Stop inserting bias when none exists! Good grief, is English is not that fucking difficult as proven by the fact that _YOU_ wrote some! I did not blame Carly, I said certain people running for office would take advantage of it. One of those people happens to already discuss people's records in that category.
Now, go fuck yourself and the troll you rode in on!
I personally kind of like the idea that law would be uniform from state to state. In 1791 travel was difficult and it was very unlikely that people would move around so much as they do today or that they could literally spend a few days half a nation away.
I personally like the idea of rainbows and fairy farts myself, but mine is as fantastical as yours.
Study Plato, Study the French Revolution and really study the US revolution and all of the writings from the founders from that time. The reason for the separation was not because it took a day to travel from here to there. It is really sad that so many people fail to study any history, yet claim to know what a group of some of the brightest minds in history were "really" thinking. Either that, or you did study history and either want to dupe people into believing a fabricated versionof history which benefits an agenda.
When you get past the first paragraph and read the details, you will find that the uses are for "if a plant needs water a robot gets water to the plant", and "if the plant needs fertilizer a robot injects fertilizer." and "if the plant has fruit a robot can get the fruit based on criteria". None of those things require swarm behavior and some involve much more than our current drone could do even if swarming. What it does require is reading past the first paragraph to actually gain some knowledge.
Save your sarcasm for when it's actually viable, or just be a dumb asshole. The choice yours of course.
ps Let Starscream know that Reality said hello for us!
pps No wonder you remain anonymous, then attempt to belittle people who are not.
The first document describes uses for robots in agriculture, not swarms. Then we have the transformers being described in your second. Tell the truth, you have not given any thought to the topic and just found something convenient in a week attempt to argue and look intelligent.
Or hell, maybe you ride around on your enchanted unicorn uncovering pots of gold at the end of all them rainbows..
No, the swarm technology would not help with the CA fires or anything else you wish to point to outside of military application. What you may be intending is something similar to a person claiming that swarms will protect agriculture by shooting bugs with tiny lasers. Which makes for a science fiction plot, but has little to do with reality or even the near future.
When every single aircraft is controlled centrally we can talk, but until then it's fantasy.
So first up - I am not saying he must be wrong about this but equally it follows that it is not necessarily true that he must be right. For my own position - yes, I am indeed asserting he was wrong.
One is not related to the other.
The spiel about increasing poverty through provision of public services is standard rhetoric recognisable through into the Victorian era, and to some extent today, and is simply not born out by the experience of post-war Britain when public services really started to appear on a large scale.
Since the problems have not been resolved though our charity and welfare, which have been drastically increased, means that you can not possibly be correct. You just provided a second propositional fallacy.
The experience of nations with state welfare systems is usually a good-with-problems style affair. I live in the UK and for example whilst I recognise the NHS has problems (it can be inefficient) I also recognise the huge benefits (I am alive, when in a purely paid-for system I would have been dead from polio aged 10 months).
What? How can you fit that many formal fallacies in such a short sentence? If A then B; Q therefor Banana?
This is about poverty, not your fantasy about how Government is so great (more on that shortly).
Basic income I'm not really arguing about - I simply don't know enough about the evidence. But provision of public services as being a bad thing...yes, I am stating he was wrong.
You are claiming that because of Government you have a cure to polio, which is an insult to scientists who did not work for the Government. Those scientists worked to solve a problem they were worried their kin would have to deal with if people did nothing.
That you can't see any other reality simply demonstrates your failure to think. There are plenty of possible solutions without the Government ever being involved. Remember that the Government allowed monopolization (price fixing and no competition) on these things, as well as forced people to get the vaccines.
Why not close access to your information instead of keeping it open to 200 people, then complaining about the consequences of the audience you have chosen?
