In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
My second 10/10/of the night. Also bravo for your earlier recognition of Russia being the ones that bled the Germans.
That's pretty much the general consensus everywhere but in the US and UK, as a sidenote.
It's the consensus in the UK. We're just proud of holding out and doing the right thing when it was hard. We know we lost the war (went in for the preservation of the European balance of power, British superpower status and Polish statehood, came out 0/3).
Best moment was when Christie got Rubio to short circuit into an infinite loop. + Show Spoiler +
I don't see it helping Christie much but it was Rubio's worst debate by far. Rubio still got the most google and website action though, so who knows if a bad debate will hurt him much.
Just when you thought Rubio was on the upswing though...he delivered a terrible debate performance.
This entire election cycle so far has been one giant rollercoaster, just when you think you have it figured out, randomness occurs.
On February 07 2016 00:50 oneofthem wrote: problem with idealism in this instance is not the distance of the ideal but the effectivrnrss of policy and action the particular idealist support.
the free slaves analogy does not apply because freeing slaves is far better policy than three trillion unfunded spending
That's not how analogies work. The analogy is fine you just don't want to free the slaves.
Bernie is the guy saying give each slave a mule and 40 acres. You think it's too expensive.
People can say they don't like Bernie's policies. My point is that it's idiotic to say, Bernie has some great ideas but he won't "get shit done" like Hillary will so I'm voting for Hillary.
Uhh,,, Bernie has great ideas, which from a policy standpoint are not realistic. No one is going to sit here and say they are against free healthcare or getting rid of money from politics. But you cannot convert these into policy just because Bernie and millennials like them. Application even in the presence of political will is unlikely. But yeah go for it.
Also that analog7 is terrible and strongly undermines the impact of slavery. Coherent enough for you ?
Have you heard of wage slavery?
Dude, im from Pakistan. I find it amazing that you can ask me that question. You havent seen wage slavery.
Hey man, I'm amazed you could fail to see the parallels too.
Because there are hardly any, the entitlement complex you operate on is on a level that doesnt exist even in developed countries where social programs work.
On February 07 2016 14:19 IgnE wrote: What? Entitlement? What?
Going to lecture me about the repercussions of slavery and entitlement?
im not lecturing you about anything, I didnt mention any "repercussions" not sure where that came from.
Im just telling you your analogy was poorly made, you can debate the merits or demerits of it all you want, wont change anything. If all you've got to defend some of Bernies outlandish policy goals is sarcasm and misdirection, welll...
Didnt you suggest it was pointless to argue with me vis a vis my incoherence ? Wheres the high horse now ?
Yeah it is. Sometimes I like to stare into the abyss though. That dark yawning maw of incuriosity. I guess I'll have to chalk it up to ignorance. I like to be more charitable than simply ascribing idiocy.
On February 07 2016 14:28 IgnE wrote: Yeah it is. Sometimes I like to stare into the abyss though. That dark yawning maw of incuriosity. I guess I'll have to chalk it up to ignorance.
Well thats what you get for supporting stupid policies and pretending that people disagree with them because "Bernie cant get shit done," when its really "no one can get THAT shit done."
Well played with the sarcasm though. A solid endorsement of your point.
"Bernie can't get that shit done because nobody has gotten that shit done except for the many countries that have gotten that shit done in order to be ready for the new wave of capitalism where Coase's Theorem is finally recognized as retarded, rather than the base of an aristocratic economic model that should be pursued.
On February 07 2016 15:42 Jormundr wrote: "Bernie can't get that shit done because nobody has gotten that shit done except for the many countries that have gotten that shit done in order to be ready for the new wave of capitalism where Coase's Theorem is finally recognized as retarded, rather than the base of an aristocratic economic model that should be pursued.
When you help someone out in person it can gain you a lifelong friend while helping someone through the government is so impersonal.
On February 07 2016 15:42 Jormundr wrote: "Bernie can't get that shit done because nobody has gotten that shit done except for the many countries that have gotten that shit done in order to be ready for the new wave of capitalism where Coase's Theorem is finally recognized as retarded, rather than the base of an aristocratic economic model that should be pursued.
When you help someone out in person it can gain you a lifelong friend while helping someone through the government is so impersonal.
This is true. Nice slaves are always treated well until they're hanged for getting too familiar with their masters. Capitalism, in its purest form offers no incentives to share power. The "free market" is nothing but a veil for the new age aristocracy.
Someone pointed out that Cruz may have sat back (and even dodged a few times) because he wants Trump to win NH over Rubio, and of course Trump can take a quieter tone because he's massively in the lead. In that case, all went well for both of them. Although Rubio got better by the end- his answer on abortion is sure to make up for a lot. I think his campaign manager or something said he got a lot of donations after that happened. We'll see. I have no idea how useful this google + donation thing is.
Radioactive material has leaked into the groundwater below a nuclear power plant north of New York City, prompting a state investigation on Saturday and condemnation from governor Andrew Cuomo.
Cuomo ordered an investigation into “alarming levels of radioactivity” found at three monitoring wells at the Indian Point energy center in Buchanan, New York, about 40 miles north of Manhattan.
