>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission.

Just stop saying that please. Stop thinking the world is black and white it just isn't. You saying that we know there would be a genocide is just stupid. You saying you BELIEVE there would be a genocide is reasonable. Do you understand the difference?

I understand how it can make you uncomfortable, but it must be said.
Gaddafi announced he would commit a genocide.
Gaddafi's historically brutal methods meant we should take that threat seriously.
Gaddafi's immediate actions following his statement make it almost impossible to ignore his threat.
Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi and his own deputy to the UN's warning make it irresponsible to deny his threat was real, credible and unfolding before our eyes.
Gaddafi intended to commit a genocide, and was within hours of seizing the control he needed to do it. Our actions stopped that genocide.
Sure terrible things may still happen, there's still a war going on against a maniacal dictator. The fact of the matter is, how could the world in good conscience stand back and watch a genocide unfold without at least attempting to stop it?


I don't know what else to say except that you don't know if your information is faulty or not. You get your information from where? That matters, you seem to not believe in doubt at all. Do you just believe what everyone tells you about their assessment of a situation immediately or do you want to save some doubt for other possibilities? In other words have you ever taken a science class...apply that same thinking here.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission.

Just stop saying that please. Stop thinking the world is black and white it just isn't. You saying that we know there would be a genocide is just stupid. You saying you BELIEVE there would be a genocide is reasonable. Do you understand the difference?


I understand how it can make you uncomfortable, but it must be said.

Gaddafi announced he would commit a genocide.
Gaddafi's historically brutal methods meant we should take that threat seriously.
Gaddafi's immediate actions following his statement make it almost impossible to ignore his threat.
Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi and his own deputy to the UN's warning make it irresponsible to deny his threat was real, credible and unfolding before our eyes.

Gaddafi intended to commit a genocide, and was within hours of seizing the control he needed to do it. Our actions stopped that genocide.

Sure terrible things may still happen, there's still a war going on against a maniacal dictator. The fact of the matter is, how could the world in good conscience stand back and watch a genocide unfold without at least attempting to stop it?

Hmmm... I am familiar with the concept of fractional reserve banking and money as debt, but not how that works in the context of the Fed. As people have been saying quite a lot recently, The Federal Reserve Bank is not federal, it has no reserves, and it is not a bank.

The system is so different from what I am used to in my daily life that it is almost impossible to wrap my brain around it enough to understand all the implications. But I'm pretty sure that the outcry of "they're just printing money!" is quite pointless and merely a demonstration of ignorance.

>> ^bamdrew:

Not that I disagree, but golf is a funny sport; its almost like poker, where you look at it and see statistics and chance, but then there are people who consistently are there on the leader board or in the top 10 at competitions week after week, year after year.
And then even beyond them you get a Jack Nicklaus or a Tiger Woods, where its absolutely surreal to see the control they have over their muscles, taking in so much experience and quickly calculating based on so many variable and constraints how to move a little ball so far away to such a specific location. It can be absolutely remarkable.

>> ^westy:
The thing is its not realy calculable by a human , so its largely chance ,
you would have to ask him to take the same shot 50 or so times and then see how often it goes in the whole to see how much skill comes into it.
Im sure you have to be very good to get to a level where its possibale to get it in with this kind of shot in the first place , but what im saying is that there is good statistical probablity that all of the pro players would probably make this same shot with the same odds.



yah , i was actualy thinking about poker as i was writing , the Thing is that you have a 20% margin for where u can apply skill so u realy have to capitalise on that 20% inorder to turn it from a game of chance to a skill game.

With this the only way to realy test it would be to have all the pro players play the same shot lots of times , or evan have the same guy do it 100+ times to see how often he gets it in , it would be intresting to see. (obvously the better players would do better , but at least it would be a more scentifc test of ones ablity to hit a ball with a stick and determin who is the most skilled at that given day)

the thing is that along with poker its almost impossable to tell if a shot like this or a specifc hand was intended skill or not , allso there are manny factors that let people that are comparative noobs eccell in given situatoins , which is why poker and golf are acccessable sports as it alows noobs to exsperance events that only the proes would normaly get.

