Sure thing, "internet badass".m3thod wrote:
good point
Search
Search results: 19,666 found, showing up to 50
It's apparently the fun of this site too.13rin wrote:
sigh... fiction can be fun may be the point of that site.
The asshole quotient here is a bit high.
If you think a soldier killing civilians during an occupation and a "tourist" killing them not during an occupation are comparable, then you're quite mistaken.Dilbert_X wrote:
The crimes were committed in Afghanistan against Afghans. Why do you accept it as his right to say "I'm a murkin gardummit" and be immediately whisked away to safety?Reciprocity wrote:
are you still on your period because we didn't hand him over to the fucking afghans?
Had an Afghan tourist killed 16 Americans in their beds you'd be howling to have him quartered without a trial, not flown home to be 'tried' by his friends.
The soldier will possibly face the death penalty, just like a "tourist" could face the same from his own country (depending on whether or not his home country has the DP).
Despite this eventual equivalency in punishment, a soldier isn't tried in civilian courts, whereas a "tourist" usually is.
Here's my tip for the day: Stop whining like a bitch about moot points.Dilbert_X wrote:
There has never been the remotest chance of establishing a democratic government in Afghanistan. A coalition of relatively moderate islamic councils as fronts for strongmen and warlords was the best that could ever have been hoped for.Turquoise wrote:
The only hope we had of establishing a democratic government in Afghanistan would have had to involve splitting the country into different countries divided by ethnic lines.
But no, Team Dumbfuck thought waving a few flags and saying "freedom" with enough tears in their eyes would turn the place into the next great democracy.
Dilberts tip for the day: Stop voting for illeducated imbeciles.
We both know the democracy thing was a facade. Some idiots bought into it, but most of us know the real reasoning behind all this was about profit and strategic power.
"Team Dumbfuck" would be the team stupid enough to harbor people that would attack the most powerful country in the world. Even though we've spent billions on Trashcanistan and lost about 4,000 soldiers, the real losers in all this are the Afghani people, because they lost far more people and are stuck living in the ass end of the world.
Yep, the drone strikes are about all that we can do now.AussieReaper wrote:
Totally agree wih you here, but bombing the shit out of the villages now will just draw more insurgents to the Taliban's cause. Just like the Koran burning. It's not always intentional, but winning hearts and minds of the locals was never possible. You appease one tribe and their rival tribes are upset.
The war started as a conventional one, imo the troops need to move out and deal with terrorists covertly and by all means continue the drone strikes taking out the high value targets.
I think fighting terrorists is best done without invading, but once we crossed that line, there's not much left to do.AussieReaper wrote:
You're trolling right? You think nuking tribal villages would have been an appropriate course of action to fight terrorists?Turquoise wrote:
Nation-building doesn't fix anything in a place like Afghanistan. Nukes would have fixed them though.
We lost in Vietnam because the American public apparently thought you can win against a guerilla force in a jungle environment without decimating villages. When it became obvious that we were killing a lot of civilians, the outcry forced us home.
With Afghanistan, we're fighting an insurgency that is being aided and abetted by remote villages near the Pakistan border. Not all of the villagers are part of the problem, but it's kind of hard to effectively rout the insurgency without bombing these areas to oblivion.
People complain about drone attacks killing civilians, but do you honestly think all of these people are innocent?
Bombing the shit out of tribal villages is about the only way we could feasibly win in Afghanistan. We're clearly not able to do that enough to win, so withdrawal is the best course of action.
If we had really been thinking clearly, we would have realized that attempting to set up a central democratic government in an area with multiple tribes that hate each other and with people who mostly can't even read is just a stupid idea.
The Taliban was an effective government for Afghanistan precisely because of how authoritarian they are. When we leave, the world will get another view of how this works.
The only hope we had of establishing a democratic government in Afghanistan would have had to involve splitting the country into different countries divided by ethnic lines. Inevitably, some cleansing would probably occur, but at least most of the blame would go towards the tribes instead of us. Each region could have a democratic government, but even that's questionable.