I have read several recent studies that demonstrate women are currently make more than men in the same fields with the same credentials once things like amount hours worked are accounted for. Men tend to work more 50 hour weeks where women tend to work more 40 hour weeks. Women tend to be more worried about work life balance (which is great IMHO), where men will focus exclusively on careers (often due to society pressure, more on that in a moment). This is reflected in the workplace violence rates, suicide rates (15times higher than women), homeless rates (84-94% depending on the study), and a few other areas. Clicky
Men have pressure to provide, often due to divorce. Once again, men have almost no chance of getting custody and face severe punishments for not providing child support. I think that last part is great, but women who do not pay child support receive virtually no punishment. Men are ignored in the majority of cases of domestic violence, where rates of abuse match that of women. "Equality" still does not exist, but we see the effects of the shift in the opposite direction growing.
Another interesting finding in one of these studies was that women with careers do not marry down, but men have traditionally done so. Meaning, a woman doctor will not generally marry someone who is not a doctor, or equivalent in income (not necessarily education). Men however do not, and have not, held such practices. This has extended the gaps between income brackets and seems to be related to numerous social issues like reduced birth rates and declining marriages.
First wave feminism did not hate men. First wave feminism had some legitimate gripes. They wanted the ability to have a careers which were not available to them. They still had trouble voting and getting into education. Real issues and real discrimination, just like other minorities had (but not as extreme).
Removing men from Universities took about 30 years, and most of that was not because women really wanted it (in general terms). Certain political groups wanted it, so ensured that certain people made and retained specific positions. You really can't be ignorant enough to believe that the Universities came up with all the "studies" that are still being used today to maintain the "Rape Culture" propaganda do you? Remember that the Government uses the same exact number when Politicians are giving speeches.
If you don't understand the terminology being used, ask the question. This is the rational method of handling the situation, instead of doing as you have and speculate and take offense based on your speculation. Oh wait, you are simply ignorant and a liar, so ignored the dialogue in order to fit your bias into the discussion.
It's only once they start being taught that a particular game/toy/activity is a 'girl thing' or a 'boy thing', that they start to self-segregate into 'boy thing' and 'girl thing' groups.
That statement is absolutely wrong on every level. While I don't believe the correction will have any impact on your fantasy land, I'll provide the correction so that the unwary don't end up with brain damage believing you.
First, there are exceptions to generalized behaviors. I am providing the normal and make no claim that exceptions do not exist, but that the majority fit these behaviors. Contrary to your claims children naturally segregate into groups. Boys will prefer to wrestle and horseplay for long periods of time. Boys become competitive at a much younger age than girls and usually levels of competition are increased. These tendencies are related to biology and you will find similar behaviors in countless other mammals (well beyond mammals as well.). Age and gender are absolutely relevant to the statement, and to believe otherwise completely ignores science. Your "feelings" do not trump science.
What GP seems to be referring to is not just that men are, and have been, a minority in schools. GP seems to be referring to the fact that children who want to have physical play are punished and/or given medication to stop them from the desire to have physical play. Physical play is associated with, and is normal, male behavior (biology people, not discrimination).
Much of the male discrimination in schools and universities today is associated with what is commonly called 3rd wave feminism, and that is what I believe GP intended to say. Not "feminized", but influenced by extreme feminism.
For the ignorant, the push from this group in very simple terms is that men are bad and evil and women are good. As an example, their rhetoric will claim that if women were in charge we would have no wars, and that men are the cause of all crimes. Neither of these things are reality, and a cursory study of history will demonstrate that it's fantasy. They will also claim that the only reason men were providers and women raised the kids was because men are oppressive. Which ignores reality like biology and all of the inventions needed to get around requiring a parent/partner in the house full time.
Unfortunately, a good portion of the 3rd wave feminists have roots in our Universities and they have had influence in education (which leads to influences in culture).
I believe this is backward. Doing nothing is preferable to the thoughtless and lazy act of pressing a single button. I really don't see why typing "Sorry for your loss" or "Get well soon" has become a chore to some people. Don't get me wrong, I know that lazy idiots are out there in droves. I just didn't expect that the numbers favored being so lazy and idiotic that they can't think or take the time to type 3-4 words.
