Calax

Yes China did have the most advanced civilization for 3000 years...but that ended 600 years ago Now the West has the most advanced, tolerant and progressive civilization in the world. Its not hard to understand why this is For the most part, China and Europe have the the cultural centers for the world. They were the two that unified earliest and had the most powerful military (India is probably the third if you want to expand it). Although between around 1400 to 1600 Japan started to Outstrip China techologically, but they cut thsemselves off via Shogunate. Europe is the dominant power now because of the Enlightenment and Black Plague. The latter allowing the former to take place and the adjustment of social strata being forced to occur to allow peasants to grow to be more than just a guy working another guys farm. As part of this the Age of Sail was what allowed Europe to become dominant as they began to funnel ideas and money through Europe itself forcing them to become the political and social Nexus of the world. In more recent decades, the US has become this by being the "Best of the West" during the Cold War.

Calax, I'm sure we've batted this ball around before. Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians are not opposed to taxes. We are opposed to writing a blank check to a federal government that is doing things it has no business or legal authority to do. The gist of the libertarian political philosophy (the modern version of it, not the 1950's objectivist utopia crap) is that all level of government have specific functions that should be well defined and narrowly construed and that it be sufficiently funded only enough to fulfill those functions. The Federal government has it's responsibilities including securing the borders, maintaining the currency, etc., the state, county, city, governments have theirs. You know what they are, you of all people do not need a civics lesson from me. The real trouble begins when those governments get into things they shouldn't be doing or assuming power they should not have. Then who decides what the governments scope is? I mean the lean elevator speech I've heard for Libertarian is that they're "Fiscally conservative, socially Liberal" but given the Paul's views on various social issues I can't see how that would work anymore. I personally would prefer a socialized healthcare system, rather than the clusterF we have now, and don't see how business/insurance wouldn't run roughshod over people because they had so much power over that persons health, assuming the government "Got out of it". Although Ron Paul is hilarious because he wants the government out of Health Care but wants to eliminate a persons right to choose. I can't think of anything more contradictory than that.

The courts stated in Doe V Bush that Bush had been given that authority by the MUF congress drafted in 2003 for the Iraq war. And what I'm stating about enemy combatants in the view of Geneva is that they are subject to US domestic law as we are the pertaining country (Either US or the Nation of Iraq). Which means that they'd be given the same rights as an illegal immigrant who shot up a shopping mall. And while I'm not sure on the legal specifics I'm pretty sure that "Speedy Trial" is covered for even illegal immigrants. And it should be noted that as recently as 2010, an illegal immigrant had a case overturned because he wasn't given a speedy trial. Meaning that even if you're not here legally you still get the same protections.

Tell that to the US military (Or specifically, the recruiting arm of the US Navy in 2008) who are quite clear that we are "In a time of war". And, technically Bush had full authority given to him to declare war (as he did) in 2003 by the Iraq resolution and Doe V Bush. And Geneva declares that unlawful combatants (as you refer to them) are subject to domestic law of the pertaining state. Basically, in the view of Geneva, If they aren't subject to international law, they're subject to national law. And on top of that there's the Boumediene v Bush ruling in 2008 that the detainees at Gitmo were entitled to access to the US justice System, and as such, were subject to US law regarding trial, and Habeus Corpus. So WoD, if they're officially soldiers, they can be held until the end of the war they were involved in. If they aren't officially soldiers they must be given a proper trial in accordance to the US Constitution and the Justice system that has developed over the past 200 years.

What the heck did I just read!? This is madness! I have so many questions! A) Why is he named patriotpony1986? If patriotpony was already taken then why not just choose a different friggin' name? B) Ayn Rand is not a conservative. So why is a "proud conservative" trying to enmesh her philosophy with things. C) My little pony contains huge amounts of mysticism and mystic thinking which Ayn Rand despises thus making the values of objectivism and MLP incompatible. Why would some one so obsessed with Ayn Rand that he tries to enmesh her philosophy into stuff not be aware of this? D) He says that if we meet that HE IS THE MAN in the relationship. What does that even mean? E) How does he talk about the liberal agenda as something that is eroding freedom in Equestria if he wants to enmesh Equestria with Ayn Rand's values? Does he not realize that Ayn Rand is a liberal? It's a 26 year old obsessed with a children's show, it shouldn't make sense. ... We all realize that's from a dating website right?

