Must I, or are you just dodging?
You see, I asked you for yours, because upon googling, I could find no such study information.
Now, if you google "gender differences in spatial intelligence", you're going to have quite a different result. The consensus is moving toward spatial ability gender differences being a matter of nurture, not nature. Determined by culture, not sex organs.
Should citation be provided, the onus is on you to decide what it was before the advent of video games that led to the dichotomy. I can certainly come up with many solid guesses that we could pursue.
However, the fact remains, that with a modern population, the disparity does not exist where today's methods of a young male honing his spatial acuity are also practiced by a female.
How about the fact that females have a higher average than males on language testing? Or that males beat females on spatial acuity tests?
While these statements are accurate, you're drawing improper conclusions that the studies themselves did not.
There are many upbringing differences between the average male and female, that when brought into parity remove the full standard deviation in spatial intelligence quotient, for example. Video games are a big factor.
There is no evidence, whatsoever, that the statistical difference is in any way physiological.
Set up an entire NSA team to infiltrate the Chinese military establishment and depants their national security secrets on a Wikileaks-By-Uncle-Sam level
There's far too much value for us in them not knowing what we know. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the Chinese military establishment is largely depantsed already.
Not arguing your core point, but it seems to me that a multi-century comparison of wildfire severity would be a ridiculously useless metric. A lot like a multi-century comparison of influenza mortality rates being used to prove that the flu is now less virulent.
Communism is totalitarian state-controlled capitalism
Not really. You've just demonstrated that you don't really understand what that big Socialist spectre that was fed into your throat by McCarthy really is. Though I'm guessing we agree that Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism certainly progressed in that direction. I'm not trying to fall prey to No True Scotsman, but it is a fact that totalitarian state control of the economy/state ownership is *not* a prerequisite of Socialism or Communism.
Own a mutual fund ? 401k ?
Sure do. I wouldn't quite call my 401k equitable ownership of the company that profits from my labor. I'd estimate my compensation is somewhere around 1/10th of the actual value I create, and my 401k gets me somewhere close to 1/10000000th ownership I'd otherwise deserve in an equitable Socialist economy.
Totalitarian regimes are totalitarian regimes, you just think your shit doesn't stink.
We agree entirely! I think you've made my point. Totalitarian regimes are totalitarian regimes, whether they're right-wing Fascist nationalists, or left-wing Communists. Totalitarianism is orthogonal to economic theory. Revolutionaries have a tendency to be totalitarian shitbags, however, so there we are. But I can't remember the last time someone called Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand, or Belgium totalitarian regimes.
Well if you are going to go around correcting people you might as well get your facts straight first
http://mises.org/library/origi... [mises.org]
Wait, a columnist employed by a neoconservative think-tank is a source of facts? Excellent.
Unfortunately, he falls prey to also misusing the word Socialism.
"Most long-standing spectra include a right wing and left wing, which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution (1789–99).[1] According to the simplest left–right axis, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right. "
Were the Nazis Socialists, or were they Fascists? Boko Haram fancies themselves Freedom Fighters, yet I'm not sure I'd call an Islamist Theocracy free.
Ah, yes. I can see how one could try to spin that as authoritative without giving the context in which the picture is placed. Here, I'll go ahead and do that for the audience.
"One alternative spectrum offered by the conservative American Federalist Journal[29] accounts for only the "Degree of Government Control" without consideration for any other social or political variable, and thus places "Fascism" (totalitarianism) at one extreme and "Anarchy" (no government at all) at the other extreme."
That's quite the claim of authority, right there.
Here's bonus points for you, In your own words what is the effective difference between Communism and Nazism ?
Simple. Nazism isn't Communism. Nazism is totalitarian state-controlled capitalism. It makes no attempt at moving toward social ownership of the means of production, unless one wants to twist the Leninist interpretation of Marxism to include Dictator-owned as social ownership. It doesn't make any attempt at eliminating class struggle between bourgeois and proletariat. In fact, there was literally nothing about Nazism that was Socialist. Sure, there were plenty of aspects of the Welfare State within the political ideology, but those existed before hand, and are not aspects of the definition of Socialism.