This is all moot by now though. We tried to fight a politically correct war against an authoritarian insurgency. That usually ends very badly. But of course, we'll still get infinitely bitched at no matter what we do.
I think our aid during the tsunami crisis is a better argument for that.jord wrote:
Libya wasn't a mistake because now when people tell you America only does shit to profit you can say no we're good guys, look at libya.
Libya was for France's profit mostly.
Nation-building doesn't fix anything in a place like Afghanistan. Nukes would have fixed them though.Dilbert_X wrote:
It could have been very different, Afghanistan could have been fixed, Iran brought into the civilised fold.
Instead the objectives were so dumb, the planning so poor, the implementation so shit, and a significant minority of the troops so poorly disciplined that the whole exercise has been utterly counterproductive.
The Afghans now hate us, the Pakistanis now hate us and the Iranians are so scared they'll be the next victims of Team Dumbfuck they're prepared to take the risk of developing nuclear weapons in an all-or-nothing gamble.
As for Iran... who cares? If they get nukes, big deal. They only want them for defensive purposes.
The Pakistanis already hated us before we invaded Afghanistan, and they've harbored extremists for decades now. It's only recently that they've turned more of their insanity towards us instead of towards the Indians.
The mistake we made with Pakistan is assuming our investment in their country would ever amount to anything. They're still a shitty country with fanatics that we'll inevitably have to deal with for a long time.
Instead of supporting Pakistan all these years, we should've supported India. They're actually going somewhere despite their corruption and poverty.
What makes you think we'll celebrate a guy that killed a bunch of kids?Dilbert_X wrote:
Ah OK, I can see the end-game already. Decorated war-hero just wanted a hug all along. Lets forget about the kids with their heads blown apart seeing as they're brown and try to help the poor fellow get his life back together. We should give him an honourable discharge ASAP so he can retain his well-deserved pension and go get those book and movie deals.
(In the meantime the Fort Hood shooter and that Wikileaks fag can rot in solitary until we kill them, never mind the double standards)
We really shouldn't invade either of them.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
The reality is that Afgahn needs to be finished asap so that we can invade another country namely Iran / Syria.
Personally I dont think it would happen but I suspect that with our current commitments it is far to obvious to everybody that force is currently an empty threat, once we again have the capability perhaps we can effect more of a change...
Just thinking aloud..
Syria is actually more of a possibility, but with Iran, it's just saber rattling. The only country that actually would invade Iran would be Israel, but thankfully, we have kept them from doing so (so far).
Syria is a more likely candidate for the "Libya" approach. Hopefully, we won't be stupid enough to do it.
"Finishing the job" wouldn't be something we can stomach right now.Dilbert_X wrote:
Finish the job, achieve something, anything, or the whole thing will have been not simply a waste of time but utterly counterproductive is my guess.
And once we invaded them, there was no point to trying the "hearts and minds" approach.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bullshit, the Afghans were working up to trading with America - world trade being the supposed route to stability.Turquoise wrote:
chances are... they were just looking for a reason to kill you already.
Afghans didn't start killing Americans until the US attacked Afghanistan.
Total war is the only way to succeed. You can't win via occupation in a place like Afghanistan, unless you're willing to be really brutal.
A lot of people who bitch about TARP are retarded, but bitching about it itself isn't.Macbeth wrote:
/yawn
Anyone who bitches about Tarp is automatically retarded.
TARP was basically just a really blatant reminder of who really owns our system. It certainly wasn't the first sign of the power banks hold, but it was probably the most offensive one.
Just get out of the EU. Until you do, your rights are ultimately in the hands of elites that don't even live in your country.
When you're dealing with some people that will kill you over burning books or over converting to a different religion, chances are... they were just looking for a reason to kill you already.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Do these fucking psychos not realize that when they kill civvies, it tempts the terrorists to strike back with full force?
This whole incident makes for a great media frenzy, but overall, it doesn't really change anything.
At best, this might just speed up our withdrawal. At worst, we'll be forced to be even more apologetic than before.