I dont think skill is necaceraly important for enjoyment in sport i actualy think peoples obsessoin with specific skills is sumwhat strange as the players ablities are predertermind to a large exstent if not 100% ( upbrining , gentics , parents , diat , enviromental factors , intest in the sport , good at a activity that happens to pay)

Did a quick search for info.....might be better links but I was curious about the tires so I searched for tires as well in the search terms to see what came up.

Basically it sounds a lot like the TV shows discussing the way lightning interacts with the human body, which is to say it is almost impossible to predict what will happen. You may not suffer any lasting damage from it, or you may be burnt externally or damaged internally....

Cars can have no damage to being totally destroyed because the lightning super heats the moisture in the vehicle causing damage. Plastics melt, tires explode if it travels through them. One of the websites has pictures that look like chemical interaction on the metals but they say they are lightning strikes, so makes you wonder if it happens and no one notices sometimes.

They both say that you are safer in your vehicle as long as you keep your hands off metal objects to minimize risk of it jumping into your body even with the possibility of the vehicle suffering one of the freak damage incidents.


http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_pls/vehicle_strike.html

http://www.weatherimagery.com/blog/rubber-tires-protect-lightning/


As a side note, I didn't search too hard for it but there was a TV show once interviewing at least one person struck by lightning and investigating it's affects on others or the possibilities of what could happen. There was a guy on there who was struck but the lightning traveled along his skin where rain/sweat was collected and burnt him in the pattern in traveled and they showed some of the damage he suffered from it...noting that external while bad isn't as life threatening as when it goes through your body instead of along it.

My dog is part border collie, she does this all the time.
Sometimes she gets going so fast, her back-end starts passing her front-end.
I've never seen a dog that can corner as fast!

Now imagine, you need to catch the dog so you can put her outside, and she doesn't want to go out.
Almost impossible to catch if she doesn't want to be caught!

And her favorite game outside is tag and you're it!

Mods: is it feasible to rename this, or at least add some tags? It (deservedly) gets repeatedly posted because it's almost impossible to search for.

>> ^CreamKreatorAlong with handicapped, mentally ill, anybody really who can't be a good capitalist and take care of them selves without any help from anybody.

First of all, it is the noobiest of noob mistakes to say that capitalists can't be charitable. Charity can ONLY occur from capitalist money because it is a voluntary relinquishment by definition. Second, the only systems in which people become that destitute on average are socialist systems where production is punished and idleness is rewarded until there is very little productivity to actually be divided. Even I might feign illness and take from the pot you're so eager to fill for me. What are you going to do to stop people from doing that? Who is this grand assessor of value of which you speak?

I know, let's copy Finland, people who live much more modestly, spend 1% what we do on national defense, and don't have reserve currency priveleges, a truly insane example of socialism that could "work for us".

Where does that lead us? Education is the next victim. No more decent public schools, everything is privatized, that's capitalism!

Good, the whole problem with public schools is that it is a complex service financed on forcible appropriations. Normal businesses fear losing customers. These people don't. I've read articles of California superintendents embezzling thousands and then keep their pensions when they get out of prison. That's just the worst of the worst. The union collusion and retained voting rights has made it almost impossible to get teachers to eliminate themselves or take pay cuts. People are forced to pay their salaries and moving away from a good job is an uncertain substitute for true choice. Vouchers would be a huge step forward because it puts the spending power with the consumer instead of the provider. Teachers and those who hire them would suddenly fear losing business to other schools and would no longer be able to suck with impunity.

Capitalism doesn't work. Communism didn't work. Even pure socialism won't work. Any political ideology won't work by itself. They need to be mixed up, democratic capitalist socialism would be somewhere closer to perfect society.


Capitalism isn't a system of government, it's simply a term referring to the percentage of earnings controlled by earners. Socialism is the percentage of earnings controlled by non-earners. Nobody who advocates capitalism truly believes in taxless anarchy without courts or national defense. What we don't want is the government being used as a conduit to incentivize one legal behavior over another or benefit one business at the expense of another. You and everyone on this forum continue to vote for obvious corporatists, not me.

