Well, I'm speaking of that situation as if the US can't garner large scale support for the war. At that point, there's a severe detriment to the politics of wiping out that debt. The added interest would hurt quite a bit, too.
Put yourself in their shoes before you speak. Humanity hasn't evolved past war; that includes you, and anyone else.
Also, if you think any other military doesn't "enjoy" killing people in the same way Americans "enjoy" killing people, you're absolutely delusional. If a group of people perceives a second group of people as an immediate threat to their existence, they're going to get a kick out of killing them - just the same way that a group of athletes gets a rush from beating another team, or a group of Call of Duty players will get a kick out of beating the other team.
It's called "competitive instinct", and it's inside of you too, whether you admit it to yourself or not.
Well, my comment was more directed at the shitstorm that was made of the chopper firing at all. There's all sorts of production on the edited video circling those things they held, saying that they're cameras and tripods and whatnot, which isn't really clear to the person manning the guns.
The issue with the van seems to be a bit more clear, as I see it, which is what I imagine you're talking about.
I mean, it doesn't magically vanish. The US has to nullify it, and any nations that are aligned with China after said war starts will stop lending to the US. But, the fact of the matter is that if China decides to be an aggressor, the majority of the world is going to treat them as such, and not worry about that debt disappearing.
I think that's a very basic assessment of a very complex situation, and one which isn't necessarily correct.
The way I see it, if a war is obviously started by China or as a mutual, gradual escalation, without it being obviously and/or openly about the debt currently owed to China by the US, the US is going to have no problem gathering allies, nullifying said debt, and beating the crap out of China in any sort of war. That'd free up the US economy and cause significant growth, while not impacting the US credit rating.
If, on the other hand, the US is an aggressor, or the war is openly about the debt, then the Chinese have the upper hand, and would surely win - if not in the actual war, in the economic effects of the US having a plunging credit rating.
They only have no interest in spreading their governmental model if you mean that they don't want to convert other countries to their style. If you consider that they do actually want to literally own nearly everything in the region, then you can definitely say they want to spread their governmental model.
I now know for sure that I'm right, now that I did some looking into this matter. On AA's own website, when you look at their Dining section, they mention repeatedly, on nearly every page, that they do not accept cash as payment for anything in-flight. I believe that constitutes a fair warning.
No, it doesn't apply because there's no legal requirement that a business accepts US dollars as payment. It's a legally recognized method of debt resolution, not a legally required method.
The real issue that I see isn't that there's a judge sitting around to sign warrants. It's that the "probable cause" required by the fourth amendment, as is being used by this system, happens to be refusal to take a breathalyzer test. Refusal to bear witness against yourself is a protected right under the fifth amendment, so the logic under which the warrants are issued seems to be skewed IMO.
I see no problem with a judge on site issuing a warrant based upon something like the smell of alcohol in the car (hard to prove legitimacy, though it's probably possible with specialized equipment), or slurred speech (a cop can wear a video camera and prove this reason to be legitimate quite easily at trial), or an outright admission that the person had 12 drinks that night, but raw refusal to submit to the test seems to be covered by the bill of rights.
It's a reference to the first South Park movie, where a bunch of Mothers from the US get their panties all up in a bunch over a Canadian comedy duo they deem offensive, and start a group called "Mothers Against Canada". They campaign hard enough to start a war between the US and Canada, and almost have Terrence and Philip (the aforementioned comedy duo) executed.
The real issue is that the organization itself has a view that skews towards a certain ideology. There's not an issue with individuals within said organization having a point of view of their own (it's almost always seen in its most obvious form with selections of stories done near the end of a given anchor's newscast for filler), but it's the overarching "we'll only recruit people with X ideology" that's an issue at some of the cable networks in the US.
They don't really all arrive at the same time, and take weeks to make it across the ocean, meaning you'd use quite a bit of the space on supplies. Bad plan.
