North Korea has taken half a dozen swings at the US, both figurative and literal.
A: A nuclear test on the 4th of July, three years ago, shortly after new threats were released against thme.
B: The missile test, after consistent demands to not conduct the tests, and shortly after a new round of sanctions following the previous sanctions that followed the nuclear test.
C: The second nuclear test.
D: Screwing the US on the no-nuke treaty the US originally agreed to.
E: Reversing the second disarmament agreement negotiated during Bush Jr.
F: Unending threats, including threatening to destroy the US and CONSTANT threats of invading South Korea, including the massive mobilization at the border.
G: Sales of nuclear material and missiles across the world, including intercepted material in Libya and Syria, in blatant disregard for the fact that the US has a declared attribution policy with regard to North Korean nuclear material (If North Korea assists proliferation outside its borders, they are responsible for the results of that proliferation).

That means two things:

1: Empirically, the US won't respond militarily to actions that don't cause collateral damage to the US.
2: North Korea empirically is willing to saber-rattle, and play a good deal of brinksmanship, against the US.

There's a simple reason as to why North Korea would take a swing at the US: They think we'll crack.  Look, the US already has military commitments outside the Korean Peninsula, and possibly another flare-up in Iran.  Each troop commitment reduces US resources to respond to North Korea, whether it be manpower, military hardware, or simply economic power.

The US has already negotiated two different agreements with North Korea, while at the same time, North Korea, has been trying its hardest to piss us off.  The result?  They get a better deal each time.

Consider it like a hostage situation.  A dozen terrorists holding 100 prisoners are almost guaranteed to get their asses kicked if they fought against the police.  However, if they don't retain a tough stance against the police, the terrorists look like wimps, and the prisoners aren't considered to be in danger immediate enough to warrant serious concessions in negotiation.  Thus, the terrorists need to engage in brinkmanship: The threat to cross a line, without actually crossing the line.

I guess that means you're going to need to show him!  Start advocating rampant genocides?

I'm not saying there aren't military options possible.  The US could also use a dozen strategic nukes to turn the country into a parking lot.  I'm arguing both political capital and economics reduce the likelihood of a US retaliation.

Let's take your air strike example.
1: It expends resources of key air power that is currently used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2: Replacing lost missiles, lost aircraft, and hazard pay increases for wartime soldiers creates a short term financial burden on the US government.
3: An anti-war candidate lobbying for a preemptive war against North Korea would be extremely damaging politically.
4: Best case scenario, there would be disruption of trade with a key trade partner, South Korea.  Worst case scenario, South Korea could be devastated in the conflict.
5: Didn't Vietnam show you that air power is useless without ground support?  Unless you can take control of the weakened territory, structures can be rebuilt, borders can be fortified again, and supply lines can be redrawn.
6: You can't secretly mobilize large-scale forces.  The US wouldn't be able to hide its military movements from the Press, let alone North Korea.  It's just impossible for us to say, "Oh, by the way, remember that aircraft carrier we said yesterday was parked in the Persian Gulf?  April fools!  It's actually just short of North Korea!  Just got there, and now we're gonna blow up the place!  GG, Kim!"

What?  They're trying to remove Asian physical characteristics on women?

Okay, I'm ready to form an angry mob!  Any other guys with me on this? 

1: Your tax scheme doesn't assume relative GNP to government spending.
2: Seriously?  You think 15% is the top bracket?  If you told a rich guy in the US that you were going to require he pay a 15% income tax, he would immediately get a sex change and ask if he could have your baby.  The highest tax bracket in the US is in the mid-30s.  True, government tax breaks allow that to SIGNIFICANTLY drop.  However, there's one issue which people consistently forget about: corporations.  The vast majority of rich people in the US get their money from corporations somehow, whether it be via stock investment or working in that corporation.  In short, though, they're owners of businesses, by and large.  Corporations in the US are also taxed for income, which means the income of people who obtain their income from a corporation is double taxed: Once when the corporation makes the money, and once when that money is distributed to its shareholders.
3: The double-taxation system means that progressive taxation is already implemented in the US.

In my day, we tied string to dinosaurs and tugged on them to get the dinosaurs to fight each other!

Okay, on the "who was the favorite candidate" issue, I'm challenging both LP and Theo: Bring out your sources.  This whole thing of asserting your correctness and demanding that the other prove it is bullshit, and it won't get anywhere.  If you guys want to get into the issue, start pulling some internet links (legitimate news sources, not joesblogofutterbullshit.com) and prove your side.  In short, put up or shut up to both of ya.  X(

But then it's not a video game!  Then it becomes... work!

OOOh, this gave me an idea:

1/1/2020: "Microsoft has introduced its latest game for the Natal 4 Xbox system: The Ancient Gamer Simulator, or TAGS.  Set in 2005, players can become part of the ancient world of video game playing, and relive how less advanced breeds of nerd survived through a society without motion-sensor controllers.  Players will need to sit down for long hours, manipulating these archaic video game systems by simulating the pushing of 'buttons' on handheld control systems.