When you are done stuttering and trying to come up with something you might want to think about apologizing to all the people you have without doubt been a douchebag to.
Sounds like the argument for literally now meaning literally... or not literally.
Forced redistribution isn't usually an aspect of Socialism. Policies that encourage natural redistribution in an equitable fashion is an aspect of Socialism. The fact that Fox News and Glenn Beck have redefined the word doesn't matter to me. They're more than allowed to continue being wrong.
Forced redistribution has been a facet of Communist regimes, and Monarchies, left-wing and right. Even democracies from time to time. It's usually a product of totalitarianism, rather than economic theory or policy. It all depends what you're redistributing to. If you're moving toward equity of the people, you're likely a Communist. If you're padding your own pockets, or further empowering the state machinery that you are directly in control of, you're likely a dictator who believes nothing in Socialism.
The U.S. doesn't engage in redistribution of wealth toward the proletariat any more than it engages in redistribution of wealth from the proletariat into the Military Industrial Complex, which can very easily be shown to really only benefit the bourgeois.
When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.
How does one respond to incorrect information? I don't know what to tell you, your political spectrum is incorrect as accepted internationally in political science discourse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TI8b...
That is much close to the political science norm in the definitions of both.
But I thank you for your attempt at reclassifying your fascist tendencies as something belonging to "the other side" instead of something you share willingly with them.
The policies implemented by the National Socialists included things like a livable minimum wage, laws that prevented workers from being fired without government approval
And laws that prevented employees from quitting their jobs, or forming a Union, or exercising the rights the Unions that still existed had.
government appointed "observers" on the Boards of companies, very high progressive tax rates, nationalization of industry
These are all things done in most autocratic dictatorship regimes. Turns out absolute leaders like absolute power.
Leftist progressive policies for over a century
Policies instituted by many left-wing revolutions- definitely. Balanced and blueprinted by 2000 years of right-ring rule. They didn't invent state control, and it's entirely orthogonal to their goals.
The Nazis were Leftists. You may not like it, but it is true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
The nazis were right-wingers who used some left-wing thought to win some elections and institute a totalitarian regime. Everything after that point was simple slavery of the people, which has existed in both far-right and far-left governments, and been missing from both as well.
You may not like it, but a lot more people agree with me than agree with you.
Man, your indoctrination is really complete, isn't it. And your use of slanders of insults betrays the fact you are unable of critical thinking or reasoned debate. So sad that you choose to deny reality, and you help to advance the fascist agenda of the Statist Collectivists who necessarily must crush individual liberty.
I find that to be a fascinating accusation coming from someone who posts a diagram presenting a political spread with terminology supported by only a tiny fraction of people, existing primarily only in the United States, who are regarded by almost all other groups of people to be insane.
In economics terms a Fascist system is one where: The Means of Production remains in private hands, but the Fruits of Production are controlled by the State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
More reading for you.
In a fascist system, everything is controlled by the dictator, for the will of the dictator. Those who play ball are allowed limited autonomy. Simply because the dictator is effectively "the State" does not mean that the economics in play are left-wing, particularly because the State in no way represents the people anymore in an autocratic dictatorship. Fascism is not left-wing economics. It's pre-Magna Carta England economics: Do what I say, or I'll fucking kill you. Hail to the King, baby.
This is exactly the system that the Democratic Party of the USA is trying to implement. They chose Barack Obama to help advance this agenda (which he agrees with, if you listen carefully) because of his skin color. This US is so racist it judges people by their skin color, and Barack Obama is immune from criticisms that a white President would have been impeached for. The Left knows this and used it against the population of the US that it seeks to subjugate and control ("for their own good") as it takes a flamethrower to citizen protections in the Constitution.
This is a massive pile of horse shit that you can't begin to back up. While I think most people wouldn't disagree that Democrats are certainly Statists, they're in no way unaligned with the Republicans on this point. It's one of the few things they agree on. The primary disagreement is on protection of the people rendered powerless by both parties, and protections of the Corporations from attack by the people. The social issues are purely red herrings to distract the weak minded.