They're just fighting a battle that can't be won. Some will be afraid of the repercussions and won't illegally download, some will get caught, and plenty of others will just continue as before without getting caught.
The further the MPAA and the RIAA push in this direction, the more they anger the public and actually encourage fence-sitters to side with the pirates.
The further the MPAA and the RIAA push in this direction, the more they anger the public and actually encourage fence-sitters to side with the pirates.
It's like the reverse of There Will Be Blood... they make you drink their milkshake....rdx-fx wrote:
highly pressurized fracking fluids, wicking action, ...FEOS wrote:
Kind of hard for something occurring thousands of feet below the water table to leak into the water table. Gravity and all...Spark wrote:
It's the fracking chemicals which leak into the water table.FEOS wrote:
Then they're doinitrong.exactly.Spark wrote:
And that, in essence, is the problem.
It's thousands of feet underground. It's not about responsibility, not about doing it right, it's about plausible deniability and who has better lawyers.
Can't prove which drilling comany contaminated the water table, can't prove which company cracked a hole in the water table and drained it, can't prove which drilling comany sucked up all the fresh water in the region...
Starring Carlos Mencia.AussieReaper wrote:
Directed by Ridley ScottHurricane2k9 wrote:
Oliver Stone wrote:
Lulzsec was a false flag operation run by the FBI.
The group wasn't anonymous and their targets not note worthy.
That the "ring leader" suddenly turns them in comes as no real shock.
Puerto Rican, actually.
Neither invasion had much justification. Both were primarily driven by ulterior motives.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
yeah, iraq war and the air campaign against gaddafi's troops were totally the same
What it seems to come down to is that it's wrong if we lead it, but it's ok if Europe leads it.Shocking wrote:
It's highly relevant because it's exactly the same situation. Gadaffi nor Saddam were in a position to 'demand' anything in this regard. If they went on with their plans it'd simply be economic masochism on their part.Shahter wrote:
international rules? lol. there's only one true international rule - might makes right. in that regard, no, saddam wasn't tough enough to impose his rules on anybody, but it had nothing to do with why he got fucked up.
p.s. and would you stop posting, highlighting and whatever else you do there with irrelevant passages. thanks.
Ultimately, might does make right. If someone doesn't play by the rules they need to be enforced. These laws were internationally agreed upon, Iraq was a signatory of the geneva convention and many other such treaties.
Saddam violated a couple hundred of them.
The rules got enforced.
I don't see the problem with that.
We got a lot of crap from France over Iraq, and then they do the same thing in Libya while getting our support.
Pretty much. The funny thing is... Obama is really not that liberal or even proactive about much. It's just that the GOP has moved so far to the right that he doesn't have to do much to be viewed as moderate and somewhat appealing.13urnzz wrote:
he's not losing advertisers because he called her a slut. he's losing them because he went on to say that she should post her sextapes to the internet, because if "we" pay for her contraception, "we" should get our monies worth.Turquoise wrote:
On the other hand, Rush did basically put himself in a vulnerable position by choosing to call her a slut.
one of the most unintended, brilliant moves obama has made was to mandate contraception. women voters are well aware that the little blue pill is covered, but to see the right react both religiously and fiscally conservatively in regard to contraception just drew a sharper contrast amongst a big block of voters.
This whole election cycle is like a reverse of 2004. Few people liked Bush that much by then, but the Democrats had such a poor selection of candidates and ultimately went with the most boring candidate possible. The GOP is doing the same thing, because Romney is basically the GOP's Kerry.
Obama is going to win partially because of how boring Romney is and partially because of how insane some of the blowhards on the right are. The blowhards on the left have been more measured in their responses as of late.
Well that, and there's the issue of gas getting into the water lines.Spark wrote:
It's the fracking chemicals which leak into the water table.FEOS wrote:
Kind of hard for something occurring thousands of feet below the water table to leak into the water table. Gravity and all...Spark wrote:
Brin may actually be right on the oil. The cost of shale oil extraction - which North America has gargantuan amounts of - has fallen off a cliff in the last few years. The concept of peak oil may become irrelevant in the forseeable future.