The fact is, North Korea has tons of people who are outright starving, Iran has threatened to take Israel off the map, and Israel has only started one war (but been quite effective in finishing the others quickly). You have to be absolutely crazy or brainwashed by their propaganda to say they're correct in the situation. The only time you can leave them be to do their own thing is if their intent is to let others be, which is definitely not the case with Iran, and probably not the case with North Korea.
While the US is the only country idiotic and barbaric enough to not only drop 1, but 2 of them. On major cities.
I'm pretty sure that the US is the only country to have done so because the US (at the time, run by a whole different group of people, mind you) didn't realize the true extent to which these weapons would be devastating, and their use was the lesser of two evils. See how they found Japanese on remote islands who were still fighting the war a decade later? That's why it was dropped to begin with, and then the full damage was realized - that's why the US is one of the, if not the top, forces behind nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation today.
I said not to regulate prices directly, or have government takeovers of the power companies outright. I never said to leave the whole thing unregulated; that's also a recipe for disaster. You regulate the rules of the game, but let the players play, and let new players enter at any time - just like a running poker table. It's a concept most people don't seem to have a grasp upon, yet it's the most efficient way to run an economy.
Not quite. A "free market" is one where consumers are free to choose between products, and compete within a field, not within the realm of scams and trickery. I don't use the modern republican definition of "laisseze-faire market", but rather the real intended definition. Adam Smith mentioned that the free market would degrade into monopolies and become based on greed if left unregulated, and thus basically defined a free market as being one where people are free to compete based on actual production.
That's not free market if there's companies tacking on random fees and trying to nickel and dime you. You misunderstand "free market", as most of the other people in this country do. You force competition, based on the rate of purchase, and if there's any additional fee, it's regulated to be the same between all companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm speaking of that situation as if the US can't garner large scale support for the war. At that point, there's a severe detriment to the politics of wiping out that debt. The added interest would hurt quite a bit, too.
Put yourself in their shoes before you speak. Humanity hasn't evolved past war; that includes you, and anyone else.
Also, if you think any other military doesn't "enjoy" killing people in the same way Americans "enjoy" killing people, you're absolutely delusional. If a group of people perceives a second group of people as an immediate threat to their existence, they're going to get a kick out of killing them - just the same way that a group of athletes gets a rush from beating another team, or a group of Call of Duty players will get a kick out of beating the other team.
It's called "competitive instinct", and it's inside of you too, whether you admit it to yourself or not.
I love how they didn't post the full text of the study, just the abstract.
Well, my comment was more directed at the shitstorm that was made of the chopper firing at all. There's all sorts of production on the edited video circling those things they held, saying that they're cameras and tripods and whatnot, which isn't really clear to the person manning the guns.
The issue with the van seems to be a bit more clear, as I see it, which is what I imagine you're talking about.
I mean, it doesn't magically vanish. The US has to nullify it, and any nations that are aligned with China after said war starts will stop lending to the US. But, the fact of the matter is that if China decides to be an aggressor, the majority of the world is going to treat them as such, and not worry about that debt disappearing.
Yeah, the other (edited) version makes it seem much more cut and dry wrong for them to have fired, but the reality is that it's not a simple issue.
I've seen it too. It's at about 1:40 that you see what look like guns, 2:35ish where it looks like an RPG.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik
It was pretty damn good at it, since it moved faster than any missile that would have been launched at it, as well.
I think that's a very basic assessment of a very complex situation, and one which isn't necessarily correct.
The way I see it, if a war is obviously started by China or as a mutual, gradual escalation, without it being obviously and/or openly about the debt currently owed to China by the US, the US is going to have no problem gathering allies, nullifying said debt, and beating the crap out of China in any sort of war. That'd free up the US economy and cause significant growth, while not impacting the US credit rating.
If, on the other hand, the US is an aggressor, or the war is openly about the debt, then the Chinese have the upper hand, and would surely win - if not in the actual war, in the economic effects of the US having a plunging credit rating.
They only have no interest in spreading their governmental model if you mean that they don't want to convert other countries to their style. If you consider that they do actually want to literally own nearly everything in the region, then you can definitely say they want to spread their governmental model.
