Omnicide and the animated tac nuke emblem.
Occasionally I use Enemy of the State as a title
Occasionally I use Enemy of the State as a title
Akimbo 1887s = insta nuke.Mugen wrote:
M16
UMP (no damage falloff/damage reduction with silencer = raep raep raep)
And if I feel like being a dick I'll go with Akimbo Rangers/1887's
I think I've encountered like, maybe, 3 honest-to-goodness hacks (aimbots/wallhacks and such, people with impossibly high ranks are ubiquitous) and possibly 5 or so probables ('course it's impossible to tell without any mods or fucking monitoring tools).aerodynamic wrote:
Yesterday I had 4 hackers in one round. It was jsut aweful.Masques wrote:
Has anyone noticed a sharp increase in hackusations? It seems that any time you finish the round with a high KDR or get a nuke or use chopper gunner, etc. the accusations come flying out.
Actual cheaters aside it really seems as though whining about actual match outcomes has increased exponentially. The other day I ended a round with a nuke (it was a map I hate so I wanted to get the game over quickly). No one downed my harrier, no one shot down my chopper, and I deployed the nuke. During the transition to the next map someone actually said "Anyone who can get the nuke is a fucking hack!"
I've been playing CoD 4 since it came out and I've never encountered this much bitching in a game.
Respawn bam, respawn again bam, again and again and again.
Nope. There have been plenty of higher ups in the US defense/nat'l security establishment that have been naturalized citizens.Cybargs wrote:
I thought naturalized citizens can't get through some security clearances =/
It's like drinking yourself to death only it fucks up the liver quicker.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
wtf does hepatitis C even do? See I think that's part of the problem. Everyone knows what HIV/AIDS does, but hepatitis C just sounds like some sort of mad science experiment.
Actually, as an official licensed by the government he can't refuse two people who can be legally married, at least not for his stated reason. He is subject to having his license revoked.The Sheriff wrote:
Pretty sure it is. He's got the right to refuse service to anyone, he's not breaking any laws by not marrying two people.aimless wrote:
That's awful, it's not his decision to decide if a marriage will work.
http://www.fox8live.com/news/local/stor … AMXwA.cspxThe Attorney General's office has told me I'm in violation of the law, but I have the right to recuse myself. I don't feel like I've done anything wrong.
They might have to suffer being President one day...*sniff*"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."
The other major difference is that insurance markets in Europe are more highly regulated. Insurance companies can't drop coverage or refuse to pay for things like colonoscopies, pap smears, or other preventative treatments.DrunkFace wrote:
Yes they pretty much compete directly with each other. They are able to compete because the government gives tax incentives and rebates to those that get private care.LividBovine wrote:
The only information we get over here is the bad kind remember. Could you tell me more about these private insurers? Are they in direct competition with the public plan?DrunkFace wrote:
Examples of what?
Here we have a public system that covers everyone and at least 10 successful private health insurers with 43% of the population privately insured.
Most EU states have private insurers covering anything from 10-85% of the population and all have good public systems.
What you get extra, well not much.Ohh and a nicer room.With private hospital insurance you have a much greater chance of having your choice of doctor. If you're admitted as a public patient, the hospital assigns a doctor to you. Typically private patients have shorter waiting periods for elective surgery.
Socialism for me, but not for thee! There's much more in the article.This fall while members of Congress toil in the U.S. Capitol, working to decide how or even whether to reform the country's health care system, one floor below them an elaborate Navy medical clinic -- described by those who have seen it as something akin to a modern community hospital -- will be standing by, on-call and ready to provide Congress with some of the country's best and most efficient government-run health care.
...
Officially, the office acknowledges these types of services, including providing physicals to Capitol police officers and offering flu shots to congressional staffers. But what is rarely discussed outside the halls of Congress is the office's other role -- providing a wealth of primary care medical services to senators, representatives and Supreme Court justices.
...
"A member walked in and was generally walked right back into a physician's office. They get good care. They are not rushed. They are examined thoroughly," said Eduardo Balbona, an internist in Jacksonville, Fa., who worked as a staff physician in the OAP from 1993 to 1995.
"You have time to spend to get to know your patients and think about them and really think about how you preserve their health going forward," Balbona said. "We're not there to put on Band-Aids. We were there to make sure that everything possible that could be done [is done] to preserve that member of Congress."
...
Services offered by the Office of the Attending Physician include physicals and routine examinations, on-site X-rays and lab work, physical therapy and referrals to medical specialists from military hospitals and private medical practices. According to congressional budget records, the office is staffed by at least four Navy doctors as well as at least a dozen medical and X-ray technicians, nurses and a pharmacist.
Sources said when specialists are needed, they are brought to the Capitol, often at no charge to members of Congress.
"If you had, for example, prostate cancer, you would go to one of the centers of excellence for the country, which would be Johns Hopkins. If you had coronary artery disease, we would engage specialists at the Cleveland Clinic. You would go to the best care in the country. And, for the most part, nobody asked what your insurance was," Balbona said.