Do you not understand that Far Left Fascism and Extreme Left Communism were rivals in World War II? It is only disinformation from the communists against their rivals (starting in the schism of the Left in the Spanish Civil War) that calls the Far Left National Socialists "right wing" (which everyone is from the perspective of the Communists of the Extreme Left).
Again, Nazi Germany was far-right. Nazism is far-right. Fascism in general evolved to be far-right everywhere it was instituted. No matter how much you seem to want far-right to be
You started out stupid, and just went to full on fucktard.
Congratulations, friend. You are officially an idiot.
You have gotten caught up on the word "Socialism", indeed, a left-wing ideal in the National Socialism name, without any knowledge as to why it is there, and what it meant.
Since you are, in fact, an ignorant douche-wad, I will educate you. The National Socialist movenent, or nazism for brevity, sought to sell left-wingers on a "new brand" of socialism, one that rejected class struggle, international communism, and equality.
It was an attempt by very far-right nationalists to usurp the Socialist movement, and it was successful. So successful, in fact, that 85 years later, ignorant hillbillies in America still think that nazis were left-wingers. Some people just can't figure out that a left-leaning or right-leaning revolution has about an equal change of turning into a totalitarian shithole full of mass-murder. Ones that end in stability right away are pretty goddamn rare.
The first order of business for the "National Socialists" was to essentially outlaw anything resembling socialism, communism, or progressivism in Germany. They were Nationalist Totalitarian Statist Crony Capitalists. Not a far cry from Republicans and Democrats today in the US, minus all the genocide shit.
I hope the little bit of knowledge I have presented here today has diluted the tea-party diarrhea that fills the void between your ears.
Congress controls the purse-strings, has the sole power to declare war, and is beholden to public opinion regardless of whether or not the President is running for re-election.
On points A and B, one cannot argue.
On point C, I'd be very, very interested to see some evidence that the US Congress needs to give 2 squirts of piss about public opinion. Commercials and media coverage buy votes. It's legal for literally any source of money to give politicians infinite amounts of these things, ergo, they are in fact beholden to someone's opinion, but it isn't the public's- at least not until political advertising money loses its efficacy.
I look forward to a day when the US Congress has an approval rating suggesting someone in there would actually be reelected.
Maybe you can suggest a path to an AUMF against Iran in the current political climate?
Sure can't:(
Where are your 218/51 yea votes coming from? Recall that two years ago BHO withdrew his request for Congressional approval to intervene in Syria rather than see it defeated, as it was destined to be.
The 218/51 have already made up their mind, quite contrary to public opinion. Now begins the march to moving public opinion to align with their next major government bailout. The MIC is feeling the squeeze since the last 2 wars started winding down, dollar wise. It'll take some scare mongering, maybe a disaster, perhaps an almost-stopped terror attempt. Who knows, but if these chaps have shown anything, they can and will control the will of the electorate. It's even easier when their constituents are watered down fundamentalists, practically foaming at the mouth to wage a jihad of their own.
Your ignorance is showing, tool.
Why not just do a little bit of research... just a tiny fucking bit, before spewing shit like that? You understand that when people are as ill informed as you, they make perfect puppets for war-mongering profiteers, right? Or are you somehow also invested in that game?
The ACA is a stinking pile of shit, only outshined by the putrid wasteland the preceded it. The President made a stupid promise without listing the caveats, like Your insurance company will probably still do really dickish shit that they did before that this law does not prevent, like forcing you to change your insurance plan and allowed doctors every year or two. But I hardly think it was an outright attempt at deception. I think he was trying to respond to Republican claims that it was a nationalist takeover of healthcare, by poorly wording the statement: "This law doesn't force any changes upon what doctors you can see, or what insurance plans you have"
It was a stupidly worded promise. He should have said, "The passage of this law will not force you to give up your current insurance. Your health providers may still ditch your insurance plan, as they do every 2 years to half of the country, but this law does not mandate it."
It's a good jab, but the way you throw the punch is intellectually dishonest, and for that, you're a fuckwit.