Funny how you claim my response is based on ideology and then repeatedly spew crap like this. The Government can not make revenue, it can only take revenue. It can not 'create' jobs, it can only transfer wealth from people by taxes. Creating jobs requires a revenue generating operation, not a "take from them and give to those".
More simply put, the Government has no money and no revenue without a tax system.
Also, don't lie. Your disagreement is based on a combination of ideology of what the Constitution should say, being too lazy to try and change it so it would actually say so, and being too dishonest to simply accept that. You aren't going to agree with me unless you'll grow a backbone or switch ideologies.
So you refuse to read things like The Federalist Papers, which use the term General Welfare to specifically mean that the Government performs it's role in ensuring that the People have Liberty. I guess you also believe that the founders were all morons who had never seen an abusive government who used taxation as a method of transferring wealth.
You close by agreeing that the Government can only transfer wealth, but attempt to rationalize and justify the act as the institution of preserving liberty. Wow. No more, you give me a head ache.
The program puts out roughly 60,000 per person, for 600 people to be 'apprenticed'. I'm not sure how much the precursors are, or if it will weed anything out (does not sound like it). Start writing those Congress Critters though, because this is pure shit.
Why this sucks should be painfully obvious. This is Public funding to pay for Private company workers. I guess that the H1-B free-for-all they have not been able to get means that they won't pay for people in a slightly different way. Federal Tax dollars will be used to put employees into Microsoft, and a couple other much smaller companies. Meaning Microsoft will be reaping the benefit of free employees on the tax payer dime.
Here is the thing that I repeatedly see that pisses me off.
The state’s booming tech industry needs an estimated 3,500 new employees each year with a computer science degree, but Washington’s higher education system turns out only about 500.
Good grief, if you want graduates in a field you PAY THEM A GOOD WAGE! We have ass loads of Business degrees because the only way to have a reasonable chance of hitting the business lottery is in either the financial services or executive fields. If you want more welders, pay people to learn the trade. This is such a basic solution to the problem I get infuriated every time I see complaints like above.
How many people heading to college want to spend 4+ years in school (probably a good pile of debt) to make low middle class income with a STEM degree? NONE! Because on average after 20 years experience you have a chance for medium to higher middle class income, but you are not going higher than this without moving into management.
No, "General Welfare" has a specific meaning which does not translate to "The Government must create jobs". The Government can not create jobs, it can only transfer wealth.
You are attempting to put a modern spin on the terminology instead of sticking to the original meaning.
Want me to agree with you, show me where our Government can generate revenue to create jobs. HINT: It was never given that ability. Collecting taxes to pay someone, like a military person or Senator, is transferring wealth.
Good grief. You can at least read what wish to see, so are you not really illiterate. I quoted YOUR statement "So, what exactly was being lied about? There were WMD found in Iraq, so it couldn't be that, maybe that Saddam wasn't willing to use them?"
I called you out on the biggest (not the only) lie. You have other lies in the same thread (not the same post), which I mostly ignored. There were NO WMDs ever found in Iraq during or after the US invaded under GW. You attempted to fool people into believing there were WMDs and that we magically found some with a link to the Iran Iraq war back in 1988.
I can't be any more clear, and honestly I doubt you needed the clarity. I am guessing you are trolling after being caught in a blatant lie.
You memorize a single strong password for a key storage program like Keepass.
I've always wondered if the password storage programs are targets for attack and if so how secure they actually are. They seem vulnerable to keyloggers, for example, or password attacks on the master password.
Yes they are vulnerable, and the people coding them know they are vulnerable. I won't used closed source code for that reason, it would be too easy for someone to build in back doors.
Everything is vulnerable to a key logger, which is why you don't use devices you are unsure of. Mid stream, the password manager is safer because it uses memory only, not input devices.
