1,076

(63 replies, posted in Politics)

...I think you mistake the purpose of the appointment...

1,077

(63 replies, posted in Politics)

Yeah I nominate Rand Paul for that Battlefield commander president.

And after him Bill Maher. Meghan McCain.  Rachel Maddow.  Heck the whole MSNBC lineup.  The cast of Glee.  That gay guy who made Torchwood.  Lets see..

/me hums "I've Got A Little List"

1,078

(3 replies, posted in General)

shut your man pleaser

1,079

(63 replies, posted in Politics)

...and the proof of the Sino-American axis is, they won't fire nukes at us?

1,080

(74 replies, posted in General)

/me polishes forum jackboots

1,081

(63 replies, posted in Politics)

I'm suprised China won't support that; perhaps they figure that a unified Korea under Seoul will be an American base for invading China.

In fact if the Korea situation is resolved, we'll be thrown out of Korea and Japan.  We'll base no closer than Guam.

1,082

(74 replies, posted in General)

- 1 forum nazi

1,083

(74 replies, posted in General)

-1 for lack of a rhythm or rhyme

1,084

(63 replies, posted in Politics)

no sad

I had broodwar with the hacks it was fun

Protoss carriers ftw

1,085

(1 replies, posted in General)

By BEN WALDRON
Mar. 28, 2013
A Dutch start-up named Mars One is hoping to send a select group of brave astronauts on a one-way trip to the Red Planet in the year 2023 with the aim of establishing a permanent human colony.

If all proceeds as planned, Mars One would launch four astronauts on the interplanetary voyage in 2022, landing the team on the surface of Mars in 2023, after which they would begin constructing the colony. Every two years, a team of four additional astronauts would arrive to reinforce the existing colony.

Founded in 2010 by 36-year-old engineer Bas Lansdorp, Mars One says it has developed a road map and financing plan for the project, and that the mission is perfectly feasible. "Mars One has developed a precise, realistic plan based entirely upon existing technologies," the website says. "It is both economically and logically feasible, in motion through the integration of existing suppliers and experts in space exploration."

Lansdorp told ABC News the primary colony, which will consist of several interlocked modules, will include small bedrooms, a larger common room, and areas for computer and research work. "It will look a lot like an Arctic station," said Lansdorp.

In the years leading up to the astronauts' landing, several cargo missions will take place to prepare the settlement. "Two rovers will move the equipment to the right location to the settlement, which will be habitable before they depart from earth," said Lansdorp. "After they land they will have to do a lot of construction work to make it their new home."

In order to raise the estimated $6 billion required to fund such an ambitious project, Lansdorp says that it hopes to capitalize on vast public interest in a manned mission to Mars by selling global broadcasting rights to the mission.

"The revenue garnered by the London Olympics was almost enough to finance a mission to mars," Lansdorp said. "We believe that if we can make this happen it will be much bigger than the Olympic games."

In effect the entire mission, from the early stages of planning, to the selection of the crew, to the landing and construction of the settlement, would be a massive reality TV show.

Mars One expects to begin the selection process for the astronauts who will be participating in the mission this spring.

"It will be a worldwide search for the best candidates and about six groups of four people will be selected in 2015," Lansdorp said. "From that time on they will be full-time employees of Mars One and they will learn all the hardware, medical skills, how to construct and repair and grow their own food."

Lansdorp says he is expecting over a million applications from prospective Mars One astronauts from around the world. After several application rounds designed to narrow the field and ensure that candidates are qualified, Mars One intends to broadcast the national selection process worldwide as a type of reality TV show, with viewers picking the eventual winners.

"We feel the selection of the first people to go to Mars should be a democratic process, we want to ask the audience 'who do you want as your ambassador to Mars and your envoy for mankind?'"

The project is not without its skeptics, and concerns have been raised about the logistics required to get the astronauts to the Martian surface, and their ability to provide for themselves upon arrival.

"To send people there, with life support, with food, with air, with all the other things that they need, books, entertainment, means of communication, and means of providing for their own resources for a long stay on Mars, that's even more challenging," said Mars expert Dr. Alan Baker of Kingston University in the U.K. in an interview with Reuters. "The sheer size of the rockets you'd need to do this would be absolutely colossal," he said.

