|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
On April 21 2017 03:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote: Everyone get stoned and decide Sub Sex was the topic of the day? I'll take sub sex over electability every fucking time.
LOL, I wanted to type that but didn't want to be seen as stirring personal dislikes over and over again
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 21 2017 03:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote: Everyone get stoned and decide Sub Sex was the topic of the day? I'll take sub sex over electability every fucking time. I personally take the opposite view.
|
chaffetz resignation seems like it could potentially be the first domino in a chain, doesn't seem like it could be an isolated incident.
|
On April 21 2017 02:47 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:41 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:36 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 02:26 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:15 Eridanus wrote: Maybe all men need to be banned from submarines and space missions?
Can't believe this sexism is going on here, 2017. But then maybe I am naive at the masochism present in gaming culture. It is this weird debate where the argument revolves around people having romantic feelings being this unsolvable problem for the military. The same military that we expect to deal with complex, nuanced conflicts all over the world, sometimes without limited input from the US directly. But a man and a woman fucking on a sub will will somehow be more challenging to deal with than alcoholism or something. Can't we be opposed to both alcoholism and interpersonal drama on our nuclear submarines? It's not like anyone here is saying that we're fine with alcoholism on a nuclear submarine but against fucking. I don't think this is really all that complex. There are a few jobs in which you're expected to change your entire life and be a 24/7 professional while you occupy them. This is one of them. It doesn't mean nobody in the military can fuck. It doesn't mean women or gays can't be in the military. It just means that if you're currently stationed on a nuclear submarine then be a sailor first. That's all. It's the same with mind altering substances, gambling and a bunch of other things we ask them not to do. At least in Her Majesty's Royal Navy, there was no rule against drinking until this incident: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11037096/Royal-Navy-alcohol-consumption-curbed-after-fatal-submarine-shooting.htmlAnd insofar as I know, there's still no rule against drinking (just guidelines). Now you can obviously oppose this and feel such a rule should be imposed. I expect gambling is similar, and low stakes poker games will happen as a way to pass the time, which you could also oppose, I guess. But I also suspect such rules will be instantly broken (if the 1920s can serve as a warning). I also suspect that the environment will not actually improve. Obviously things like getting shitfaced should not be tolerated (and probably already aren't), nor getting into serious gambling debts (harder to detect and act against). But some light drinking and cardplay seems like a great way for people in a high stress environment to let off some steam. Kinda reinforces my point. A drunken sailor on a nuclear submarine shooting the commander of the submarine is the kind of story that should literally never happen. The chain of fuckups that need to happen in order for that result is insane. If, for whatever reason, Britain needs to launch a nuclear missile the ability to do that should not be dependent upon whether the commander of a nuclear submarine is currently trying to deescalate a shitfaced crew from killing each other. If your intent was to say "look, they drink, surely sex can't be worse than that", well, I don't disagree with your point, I just don't think they should be doing either. Great. But you're ignoring the human condition. I can agree that alcohol probably shouldn't be allowed on nuclear submarines (and alcoholics shouldn't be allowed to crew them). It's relatively easy to enforce. A prohibition of sex, however, is nigh impossible to enforce (except a posteriori, which is too late to be useful). So it's far better to discourage it, expect it to happen, and educate everybody on how to deal with any tensions that arise from it.
Most things (like murder) are difficult to enforce except for a posteriori.. but if that later enforcement causes some degree of deterrence, then it is successful.
|
President Donald Trump unexpectedly called out Canada on Thursday over the impact of their agricultural policy on American farmers.
“I want to end and add by saying that Canada — what they’ve done to our dairy farm workers is a disgrace. It’s a disgrace,” Trump bluntly stated during a ceremony in the Oval Office.
The President noted that he “spent time with some of the farmers in Wisconsin — and as you know, rules, regulations, different things, have changed; and our farmers in Wisconsin and New York State are being put out of business — our dairy farmers.”
Trump continued by contending, “The fact is, NAFTA — whether it’s Mexico or Canada — is a disaster for our country. It’s a disaster. It’s a trading disaster.”
The billionaire added that “we can’t let Canada or anybody else take advantage, and do what they do to our workers and to our farmers.”
Trump later announced that “we’re going to have to get to the negotiating table with Canada very, very quickly…this is another NAFTA disaster, and we’re not going to let it continue onward.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/its-a-disgrace-trump-slams-cananda/
This is random
|
On April 21 2017 03:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote: Everyone get stoned and decide Sub Sex was the topic of the day? I'll take sub sex over electability every fucking time. I read this post three times and agree with every sentence.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 21 2017 03:29 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +President Donald Trump unexpectedly called out Canada on Thursday over the impact of their agricultural policy on American farmers.
“I want to end and add by saying that Canada — what they’ve done to our dairy farm workers is a disgrace. It’s a disgrace,” Trump bluntly stated during a ceremony in the Oval Office.
The President noted that he “spent time with some of the farmers in Wisconsin — and as you know, rules, regulations, different things, have changed; and our farmers in Wisconsin and New York State are being put out of business — our dairy farmers.”
Trump continued by contending, “The fact is, NAFTA — whether it’s Mexico or Canada — is a disaster for our country. It’s a disaster. It’s a trading disaster.”
The billionaire added that “we can’t let Canada or anybody else take advantage, and do what they do to our workers and to our farmers.”
