Printed signs in the span of a day? You're right, that's some sci-fi stuff right there! There's no way 21st technology could make a printed sign in less than a weak!
" But let's be honest: you only like democracy when it goes your way, otherwise you pout."
What nonsense. Everyone like's it when they win and dislikes it when the lose.
As for "call anyone who supports states' rights (aka federalism aka competitive sovereignty) a racist or neo-Confederate.", you're spending too much time on the internet. Spend some time in the real world where the vast majority is a moderate of some slant or another.
I'm not trying to be rude or attack you but I just don't understand those claims. I honestly feel a business as usual candidate like Hillary, which admittedly is not my favorite concept, is FAR superior to some one with zero experience, a clear temperament problem, a crush on America's nation state enemies, threatens to sue anyone who questions him while threatening to loosen America's libel laws and thus reign in freedom of the press, and a tax plan that is clearly designed to enrich the wealthy while bankrupting the country.
I honestly can't think of a more objectionable candidate than Trump.
A handful of Silicon Valley elites = action by all progressives?
Good work! I would say that by applying incredibly broad generalities to a large group of people based on the actions of a handful you are definitely part of some sort of solution rather than part of the problem.
You? Part of the problem!? With mass generalities based on the actions of an incredible few like that, that would be absurd! Why would anyone mark you flamebait?
California does in fact give more than it receives from the federal government. Yes it has debt but it also has a prospering economy and a surplus budget. Meanwhile places like Silicon Valley and the surrounding areas are suffering from labor shortages which hardly sounds like "businesses can't seem to leave the state fast enough". Sure, there are parts of the state that are having a hard time of it (the Northern bits and the Valley) but our job growth out ranks most other states right now.
Now I don't think California should leave the Union as it would be as dumb as Brexit is but you're exercising pure naivety if you think the 6th largest economy in the world with one of the worlds highest per capita GDPs couldn't make it on its own.
Really if you cut out the crops that can be grown almost anywhere, soy, corn, and wheat, California probably produces a majority of it for the country. The only reason why California doesnt out perform on the prior three is that those crops are only profitable in areas where you cant grow anything else. You'd be an idiot to grow corn in most parts of the California as it would be a waste of money.
All of our neighbors are deserts except North in Oregon and we most definitely don't get any water from them in any real quantity as our north is sparsely populated. Sure, small parts of the Rockies that arent in California might have their snow run off flow into California but I would hardly call that draining water from other states. There's certainly no active pumping of water to California from any of the surrounding desert states.
Why not make up more stuff like molest children (everyone hates that!) or abuse the elderly? I'm sure if you try hard enough you can make up a waayyy better list than that one.
Real quick question. If all of the poles and the Democrats were all firmly convinced that Hillary was going to win, why would they have done all that prep work?
A second question. How about some real data on your clearly fabricated list?
Um, California doesnt really get water from outside the state to any great degree. It's the California part of the Rockies that provides the snow pack that feeds the water needs of Southern California and the Valley. The rest of the state makes due with its own reservoirs.
I can't confirm or dis-confirm your data as a casual google search has turned up nothing (really surprised it's not easy to find this data) but I do think you're being a bit conservative. With that said, even a 5% budget surplus in the 6th largest world economy in the world would be a shit ton of money.
You didn't actually read my post did you? You just read "Hillary won the popular vote" and then started typing, right?
I ask this because you didn't refute my point at all. How they campaigned makes no difference to my point as I'm not at all saying it was an unfair competition or anything of the like. They both knew the rules and Hillary lost. That still doesnt change the fact that Trump's election doesnt represent the popular will of the country.
1) Trump's threat of lawsuits because he doesn't like what some one is saying is a life style for him. Here's a start but certainly not all encompassing http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
This should be incredibly worrying coming from a President who has both chambers of Congress at his back.
2) I don't you think realize that BLM is a completely decentralized movement. Yes there are crazy people involved who just want to riot but the vast majority of their protests are perfectly peaceful and are just full of people who want to draw attention to the massive numbers of black men in this country who are dieing from violence. Just because Hillary has ties doesn't mean she endorses every single sub faction of the group.