Islam? Your tiny brain is still stuck in some bizarre Constantine era us-vs-them Abrahamic bastard religion inter-fighting? Come on, dude. Not even the politicians pushing for war are stupid enough to believe that bullshit. Just the idiots they get to vote for them. Religion makes people easy to control, it's a whole barrel full of ready-to-tap prejudice, bigotry, and ancient animosity. It can be used to fire cannon fodder at enemy you want. If you want war, whether for profit, or tiny-dick syndrome, you want people who think $Religion_X is the enemy. Fuck you.
Well, you're certainly correct, but at the same time... The isolationist pre-war US was by no means a scary world power, either. But the potential was there. Sleeping dragon, and all that.
Just because Germany had been kicked in the nuts and constantly urinated on after the Great War, didn't mean it suddenly didn't have the terrifyingly powerful economic and brain power on tap, ready to be focused with a little bit of hatred over what had been done to them. Germany didn't deserve the Treaty of Versailles, at least not for the first World War. An evil man didn't lead them to war, and they're guilty of nothing that everyone else wasn't guilty of.
You are being somewhat disingenuous...
They have repeatedly call for the eradication of the Zionist regime, not the whole-sale slaughter of every Israeli citizen. Frankly, I have a lot of trouble disagreeing with the assessment that the little apartheid Napoleon-complex shit-stain of a rabid bull terrier "certain other country" is in very dire need of a regime change.
Further still, consider that Iran can essentially control the Straits of Hormuz
LOL. I suppose they could drop one of their scuds with a half-dud tactical nuke on the straits in an effort to wipe out the Earth's largest and most advanced collection of water-borne military gear... short of that, past engagements have not been in their favor. The longer they wait, even less wild cards they'll have to throw in the mix for 1 symbolic sinking of a ship before they're obliterated... Come on. Let's be realistic. I know they talk tough, but their actions signify just how rightfully scared they are of war with the US.
Do you have evidence that they were pursuing The Bomb in violation of Clinton era agreements?
I'm curious, because all the information I can find seems to show the entire thing went into a rapid "build a nuke quick" tailspin only after Bush called them part of the Axis of Evil (not that I'm in any way defending NK)
I'm not actually trying to assign any blame... but it appears you've been called out and shown evidence of your claims being bullshit, and entirely avoided responding to them. What *was* Clinton's damage?
Well, I use Python on a regular basis, I'm well-known in my circles as the guy who exploited vulnerabilities in the radio software and bootloaders of 4 Android phones, and broke the RSA protection on the RAZR V3. I also worked on the early iPhones and developed a way to dump and decrypt bootloader blocks by manipulating the kernel page tables once we had temporary root. https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/... references my code and an exploit I discovered and was also widely used.
I've been mentioned in a book, invited to security conferences, and written piles of kernel-level and below code. I wouldn't call myself a dumbass, and I don't know many who would. Python's indentation still sucks my ass. Maybe my brain is just programmed to want structure in a way that's more flexible, I don't know. But I fucking hate it. I stumble across it frequently and get highly annoyed with its constraints. I think those are definitely valid complaints, even if they may only apply to me. Flexibility wins.
You're also a closed-minded dick.
YMMV, of course, but a while back I had to compile some software written in the 90s in c++ for whatever the STL target for linux was back then, on a modern linux machine.
The corrections needed to compile with today's STL were far from minor.
In 24 states, they are required, with criminal punishments, or vote nullification as a consequence of faithless voting. In most states there are laws making it unlikely for faithless voting (allowing some form of winner selection of elector).
It's not quite as bad as you make it sound. It might be if the states weren't allowed to regulate their electors.
Slashdot Mirror
Must I, or are you just dodging?
You see, I asked you for yours, because upon googling, I could find no such study information.
Now, if you google "gender differences in spatial intelligence", you're going to have quite a different result. The consensus is moving toward spatial ability gender differences being a matter of nurture, not nature. Determined by culture, not sex organs.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
http://pss.sagepub.com/content...
Wikipedia has probably the most comprehensive list of scientific citations on the topic, with the debunkings of decades-old studies that failed to account for even a modicum of non-physiological possibilities. You should read up. Learn something new.