I realize this might be heresy to you GD, but I get the feeling that despite the current political situation, a majority (in terms of population numbers) actually are "left wing" in terms of ideology. And the current hard line right wing base's statement of "NOT ONE STEP BACKWARD!" In terms of negotiating on political topics means that the party only becomes less palatable to those larger population swaths. One of the guys I knew from highschool (and when I joined the board) posted something an article that boiled down to "Hey, let's stop immigration because it's throwing off the balance of Democrat/Republican!". This speaks to the view that seems to be popping up within the party that, rather than adjust themselves and try to become more palatable to minorities and the younger generation, they'll instead stick to their hard line "God, Guns, and defunding social programs" until they find their voting base left in graveyards. And yes, in an ideal world we'd be able to run industry without the need for oversight or regulation because everyone would be happy friends and never be unethical in the business sector. In the real world we need at least some oversight and regulation, which costs money. I will say that the thing I've never understood about libertarians and those who never want to pay taxes, is "How do you want the roads funded? The bridges repaired? Or the Army to operate?" And before you flip out on me about the fact that the states would pay, they wouldn't, especially on the most utilized roads in any state, the Dwight D Eisenhower Interstate system.

They were captured on the battlefield, meaning they'd be covered by the Geneva Conventions regarding the detainment of prisoners during a war time. And before you spout "But we're not at war!" technically we are, which is why during screening for Boot camp, they pound into your head that false enlistment can land you in prison for up to 5 years (a provision which is only active during times of war). You can't say "We're in a state of war... officially!" to your own people, and then state that the members of the opposing faction are not "at war" with you. Although to be fair, America has suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus one other time... Lincoln suspended it for prisoners of the Civil War.

Call of Juarez games. Started the first one, reeks of "old game" syndrome, but was surprised to have a very explicit "hooker opens your pants and comments on your size" moment.

Technically I'm lower class due to my income status, but I'd vote for Hillary because I think she'd get more done on a range of topics. A President Sanders seems like he'd get one or two items on his agenda done, but doggedly block anything that ran mildly contrary to his ideals. Meaning the gridlock that we've been dealing with as part of the democratic system just lodges itself harder in Washington.

He stopped telling the truth since he started running for office, which is to be expected as you've observed. He's never changed his own label or said he changed his philosophy in any way so far as I know. I tend to take him at his word, being a radical from young age, having studied Marx and idolized Eugene V Debs he would know what socialism actually is, so if he says he's a socialist, he is a socialist. As far as Social Democrat, from what I read there are two types, ones who believe in regulated and redistributive capitalism and ones who see that stage as a way point to true socialism. I can believe Sanders is the second type, but not the first. So here's a question for you. Assuming that Sanders makes it into office, do you actually think he can turn the entire economy of the United States to a socialist one in the 4/8 years he gets?

Warcraft (always) Starcraft II Sid Meiers Trains Fallout 4 CoD Blops 3 League of Legends Vermintide. And an enormous amount of work.

And basic maintence I've put off on my car comes to 1300 dollars... *sigh* I'm poor.

Its funny but this whole " down with Wall Street " I have never really understood We need to recognize the important, some would say critical, role that the various financial institutions and corporations in Wall Street play....an economic reality where Wall Street collapses or is seriously undermined would lead to a global depression So I'm not sure why we seem to have issues with Wall Street, we should try to see Wall Street as a real friend of the free market and sustainable economic growth Because over the past 10-15 years Wall Street has become built around predatory lending where they'll bet your house on their stocks, but when it goes wrong they'll sidestep any fault. The same practices that ruined the economy in 2008 are still in effect, if curtailed a touch, and the suggestion that Clinton (Who's notably been a part of the Wall Street machine before) would be tough on wall street is hard for people to accept. One of the reasons Bernie has a chance is because he'd break up Wall Street to the point that the investments that they make are on them, while my savings account will be kept safe. Basically, Wall Street IS this speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WjnbtNgYNg

Wait, I actually get holidays? And they're PAID!? What chartreuse magistry is this!?

WOD please you and I do have several things in common like our condemnation of Snowden But please dont tell me you believe in conspiracy theories....the USA didnt commit 9/11to themselves or somehow knew it was going to happen You misunderstood what I was saying there. Calax was drawing an analogy between Benghazi and 9/11, and I was referring to the 600 security requests from Benghazi which went to the State Department but were not acted upon. Also read Calax's sources, there were general 9/11 warnings, there just wasn't enough done about them, but it wasn't because Bush wanted 9/11 to happen, just bureaucratic inertia and lots of other reasons. Are you implying that Hillary WANTED benghazi to happen? No, you can clearly see I was answering Bruce's misunderstanding that I was claiming US wanted 9/11. Of course Hillary didn't want Benghazi, she was negligent and incompetent, which is something I wouldn't say of Bush regarding 9/11, although I admit I haven't studied the issue enough. But since Bush isn't running for re-election and Condoleeza Rice isn't running for president either, that issue has only historical relevance at this point. That depends on how you want to view it. Currently the republicans are attempting to force the issue that Hillary (or somebody in her office) was negligent that it could theoretically blow back on her enough to A) Ruin her chances at a presidency and B) possible charges. However, the precedent set by the government on a matter such as this (Where those involved were warned and chose to ignore the warning and/or didn't heed the warning) is little more than a hand slap and ignoring it. Condi, Cheney, and Bush didn't have as much of an inquisition to chase down their negligent actions in the events leading up to 9/11. To the point that Condi answered a question that one of the Memos that crossed her desk was literally "Al Qaeda poses imminent threat to US soil!" and she did NOTHING. And got off with one hearing and a shrug. As to the Email issue, how can you declare that Clinton was somehow MORE in the wrong than Cheney? And if she isn't, why haven't those who are currently calling for Clinton's imprisonment for "unsecured Email" also called for Cheneys?