I'm not going to address the first part, because you know damn well how to quote. I referred to your text, which I quoted from you. You did not have this quoted, which makes it your text.
That was the point. Saddam had no issues previously using WMD, so when he is blustering that he has them, and saying he is going to attack Iran, Israel, and everyone else, what do you expect us to respond?
How do I expect that we respond? Simple, and what most military advisers told the Government before the Politicians had them silenced. Saddam had not attacked US country or people, so we had no right to invade his country. At least in Gulf 1 we could make the claim that we were helping a weaker nation. Gulf 2 was no such thing, it was a bully punching a kid that had already been beat up so much they were afraid to leave the house.
How would we know? The first gulf war we were prevented from entering Iraq. There were many indications of WMD, as I detailed a little above.
We had UN inspectors and intelligence agencies telling us how he had nothing. There was less than a handful of people in the Government who wanted war and pushed until they got it, based on evidence that was fabricated.
Yes, Saddam was lying, I need proof that ANYONE in the Bush administration knew that.
Read every goddamn CIA and Military advisers reporting before we invaded and occupied Iraq. Foreign intelligence agencies said the same thing, Saddam was not a threat. He only posed danger to people in his country, and we limited that extensively with the No-Fly zones and various embargoes.
I am taking offense at making it out to be that Bush started a war because he felt like it.
Reality sucks, I'd suggest you get used to being offended. There has been no champion for the people sitting in the President's chair for at least as long as I have been alive, but you would probably need to start in the very early 60s. If you want the real heart breaker, consider that there has been no difference in parties in that same amount of time. Measure by actions, not campaign promises which never come to fruition.
Removing all of the appeals to emotion I see a three claims against Saddam. Let me preface this I think he was an evil dictator who should rot in hell with Mao and the rest of that lot. That aside, it's not necessarily our business to fix that problem. Let's see how true your claims really are.
1. We had to maintain a no-fly zone to stop Saddam from using chemical weapons. False! The US captured and destroyed Iraq's stockpiles during the first Gulf War. Saddam lied about having them to maintain posture in the Middle East after the war, but was not able to produce.
2. Saddam used UN Oil for Food money to enrich himself.
The lavish palaces already existed, but sure, after the first Gulf war Saddam did not change his lifestyle. Like all country leaders he lived much better than the populace. It's really odd for people to point to what a country leader lives like when they dislike them, but ignore their own leader's lavish lifestyle. After the 2008 collapse did our President move out of the White House into a poorer neighborhood? Did he stop spending tax payer money on custom made clothing and shoes? Did he stop eating custom meals which cost more per meal than I could spend in a week? Did he start flying Coach? How about the UK and the Monarchy... do you also bitch about them and demand that they give up their lifestyles? I mean, after WW II they still had all their palaces, money, land, and income from their and other Governments.
In other words, this is true for ALL leaders of countries and you are intentionally omitting information for an appeal to emotion. Get a working mirror, then we can talk.
3. Saddam bribed UN members.
Okay, but that takes two sides of corruption to work. Saddam could not have bribed a real egalitarian. Guilty, but so are other people who you are not inditing.
You back the assertion above that Saddam didn't have weapons and was using a bluff, yet in the same paragraph claim he was threatening to use them. Cognitive dissonance much? I did not like him either, but two wrongs never make a right. Perhaps you have had too much Kool-Aid and it's time to give up drinking?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't care about facts. My wording was very intentional, too bad people only read what they want to see...
Stop inserting bias when none exists! Good grief, is English is not that fucking difficult as proven by the fact that _YOU_ wrote some! I did not blame Carly, I said certain people running for office would take advantage of it. One of those people happens to already discuss people's records in that category.
Now, go fuck yourself and the troll you rode in on!
I personally kind of like the idea that law would be uniform from state to state. In 1791 travel was difficult and it was very unlikely that people would move around so much as they do today or that they could literally spend a few days half a nation away.
