that getting a car I liked, and I use that maybe an hour a day on the average.
I don't care nearly as much about Google. I can stop using Google in a moment (well, except for my almost unused gmail address), but I can't evade Microsoft nearly that easily.