3) If Trump treated his employees well he'd pay all of them. Furthermore, his habit of declaring bankruptcy (about 6 times I believe) and thus legally defrauding his investors for his own personal gain is rather worrying. He looks out for the people that looking out for works for him.
Technically if it was the voters deciding it would be Hillary as she won the popular vote. Going by our electoral system Trump of course won but don't pretend he won because of the pure will of the voters as there's a level of government between them and their actual voice.
As it works now only a hand full of states matter so your argument that it would marginalize states doesnt really hold up as plenty of states are marginalized as it is now. The most populous states in the union are literally ignored under the current system along with plenty of states with small populations like the entire Bible Belt, most of the South and most of the North East. Their issues are non issues for candidates because every one knows how the majority in those states are going to vote. If it was left to the popular vote though you might actually see a Presidential candidate campaigning in Mississippi or California, Kansas or Delaware, Washington or Tennessee. All of a sudden voters in those regions become relevant because everyone is.
The problems you attribute to what would happen if we switch to a purely popular vote are literally what our problems are now and could only be helped by switching to popular vote.
Honestly i just tune out when i see the SJW acronym. Whenever i see it it's almost always people complaining about the fringe left like it's the mainstream. It's exactly the same as saying all memebers of the political Right are rascist because fringe groups like the KKK and neo-nazis are on their fringes.
Spend some time off the internet and you'll realise most people are perfectly normal moderates of one slant or another. All this "I saw it on the internets so that means its widespread!" from both the Left and the Right feels like football fans arguing over whose team is better only with this stuff the pettiness is distracting far too many people from issues that actually matter.
"The Right's all rascist, misogynists, homophobes!" "The Left want to give all the jobs to gays, illegals and women and control our words!"
Please. All of you, just shut up and live your lives as best you can and stop whining. The stuff above are not our country's real problems.
That's not a great reason to not vote for some one. Every candidate for president has thier idiot supporters who believe all sorts of things. None of that changes the nature of the candidate one bit
"...because rather than focus on the humanism that the movie was literally about it focused..." = "...because rather than focus on the humanism that the book was literally about it focused..."
Given the controversy surrounding Starship Troopers the book — and, to be blunt, some of the flaws of the book itself, which reads much like polemic with (too) many scenes taking place inside classrooms with characters expressing the author's militaristic worldview to the reader as if they were one of the students — it's difficult to imagine a faithful screen version of Starship Troopers finding much success with modern audiences. Indeed, the very prospect seems oddly reminiscent of Ender's Game, a similarly beloved — and controversial — sci-fi novel that received its own movie version in 2013.
The Ender's Game failure was due very much to its NOT sticking to the book. It was an incredibly shallow movie because rather than focus on the humanism that the movie was literally about it focused on whatever flashy special effect could be applied to it. Yeah, that single battle room scene felt right out of the book but the battle room scenes served a greater purpose in the book.
The book Ender's Game would never have become the classic that it is if it was just about showcasing cool action scenes. As some one who was in accelerated academic programs but also felt a bit isolated because of it, the book was a perfect match.
(Disclaimer: I don't consider myself brilliant and / or tragic. I'm just explaining the book's draw for me.)
The Lord of the Rings movies, while not without flaws, were really rather good and pretty true to the books. Likewise with Phillip K Dick's A Scanner Darkly, which considering the treatment his work usually gets by Hollywood, truly surprised me with how close to the original source material it was. Especially since it was a Keanu Reeves movie.
I agree the odds are against it, especially considering the budget required to make it look good and the writing credentials of the script writers, but it is possible for it to be fairly true to the books.
The racist part of that description got me a bit. Now granted, it's been ages since I've read the book but I don't remember anything racist about it. As you say, Federal citizenship was open to everyone, you just had to serve.
Slashdot Mirror
Printed signs in the span of a day? You're right, that's some sci-fi stuff right there! There's no way 21st technology could make a printed sign in less than a weak!
" But let's be honest: you only like democracy when it goes your way, otherwise you pout."
What nonsense. Everyone like's it when they win and dislikes it when the lose.