Ultimately, though, given just how much information there is on the topic, I'm pretty sure you're playing off of some pre-conceived cultural leanings.
[citation needed]
Should citation be provided, the onus is on you to decide what it was before the advent of video games that led to the dichotomy. I can certainly come up with many solid guesses that we could pursue.
However, the fact remains, that with a modern population, the disparity does not exist where today's methods of a young male honing his spatial acuity are also practiced by a female.
How about the fact that females have a higher average than males on language testing? Or that males beat females on spatial acuity tests?
While these statements are accurate, you're drawing improper conclusions that the studies themselves did not.
There are many upbringing differences between the average male and female, that when brought into parity remove the full standard deviation in spatial intelligence quotient, for example. Video games are a big factor. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that the statistical difference is in any way physiological.
Set up an entire NSA team to infiltrate the Chinese military establishment and depants their national security secrets on a Wikileaks-By-Uncle-Sam level
There's far too much value for us in them not knowing what we know. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the Chinese military establishment is largely depantsed already.
Not arguing your core point, but it seems to me that a multi-century comparison of wildfire severity would be a ridiculously useless metric. A lot like a multi-century comparison of influenza mortality rates being used to prove that the flu is now less virulent.
Communism is totalitarian state-controlled capitalism
Not really. You've just demonstrated that you don't really understand what that big Socialist spectre that was fed into your throat by McCarthy really is. Though I'm guessing we agree that Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism certainly progressed in that direction. I'm not trying to fall prey to No True Scotsman, but it is a fact that totalitarian state control of the economy/state ownership is *not* a prerequisite of Socialism or Communism.
Own a mutual fund ? 401k ?
Sure do. I wouldn't quite call my 401k equitable ownership of the company that profits from my labor. I'd estimate my compensation is somewhere around 1/10th of the actual value I create, and my 401k gets me somewhere close to 1/10000000th ownership I'd otherwise deserve in an equitable Socialist economy.
Totalitarian regimes are totalitarian regimes, you just think your shit doesn't stink.
We agree entirely! I think you've made my point. Totalitarian regimes are totalitarian regimes, whether they're right-wing Fascist nationalists, or left-wing Communists. Totalitarianism is orthogonal to economic theory. Revolutionaries have a tendency to be totalitarian shitbags, however, so there we are. But I can't remember the last time someone called Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand, or Belgium totalitarian regimes.
Well if you are going to go around correcting people you might as well get your facts straight first http://mises.org/library/origi... [mises.org]
Wait, a columnist employed by a neoconservative think-tank is a source of facts? Excellent.
Unfortunately, he falls prey to also misusing the word Socialism.
You might even try reading the sources you are linking to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
Good idea. FTS:
"Most long-standing spectra include a right wing and left wing, which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution (1789–99).[1] According to the simplest left–right axis, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right. "
Were the Nazis Socialists, or were they Fascists? Boko Haram fancies themselves Freedom Fighters, yet I'm not sure I'd call an Islamist Theocracy free.
Or at least try looking at the pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
Ah, yes. I can see how one could try to spin that as authoritative without giving the context in which the picture is placed. Here, I'll go ahead and do that for the audience.
"One alternative spectrum offered by the conservative American Federalist Journal[29] accounts for only the "Degree of Government Control" without consideration for any other social or political variable, and thus places "Fascism" (totalitarianism) at one extreme and "Anarchy" (no government at all) at the other extreme."
That's quite the claim of authority, right there.
Here's bonus points for you, In your own words what is the effective difference between Communism and Nazism ?
Simple. Nazism isn't Communism. Nazism is totalitarian state-controlled capitalism. It makes no attempt at moving toward social ownership of the means of production, unless one wants to twist the Leninist interpretation of Marxism to include Dictator-owned as social ownership. It doesn't make any attempt at eliminating class struggle between bourgeois and proletariat. In fact, there was literally nothing about Nazism that was Socialist. Sure, there were plenty of aspects of the Welfare State within the political ideology, but those existed before hand, and are not aspects of the definition of Socialism.
When you are done stuttering and trying to come up with something you might want to think about apologizing to all the people you have without doubt been a douchebag to.
