213374U

Czechoslovakia, oh cmon man What? I said you people are beautiful. edit: WTF? DDR merged with BRD?

Beautiful landscapes? The Alps come to mind. Centering your visit around them has the advantage of allowing you to visit a bunch of countries without traveling too far, one of which I'd say is a must if you're not planning to come back any time soon (Italy). Beautiful buildings? I personally loved Prague. Cologne too. Italy has a ton of ruins all over which you should see (Pompeii!) which are technically "buildings" too. Venice is rather unique. And expensive as all hell. Never been to Antwerp myself but family members loved it. Beautiful people? Don't go south beyond the Jutland Peninsula. Czechoslovakia is perhaps the exception to this. Also relevant to English: rule of thumb, the further you go down south, the less/worse people speak it. UK recently seceded from Yurop so you won't have to bother. Another classic tourist destination used to be Crimea, but... Russians. I know literally nothing about Hungary. It's a country, right?

How is that different from the rest of the forum? This is the (mostly) romance-free section of the board.

PTSD, not the same thing as insanity, or to be more accurate, paranoid schizophrenia that appears to be this case. Not sure what's your point exactly, but it sounds like you're suggesting that schizophrenics are inherently more dangerous than veterans afflicted with PTSD. Because "insanity". I don't have hard evidence that shows that the opposite is true either, but homicides where the perpetrator was a former or active-duty member of the armed forces that was diagnosed with PTSD after the deed are very much a thing. Not something that gets a lot of attention, from what I've gathered, so your opinion is not surprising. If that's what you meant anyway. Old piece, and I feel kind of dirty for linking to NYT, but what can you do: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/us/13vets.html?hp

The way it was explained to me, in an abstract sense, they are strictly separate elements. The rationale for doing something is not the same thing as the volitive element (mens rea in English Law and dolus in German Law) which is required to hold someone accountable of a specific kind of crime. Problem is, depending on whether it's a common law court or a civil law one, looking at the motive may determine whether it's (voluntary) manslaughter or a more serious variant of murder. Looking at the motive may help establish whether the outcome is consistent with the intent, which constitutes evidence, but is not criminal conduct by itself. For instance, let's imagine that Sharp_One is talking smack to Tyrone the Black Racist. Tyrone gets mad and shoves Sharpie, making him trip and fall down. In the fall he hits his head against the tombstone of the White Race, and unfortunately breaks his neck. People generally aren't killed when pushed and it's reasonable to argue that he never intended to deprive the world of such a paragon of virility and whiteness, so a first-degree murder charge would be harder to pin on Tyrone. (Voluntary) manslaughter, second-degree murder at worst, assuming this is in a jurisdiction without racially aggravated murder rules. Now, if instead of pushing, Tyrone pulled a gun and pumped Sharp_One's sorry ass full of lead, it would be hard to argue that Tyrone did not intend to cause his death (malice aforethought as GD said). First-degree murder. In both cases, Tyrone's actions are influenced by his irrational hatred and deep-seated jealousy of the Master Race, and in both cases the outcome is the same, but evidently they are very different scenarios... in an abstract sense, at least. To poor old Sharpie, it makes no difference. Again, different jurisdictions and legal traditions muddle the issue further, and while some are going to agree with you that not only intent but motive matters when looking at the crime, it's not a universal idea.

And what, pray tell, makes you an expert on when people are "damaged beyond repair"? Wasn't that one of my privileges for being white, heterosexual male? There are so many it's hard to keep track of them. Is that supposed to be relevant information regarding your boorish attitude, or just you trying to be sassy about your white persecution complex? I'm asking because I'm not sure if you're just trying to reassure yourself of your whiteness and heterosexuality, or you somehow believe that either quality is something to be particularly proud of. I'm sure you studied long and hard to be heterosexual. TL:DR no one cares

And what, pray tell, makes you an expert on when people are "damaged beyond repair"?

