You call Ukraine non-peaceful, you call it ultra-nationalistic.
How is it related to the question of ultra-nationalism being endemic in Ukraine? Or perhaps you forgot the famous: "Who's not jumping is a moscal"? Or maybe "knife all moscals"? Both happened long before the Russian invasion.
Yeah, there's no nationalism in Ukraine. Not at all. No whiteboards proclaiming that "SS protected Ukrainian independence" and no children in schools screaming that they hate Russians. Iryna Farion doesn't exist. Everything is perfect!
Yet it's not Ukraine that invaded Russia, it's Russia that invaded Ukraine. It's not Ukraine that supports the far-right, on the contrary, they got a pathetic few % in the elections, whilst in Russia you have 10s of thousands of far right ultra nationalists celebrating for a day.
How many ultra-nazis are in the Russian parliament? Hint: the answer is "zero".
First of all, the transfer made no sense. Crimea has NEVER been a Ukrainian territory.
Second, at the time of transfer Crimea had been a USSR tourist hub, well known throughout the country and with a good infrastructure. Billions of Soviet roubles were spent to construct water supply and build reliable infrastructure on the Crimean peninsula.
Third, Ukraine's population has pretty much recovered by the time of the Crimean transfer. It was more deeply damaged by the WWII than by Stalin's holodomor.
And yes, if Kuban' wants to return to Ukraine then I have no objections. But having been in Kuban' too many times to count - their citizens would riot if anybody tried to give their land to Ukraine.
Not _drafted_, but agreed with Iraq government. Or do you want the US to violate its foreign treaties?
Hah! You lie, but that's a good example, thank you! USSR invaded Afghanistain [wikipedia.org] in 1979, when Jimmy Carter was is office — another example of a weak "it is all America's fault" excuse for a President. But even he imposed sanctions against USSR. And the whole world boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics.
Moving goalposts, are we? I did say that Obama is a mainstream Republican by his actions, so naturally he expanded the policies of his predecessors.
On top of that you got Reagan's reaction to USSR's invasion exactly backwards, which demonstrates the level of ignorance so deep, I'm unlikely to respond again...
When the facts contradict your ideology, you damn the facts.
Nonsense. You have no leg to stand on in this argument — the extrajudicial killing of bin Laden (ordered by Obama) defeats your point by itself
Don't worry, Republicans _love_ extra-judicial killings. As witnessed by their support of Bush's war and Israel.
Oh, no you don't... You keep him. A Republican would not have withdrawn all troops from Iraq
Bush drafted the pullout plan...
A Republican [politifact.com] would not have encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine by lifting all sanctions [washingtonpost.com] imposed over a similar invasion into Georgia.
You mean, like Reagan did with the USSR and Afghanistan invasion?
A Republican would've continued to detain terrorist suspects [theguardian.com] — in Guantanamo or elsewhere — rather then order extrajudicial killings [commondreams.org] — most infamously one of Osama bin Laden [theatlantic.com] himself.
1) Gitmo is still open. 2) Drone strikes were started by Bush.
No, Obama is an Illiberal Democrat through and through. But such people — yourself included — are famous for inability to recognize each other — so far are their deeds from their proclaimed ideals.
So far you've listed exactly the things that Republicans do.
So don't be fooled. Corporatists are NOT Libertarians. If they claim they are, show them where the Libertarian philosophy actually supports free competitive markets, not corporatism. They are not the same things.
They are very demonstrably the very same thing. That's why Sherman Antitrust Act has been enacted loooong time ago.
No, it's not correct. It's a typical libertardian excuse. The bill in question extended certain powers to legally tap into foreign communication lines while curtailing mass domestic surveillance.
Also, most of the great minds from your list didn't have a flushing toilet. So steer your children away from those. All but one had access to antibiotics and vaccinations. Also nix those.
I grew up with computers, starting with BASIC on ZX-Spectrum at age 8. I also read tons of books and was a member of various scientific clubs. Computers are fun and challenging! Why do people think that limiting access to them is good?
That's because it's not. There IS some genetic component, but it's most likely to be indirect (like better glucose metabolism or something like that). Studies on separated twins show that only about 40-60% of IQ variance can be explained by genetics. So Tabula Rasa is still mostly correct.
SU-27 also do recon flights and bombing runs (yes, they are fighters but they still can carry bombs). So?
Oh, and please close your little book titled "My Struggle Against Russian Hordes Invading Peaceful and Definitely Non-Uber-Nationalistic Countries With Government Most Definitely Not Installed By A Coup"
I wonder how many people are paying more so she can pay less?
Mostly healthy people under 35. All other categories pay pretty much the same amount.