Trump later announced that “we’re going to have to get to the negotiating table with Canada very, very quickly…this is another NAFTA disaster, and we’re not going to let it continue onward.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/its-a-disgrace-trump-slams-cananda/This is random Trump operates on the working assumption that the US has been busting its ass all over the world and all countries just take advantage of the US all the time - and he needs to complain about it every once in a while to keep them on their toes.
|
On April 21 2017 03:29 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +President Donald Trump unexpectedly called out Canada on Thursday over the impact of their agricultural policy on American farmers.
“I want to end and add by saying that Canada — what they’ve done to our dairy farm workers is a disgrace. It’s a disgrace,” Trump bluntly stated during a ceremony in the Oval Office.
The President noted that he “spent time with some of the farmers in Wisconsin — and as you know, rules, regulations, different things, have changed; and our farmers in Wisconsin and New York State are being put out of business — our dairy farmers.”
Trump continued by contending, “The fact is, NAFTA — whether it’s Mexico or Canada — is a disaster for our country. It’s a disaster. It’s a trading disaster.”
The billionaire added that “we can’t let Canada or anybody else take advantage, and do what they do to our workers and to our farmers.”
Trump later announced that “we’re going to have to get to the negotiating table with Canada very, very quickly…this is another NAFTA disaster, and we’re not going to let it continue onward.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/its-a-disgrace-trump-slams-cananda/This is random
did they run a segment on it on Fox News? that would explain it.
considering the sub discussion it's either that or Nugent and I think everyone agrees that he's a terrible human being who deserves as little attention as possible
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 21 2017 03:25 ticklishmusic wrote: chaffetz resignation seems like it could potentially be the first domino in a chain, doesn't seem like it could be an isolated incident. Something is certainly rotten in the state of Denmark but the question really is, is it just a chain of many stupid and incompetent people or a larger conspiracy?
As of now I'm leaning towards the former because I don't see any consistency in how things go ungoodly in the government.
|
United States42778 Posts
I often feel like Trump believes the United States doesn't export anything and that imports simply undermine the natural autarkic state of affairs. If your country produces X cheaper than another and the other country produces Y cheaper than your country then everyone benefits from trade. You shift workers from your Y industry to your X industry, they do the inverse, everyone gets X and Y and everyone pays less.
Trump looks at this purely from the perspective of an American producer of Y and demands that someone fix it. It's a really worrying level of ignorance from a political leader. To the point that we should probably see if Xi Jinping can spare a few minutes to explain basic economics to him.
|
doesnt the us have obscene subsidies for dairy farms already
|
That viewpoint could have been countered by an 8th grade understanding of US history and how our country has prospered. So I am not shocked Trump has that view of US trade.
|
On April 21 2017 03:41 ticklishmusic wrote: doesnt the us have obscene subsidies for dairy farms already
not sure about dairy forms but in general farms in us have turned into corporate things with massive subsidies. I think it would be easy for Dems to start targeting more farm areas if they'd just focus more on it (Franken as far as I can tell is the only Democrat who does because he's a member of the minnesota democratic farmer-labour party)
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I think of farms as a strategic resource that, while unprofitable, should be kept domestic to a large extent (with the exception of import of particularly exotic foods) so the subsidies are of little concern there. Farming isn't particularly profitable on the market.
|
|
The problem is that the US has no problem feeding itself and we cannot product all the foods people want year round. So we import some foods(strawberry in winter) that sell. If we move to a purely self sustaining style of farming, it would need to be entirely state run and controlled to assure that we don’t overproduce food that we cannot consume.
Absent that, we export the extra food. Which is fine, there are sections of the world that can’t specific types of food.
|
On April 21 2017 03:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 03:06 Doodsmack wrote: Top House Republicans may be nearing a significant breakthrough among some key players on efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare, one month after a Republican health care bill was pulled from the House floor.
Conservative House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadow and moderate Tuesday Group leader Tom MacArthur are working toward a deal that could bring 18-20 new "Yes" votes from the conference's conservative wing, according to a source familiar with the talks. But it's not clear there would be enough votes in the broader GOP House conference to pass the bill.
The White House and GOP leadership have been involved in the talks and are aware of the latest progress, the source added. www.cnn.com Greaseball congressional Republicans aren't averse to removing protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Go figure!
Can't imagine this new version not getting curbstomped in the Senate. If it doesn't lose too many moderates on the House and even gets out that is. We'll find out as early as next week.
|
On April 21 2017 03:59 Plansix wrote: The problem is that the US has no problem feeding itself and we cannot product all the foods people want year round. So we import some foods(strawberry in winter) that sell. If we move to a purely self sustaining style of farming, it would need to be entirely state run and controlled to assure that we don’t overproduce food that we cannot consume.
Absent that, we export the extra food. Which is fine, there are sections of the world that can’t specific types of food.
minor quibble. We have the ability to have no problem feeding people but due to realities and lack of support 1 in 6 Americans are food insecure. Meanwhile republicans want to cut after school programs that feed people and SNAP
|
On April 21 2017 03:21 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:43 Plansix wrote: I saw a report saying that Chaffetz might have been offered a spot on Fox News. Don't see how that would be worth it. Whole thing seems fishy. All the networks pick up contributors for random reasons, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.
|
news stations love former x people. gives them sort of a credibility. fox has Hannity and a 9/11 truther so I don't think they have very high standards.
|
|
|
|