I mean, I wouldn't put it past the Russians to pull something like that, even if their MO has historically been more gleaning stuff from informants through seduction, blackmail and plain old bribes (e.g. Anna Chapman). If it was indeed a Russian op though, it's probably one of the most spectacular successes of intelligence in history -- which is for me another reason to be skeptical about it. It's just that the "evidence" presented would make even Bibi blush. And at this point, if anyone takes reporting by the likes of WPost and NYT citing "anonymous sources" and "classified reports" at face value, I have a bridge to sell them... And it's clearly Ivanka who fondles herself to Putin-riding-a-bear pics, not the other way around. Or so I read, in a WPost op-ed... I don't know what corporation you work at, but I'm thinking that it'd be pretty damn hard to misconstrue any of the work emails I've ever sent or received as innuendo and code words for pedophilia and child porn. Guess I'm even more boring at work than here.

Did they?

So after Yalta, the nuclear buildup was inevitable, as a deterrent against the threat of massed Soviet tank armies overrunning Western Europe, to which there was no adequate conventional counter at the time. OK. After the Soviet Union collapsed in 91, why is Russia still the focus of US nuclear strategy again? What's the rationale that would lead to this "Russian breakout" scenario, even assuming the "breakout" itself was as estimated? ****ing brinkmanship, man.

Definitely. That's part of the problem as well, not just what the food is, but also how it's been prepared. For instance, my breakfast used to be 3-4 bread loaves with peanut butter at 6 AM. By 9-10 I'd be willing to take a bite out of my closest coworker. I switched to rolled oats, half a banana and the same or even less PB -- I now have trouble finishing breakfast and won't be hungry until much later. Steel cut oats are even better (but harder to eat). Rule of thumb, the more processed food is, the less filling. Whole steak with steamed potatoes > spaghetti with ground meat, etc.

Heavy metals present in large, long-lived fish won't kill you overnight either. And yet, no one will dispute that mercury and lead are toxic when ingested. More or less the same is true of trash food. Build a diet based on it and it will kill you. Be it kidney failure, cardiovascular accident or whatever, you won't even need to put on much weight -- that **** is bad for you. A certain kind of food that you cannot eat regularly and maintain your health is, by definition, unhealthy. That's even without getting into the calorie balance. There's also the -potentially greater- indirect public health problems caused by this industry. Systematically pumping livestock full of antibiotics has been for some time now known to produce antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which are not only difficult to deal with in cattle, but also dangerous to humans if/when they make the jump. But I digress. The ketogenic diet is more or less meat-based; you could build it around cheeseburgers, and you would be fine. A diet based on McD's garbage? Not so much. I like meat as much as anyone, and I eat homemade cheeseburgers and steaks several times a week. I'm as healthy as can be (something something colon cancer risk) judging by the results of my last checkup. I'm by no means a diet fundamentalist. But trash food has more than earned its appellative, and it's not (just) because of the high calorie content. The "it's fine as long as you don't overdo it" line is bull. Drug pushers everywhere use it. And by the way, the food pyramid is a scam. It was fabricated by agricultural lobbies back in the 70's in collusion with the USDA and a few mercenary "academics". You should not be eating 10 ****ing servings of bread a day. The obesity epidemic today? The food pyramid is at the root.

Well, I usually do nothing but mouth off about cops, but there's a first time for everything, I guess. Ask questions first, shoot later: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/berlin-attack-anis-amri-germany-rookie-milan-policeman-shoots-suspect-dead-italy-hero-a7492561.html Gives a whole new meaning to the "killer look" of their Armani uniforms. Never poking fun at them again...

TIL that selling sandwiches by the roadside = TRU FREEDUHM

Well, you got me. I'm in a permanent state of outrage. See that guy on the left? That's me reading the forum. Seriously though, no. Not everyone in favor of nationalism is a fascist. The defining characteristic of fascism is the legitimization of the use of force as a tool to accomplish political goal X. This is directly at odds, fundamentally incompatible with the concept of an open society. Since opposition is going to arise to this (liberals, unions, minorities) they also must be crushed or the fascist grip on power is endangered. It is necessary therefore to suppress all political organizations save for the one in power. And bam! Single-party police state. These are the implications of what you are suggesting when you propose that the government starts picking off possible or even likely terrorists, without respect for the rule of law. Because otherwise, in an open society, someone's going to find the skeletons in the closet sooner or later, and someone is going to end up in jail or dead as a result, as I explained before. There's also the itty-bitty downside that this strategy doesn't work as far as permanently solving issues is concerned. What am I for? Nothing too fancy, really. An open, ideally stateless, moneyless society. Realistically speaking though, I'll settle for good, affordable education for everyone and an economic system that ensures that 99% of humankind aren't ****ing slaves with no prospect of a better life. I'm curious if working towards that, people will still want to kill each other for political goal X. They very well may want to, but I can't think of a reason why. You're right, though. I have no grand plan, scientific solution or perfect vision. From what I've read, those tend to end up killing a bunch of people in the process of "fixing" the world, only to collapse catastrophically some time later, anyway. So I guess I'll just try to take responsibility for the personal choices I make, and try not to **** anyone over. Probably not what you'd like to hear, but hey, simple wishes from a simple man.