Hardly. You're still a tool.
Sounds like the argument for literally now meaning literally... or not literally.
Forced redistribution isn't usually an aspect of Socialism. Policies that encourage natural redistribution in an equitable fashion is an aspect of Socialism. The fact that Fox News and Glenn Beck have redefined the word doesn't matter to me. They're more than allowed to continue being wrong.
Forced redistribution has been a facet of Communist regimes, and Monarchies, left-wing and right. Even democracies from time to time. It's usually a product of totalitarianism, rather than economic theory or policy. It all depends what you're redistributing to. If you're moving toward equity of the people, you're likely a Communist. If you're padding your own pockets, or further empowering the state machinery that you are directly in control of, you're likely a dictator who believes nothing in Socialism.
The U.S. doesn't engage in redistribution of wealth toward the proletariat any more than it engages in redistribution of wealth from the proletariat into the Military Industrial Complex, which can very easily be shown to really only benefit the bourgeois.
When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.
How does one respond to incorrect information? I don't know what to tell you, your political spectrum is incorrect as accepted internationally in political science discourse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TI8b...
That is much close to the political science norm in the definitions of both.
But I thank you for your attempt at reclassifying your fascist tendencies as something belonging to "the other side" instead of something you share willingly with them.
The policies implemented by the National Socialists included things like a livable minimum wage, laws that prevented workers from being fired without government approval
And laws that prevented employees from quitting their jobs, or forming a Union, or exercising the rights the Unions that still existed had.
government appointed "observers" on the Boards of companies, very high progressive tax rates, nationalization of industry
These are all things done in most autocratic dictatorship regimes. Turns out absolute leaders like absolute power.
Leftist progressive policies for over a century
Policies instituted by many left-wing revolutions- definitely. Balanced and blueprinted by 2000 years of right-ring rule. They didn't invent state control, and it's entirely orthogonal to their goals.
The Nazis were Leftists. You may not like it, but it is true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
The nazis were right-wingers who used some left-wing thought to win some elections and institute a totalitarian regime. Everything after that point was simple slavery of the people, which has existed in both far-right and far-left governments, and been missing from both as well.
You may not like it, but a lot more people agree with me than agree with you.
Man, your indoctrination is really complete, isn't it. And your use of slanders of insults betrays the fact you are unable of critical thinking or reasoned debate. So sad that you choose to deny reality, and you help to advance the fascist agenda of the Statist Collectivists who necessarily must crush individual liberty.
I find that to be a fascinating accusation coming from someone who posts a diagram presenting a political spread with terminology supported by only a tiny fraction of people, existing primarily only in the United States, who are regarded by almost all other groups of people to be insane.
Please study the following diagram: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TI8b... [blogspot.com]
I'll raise you a bullshit blogspot opinion diagram with a bullshit wordpress opinion diagram.
https://sepetjian.files.wordpr...
or another:
http://fee.org/files/imglib/20...
Hell, let's just go with some reading material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
In particular:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
The citations are numerous, you may go through them- though many are books used in classical political science courses.
In economics terms a Fascist system is one where: The Means of Production remains in private hands, but the Fruits of Production are controlled by the State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
More reading for you.
In a fascist system, everything is controlled by the dictator, for the will of the dictator. Those who play ball are allowed limited autonomy. Simply because the dictator is effectively "the State" does not mean that the economics in play are left-wing, particularly because the State in no way represents the people anymore in an autocratic dictatorship. Fascism is not left-wing economics. It's pre-Magna Carta England economics: Do what I say, or I'll fucking kill you. Hail to the King, baby.
This is exactly the system that the Democratic Party of the USA is trying to implement. They chose Barack Obama to help advance this agenda (which he agrees with, if you listen carefully) because of his skin color. This US is so racist it judges people by their skin color, and Barack Obama is immune from criticisms that a white President would have been impeached for. The Left knows this and used it against the population of the US that it seeks to subjugate and control ("for their own good") as it takes a flamethrower to citizen protections in the Constitution.