I personally like the idea of rainbows and fairy farts myself, but mine is as fantastical as yours.
Study Plato, Study the French Revolution and really study the US revolution and all of the writings from the founders from that time. The reason for the separation was not because it took a day to travel from here to there. It is really sad that so many people fail to study any history, yet claim to know what a group of some of the brightest minds in history were "really" thinking. Either that, or you did study history and either want to dupe people into believing a fabricated versionof history which benefits an agenda.
I'm sure that there are political entities that are gonna have fun with this one. Guess who the leader of HP was when this deal was brokered?
CEO: Carly Fiorina (July 19, 1999–February 9, 2005; Chairwoman September 22, 2000–February 9, 2005)
Was that your first guess? Oh Noes here comes the train of idi.. *damn, too late*
Dear Derp,
When you get past the first paragraph and read the details, you will find that the uses are for "if a plant needs water a robot gets water to the plant", and "if the plant needs fertilizer a robot injects fertilizer." and "if the plant has fruit a robot can get the fruit based on criteria". None of those things require swarm behavior and some involve much more than our current drone could do even if swarming. What it does require is reading past the first paragraph to actually gain some knowledge.
Save your sarcasm for when it's actually viable, or just be a dumb asshole. The choice yours of course.
ps Let Starscream know that Reality said hello for us!
pps No wonder you remain anonymous, then attempt to belittle people who are not.
The first document describes uses for robots in agriculture, not swarms. Then we have the transformers being described in your second. Tell the truth, you have not given any thought to the topic and just found something convenient in a week attempt to argue and look intelligent.
Or hell, maybe you ride around on your enchanted unicorn uncovering pots of gold at the end of all them rainbows..
No, the swarm technology would not help with the CA fires or anything else you wish to point to outside of military application. What you may be intending is something similar to a person claiming that swarms will protect agriculture by shooting bugs with tiny lasers. Which makes for a science fiction plot, but has little to do with reality or even the near future.
When every single aircraft is controlled centrally we can talk, but until then it's fantasy.
>The researchers are using this swarm as a platform for advancing drone technology, and hope to see results implemented defense applications.
"Swarms" are not needed in either Agriculture or Search and Rescue.
So first up - I am not saying he must be wrong about this but equally it follows that it is not necessarily true that he must be right. For my own position - yes, I am indeed asserting he was wrong.
One is not related to the other.
The spiel about increasing poverty through provision of public services is standard rhetoric recognisable through into the Victorian era, and to some extent today, and is simply not born out by the experience of post-war Britain when public services really started to appear on a large scale.
Since the problems have not been resolved though our charity and welfare, which have been drastically increased, means that you can not possibly be correct. You just provided a second propositional fallacy.
The experience of nations with state welfare systems is usually a good-with-problems style affair. I live in the UK and for example whilst I recognise the NHS has problems (it can be inefficient) I also recognise the huge benefits (I am alive, when in a purely paid-for system I would have been dead from polio aged 10 months).
What? How can you fit that many formal fallacies in such a short sentence? If A then B; Q therefor Banana?
This is about poverty, not your fantasy about how Government is so great (more on that shortly).
Basic income I'm not really arguing about - I simply don't know enough about the evidence. But provision of public services as being a bad thing...yes, I am stating he was wrong.
You are claiming that because of Government you have a cure to polio, which is an insult to scientists who did not work for the Government. Those scientists worked to solve a problem they were worried their kin would have to deal with if people did nothing.
That you can't see any other reality simply demonstrates your failure to think. There are plenty of possible solutions without the Government ever being involved. Remember that the Government allowed monopolization (price fixing and no competition) on these things, as well as forced people to get the vaccines.
I don't get it - what response are you hoping for?
ANY! Don't feed the trolls!
Why not close access to your information instead of keeping it open to 200 people, then complaining about the consequences of the audience you have chosen?