It would also be at an altitude much higher than a Cessna.
I now know for sure that I'm right, now that I did some looking into this matter. On AA's own website, when you look at their Dining section, they mention repeatedly, on nearly every page, that they do not accept cash as payment for anything in-flight. I believe that constitutes a fair warning.
No, it doesn't apply because there's no legal requirement that a business accepts US dollars as payment. It's a legally recognized method of debt resolution, not a legally required method.
What's interesting about that site is that it doesn't show a single country being in the black as far as debt is concerned.
The real issue that I see isn't that there's a judge sitting around to sign warrants. It's that the "probable cause" required by the fourth amendment, as is being used by this system, happens to be refusal to take a breathalyzer test. Refusal to bear witness against yourself is a protected right under the fifth amendment, so the logic under which the warrants are issued seems to be skewed IMO.
I see no problem with a judge on site issuing a warrant based upon something like the smell of alcohol in the car (hard to prove legitimacy, though it's probably possible with specialized equipment), or slurred speech (a cop can wear a video camera and prove this reason to be legitimate quite easily at trial), or an outright admission that the person had 12 drinks that night, but raw refusal to submit to the test seems to be covered by the bill of rights.
It's a reference to the first South Park movie, where a bunch of Mothers from the US get their panties all up in a bunch over a Canadian comedy duo they deem offensive, and start a group called "Mothers Against Canada". They campaign hard enough to start a war between the US and Canada, and almost have Terrence and Philip (the aforementioned comedy duo) executed.
The real issue is that the organization itself has a view that skews towards a certain ideology. There's not an issue with individuals within said organization having a point of view of their own (it's almost always seen in its most obvious form with selections of stories done near the end of a given anchor's newscast for filler), but it's the overarching "we'll only recruit people with X ideology" that's an issue at some of the cable networks in the US.
They don't really all arrive at the same time, and take weeks to make it across the ocean, meaning you'd use quite a bit of the space on supplies. Bad plan.
The last time I checked, the only service they charge for is IP-based to a standard phone connection, not any PC-to-PC stuff.
Iraq is under British occupation? Are you seriously saying that Iraq was a thing done by Americans on behalf of the British?
The fact is, North Korea has tons of people who are outright starving, Iran has threatened to take Israel off the map, and Israel has only started one war (but been quite effective in finishing the others quickly). You have to be absolutely crazy or brainwashed by their propaganda to say they're correct in the situation. The only time you can leave them be to do their own thing is if their intent is to let others be, which is definitely not the case with Iran, and probably not the case with North Korea.
While the US is the only country idiotic and barbaric enough to not only drop 1, but 2 of them. On major cities.
I'm pretty sure that the US is the only country to have done so because the US (at the time, run by a whole different group of people, mind you) didn't realize the true extent to which these weapons would be devastating, and their use was the lesser of two evils. See how they found Japanese on remote islands who were still fighting the war a decade later? That's why it was dropped to begin with, and then the full damage was realized - that's why the US is one of the, if not the top, forces behind nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation today.
undoing bad mod.
I said not to regulate prices directly, or have government takeovers of the power companies outright. I never said to leave the whole thing unregulated; that's also a recipe for disaster. You regulate the rules of the game, but let the players play, and let new players enter at any time - just like a running poker table. It's a concept most people don't seem to have a grasp upon, yet it's the most efficient way to run an economy.
Not quite. A "free market" is one where consumers are free to choose between products, and compete within a field, not within the realm of scams and trickery. I don't use the modern republican definition of "laisseze-faire market", but rather the real intended definition. Adam Smith mentioned that the free market would degrade into monopolies and become based on greed if left unregulated, and thus basically defined a free market as being one where people are free to compete based on actual production.
That's not free market if there's companies tacking on random fees and trying to nickel and dime you. You misunderstand "free market", as most of the other people in this country do. You force competition, based on the rate of purchase, and if there's any additional fee, it's regulated to be the same between all companies.