WOD please you and I do have several things in common like our condemnation of Snowden But please dont tell me you believe in conspiracy theories....the USA didnt commit 9/11to themselves or somehow knew it was going to happen You misunderstood what I was saying there. Calax was drawing an analogy between Benghazi and 9/11, and I was referring to the 600 security requests from Benghazi which went to the State Department but were not acted upon. Also read Calax's sources, there were general 9/11 warnings, there just wasn't enough done about them, but it wasn't because Bush wanted 9/11 to happen, just bureaucratic inertia and lots of other reasons. Are you implying that Hillary WANTED benghazi to happen?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/11/the-bush-administration-know-it-alls-who-failed-to-heed-warnings-before-9-11.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/11/13/george_w_bush_s_white_house_ignored_these_extremely_dramatic_pre_9_11_warnings.html And from the sound of it, in the last two days it's come out that they were warned specifically about 9/11 and "Yawned".

Be and friends started talking last night after the debate and what it really comes down to for us is that Bernie is to hardline. He only goes for his issues and those are the only ones he'll deal with in an uncompromising manner. Hillary is to post produced for most of her discussion and appearances. Every time she's seen "off guard" she appears to be a very good talker and a very capable mediator. However she's got so many enemies within the republican party that it's easy for them to attack her because she has a history. One point that is being used against her by WoD and others is that benghazi and the emails were somehow out of the ordinary, which ignores the fact that the previous administration had a larger attack on US soil (9/11) and had a Vice President who had a man sized safe, and his own private email server, and yet nobody is investigating those as hard as Benghazi or Hillary's emails.

Finished second week at new location. It's tiring working 11 hour days, But the company might be getting a major insurance contract if a call I got leads to anything.

Much happier at my new location, Kinda fun to "steal" cars from my old job to fleet the new one. Also with a lot more variety makes the 11 hour days feel short

My week of hell will begin in 3 hours. Specifically I'm transitioning between two locations, so as it stands, at the current location I work today through thursday, go home at 9 pm that night, and mon-fri I work 7-6 at the new location. When all is said and done, I added up 68 hours on this pay period.

Sooo.... Applied and got an inter-office transfer that raises my hourly to 12 (from 11.25 woo...) but has better overall potential because It's "manager in training" rather than "Customer service". The other thing I'm considering is I noticed a "temp" position with Bioware austin in their story department. Considering putting something together to give them set either in Dragon Age or Mass Effect.

I think the difference between the two Clintons ultimately comes down to the fact that President Clinton has the same experience as a political Operator as Hill, but the guy's not aiming for a popularity vote anymore. Hillary, on the other hand is fighting so hard with the popular vote that she can't or won't be totally unfiltered in the name of getting as many votes. But she ends up seeming detached because everything she says seems to be run through a machine. The few times I've seen her caught off guard (The Black Lives Matter stuff, and a few moments in the debate) she seems like she knows how to run this thing and to get people to talk. But her entire political machine is built around preventing those moments.

I'm not trying to say he's some buzzword memer, but he's managed to activate that part of the party in a way others haven't because he doesn't have the same airs that most of the establishment have. Basically, by the fact he's got that grassroots background (like Paul did before him) he gets a whole group of votes who say "Well, he's not from the same group of party partisans we're used to... TAKE MY MONEY AND VOTES!"

Paul and Sanders are both effectively running the same campaign. They don't like the establishment trying to force their way into the establishment to adjust it. But they're the exact opposite in terms of overall goals, so they appeal to each parties disenfranchised base. Paul was pushing for a hyper limited government and had the socially progressive policies (relative) that appealed to those members of the party who'd been ignored, the millennial generation. Sanders is the same way, and appeals to the same people, but from the democratic base rather than the republican one. Sanders is looking directly at the Millennial gen and saying "Come vote for me so that we can be like all those things you hear on the internet!"