You are accusing the first wave feminists of doing exactly what countless rich white men did, many of those hold and held public office.
I have read several recent studies that demonstrate women are currently make more than men in the same fields with the same credentials once things like amount hours worked are accounted for. Men tend to work more 50 hour weeks where women tend to work more 40 hour weeks. Women tend to be more worried about work life balance (which is great IMHO), where men will focus exclusively on careers (often due to society pressure, more on that in a moment). This is reflected in the workplace violence rates, suicide rates (15times higher than women), homeless rates (84-94% depending on the study), and a few other areas. Clicky
Men have pressure to provide, often due to divorce. Once again, men have almost no chance of getting custody and face severe punishments for not providing child support. I think that last part is great, but women who do not pay child support receive virtually no punishment. Men are ignored in the majority of cases of domestic violence, where rates of abuse match that of women. "Equality" still does not exist, but we see the effects of the shift in the opposite direction growing.
Another interesting finding in one of these studies was that women with careers do not marry down, but men have traditionally done so. Meaning, a woman doctor will not generally marry someone who is not a doctor, or equivalent in income (not necessarily education). Men however do not, and have not, held such practices. This has extended the gaps between income brackets and seems to be related to numerous social issues like reduced birth rates and declining marriages.
First wave feminism did not hate men. First wave feminism had some legitimate gripes. They wanted the ability to have a careers which were not available to them. They still had trouble voting and getting into education. Real issues and real discrimination, just like other minorities had (but not as extreme).
Removing men from Universities took about 30 years, and most of that was not because women really wanted it (in general terms). Certain political groups wanted it, so ensured that certain people made and retained specific positions. You really can't be ignorant enough to believe that the Universities came up with all the "studies" that are still being used today to maintain the "Rape Culture" propaganda do you? Remember that the Government uses the same exact number when Politicians are giving speeches.
If you don't understand the terminology being used, ask the question. This is the rational method of handling the situation, instead of doing as you have and speculate and take offense based on your speculation. Oh wait, you are simply ignorant and a liar, so ignored the dialogue in order to fit your bias into the discussion.
It's only once they start being taught that a particular game/toy/activity is a 'girl thing' or a 'boy thing', that they start to self-segregate into 'boy thing' and 'girl thing' groups.
That statement is absolutely wrong on every level. While I don't believe the correction will have any impact on your fantasy land, I'll provide the correction so that the unwary don't end up with brain damage believing you.
First, there are exceptions to generalized behaviors. I am providing the normal and make no claim that exceptions do not exist, but that the majority fit these behaviors. Contrary to your claims children naturally segregate into groups. Boys will prefer to wrestle and horseplay for long periods of time. Boys become competitive at a much younger age than girls and usually levels of competition are increased. These tendencies are related to biology and you will find similar behaviors in countless other mammals (well beyond mammals as well.). Age and gender are absolutely relevant to the statement, and to believe otherwise completely ignores science. Your "feelings" do not trump science.
What GP seems to be referring to is not just that men are, and have been, a minority in schools. GP seems to be referring to the fact that children who want to have physical play are punished and/or given medication to stop them from the desire to have physical play. Physical play is associated with, and is normal, male behavior (biology people, not discrimination).
Much of the male discrimination in schools and universities today is associated with what is commonly called 3rd wave feminism, and that is what I believe GP intended to say. Not "feminized", but influenced by extreme feminism.
For the ignorant, the push from this group in very simple terms is that men are bad and evil and women are good. As an example, their rhetoric will claim that if women were in charge we would have no wars, and that men are the cause of all crimes. Neither of these things are reality, and a cursory study of history will demonstrate that it's fantasy. They will also claim that the only reason men were providers and women raised the kids was because men are oppressive. Which ignores reality like biology and all of the inventions needed to get around requiring a parent/partner in the house full time.