As for "call anyone who supports states' rights (aka federalism aka competitive sovereignty) a racist or neo-Confederate.", you're spending too much time on the internet. Spend some time in the real world where the vast majority is a moderate of some slant or another.
I'm not trying to be rude or attack you but I just don't understand those claims. I honestly feel a business as usual candidate like Hillary, which admittedly is not my favorite concept, is FAR superior to some one with zero experience, a clear temperament problem, a crush on America's nation state enemies, threatens to sue anyone who questions him while threatening to loosen America's libel laws and thus reign in freedom of the press, and a tax plan that is clearly designed to enrich the wealthy while bankrupting the country.
I honestly can't think of a more objectionable candidate than Trump.
Anyone can sound bad if you make things up!
How about Red states leach our nation's wealth while Blue states provide it.
Oh wait. I didn't make that up, that's an actual fact. My bad...
How about the South (the core of the Red states) only became Republican in response to the Civil Rights Movement?
Damn, I didn't make that up either.
I guess I just can't make anything up about Red states that is better than the truth...
Sanders never praised Chavez and certainly never said Venezuela was an economic model for the US.
I suppose if you just make things up anything is possible though.
A handful of Silicon Valley elites = action by all progressives?
Good work! I would say that by applying incredibly broad generalities to a large group of people based on the actions of a handful you are definitely part of some sort of solution rather than part of the problem.
You? Part of the problem!? With mass generalities based on the actions of an incredible few like that, that would be absurd! Why would anyone mark you flamebait?
California does in fact give more than it receives from the federal government. Yes it has debt but it also has a prospering economy and a surplus budget. Meanwhile places like Silicon Valley and the surrounding areas are suffering from labor shortages which hardly sounds like "businesses can't seem to leave the state fast enough". Sure, there are parts of the state that are having a hard time of it (the Northern bits and the Valley) but our job growth out ranks most other states right now.
Now I don't think California should leave the Union as it would be as dumb as Brexit is but you're exercising pure naivety if you think the 6th largest economy in the world with one of the worlds highest per capita GDPs couldn't make it on its own.
So that's not a shit ton?
Really if you cut out the crops that can be grown almost anywhere, soy, corn, and wheat, California probably produces a majority of it for the country. The only reason why California doesnt out perform on the prior three is that those crops are only profitable in areas where you cant grow anything else. You'd be an idiot to grow corn in most parts of the California as it would be a waste of money.
All of our neighbors are deserts except North in Oregon and we most definitely don't get any water from them in any real quantity as our north is sparsely populated. Sure, small parts of the Rockies that arent in California might have their snow run off flow into California but I would hardly call that draining water from other states. There's certainly no active pumping of water to California from any of the surrounding desert states.
That's an impressive list!
Why not make up more stuff like molest children (everyone hates that!) or abuse the elderly? I'm sure if you try hard enough you can make up a waayyy better list than that one.
Real quick question. If all of the poles and the Democrats were all firmly convinced that Hillary was going to win, why would they have done all that prep work?
A second question. How about some real data on your clearly fabricated list?
Um, California doesnt really get water from outside the state to any great degree. It's the California part of the Rockies that provides the snow pack that feeds the water needs of Southern California and the Valley. The rest of the state makes due with its own reservoirs.
I can't confirm or dis-confirm your data as a casual google search has turned up nothing (really surprised it's not easy to find this data) but I do think you're being a bit conservative. With that said, even a 5% budget surplus in the 6th largest world economy in the world would be a shit ton of money.
You didn't actually read my post did you? You just read "Hillary won the popular vote" and then started typing, right?
I ask this because you didn't refute my point at all. How they campaigned makes no difference to my point as I'm not at all saying it was an unfair competition or anything of the like. They both knew the rules and Hillary lost. That still doesnt change the fact that Trump's election doesnt represent the popular will of the country.
1) Trump's threat of lawsuits because he doesn't like what some one is saying is a life style for him. Here's a start but certainly not all encompassing http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
This should be incredibly worrying coming from a President who has both chambers of Congress at his back.
2) I don't you think realize that BLM is a completely decentralized movement. Yes there are crazy people involved who just want to riot but the vast majority of their protests are perfectly peaceful and are just full of people who want to draw attention to the massive numbers of black men in this country who are dieing from violence. Just because Hillary has ties doesn't mean she endorses every single sub faction of the group.