Then you throw around the term "democracy," big red flag for anyone who truly understands government. Democracy is mob rule. Clearly, some things should not be decided on a majority vote. That's why we are a REPUBLIC with a paper dictator called a constitution. The more we keep disobeying it, the more miserable we're going to become.

Or you can take the one thing out of that equation that causes pain and suffering more than any idea in the history of man: Money.



That's nonsense. Money is a commonly accepted medium of exchange to defeat the inefficiency of barter. It is, in essence, a product that is a placeholder for other products. That was truer when we were on gold than now, but still... Are you saying you don't want people to make stuff and trade with each other? Stop watching TV and read "Economics in One Lesson." It's only $10 on amazon.

All you people do is post videos of pissed off protesters who take positions without understanding them. Weaksauce.

In ten years the Bale Batman voice will make it almost impossible to watch Dark Knight without feeling embarassed.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
And leave us not forget that the reason it costs these companies so much money to make even a single drug is - that's right! - GOVERNMENT. The FDA regulations & requirements for drug companies are ridiculous. Yes you want drugs to be safe and tested. But the process today is so labrynthine and difficult that it is almost impossible to get a drug out of testing without around 20 YEARS (!!!) of testing. As a guy who works as a statistician for clinical tests, I can tell you that even small tests are not cheap. Every drug that goes through the FDA chipper/shredder must have literally dozens of large scale longitudinal tests performed. And if the results don't satisfy even ONE of those bazillions of FDA rules then back to the lab you go to start all over again.
You want to know why drugs are so expensive in America? It isn't because "Big Pharm" is trying to rape you. It is because they are trying desperately to recover from the raping they got from government. You want to drop drug prices by 50 to 75% in a day? Abolish the FDA.


Statistician on clinical trials? You've just admitted to being a professional liar. Also, you've just admitted to the source of all your bias.

All your bias are belong to us!

And leave us not forget that the reason it costs these companies so much money to make even a single drug is - that's right! - GOVERNMENT. The FDA regulations & requirements for drug companies are ridiculous. Yes you want drugs to be safe and tested. But the process today is so labrynthine and difficult that it is almost impossible to get a drug out of testing without around 20 YEARS (!!!) of testing. As a guy who works as a statistician for clinical tests, I can tell you that even small tests are not cheap. Every drug that goes through the FDA chipper/shredder must have literally dozens of large scale longitudinal tests performed. And if the results don't satisfy even ONE of those bazillions of FDA rules then back to the lab you go to start all over again.

You want to know why drugs are so expensive in America? It isn't because "Big Pharm" is trying to rape you. It is because they are trying desperately to recover from the raping they got from government. You want to drop drug prices by 50 to 75% in a day? Abolish the FDA.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I can't imagine that the producers of this commercial didn't realize that there might be some racial overtones in handing out a bucket of fried chicken to a group of Africans. Maybe it is my Americanness. I'll wait for more Aussies to chime in.
>> ^kymbos:
I'll suggest you are not separating your own cultural history from the Australian context, something that's almost impossible to do. As an Aussie living in Australia, I'll assert that the fried chicken thing is not well known, nor have I ever heard it applied to Indigenous Australians, which would be quite ridiculous were it done and clearly made out of complete ignorance of its origins.
Perhaps you mix with people more worldly than most Australians, or at least more familiar with American culture and history than most.
I think an American seeing that ad has an immediate and emotional reaction that is quite different to an Australian. What I'm saying is that the internet has no context, so things can be interpreted very differently depending on the viewer's cultural background.
Do you really think the ad was made intending to suggest that all black people like fried chicken, so feed them KFC should you meet some?

I'll suggest you are not separating your own cultural history from the Australian context, something that's almost impossible to do. As an Aussie living in Australia, I'll assert that the fried chicken thing is not well known, nor have I ever heard it applied to Indigenous Australians, which would be quite ridiculous were it done and clearly made out of complete ignorance of its origins.

Perhaps you mix with people more worldly than most Australians, or at least more familiar with American culture and history than most.

I think an American seeing that ad has an immediate and emotional reaction that is quite different to an Australian. What I'm saying is that the internet has no context, so things can be interpreted very differently depending on the viewer's cultural background.

Do you really think the ad was made intending to suggest that all black people like fried chicken, so feed them KFC should you meet some?