Unfortunately, a good portion of the 3rd wave feminists have roots in our Universities and they have had influence in education (which leads to influences in culture).
I believe this is backward. Doing nothing is preferable to the thoughtless and lazy act of pressing a single button. I really don't see why typing "Sorry for your loss" or "Get well soon" has become a chore to some people. Don't get me wrong, I know that lazy idiots are out there in droves. I just didn't expect that the numbers favored being so lazy and idiotic that they can't think or take the time to type 3-4 words.
So "general welfare" now means "making a profit"?
Funny how you claim my response is based on ideology and then repeatedly spew crap like this. The Government can not make revenue, it can only take revenue. It can not 'create' jobs, it can only transfer wealth from people by taxes. Creating jobs requires a revenue generating operation, not a "take from them and give to those".
More simply put, the Government has no money and no revenue without a tax system.
Also, don't lie. Your disagreement is based on a combination of ideology of what the Constitution should say, being too lazy to try and change it so it would actually say so, and being too dishonest to simply accept that. You aren't going to agree with me unless you'll grow a backbone or switch ideologies.
So you refuse to read things like The Federalist Papers, which use the term General Welfare to specifically mean that the Government performs it's role in ensuring that the People have Liberty. I guess you also believe that the founders were all morons who had never seen an abusive government who used taxation as a method of transferring wealth.
You close by agreeing that the Government can only transfer wealth, but attempt to rationalize and justify the act as the institution of preserving liberty. Wow. No more, you give me a head ache.
The program puts out roughly 60,000 per person, for 600 people to be 'apprenticed'. I'm not sure how much the precursors are, or if it will weed anything out (does not sound like it). Start writing those Congress Critters though, because this is pure shit.
Why this sucks should be painfully obvious. This is Public funding to pay for Private company workers. I guess that the H1-B free-for-all they have not been able to get means that they won't pay for people in a slightly different way. Federal Tax dollars will be used to put employees into Microsoft, and a couple other much smaller companies. Meaning Microsoft will be reaping the benefit of free employees on the tax payer dime.
Here is the thing that I repeatedly see that pisses me off.
The state’s booming tech industry needs an estimated 3,500 new employees each year with a computer science degree, but Washington’s higher education system turns out only about 500.
Good grief, if you want graduates in a field you PAY THEM A GOOD WAGE! We have ass loads of Business degrees because the only way to have a reasonable chance of hitting the business lottery is in either the financial services or executive fields. If you want more welders, pay people to learn the trade. This is such a basic solution to the problem I get infuriated every time I see complaints like above.
How many people heading to college want to spend 4+ years in school (probably a good pile of debt) to make low middle class income with a STEM degree? NONE! Because on average after 20 years experience you have a chance for medium to higher middle class income, but you are not going higher than this without moving into management.
No, "General Welfare" has a specific meaning which does not translate to "The Government must create jobs". The Government can not create jobs, it can only transfer wealth.
You are attempting to put a modern spin on the terminology instead of sticking to the original meaning.
Want me to agree with you, show me where our Government can generate revenue to create jobs. HINT: It was never given that ability. Collecting taxes to pay someone, like a military person or Senator, is transferring wealth.
Good grief. You can at least read what wish to see, so are you not really illiterate. I quoted YOUR statement "So, what exactly was being lied about? There were WMD found in Iraq, so it couldn't be that, maybe that Saddam wasn't willing to use them?"
I called you out on the biggest (not the only) lie. You have other lies in the same thread (not the same post), which I mostly ignored. There were NO WMDs ever found in Iraq during or after the US invaded under GW. You attempted to fool people into believing there were WMDs and that we magically found some with a link to the Iran Iraq war back in 1988.
I can't be any more clear, and honestly I doubt you needed the clarity. I am guessing you are trolling after being caught in a blatant lie.
You memorize a single strong password for a key storage program like Keepass.