No, closet fascism is for those who don't flaunt it, I evidently didn't mean you. Problem is, historically the state has been one of the biggest, if not the biggest threat to those living under it, rather than their protector. And you want to give it even more power to do what it does best, kill, supposedly to protect you from some phantom menace that is about as likely to affect you as a lightning strike. See, the safeguards you see as "so much bull****" are there to protect you from the state, which is a much more ubiquitous and recurrent threat than "Islam". From those that historically have used political power to murder, imprison or ostracize massive amounts of people for arbitrary reasons. No, mate. Jihadis aren't going to "destroy teh west" or anything of the sort. If anything, I'm worried that you and the other useful idiots who believe that civil rights should be tossed aside at the first sight of an "existential threat" will end up destroying the defenses against state killings that have taken centuries and millions of deaths to establish. "Elementary patriotism" my ass. Little tyrants-to-be and xenophobes everywhere have tried to hijack the idea of patriotism for themselves, trying to paint those who wouldn't buy their scare stories as unpatriotic. What you are is a card carrying fascist, buddy. At least be honest and admit that not only you would approve crushing those you deem a "threat" to "the nation", but also anyone who opposes that sort of thing. Because by virtue of opposing it, they become a threat in turn. That's how totalitarianism works, and you can't have one without the other.

See, the positive thing about these attacks is that all the closet fascists come out of the woods.

So... you're suggesting that the German army should install a government friendly to German interests in Germany...? Okay boss. But I agree. A few extrajudicial killings by the FSB against the identified heads of a faction in a civil war after they were identified as actors in said war are not exactly relevant in a discussion regarding how to stop suspected jihadis before they can strike. I have a question, though. If it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up?

Yes. Generally you cannot keep a person detained indefinitely. Depends on the country, but for instance here the maximum is 72 hours. After that, police have to turn him over to the judiciary, which can imprison them pre-emptively, while an investigation of a crime is underway. You cannot keep people imprisoned indefinitely on suspicions that they may commit a crime. I know you did this with Japanese-Americans during WWII, but really, that's not how the civilized world works, anymore. Psst: Habeas Corpus edit: you are right, though. This isn't the last attack we'll see. Hmm, nope. Chechens stopped Chechen terrorists, after what amounted to a bloody civil war, with support from the Russian regular army, not Russian cyborg assassins from the future. Read up on the Kadyrovs.

Yup. We tried that solution with our terrorists, and they were much easier targets, with an established infrastructure, defined hierarchy and targetable funding venues. Let's just say it didn't work very well, cost some political figures their careers -and long prison sentences- tanked the government, and ended up strengthening their cause. So the rule of law is "a technicality" for you. How very edgy. I think you may have watched too many Bourne movies. edit: he's not a confirmed jihadi _until after_ he has attacked. Until then, he's just a suspected jihadi. See the problem?

You can't go after anyone until all the papers are in order or they commit a crime. This is called rule of law. Tomorrow's lesson: due process. Oh, boy.

He was not deported because Tunisia initially denied that he was a citizen. His asylum application had been rejected. Apparently, papers that would have allowed for his deportation have arrived... today.

If it was only post-scarcity... It's kinda funny actually, because the most likely folks to go "socialism!" and get a bad rash when presented with something that doesn't jibe with a 'Murica ca.1950 mindset aren't those who actually lived in so-called socialist countries and experienced their worst excesses first-hand. In the former Eastern Bloc this atavistic fear would be justified, but in "the freest country in the world"? Meh. After about ten years of rehashing the same topics, you'll have to forgive me if a weak jab is the best I got.

The safest communities don't have the most police, they have the most resources. OMG look, it's socialism! Run!