3) If Trump treated his employees well he'd pay all of them. Furthermore, his habit of declaring bankruptcy (about 6 times I believe) and thus legally defrauding his investors for his own personal gain is rather worrying. He looks out for the people that looking out for works for him.
Technically if it was the voters deciding it would be Hillary as she won the popular vote. Going by our electoral system Trump of course won but don't pretend he won because of the pure will of the voters as there's a level of government between them and their actual voice.
As it works now only a hand full of states matter so your argument that it would marginalize states doesnt really hold up as plenty of states are marginalized as it is now. The most populous states in the union are literally ignored under the current system along with plenty of states with small populations like the entire Bible Belt, most of the South and most of the North East. Their issues are non issues for candidates because every one knows how the majority in those states are going to vote. If it was left to the popular vote though you might actually see a Presidential candidate campaigning in Mississippi or California, Kansas or Delaware, Washington or Tennessee. All of a sudden voters in those regions become relevant because everyone is.
The problems you attribute to what would happen if we switch to a purely popular vote are literally what our problems are now and could only be helped by switching to popular vote.
Honestly i just tune out when i see the SJW acronym. Whenever i see it it's almost always people complaining about the fringe left like it's the mainstream. It's exactly the same as saying all memebers of the political Right are rascist because fringe groups like the KKK and neo-nazis are on their fringes.
Spend some time off the internet and you'll realise most people are perfectly normal moderates of one slant or another. All this "I saw it on the internets so that means its widespread!" from both the Left and the Right feels like football fans arguing over whose team is better only with this stuff the pettiness is distracting far too many people from issues that actually matter.
"The Right's all rascist, misogynists, homophobes!" "The Left want to give all the jobs to gays, illegals and women and control our words!"
Please. All of you, just shut up and live your lives as best you can and stop whining. The stuff above are not our country's real problems.
That's not a great reason to not vote for some one. Every candidate for president has thier idiot supporters who believe all sorts of things. None of that changes the nature of the candidate one bit
They're just about as true as one can realistically expect from a movie based on a book.
Awe damn it.
"...because rather than focus on the humanism that the movie was literally about it focused..." = "...because rather than focus on the humanism that the book was literally about it focused..."
Given the controversy surrounding Starship Troopers the book — and, to be blunt, some of the flaws of the book itself, which reads much like polemic with (too) many scenes taking place inside classrooms with characters expressing the author's militaristic worldview to the reader as if they were one of the students — it's difficult to imagine a faithful screen version of Starship Troopers finding much success with modern audiences. Indeed, the very prospect seems oddly reminiscent of Ender's Game, a similarly beloved — and controversial — sci-fi novel that received its own movie version in 2013.
The Ender's Game failure was due very much to its NOT sticking to the book. It was an incredibly shallow movie because rather than focus on the humanism that the movie was literally about it focused on whatever flashy special effect could be applied to it. Yeah, that single battle room scene felt right out of the book but the battle room scenes served a greater purpose in the book.
The book Ender's Game would never have become the classic that it is if it was just about showcasing cool action scenes. As some one who was in accelerated academic programs but also felt a bit isolated because of it, the book was a perfect match.
(Disclaimer: I don't consider myself brilliant and / or tragic. I'm just explaining the book's draw for me.)
Again.
Oh lord, any chance for a bigoted rant about Islam, right?
OFF TOPIC!
The Lord of the Rings movies, while not without flaws, were really rather good and pretty true to the books. Likewise with Phillip K Dick's A Scanner Darkly, which considering the treatment his work usually gets by Hollywood, truly surprised me with how close to the original source material it was. Especially since it was a Keanu Reeves movie.
I agree the odds are against it, especially considering the budget required to make it look good and the writing credentials of the script writers, but it is possible for it to be fairly true to the books.
The racist part of that description got me a bit. Now granted, it's been ages since I've read the book but I don't remember anything racist about it. As you say, Federal citizenship was open to everyone, you just had to serve.
Oh lord, any chance for a bigoted rant about Islam, right?
OFF TOPIC!