In addition to Balbona, several former staff members and private physicians who have consulted at the OAP as recently as last year agreed to talk to ABC News on background. They described a culture centered on meeting the needs and whims of members of Congress, with almost no concern for cost.
Members of Congress do not pay for the individual services they receive at the OAP, nor do they submit claims through their federal employee health insurance policies. Instead, members pay a flat, annual fee of $503 for all the care they receive. The rest of the cost of their care, sources said, is subsidized by taxpayers.
I think the Swiss are trying to get into the good graces of the US after the Bush and Obama administrations leaned on them over the issue of tax shelters and the little matter of a UBS exec. that was caught smuggling diamonds into the US at the behest of an American client (he was apparently running "courses" in how to evade taxes and defraud the gov't which was apparently, according to him, encouraged by the bank).Red Forman wrote:
he ran....so fuck him.
what i dont get is he has a house in switzerland. why was he arrested this time?
His ties with Poland are still strong and Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said he might appeal directly to the United States over the case.
None. He plead guilty then fled the country. That tends to get under the skin of law enforcement and, generally speaking, the US gov't will not cease to pursue extradition in cases of flight from prosecution.Wreckognize wrote:
What's the statute of limitations?
The Pentagon...the fucking PENTAGON had the nerve...the baldfaced cheek to say that! Anyone who's had the (mis)fortune to explore the defense procurement process or the defense appropriations process knows what a large bit of bullshit that little statement is.Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said the Department of Defense didn't request the additional planes and doesn't need them. "We ask for what we need and only what we need," he told reporters Wednesday. "We've always frowned upon earmarks and additives that are above and beyond what we ask for."
Interestingly enough, Dwyer's co-defendant (Bob Asher) only served a 1 year sentence and subsequently became a RNC committeeman for PA (I think he still is...?). At the time of his conviction he had been the RNC Chair for PA.AussieReaper wrote:
Budd Dwyer killed himself before sentencing for his bribery and conspiracy charges, and although he had already been found guilty of bribery because of a loophole in Pennsylvania law he was able to continue serving as state treasurer until the sentencing was handed down.ATG wrote:
Ah shit. It figures.Masques wrote:
Yes. The same issue came up when James Traficant and Duke Cunningham were convicted of felonious activities, but generally only a treason conviction can nullify a congressional pension.
EDIT: According to this congressional pensions (unlike virtually all others) also get cost of living increases. So not only will "Dollar" Bill Jefferson, Doolittle, Traficant, Cunningham, or any other congresscritter convicted of a felony keep their pensions, the pensions will grow in perpetuity.
Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside don't it?
rotten bastards.
By killing himself while in office it meant that his widow was able to collect full survivor benefits totalling over $1.28 million with a state provided pension.
These guys write the laws which give them the perks so it's always going to be manipulated.
Now that time I do remember and the US and NK actually did almost go to war over the NK nuclear program. Carter actually made the intervention in that case to resolve the conflict. IIRC Clinton's reasoning at the time was that the NK gov't would collapse soon after Kim Il Sung (whom the agreement was negotiated with) died.CC-Marley wrote:
How does Clinton feel about that pact he signed with Il way back when?
Yes. The same issue came up when James Traficant and Duke Cunningham were convicted of felonious activities, but generally only a treason conviction can nullify a congressional pension.ATG wrote:
My question; does he still get his pension?
So what would your solution to this problem be? Let them rot in a North Korean prison? Or give this sad little dictator his meaningless photo-op in order to release two Americans kidnapped from China?Lotta_Drool wrote:
Clinton likes short asians. And leave it to an Irishman to celebrate an Expresident posing for propaganda pics with a murderous dictator to free stupid journalists from a country that is known for doing this shit.
Yea, way to go libs. Maybe Clinton can pay a visit to Osama bin laden next and get his picture taken shaken his hand in exchange for kidnapped soldiers/journalists.
Negative.Red Forman wrote:
All war is a crimeATG wrote:
The Iraq war was a crime.
Less costly than the US too tbh.Turquoise wrote:
Why not just socialize insurance nationally for basic care? If the government became the sole negotiator with healthcare providers for basic care and prescriptions, prices would be forced to become more reasonable. That's what happened with nearly every other socialized system.FEOS wrote:
They don't have socialized healthcare. They have health insurance that is paid for by the government. They still go to see civilian doctors and specialists...who run their own schedules. That's the difference. Under the one-payer system (or UHC), the government sets the priorities. Under the current system, the doctor and patient set the priorities.
I'm in the same boat. My family is covered under medical insurance that is provided as a benefit of my employment. All my medical care is required to be provided by the government, in government-run clinics. My family's healthcare is orders of magnitude better than mine.
The trick with government-provided insurance is finding a doctor who will accept the ridiculously low payments the government will offer them.
In France, the system involves government run hospitals for basic care, while more advanced procedures generally involve private providers, both in care and in insurance.
This way, there is a good basic care system that is socialized, while the private market flourishes for advanced care.
Him and Keith Richards are proof that immortality does indeed exist!CameronPoe wrote:
Shane MacGowan is going to greet them at Aerfort Átha Chliath:
http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive … 66668a.jpg
ZOMG we're all Soviet Russians now!AussieReaper wrote:
It's not seeing the imaginary demons that's scary.Masques wrote:
To see imaginary demons around every corner.