I've always wondered if the password storage programs are targets for attack and if so how secure they actually are. They seem vulnerable to keyloggers, for example, or password attacks on the master password.
Yes they are vulnerable, and the people coding them know they are vulnerable. I won't used closed source code for that reason, it would be too easy for someone to build in back doors.
Everything is vulnerable to a key logger, which is why you don't use devices you are unsure of. Mid stream, the password manager is safer because it uses memory only, not input devices.
I'm not going to address the first part, because you know damn well how to quote. I referred to your text, which I quoted from you. You did not have this quoted, which makes it your text.
That was the point. Saddam had no issues previously using WMD, so when he is blustering that he has them, and saying he is going to attack Iran, Israel, and everyone else, what do you expect us to respond?
How do I expect that we respond? Simple, and what most military advisers told the Government before the Politicians had them silenced. Saddam had not attacked US country or people, so we had no right to invade his country. At least in Gulf 1 we could make the claim that we were helping a weaker nation. Gulf 2 was no such thing, it was a bully punching a kid that had already been beat up so much they were afraid to leave the house.
How would we know? The first gulf war we were prevented from entering Iraq. There were many indications of WMD, as I detailed a little above.
We had UN inspectors and intelligence agencies telling us how he had nothing. There was less than a handful of people in the Government who wanted war and pushed until they got it, based on evidence that was fabricated.
Yes, Saddam was lying, I need proof that ANYONE in the Bush administration knew that.
Read every goddamn CIA and Military advisers reporting before we invaded and occupied Iraq. Foreign intelligence agencies said the same thing, Saddam was not a threat. He only posed danger to people in his country, and we limited that extensively with the No-Fly zones and various embargoes.
I am taking offense at making it out to be that Bush started a war because he felt like it.
Reality sucks, I'd suggest you get used to being offended. There has been no champion for the people sitting in the President's chair for at least as long as I have been alive, but you would probably need to start in the very early 60s. If you want the real heart breaker, consider that there has been no difference in parties in that same amount of time. Measure by actions, not campaign promises which never come to fruition.
Actually, I don't believe that Bush lied
I don't believe anyone could be that delusional. Yet here you are, repeatedly proving my belief is wrong...
Removing all of the appeals to emotion I see a three claims against Saddam. Let me preface this I think he was an evil dictator who should rot in hell with Mao and the rest of that lot. That aside, it's not necessarily our business to fix that problem. Let's see how true your claims really are.
1. We had to maintain a no-fly zone to stop Saddam from using chemical weapons.
False! The US captured and destroyed Iraq's stockpiles during the first Gulf War. Saddam lied about having them to maintain posture in the Middle East after the war, but was not able to produce.
2. Saddam used UN Oil for Food money to enrich himself.
The lavish palaces already existed, but sure, after the first Gulf war Saddam did not change his lifestyle. Like all country leaders he lived much better than the populace. It's really odd for people to point to what a country leader lives like when they dislike them, but ignore their own leader's lavish lifestyle. After the 2008 collapse did our President move out of the White House into a poorer neighborhood? Did he stop spending tax payer money on custom made clothing and shoes? Did he stop eating custom meals which cost more per meal than I could spend in a week? Did he start flying Coach? How about the UK and the Monarchy... do you also bitch about them and demand that they give up their lifestyles? I mean, after WW II they still had all their palaces, money, land, and income from their and other Governments.
In other words, this is true for ALL leaders of countries and you are intentionally omitting information for an appeal to emotion. Get a working mirror, then we can talk.
3. Saddam bribed UN members.
Okay, but that takes two sides of corruption to work. Saddam could not have bribed a real egalitarian. Guilty, but so are other people who you are not inditing.
You back the assertion above that Saddam didn't have weapons and was using a bluff, yet in the same paragraph claim he was threatening to use them. Cognitive dissonance much? I did not like him either, but two wrongs never make a right. Perhaps you have had too much Kool-Aid and it's time to give up drinking?