“Our first concern is for the health and safety of the residents close to the facility and ensuring the groundwater leak does not pose a threat,” Cuomo wrote in a letter that directed health and environmental officials to investigate.
In one location radioactivity levels rose nearly 65,000%, from 12,300 picocuries per liter to over 8,000,000 picocuries per liter. The Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum contaminant level for tritium in drinking water is 20,000 picocuries per liter, though Entergy, the company that owns the plant, emphasized that only groundwater, and not drinking water, were contaminated.
The governor’s office said the contamination had not moved offsite. Cuomo has encouraged Entergy to shut down Indian Point, but to keep its other plants further upstate open.
He directed health and environmental officials “to determine the extent of the release, its likely duration, cause and potential impacts to the environment and public health”.
“While elevated tritium in the ground onsite is not in accordance with our standards, there is no health or safety consequence to the public,” Entergy said in a statement released late Saturday. “Releases are more than a thousand times below federal permissible limits. The tritium did not affect any source of drinking water onsite or offsite.”
Debbie Wasserman Schultz has got to be hoping Hillary Clinton can take down Bernie Sanders in the primary.
Or it’s going to be a long road to November.
The chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee was mercilessly heckled while she spoke at a Democratic Party dinner in Manchester, New Hampshire Friday night.
C-SPAN cameras were trained on a man holding a flashing Bernie Sanders sign who sat stone-faced while the audience cheered Wasserman Schultz.
“We’re going to stand up and fight!” Wasserman Schultz shouted at a fevered pitched. “We’re going to make sure that every single American understands the choice that we have in this election leading up to November.”
The two men donning tuxedos in the background were clapping wildly for Wasserman Schultz while the Sanders supporter in a sweatshirt didn’t budge.
The shot cut away from the man just as he put his hand to his mouth to shout “you suck!” which was audible in the video.
“It is so critical, so critical that we focus on making sure that we can draw that contrast,” she continued in a softer tone, as if the man’s insult was sinking in.
It wasn’t the only incident of activists lashing out at Wasserman Schultz, who has been accused of shielding Hillary Clinton during the primary process.
Amanda Terkel from the Huffington Post reported the audience booed Wasserman Schultz’s name when it was mentioned.
How can you say "ISIS controlled territories" and not grasp that the strength of the organization, their ability to conduct attacks in Europe, is fundamentally connected to controlling an area the size of a country? Do you consider Al-Qaeda has become more or less of a threat after the assassinations of its leadership and it being stamped out of territories where it enjoyed a safe haven?
Dude, the last attacks (incidentally the worst in a long time) were self-radicalized groups. They weren't recruited by ISIS. They weren't funded by ISIS. If ISIS would've been destroyed a year ago, these attacks STILL would've happened, because there's no connection other than resonating with the ideology of ISIS and thinking that Sharia Law > all, djihad etc.
Islamic fundamentalism is NOTHING that you can bomb. And frankly, you're an idiot if you think so. Apart from the obvious fact that we already have the next terror-group in the pipes - or do you think that remaining ISIS members and/or self radicalized cells wouldn't flock around al nusra when ISIS is gone?
By self-radicalized, you mean that of their own volition, they gave their allegiance to a terrorist organization?
Saying that you "cannot bomb an ideology," as I often hear, is vacuous as you can't "do" anything to an ideology as such. This may be why you overlooked what I said about Nazism, because you seem to be selectively ignoring the fact that since the war in Europe ended, Nazism has had almost no effect on society.
Again. You want to compare Nazism to religious fundamentalism? How many suicide-nazis have you seen in history after WW2?
Right. Now have a hard think as to why that's different. You will have a very big problem if you have as many radicalized muslims as you have neo-nazis.
And no, i never said "you can't do anything against an ideology". I said "WE can't do anything against that.". Spot the difference.
I don't see many Nazis at all, which is why I consider your claim that there are more neo-Nazis than radical Muslims in the world to be dubious.
5600 in germany alone (and that's not including other right-wing-extremists, just people that are registered as neo-nazi). You know, the country that is widely considered as the nowadays least nazi-friendly country.
On the other hand, you didn't see "many" Nazis - how many terrorists have you seen then? Do they even exist? Because i bet you have never seen a single one.
And that's from the "Verfassungsschutz", Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. And that's NOT including the ones that are not "registered".
5600 is basically the equivalent to the ELF or other radical environmentalists. That is the definition of success against an ideology.
The biggest terror series in the last 15 years in germany was commited by a neo nazi group, and was indirectly supported by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Strange definition of success you got.
Compare the amounts and popular image of Nazism in Germany today to that in 1944. I'd say you can hardly crush an ideology more.
Sure, there are some nazis. But not a lot of them. Completely eradicating an ideology is impossible, but i find it hard to see a reduction by at least one or two orders of magnitude as anything but an amazing success. I don't think anyone would dispute that Nazism is a very Fringe phenomenon in German society today.
I actually find your definition of "success" a lot stranger, as it appears to me that you imply that anything but a total victory in all areas without any trace of the opposition left can be deemed a failure, which does not sound like a very reasonable stance to have.
EPT
Dude can't talk the talk at all it would seem