However, doing it on land, in water catchments and especially near people raises all sort of issues wrt the method of extraction - ie. hydrofracking. Still not entirely convinced by the industry claims that they follow due process in ensuring that the obscenely toxic hydrofracking chemicals don't A. damage the geological strata which holds the water or B. leak into the water table. Either of which would ruin absolutely everyone's day.
There are areas out west where people can literally light their faucets from their well line.
They clearly are doing it wrong when natural gas is going through people's faucets.FEOS wrote:
Then they're doinitrong.
There's a large fracking operation just south of here, and no matter how hard people try to say it's so, there is no evidence of the chemicals leaking upward, thousands of feet, through rock, into the water table.
I think it just makes us look bored.Macbeth wrote:
Public figures do not deserve and are not untitled to respect regardless of their political affiliation. Rush doesn't have any sort of responsibility to the public to not defame a public or political figures.
This whole thing is just another instance of the pussification of American society. I'm not joking. This sort of irrational melodramatic response to Rush calling a women a slut is the sort of thing that makes our culture and country look weak and stupid.
Technically, Fluke could sue for defamation. Should she? Not really.
I wouldn't say our society is being "pussified", but we are ridiculously litigious.
On the other hand, Rush did basically put himself in a vulnerable position by choosing to call her a slut. Even if he doesn't face a lawsuit, he's just pushed himself further in the Howard Stern direction. He may appeal to right wingers, but he's essentially given the left wing fodder for the "conservatives are misogynists" angle.
He hasn't quite reached the Glenn Beck level of embarassment, but he's getting there.
A lot of right wingers have been pointing out that Bill Maher hasn't apologized in the past for his insults to women, but I think they're missing the point. Bill Maher isn't really respected outside of the left wing now.
Perhaps, but if you listen to Rush, you are too.
There are a million other more important issues than this mess, but the media loves a good soap opera story.
There are a million other more important issues than this mess, but the media loves a good soap opera story.
Fluke is a dumbass, but that doesn't change the fact that Rush is still a collossal douchebag.
LOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLJay wrote:
I'm not narcissistic enough.Turquoise wrote:
If you've got so many winning ideas, why don't you go run for office instead of wasting time here?Jay wrote:
Yep, should totally ignore the fact that he nationalized billions of dollars worth of investment on the part of American companies and hand him even more money. Another winning idea.
If you've got so many winning ideas, why don't you go run for office instead of wasting time here?Jay wrote:
Yep, should totally ignore the fact that he nationalized billions of dollars worth of investment on the part of American companies and hand him even more money. Another winning idea.
Our relations with Chavez can't be that bad if we're still buying tons of oil from Venezuela.FEOS wrote:
It was a presentation of Chavez's policies and results thereof.
Obv the "crazy as a shithouse rat" comment was a joking characterization of his apparent erratic behavior (Satan comment is from his infamous "brimstone" quip at the UN). AFAIK, he hasn't been diagnosed with anything but cancer.
We disliked him long before he nationalized the oil industry, which was complete by 2006. He started straining relationships with the US as early as 2001. So your central argument that our issue with Chavez is his petroleum policy is clearly...wrong. It's one of many reasons the US has strained relations with the Chavez regime.
The link provides more instances of Chavez's poor governance. I simply didn't have time to go through the hard copy article and point them all out.
They should call that the "zip it" gun.
Pretty much. I support more domestic drilling, but we should be careful still.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're sure its not that the oil companies are injecting long-lived carcinogens into aquifers?Jay wrote:
At first, the enviros liked fracking because they saw natural gas as a superior alternative to coal and oil. Now they've turned against it because they realize that hundreds of years worth of cheap natural gas makes solar and wind completely irrelevant. They've conducted dozens of studies on the safety of fracking, and have found no issues.
Most people I speak to are fairly rational and believe burning gas instead of oil makes sense, but not if we're permanently poisoning our agricultural land and water supply.
Most people understand there's a carbon cost to renewable energy too, they aren't all bobble-hatted nutballs.