It's that the imaginary demons see you.
I'm just trying to get your opinion on the matter.Red Forman wrote:
What are you asking me for? I am not a lawyer or an expert on the constitution and powers of the President. The government debated this, and came to a decision. They did the right hing and government surprisingly worked out good on this one.
I know we used troops to partol the streets after Katrina.
And that was not long after the OKC bombing (McVeigh and Nichols) and Khobar towers (though not carried out by Rudolph it occurred just before the Olympic Park bombings).Red Forman wrote:
Yes in theory I guess. But, you have to remember THIS was not that long after 9/11. I am sure you can understand that right?Masques wrote:
By that reasoning the US gov't could have sent the 82nd after Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, or Eric Rudolph. Correct? They were terrorists after all.Red Forman wrote:
You need help dude. They were terrorists. I am NOT saying police can't handle it. But, that is what we pay govt to do. To debate these isuues and come to a decision. Then they are held accountable for their decisions. Worked perfect. What's your problem?
By that reasoning the US gov't could have sent the 82nd after Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, or Eric Rudolph. Correct? They were terrorists after all.Red Forman wrote:
You need help dude. They were terrorists. I am NOT saying police can't handle it. But, that is what we pay govt to do. To debate these isuues and come to a decision. Then they are held accountable for their decisions. Worked perfect. What's your problem?Stubbee wrote:
So Forman are you saying you don't need police, SWAT ATF etc because you have the armed forces? <--- police state here we come.
These people aren't enemies. They are criminals. Unless you think all criminals are enemies. If you do they have medication and therapy for that.
Racial profiling?ATG wrote:
I would know there was a problem, just by their names.
Racial profiling isn't just against Federal Mandate, it makes good sense.
Unconstitutional according to the NC state constitution. The US Constitution is another matter. Given that presidents have appointed special assistants and handed out executive orders for a while (Executive Order 1 was the Emancipation Proclamation) I don't think there is much of a case to be made on constitutional grounds.Harmor wrote:
Judge: School governance 'unconstitutional'You know all 32 Czars Obama has answering only to him but not to Congress...well in the above article that a 'school czar' is unconstitutional without a Constitutional amendment. If that's the case, could someone bring a case to the Supreme Court and get the same ruling for all these Obama Czars?Jack Betts wrote:
Judge Robert Hobgood ruled Friday that Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson's authority to run the state schools bureaucracy cannot be transferred to an executive officer answerable to the State Board of Education without a Constitutional amendment approved by the state's voters. The current governance arrangement, he ruled, is unconstitutional.
The ruling in effect means that Bill Harrison, appointed to the State Board of Education by Gov. Bev Perdue and named its chief executive officer to run schools on a day to day basis, works for Atkinson now. Atkinson's job, among other things, will be to carry out the policy of the State Board of Education.
That may throw governance of schools into some disarray once again; the state will appeal Hobgood's ruling. And it leaves before the General Assembly a question that has been there for many years: If it wants to put accountability for public school performance closer to the governor's office, it will have to do so through a Constitutional amendment that the state's voters must approve.
The gene pool needs chlorine.What about people who’ve grown up in Britain from a very young age, but aren’t, as the BNP would term it, “ethnically British”? When you repatriated them, don’t you think the BNP should first give them intensive lessons in speaking, for example, the Ghanaian language, and learning the skills of an agriculturally-based society?
No. I don’t think so. Just send them back. I know that sounds really evil…
OK, what if Ghana, or wherever, decrees that these immigrants are now Britain’s responsibilty – that they no longer have the right to live in Ghana. Do you think war with Ghana would be justified to force the issue, or would you simply propose a system of gradually-raised trade sanctions, possibly with the aid of a UN mandate?
I wouldn’t do the war, ‘cos I’m against war. Er, the other one…
The comment section on that article is a cesspool.
Too drunk to cause any trouble.DrunkFace wrote:
What about the Irish?
Boring tbh.Braddock wrote:
The missionary position...
...you're welcome.
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr … managementnukchebi0 wrote:
The large, good public universities (UCB, UCLA, UM, and potentially UNC, and UVA), and only certain Ivies. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, minimally, are seen as superior to the publics in everything I've seen. If you want to provide something to contrary, I'd welcome it.Masques wrote:
but often inside academia the large public universities are more highly regarded than the Ivies.Its not 1970 anymore. This isn't really a major issue in current admissions cycles. I've heard multiple stories of double legacy applicants being rejected from the top private schools they had legacy at.questionable actions regarding the admissions of the progeny of wealthy donors.
Edit: To clarify on the top school FA policies, Harvard covers the entire cost of attending if your income is under 60k (provided you aren't supported by a multimillion dollar trust or bank account). They ensure, still assuming relatively normal assets, that families from 60k - 120k pay less than 10% of their income in direct contribution. From 120k to 180k, the figure is about 10%, and from thereon, it grows. Yale's functions similarly, although it is a bit less generous for those in the 120k - 180k range.