If it were me, I would have had a hard time keeping a straight face at the "fug you!!!". Almost impossible to fight when you're laughing...

I would go further and say it's almost impossible NOT to screw up with American nation building. My point on Iraq is not that nation building there was sure to work. If anything, it was almost certainly doomed to the horrific failures we've been watching over the last years. My point was that spending those same years under Saddam's rule would've been worse, more and more as each year goes by. The majority of the problems in Iraq regarding infrastructure and the economy didn't start with the American invasion, but with Saddam's continuing construction of new palaces while sanctions starved the rest of the country. The reason the riots and mis-content America faced from the public hadn't boiled out when Saddam was in power was entirely a testament to the fear he had sown in people. If you were suspected of questioning Saddam, you might find the police knocking on the door the next day and handing you a video of your daughter being raped by them.


I'm also more than a little concerned that the country is going to dissolve about 15 minutes after the last troops leave.


Me too, but I'm confident that at least the Kurdish region will make out alright. I'm also hopeful the interest they show in working with the rest of the country will help keep it stable. In either event though I find it hard to imagine an Iraq that is worse than it was under Saddam.


To a large extent I think America needs to rethink the way it uses military power in modern times. Specifically, this idea that any trouble spot in the world should be dealt with by invasion and US-led regime change.
...
I definitely think going through the UN for problems of that scale is a good idea


I agree that America needs to be extremely careful with it's use of it's power. I also feel though that if America is never willing to use that power, then many nations are going to start acting that way. Look how many instances there are of nations that ignore all UN warnings, condemnations and rebukes over human rights violations and atrocities, content in the knowledge that it is all bark. For every wrong step America has made with military action you can point to an atrocity that went unchecked by inaction as well. In the line that needs to be walked between when to act and when not to, Iraq is an example of a fight that was put off too long, rather than jumped into too soon.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I think we ended up getting lucky with Iraq. I don't think it's a testament to how it's somehow impossible to screw up with American nation building, I think it's a testament to how expensive in terms of both money and lives it can be, even when the country is theoretically low-hanging fruit in terms of nation building.

I'm also more than a little concerned that the country is going to dissolve about 15 minutes after the last troops leave.

I do want us more active in Sudan, but not militarily. I still think the fix for Sudan is for America to use its diplomatic ties to encourage China to stop supporting the Sudanese massacre.

I'm less certain of what to do about Congo. I certainly don't want us to roll in there with troops and tanks and tell them we're going to "help" them establish a stable government.

To a large extent I think America needs to rethink the way it uses military power in modern times. Specifically, this idea that any trouble spot in the world should be dealt with by invasion and US-led regime change. I didn't like us doing that during the Cold War, and I like it even less now.

I definitely think going through the UN for problems of that scale is a good idea. I don't think that means giving the UN a veto over US actions, but I definitely think we should be extremely careful about when and where we "go it alone."

For the moment, I think America's plate is past full. If the world comes to us begging for help, we should help, but I don't think we should be shopping for new places to invade, we should be getting disentangled from the countries we're currently in.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I find the argument of 'why not country x' to be completely lacking in relevance. I'm not arguing that America chose to remove Saddam because it made the world a better place, especially for Iraqi's. I'm arguing that for whatever unknowable reasons America really chose to remove Saddam, that an Iraq free of Saddam is better for the region and the Iraqi people. So much better in fact that you'd be hard pressed to screw such a war up badly enough to make things worse when you were done. Now the Bush admin certainly tried very hard to screw it up, but thanks in large part to the Kurds the situation in Iraq today IS much brighter than it would have been with Saddam still in power.

Would it be 'better' if America had put the same effort into Sudan or the DR Congo? Maybe, the atrocities in the Congo shock the conscience, but it would also be harder to stabilize than even post-Saddam Iraq. I find it hard to use that as an argument against what America did in Iraq. To play that argument out in a fair way, I would point the finger at the whole 1st world and blame them all for doing nothing to help the people of Sudan and the DR Congo. I would give a slight nod to the Americans though in understanding that they were tied up in Iraq and that their actions there had at least helped a different humanitarian disaster.