Wouldn't it be most practical to continue buying most of our oil from Canada and Mexico while shifting our consumption from Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East to Venezuela and Brazil?
I know people freak out over Chavez, but he's not connected to an ideology that funds terror against us. Saudi Arabia is.
If we just spent less time messing with the Middle East and South Asia while improving our relations with Latin America, we'd probably be better off both in terms of making alliances and in establishing an oil trade mostly unaffected by the turmoil between Iran, Israel, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.
Besides, Brazil is set to become a major oil supplier anyway.
And of course, we could increase domestic drilling and refining.
I know people freak out over Chavez, but he's not connected to an ideology that funds terror against us. Saudi Arabia is.
If we just spent less time messing with the Middle East and South Asia while improving our relations with Latin America, we'd probably be better off both in terms of making alliances and in establishing an oil trade mostly unaffected by the turmoil between Iran, Israel, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.
Besides, Brazil is set to become a major oil supplier anyway.
And of course, we could increase domestic drilling and refining.
What was his original name?jord wrote:
I swear since you changed your name you started trolling, I swear it.
Alright, I'll use the phrase "climate change" then.13rin wrote:
Sorry man. Earth has been in a cooling phase since the late 90's.
Actually if believing in global warming just in case it's true... I'd expect KJ to believe in god as well... You know, just in case.
Well yeah, but most climate scientists aren't alarmists. Anytime you get politics involved, there's going to be exaggeration.Jay wrote:
No, because the argument is about extremes. Either the earth is exploding or nothing is happening. Those are the political positions.Turquoise wrote:
Well, with global warming, it's not about accepting it. It's obvious that it's happening.
The only real debate is what's causing it and how much is each factor significant.
Well, with global warming, it's not about accepting it. It's obvious that it's happening.
The only real debate is what's causing it and how much is each factor significant.
The only real debate is what's causing it and how much is each factor significant.
I would assume that depends on the country. In Ireland, counties seem to play a big part in identity. At least, that's what I've heard from speaking to many Irish people.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Disagree.eleven bravo wrote:
states are much closer to your counties than your nations
We dont have elected officials to represent counties
We dont really have county laws (other than differing fines for dog poop and the like)
A county has no real autonomy at all, people do not see themselves as coming from a county anymore than from a town or village.
Please expand..
Back when I visited Dublin last year, I spoke with some locals about a major football tournament that was going on during the same week, and they were talking about how each county has its own team and how loyal people were about their local teams and such. From what they were saying, it sounded like this identity extended to political matters as well.
I think you're confusing environmentalists with kleptocrats.Jay wrote:
Dems have made it no secret that they want European level taxation on gas in order to 'force people out of their cars'. Except most of America is rural and has no access to public transportation. I have hatred in my heart for environmentalists.
Most people that want to improve the cleanliness of the environment aren't in favor of taxing the hell out of people -- they just want better standards applied to industrial pollution.
It's the bureaucrats that take more of a tax approach, because they're more interested in amassing money than in actually cleaning things up.
I think he meant it in terms of objective reality.Superior Mind wrote:
Your normal reality is regulated by a certain level of chemicals in your mind and body, yes? So how does changing the levels of those chemicals make the newly perceived reality any less real? Just because you weren't born that way? I'm not making any claims, just playing devils advocate.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
near-death/out of body experiences are like dreams - they aren't reality.
i could tell you stories about all the times I was on hallucinogens and I saw auras and floating bodies and felt like I was god or had the answer to the question of 'what is the meaning of life.'
but at the end of the day, its all bullshit. I don't pretend that is evidence of anything other than me being on a mind-altering substance.
Physically, you don't enter another realm when you're on drugs or having a near-death experience.
So, for all practical purposes, death is the end.
They already do though. Why not just make religions do the same thing everyone else does? -- file as a nonprofit.Macbeth wrote:
The Mongol law system called the Yassa had tax exemptions for religious institutions. Even they saw the benefit of leaving religious institutions alone. You will cause way more problems trying to get money from them than you would benefit from the taxes.