This is a massive pile of horse shit that you can't begin to back up. While I think most people wouldn't disagree that Democrats are certainly Statists, they're in no way unaligned with the Republicans on this point. It's one of the few things they agree on. The primary disagreement is on protection of the people rendered powerless by both parties, and protections of the Corporations from attack by the people. The social issues are purely red herrings to distract the weak minded.
Do you not understand that Far Left Fascism and Extreme Left Communism were rivals in World War II? It is only disinformation from the communists against their rivals (starting in the schism of the Left in the Spanish Civil War) that calls the Far Left National Socialists "right wing" (which everyone is from the perspective of the Communists of the Extreme Left).
Again, Nazi Germany was far-right. Nazism is far-right. Fascism in general evolved to be far-right everywhere it was instituted. No matter how much you seem to want far-right to be
Leftism brought you National Socialism
You started out stupid, and just went to full on fucktard.
Congratulations, friend. You are officially an idiot.
You have gotten caught up on the word "Socialism", indeed, a left-wing ideal in the National Socialism name, without any knowledge as to why it is there, and what it meant.
Since you are, in fact, an ignorant douche-wad, I will educate you. The National Socialist movenent, or nazism for brevity, sought to sell left-wingers on a "new brand" of socialism, one that rejected class struggle, international communism, and equality.
It was an attempt by very far-right nationalists to usurp the Socialist movement, and it was successful. So successful, in fact, that 85 years later, ignorant hillbillies in America still think that nazis were left-wingers. Some people just can't figure out that a left-leaning or right-leaning revolution has about an equal change of turning into a totalitarian shithole full of mass-murder. Ones that end in stability right away are pretty goddamn rare.
The first order of business for the "National Socialists" was to essentially outlaw anything resembling socialism, communism, or progressivism in Germany. They were Nationalist Totalitarian Statist Crony Capitalists. Not a far cry from Republicans and Democrats today in the US, minus all the genocide shit.
I hope the little bit of knowledge I have presented here today has diluted the tea-party diarrhea that fills the void between your ears.
It's quite simple really.
Heh.
Congress controls the purse-strings, has the sole power to declare war, and is beholden to public opinion regardless of whether or not the President is running for re-election.
On points A and B, one cannot argue. On point C, I'd be very, very interested to see some evidence that the US Congress needs to give 2 squirts of piss about public opinion. Commercials and media coverage buy votes. It's legal for literally any source of money to give politicians infinite amounts of these things, ergo, they are in fact beholden to someone's opinion, but it isn't the public's- at least not until political advertising money loses its efficacy.
I look forward to a day when the US Congress has an approval rating suggesting someone in there would actually be reelected.
Maybe you can suggest a path to an AUMF against Iran in the current political climate?
Sure can't :(
Where are your 218/51 yea votes coming from? Recall that two years ago BHO withdrew his request for Congressional approval to intervene in Syria rather than see it defeated, as it was destined to be.
The 218/51 have already made up their mind, quite contrary to public opinion. Now begins the march to moving public opinion to align with their next major government bailout. The MIC is feeling the squeeze since the last 2 wars started winding down, dollar wise. It'll take some scare mongering, maybe a disaster, perhaps an almost-stopped terror attempt. Who knows, but if these chaps have shown anything, they can and will control the will of the electorate. It's even easier when their constituents are watered down fundamentalists, practically foaming at the mouth to wage a jihad of their own.
Your ignorance is showing, tool.
Why not just do a little bit of research... just a tiny fucking bit, before spewing shit like that? You understand that when people are as ill informed as you, they make perfect puppets for war-mongering profiteers, right? Or are you somehow also invested in that game?
The ACA is a stinking pile of shit, only outshined by the putrid wasteland the preceded it. The President made a stupid promise without listing the caveats, like Your insurance company will probably still do really dickish shit that they did before that this law does not prevent, like forcing you to change your insurance plan and allowed doctors every year or two. But I hardly think it was an outright attempt at deception. I think he was trying to respond to Republican claims that it was a nationalist takeover of healthcare, by poorly wording the statement: "This law doesn't force any changes upon what doctors you can see, or what insurance plans you have"
It was a stupidly worded promise. He should have said, "The passage of this law will not force you to give up your current insurance. Your health providers may still ditch your insurance plan, as they do every 2 years to half of the country, but this law does not mandate it."