As you mentioned, though, the New York ALREADY had that rule, so there was no need for a national boondoggle of a law to help your girlfriend.
Have you read the article I sent you? This rule _requires_ some form of an individual mandate. After all, why would healthy people be paying for insurance if they can get it any time cheaply once they get seriously ill?
You should be horrified that the government has enabled a set of private corporations to collect a tax, yes.
Why? My current locality has a garbage collection tax that goes directly to the garbage collection company. How Obamacare is any different?
It would have been orders of magnitude cheaper to just put all those people on Medicaid.
My gf earns $50k. She's not eligible for Medicaid. BTW, the cheapest policy in California in 2009 would have cost her $1500 a month.
Medicare expansion would have been the best way, but there's no chance in hell insurance companies
Oh, I see. You're deeply entrenched in the partisan ideology blinders trap. Buying into Krugman's bullshit is one of your worst problems. You can cherry-pick insurance rates all you want. They are going up for everyone
No they're not. They went down for my girlfriend in New York, by about 40%. Oh, and she couldn't even _get_ an insurance for any reasonable price in California before Obamacare because of her previous episode of breast cancer.
And yes, Obamacare mandate is a tax. So? Am I supposed to shy away in horror?
The whole premise that anything in the ACA would make health insurance "more affordable" was a LIE. Lie of the year? "If you like your plan, you can keep it."
No, it was not. The number of insured people went up and our bill went _down_. I call that a success.
How mature. I'm sure those decisions - the same one also made by Democrat governors (or should I use the partisan-bickering-friendly term "Democrap"?) - are all about spite and had NOTHING to do with state budgets and weighing the benefits and risks. Oh, can't be.
No, it has nothing to do with state budgets. Louisiana will lose about 10 _times_ more money because of people using ER instead of preventive care, compared to the Medicaid expansion. There is no other explanation except the willingness to inflict pain on poor people for the sake of ideology. Thus "Reputhlican".
I'm talking about the altitude of aircraft in question. If they were doing equipment drops then it might have been significantly lower than the Ukrainian army claims it to be. And of course, Ukraine is under constant surveillance by NATO ships in the Black Sea (and by Russia, of course).
That's the problem with requiring all these "government approved" mandates that most people don't need - insurance coverage has gone from barely-affordable to even less affordable.
No, it has not.
In the states with the "community rating" system (New York and Washington) the price of insurance went _down_. In the case of NY it went down by 30% and is projected to stay below inflation this year. In case you don't know, "community rating" means that insurance companies can't discriminate you based on your health.
Yeah, sure. Like maybe people going there the "Russian army" was supposed to be and finding only clear fields?
Oh, by the way. Ukraine tells us (for the 20-th time) that Russian army is invading. Any day now. Real soon. It can happen tomorrow. Well, maybe the day after tomorrow. Do you see a pattern here?
And meanwhile, Ukrainian army violates Minsk agreements and is moving in for the siege of Donetsk. Ukrainian president on live TV tells that he's going to punish Donetsk civilians until they reject the rebels. Very European of him.
Client-side code (WPF) in.NET is utterly dependent on DirectX and porting it to OpenGL is non-trivial and probably futile in the end as it'll be unusable on Android and iOS anyway. We already have QT on Linux, so why bother?
Uhm, no. Fascism is definitely NOT a socialism. Socialism as an economic model means centrally planned economy. Fascists were über-corporationists, to a such degree that business officially became a part of the government. So it's a far right ideology.
And it's easy to check - just take a redneck from some South Carolina shithole and substitute "liberals" with "communists" and "black people" with "Jews". You won't be able to distinguish this redneck from a Nazi soldier.
Excuse me, but how do you define "progressive"? I think you've drunk too much conservative whiskey or injected too much Tea Party heroin. In my book, "progressive" means "promoting individual rights and general welfare". Obama has been abysmal on this front, by following the conservative's policy ("fuck you, I got mine").
Slashdot Mirror
Ukraine is fighting a civil war. You don't fight terrorists by threatening civilians. It's as simple as that.
And the West is supporting a side in this civil war, a side that is ready to resort to dubious tactics of targeting civilian population.
You call Ukraine non-peaceful, you call it ultra-nationalistic.
How is it related to the question of ultra-nationalism being endemic in Ukraine? Or perhaps you forgot the famous: "Who's not jumping is a moscal"? Or maybe "knife all moscals"? Both happened long before the Russian invasion.
Yeah, there's no nationalism in Ukraine. Not at all. No whiteboards proclaiming that "SS protected Ukrainian independence" and no children in schools screaming that they hate Russians. Iryna Farion doesn't exist. Everything is perfect!