Once religious institutions start to get involved in politics is where things start to get complicated..
There's no need for an exemption for religion when any institution (religious or otherwise) can file for basically all the same tax relief.
So, to answer your question, Hurricane, you don't need to start a religion -- start a nonprofit organization.
It's pretty classist, but this is the same city that has youth mobs robbing stores and individuals.
I can't say I'm surprised. Detroit and Philly might have to do the same eventually.
I can't say I'm surprised. Detroit and Philly might have to do the same eventually.
We've got jack shit for competition here. Time Warner owns this place.FEOS wrote:
Public utilities here are horrid. Run by the City of San Antonio.
But telecomms are not in that situation. All private companies, with tons of competition.
You actually have to move to smaller cities for better service.
It's easy to misunderstand something when you guys use the wrong terminology. This sounds less like independence and more like a trivial shifting of officials.coke wrote:
Yeah never mind he completely misunderstood the concept, Scotland already has it's own Parliament so is about as decentralised as it's gonna get.
Why are they calling it independence then? Joining the EU is the opposite of independence -- that's tying your fate to a larger collective.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
What?Turquoise wrote:
Decentralization is a good thing when it comes to Europe.
Scotland becoming independent means it would likely become a part of Europe (see Ireland) rather than just a part of the UK like it is now.
Public utilities work fine here -- the public ISPs in Salisbury and Wilson are some of the best in the country.Jay wrote:
Then why don't you start up a non-profit ISP? Public utilities always work well. Keep nominal prices down by raising the price in other places i.e. taxes. It's a great way to get the rich guy to pay for the poor guys bills. Too bad everyone ends up paying more in the end because public utilities have zero incentive to keep costs down.
Swell idea though Turquoise.
Maybe it's just one of those things NY sucks at. It wouldn't be the only thing they suck at.
The death threats unfortunately prove some of their points.Macbeth wrote:
These girls make some good points.There are plenty of disturbing things about anti-African American rant by two teen girls from Gainsville, Florida that went viral on YouTube last week. The post received millions of views, thousands of comments, and the girls have been bombarded with death threats and hate mail. They even were expelled from their high school over the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAR2h5aSQO4
Yes, good children. Let the hate flow through you.
That being said, they should probably move to Idaho now -- it doesn't get any whiter than that.
The problem is that I guess private telecoms realize this.Cybargs wrote:
Because their whole economy runs on star craft but they're really highly urbanized which explains their speeds.Turquoise wrote:
We really need to mimic South Korea's setup for internet. They've got the best system in the world.
Infrastructure wise: I found it very interesting how local city governments in the US are able to provide really high speed internet on the cheap, maybe a model for USA where the local city governments can provide fast internet services.
It's why they've lobbied hard in every state to block the creation of new public ISPs for small towns. My state is unfortunately one of the states that got bought off.
Decentralization is a good thing when it comes to Europe.
Clementi was probably unstable to begin with if being outed was enough to inspire him to kill himself.
We really need to mimic South Korea's setup for internet. They've got the best system in the world.
The only problem I have with the UI is the fact that switching out your right hand spell basically requires you to equip and then unequip a right hand melee weapon. They should have made an "unequip" button, rather than making it a toggle function. Either that, or dual toggling should require pressing both mouse buttons at the same time, instead of the cycling through with the left mouse button.
Pretty much. The best ISPs in America are public. In my state, for example, the best 2 ISPs are run by the city governments of Salisbury and Wilson.Winston_Churchill wrote:
designed to be open, should stay open. the only involvement they should have is making it accessible and affordable to all.
Unfortunately, private ISPs have lobbied successfully in about 30 states to block the creation of all future public ISPs.
So basically, the telecom market in America is horribly corrupt. It's not as bad as the monopolies/oligopolies in Canada and Australia, but it's moving in that direction.
We've thankfully been spared bandwidth caps in most areas, although Comcast has put them into place in a few unlucky metro areas. Time Warner tried to pull that shit down here, but the people got so pissed about it that they backed away. They'll probably try it again in the near future.