"Along with the action within the video games players will be playing, players will also be able to control the life of their video game character directly!  As history records at the time showed, ancient video game players faced a number of dangers, ranging from carpal tunnel syndrome to massively damaged eyesight due to prolonged focus on monitors, and even instances of death due to sleep deprivation.  TAGS has integrated this into the everyday lives of your character.  Players will have to fight off the many dangers to their character by going upstairs to make a Hot Pocket, sleeping, or just turning off the game and talking on the phone with other friends online about a game they were just playing a few minutes ago.

"As an added bonus, the characters can be ported to Microsoft's other latest project, The Sims 8.  There, the character will be able to explore the world outside his mother's basement, where he can work, meet new people, and get a real life.  Playing in The Sims 8 will also enhance the playing quality within TAGS, with money earned working in The Sims 8 will allow players to buy new video games for TAGS, increasing the fun expontentially."

> avogadro wrote:

> > Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> > avogadro wrote:

> a scientist is whoever claims to be one.

I disagree with that!  I should know!  I'm a scientist, after all! 

ok, mr. scientist what are your views on global warming?

Oh, that's not my field!  I'm a specialist in bullshitology!

The problem with sexual harassment charges is that they're hard to prove, especially as time passes.

When the original evidence gathering is shortly after the incident, it's simpler, as the police can look for dead giveaway clues (semen, alcohol in the child's system).  However, these charges were filed long after the crime in question.  That means the strength of the evidence was lessened... you were left with such things as witness testimony from the accuser, rather than physical evidence.

That's what she said!

> Elrohir wrote:

> Since changing the subject is not really against the rules I do not really see the problem here Zarf. Of course you could say this is hijacking or that this is in the wrong part of the forum. But look at it this way, the original question was not politics either so on that behalf nothing really changed here.

Let's debate this on both a "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law" level.

Letter:

7. No spamming
- Off-topic posts: Posts which do not fit in with the general topic of the thread.

Remember, it's blatantly clear that the original topic was "where is Flint."  Nobody is arguing that the original topic is even remotely related to the new topic.  Subjects are defined by their original post.  That's blatantly clear.  At the point where the 1st post started talking about soccer, that 1st post was off-topic spam, since there was no large discussion to support the legitimacy of that statement at the time.  Then you can apply the exact same argument to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and so on.  Here's the problem: You're not evaluating the posts chronologically, but are instead taking into account events that hadn't happened yet in justifying prior topics.

Spirit:

Very simple: This ruling creates a number of negative harms:
A: It wastes the time of people who were going to answer the original question, since the topic name doesn't fit the content.
B: People who want to talk about the current subject, yet couldn't give a shit about Flint, wouldn't notice the football discussion.
C: If a new thread is created with the same topic, you've got the issue to figure out: Is it better to keep the thread with more content, yet an incorrect name, or better to start from scratch with a new thread?  If you fix the issue now, this potential problem is resolved because it allows people to re-post their arguments, or at the least lose less content from the original conversation.
D: Worst case scenario, you create a loophole in what was probably the most straightforward rule ever, that being "If the original topic sucked, you can make a new topic within that topic."  That's stupid:
a: Allows people to deliberately "assassinate" threads by posting new subjects within threads.
b: The standard you create for topic worthiness is pretty much based on individual perceptions, both of the moderators and of the forum posters.  Specifically, a forum poster can "justify" their actions simply with public approval.  The ONLY reason why this is justified, even by your own admission, is because there is activity on the new topic, which means the rule exists, yet it is being ignored because lots of people broke the rules together.  Isn't that counterintuitive?

> As far as the hijacking goes, as no one really attempted to answer you can hardly say anything was interrupted in this thread. So instead of this thread dying lonely at least this thread got a subject where apparently a lot like to talk about. But it seems you prefer to complain then to give others that pleasure...

Oh, I wonder why nobody posted in the the original subject!  Seriously, it's common sense:

A: It was in the wrong forum.  Not politics, as you said.  Thus, it deserved to be moved to community.
B: Go look at the times of the posts.  The 1st post that started the soccer discussion happened SIX HOURS after the original topic!  That's not nearly enough time for a "Where is Flint" thread to even get a basic answer, even if we assume that every person checks IC once a day regularly, due simply to time zone differences.  The thread was still in its infancy when these guys transformed it into a soccer thread.  What, did you expect 200 posts within the first few hours?
C: The particular subject wasn't one which needed a billion writers to be useful.  The subject was asking a question of fact (Where is Flint), which requires only one answer to be effective.  One "I know where he is" answers the question, making the thread fulfill its purpose.  You're trying to apply standards from conventional threads with these simpler, single-answer threads.  Otherwise, what would be needed for this thread to gain any sort of moderator protection would be for 30 people to respond with "I don't know where Flint is."  That's retarded.

By the way, it's not a question of "should we keep this thread or kill it."  You have plenty of alternative options at your disposal (such as creating a new topic and copy/pasting the old discussion there).  Or you could allow a new topic to create itself, if this discussion is so awesome.