Yet it's not Ukraine that invaded Russia, it's Russia that invaded Ukraine. It's not Ukraine that supports the far-right, on the contrary, they got a pathetic few % in the elections, whilst in Russia you have 10s of thousands of far right ultra nationalists celebrating for a day.
How many ultra-nazis are in the Russian parliament? Hint: the answer is "zero".
So what's the difference between 'corporatists' and 'libertarians'? I fail to see any.
Your post is so fucking full of lies...
First of all, the transfer made no sense. Crimea has NEVER been a Ukrainian territory.
Second, at the time of transfer Crimea had been a USSR tourist hub, well known throughout the country and with a good infrastructure. Billions of Soviet roubles were spent to construct water supply and build reliable infrastructure on the Crimean peninsula.
Third, Ukraine's population has pretty much recovered by the time of the Crimean transfer. It was more deeply damaged by the WWII than by Stalin's holodomor.
And yes, if Kuban' wants to return to Ukraine then I have no objections. But having been in Kuban' too many times to count - their citizens would riot if anybody tried to give their land to Ukraine.
Poroshenko's own words: "We will make it intolerable for civilians in Eastern regions to support the terrorists". Clear and unambiguous.
Yes, the plan drafted by him years earlier
Not _drafted_, but agreed with Iraq government. Or do you want the US to violate its foreign treaties?
Hah! You lie, but that's a good example, thank you! USSR invaded Afghanistain [wikipedia.org] in 1979, when Jimmy Carter was is office — another example of a weak "it is all America's fault" excuse for a President. But even he imposed sanctions against USSR. And the whole world boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics.
And then Reagan lifted most of the sanctions by 1984 (after Brezhnev's death and the right noises in Poland about democracy). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1... , http://www.csmonitor.com/1984/... and so on.
Yes, which is an embarrassment for Obama.
Moving goalposts, are we? I did say that Obama is a mainstream Republican by his actions, so naturally he expanded the policies of his predecessors.
On top of that you got Reagan's reaction to USSR's invasion exactly backwards, which demonstrates the level of ignorance so deep, I'm unlikely to respond again...
When the facts contradict your ideology, you damn the facts.
Nonsense. You have no leg to stand on in this argument — the extrajudicial killing of bin Laden (ordered by Obama) defeats your point by itself
Don't worry, Republicans _love_ extra-judicial killings. As witnessed by their support of Bush's war and Israel.
Oh, no you don't... You keep him. A Republican would not have withdrawn all troops from Iraq
Bush drafted the pullout plan...
A Republican [politifact.com] would not have encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine by lifting all sanctions [washingtonpost.com] imposed over a similar invasion into Georgia.
You mean, like Reagan did with the USSR and Afghanistan invasion?
A Republican would've continued to detain terrorist suspects [theguardian.com] — in Guantanamo or elsewhere — rather then order extrajudicial killings [commondreams.org] — most infamously one of Osama bin Laden [theatlantic.com] himself.
1) Gitmo is still open. 2) Drone strikes were started by Bush.
No, Obama is an Illiberal Democrat through and through. But such people — yourself included — are famous for inability to recognize each other — so far are their deeds from their proclaimed ideals.
So far you've listed exactly the things that Republicans do.
A Republican by his actions and policies. Why do you ask?
So don't be fooled. Corporatists are NOT Libertarians. If they claim they are, show them where the Libertarian philosophy actually supports free competitive markets, not corporatism. They are not the same things.
They are very demonstrably the very same thing. That's why Sherman Antitrust Act has been enacted loooong time ago.
No, it's not correct. It's a typical libertardian excuse. The bill in question extended certain powers to legally tap into foreign communication lines while curtailing mass domestic surveillance.
Also, most of the great minds from your list didn't have a flushing toilet. So steer your children away from those. All but one had access to antibiotics and vaccinations. Also nix those.
I grew up with computers, starting with BASIC on ZX-Spectrum at age 8. I also read tons of books and was a member of various scientific clubs. Computers are fun and challenging! Why do people think that limiting access to them is good?
That's because it's not. There IS some genetic component, but it's most likely to be indirect (like better glucose metabolism or something like that). Studies on separated twins show that only about 40-60% of IQ variance can be explained by genetics. So Tabula Rasa is still mostly correct.
SU-27 also do recon flights and bombing runs (yes, they are fighters but they still can carry bombs). So?
Oh, and please close your little book titled "My Struggle Against Russian Hordes Invading Peaceful and Definitely Non-Uber-Nationalistic Countries With Government Most Definitely Not Installed By A Coup"
I wonder how many people are paying more so she can pay less?