It's a good jab, but the way you throw the punch is intellectually dishonest, and for that, you're a fuckwit.
Islam? Your tiny brain is still stuck in some bizarre Constantine era us-vs-them Abrahamic bastard religion inter-fighting? Come on, dude. Not even the politicians pushing for war are stupid enough to believe that bullshit. Just the idiots they get to vote for them. Religion makes people easy to control, it's a whole barrel full of ready-to-tap prejudice, bigotry, and ancient animosity. It can be used to fire cannon fodder at enemy you want. If you want war, whether for profit, or tiny-dick syndrome, you want people who think $Religion_X is the enemy. Fuck you.
Well, you're certainly correct, but at the same time... The isolationist pre-war US was by no means a scary world power, either. But the potential was there. Sleeping dragon, and all that.
Just because Germany had been kicked in the nuts and constantly urinated on after the Great War, didn't mean it suddenly didn't have the terrifyingly powerful economic and brain power on tap, ready to be focused with a little bit of hatred over what had been done to them. Germany didn't deserve the Treaty of Versailles, at least not for the first World War. An evil man didn't lead them to war, and they're guilty of nothing that everyone else wasn't guilty of.
You are being somewhat disingenuous...
They have repeatedly call for the eradication of the Zionist regime, not the whole-sale slaughter of every Israeli citizen. Frankly, I have a lot of trouble disagreeing with the assessment that the little apartheid Napoleon-complex shit-stain of a rabid bull terrier "certain other country" is in very dire need of a regime change.
Further still, consider that Iran can essentially control the Straits of Hormuz
LOL. I suppose they could drop one of their scuds with a half-dud tactical nuke on the straits in an effort to wipe out the Earth's largest and most advanced collection of water-borne military gear... short of that, past engagements have not been in their favor. The longer they wait, even less wild cards they'll have to throw in the mix for 1 symbolic sinking of a ship before they're obliterated... Come on. Let's be realistic. I know they talk tough, but their actions signify just how rightfully scared they are of war with the US.
Wait, what?
Article 1 speaks of the executive?
And to think, when I was in school, we still effectively taught civics; yet I have no idea what you're talking about.
What exactly in the US Constitution makes you think what you think?
Do you have evidence that they were pursuing The Bomb in violation of Clinton era agreements?
I'm curious, because all the information I can find seems to show the entire thing went into a rapid "build a nuke quick" tailspin only after Bush called them part of the Axis of Evil (not that I'm in any way defending NK)
I'm not actually trying to assign any blame... but it appears you've been called out and shown evidence of your claims being bullshit, and entirely avoided responding to them. What *was* Clinton's damage?
Well, I use Python on a regular basis, I'm well-known in my circles as the guy who exploited vulnerabilities in the radio software and bootloaders of 4 Android phones, and broke the RSA protection on the RAZR V3. I also worked on the early iPhones and developed a way to dump and decrypt bootloader blocks by manipulating the kernel page tables once we had temporary root.
https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/... references my code and an exploit I discovered and was also widely used.
I've been mentioned in a book, invited to security conferences, and written piles of kernel-level and below code. I wouldn't call myself a dumbass, and I don't know many who would. Python's indentation still sucks my ass. Maybe my brain is just programmed to want structure in a way that's more flexible, I don't know. But I fucking hate it. I stumble across it frequently and get highly annoyed with its constraints. I think those are definitely valid complaints, even if they may only apply to me. Flexibility wins.
You're also a closed-minded dick.
YMMV, of course, but a while back I had to compile some software written in the 90s in c++ for whatever the STL target for linux was back then, on a modern linux machine.
The corrections needed to compile with today's STL were far from minor.
In 24 states, they are required, with criminal punishments, or vote nullification as a consequence of faithless voting. In most states there are laws making it unlikely for faithless voting (allowing some form of winner selection of elector).
It's not quite as bad as you make it sound. It might be if the states weren't allowed to regulate their electors.