Mostly healthy people under 35. All other categories pay pretty much the same amount.
As you mentioned, though, the New York ALREADY had that rule, so there was no need for a national boondoggle of a law to help your girlfriend.
Have you read the article I sent you? This rule _requires_ some form of an individual mandate. After all, why would healthy people be paying for insurance if they can get it any time cheaply once they get seriously ill?
You should be horrified that the government has enabled a set of private corporations to collect a tax, yes.
Why? My current locality has a garbage collection tax that goes directly to the garbage collection company. How Obamacare is any different?
It would have been orders of magnitude cheaper to just put all those people on Medicaid.
My gf earns $50k. She's not eligible for Medicaid. BTW, the cheapest policy in California in 2009 would have cost her $1500 a month.
Medicare expansion would have been the best way, but there's no chance in hell insurance companies
Oh, I see. You're deeply entrenched in the partisan ideology blinders trap. Buying into Krugman's bullshit is one of your worst problems. You can cherry-pick insurance rates all you want. They are going up for everyone
No they're not. They went down for my girlfriend in New York, by about 40%. Oh, and she couldn't even _get_ an insurance for any reasonable price in California before Obamacare because of her previous episode of breast cancer.
And yes, Obamacare mandate is a tax. So? Am I supposed to shy away in horror?
The whole premise that anything in the ACA would make health insurance "more affordable" was a LIE. Lie of the year? "If you like your plan, you can keep it."
No, it was not. The number of insured people went up and our bill went _down_. I call that a success.
How mature. I'm sure those decisions - the same one also made by Democrat governors (or should I use the partisan-bickering-friendly term "Democrap"?) - are all about spite and had NOTHING to do with state budgets and weighing the benefits and risks. Oh, can't be.
No, it has nothing to do with state budgets. Louisiana will lose about 10 _times_ more money because of people using ER instead of preventive care, compared to the Medicaid expansion. There is no other explanation except the willingness to inflict pain on poor people for the sake of ideology. Thus "Reputhlican".
I'm talking about the altitude of aircraft in question. If they were doing equipment drops then it might have been significantly lower than the Ukrainian army claims it to be. And of course, Ukraine is under constant surveillance by NATO ships in the Black Sea (and by Russia, of course).
That's the problem with requiring all these "government approved" mandates that most people don't need - insurance coverage has gone from barely-affordable to even less affordable.
No, it has not.
In the states with the "community rating" system (New York and Washington) the price of insurance went _down_. In the case of NY it went down by 30% and is projected to stay below inflation this year. In case you don't know, "community rating" means that insurance companies can't discriminate you based on your health.
Anyway, Krugman tells it best: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08...
Expand Medicare / Medicaid and be done with it.
BTW, how is the optional Medicaid expansion going? Ah, I see - most of the Rethuglican governors stopped it just out of spite.
That's according to the Ukrainian army, and they are not trustworthy. NATO has not released radar records of the downed flights, btw.
Yes, it's a play on words on Kub ("cube") - the previous version of the platform. Which was also derived from Kvadrat ("Square).
Why should there be maneuvers? Missiles are designed to predict the target's trajectory, simply following the target is not a good solution.
Yeah, sure. Like maybe people going there the "Russian army" was supposed to be and finding only clear fields?
Oh, by the way. Ukraine tells us (for the 20-th time) that Russian army is invading. Any day now. Real soon. It can happen tomorrow. Well, maybe the day after tomorrow. Do you see a pattern here?
And meanwhile, Ukrainian army violates Minsk agreements and is moving in for the siege of Donetsk. Ukrainian president on live TV tells that he's going to punish Donetsk civilians until they reject the rebels. Very European of him.
IntelliJ CLion is a new C++ IDE. It's too rough right now, but it's getting usable.
Client-side code (WPF) in .NET is utterly dependent on DirectX and porting it to OpenGL is non-trivial and probably futile in the end as it'll be unusable on Android and iOS anyway. We already have QT on Linux, so why bother?
Uhm, no. Fascism is definitely NOT a socialism. Socialism as an economic model means centrally planned economy. Fascists were über-corporationists, to a such degree that business officially became a part of the government. So it's a far right ideology.
And it's easy to check - just take a redneck from some South Carolina shithole and substitute "liberals" with "communists" and "black people" with "Jews". You won't be able to distinguish this redneck from a Nazi soldier.
Excuse me, but how do you define "progressive"? I think you've drunk too much conservative whiskey or injected too much Tea Party heroin. In my book, "progressive" means "promoting individual rights and general welfare". Obama has been abysmal on this front, by following the conservative's policy ("fuck you, I got mine").