But Mars One and Lansdorp remain optimistic, and stressed that the technology required for a one-way trip to Mars already exists.

"We know that we are working on a complex, ambitious project. There will be many hurdles to take, but we are eager to face and overcome those hurdles with the help of our suppliers, advisers and ambassadors," he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/dut … Vip4aKsiSo

1,086

(63 replies, posted in Politics)

dunno what that is so probablyno

1,087

(7 replies, posted in General)

I'm never getting a smartphone again

1,088

(63 replies, posted in Politics)

if they nuke China they're going to need South Korean expertise on holding off Zerg rushes

1,089

(37 replies, posted in Politics)

Scaramanga was finishing his exposition. "So the net of it is, gentlemen, that we need to find ten million bucks. The interests I represent, which are the majority interests, suggest that this sum should be provided by a note issue, bearing interest at ten percent and repayable in ten years, such an issue to have priority over all other loans."

The voice of Mr. Rotkopf broke in angrily. "The hell it will! Not on your life, mister. What about the seven percent second mortgage put up by me and my friends only a year back? What do you think I'd get if I went back to Vegas with that kind of parley? The old heave-ho! Arid at that I'm being optimistic."

"Beggars can't be choosers, Ruby. It's that or close. What have you other fellows got to say?"

Hendriks said, "Ten percent on a first charge is good pizzness. My friends and I will take one million dollars. On the understanding, it is natural, that the conditions of the issue are, how shall I say, more substantial, less open to misunderstandings, than the second mortgage of Mr. Rotkopf and his friends."

"Of course. And I and my friends will also take a million. Sam?"

Mr. Binion said reluctantly, "Okay, okay. Count us in for the same. But by golly this has got to be the last touch."

"Mr. Gengerella?"

"It sounds a good bet. I'll take the rest."

The voices of Mr. Garfinkel and Mr. Paradise broke in excitedly, Garfinkel in the lead. "Like hell you will! I'm taking a million."

"And so am I," shouted Mr. Paradise. "Cut the cake equally. But dammit. Let's be fair to Ruby. Ruby, you oughta have first pick. How much do you want? You can have it off the top."

"I don't want a damned cent of your phoney notes. As soon as I get back, I'm going to reach for the best damned lawyers in the States-all of them. You think you can scrub a mortgage just by saying so, you've all got another think coming."

There was silence. The voice of Scaramanga was soft and deadly. "You're making a big mistake, Ruby. You've just got yourself a nice fat tax loss to put against your Vegas interests. And don't forget that when we formed this Group, we all took an oath. None of us was to operate against the interests of the others. Is that your last word?"

"It damn well is."

"Would this help you change your mind? They've got a slogan for it in Cuba-Rapido! Seguro! Economica! This is how the system operates."

The scream of terror and the explosion were simultaneous. A chair crashed to the floor and there was a moment's silence. Then someone coughed nervously. Mr. Gengerella said calmly, "I think that was the correct solution of an embarrassing conflict of interests. Ruby's friends in Vegas like a quiet life. I doubt if they will even complain. It is better to be a live owner of some finely engraved paper than to be a dead holder of a second mortgage. Put them in for a million, Pistol. I think you behaved with speed and correctness. Now then, can you clean this up?"

1,090

(37 replies, posted in Politics)

YOU WERE WRONG EINSTEIN!!!!

First 100,000 euro - protected

22.5% of accounts over 100,000 - there but not paying interest.
37.5% of accounts over 100,000 - seized and depositor given shares of bank
40.0% of accounts over 100,000 - earning interest on paper but not repaid to depositor unless the bank is doing ok.  According to the banks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ … 3I20130329

1,091

(17 replies, posted in Feedback)

thunderdome is the only way out

1,092

(63 replies, posted in Politics)

we can't beat North Korea! Surrender now while we still have enough people left alive to offer them slaves in tribute!!! aaaaa

who gives a damn about hpv? that only affects bitches anyways

It can give throat cancer to anybody who brings their tongue in contact with genital warts.

1,094

(29 replies, posted in Politics)

And you again make appeals to majority, that if a majority hasn't elected leaders to end the endless war, then clearly it's actually a war and both legal and rational.  Because Congress passed a law that says we're at endless war with an enemy who we're still funding and arming to this day. Nevermind that this isn't a "war" as the word was used in the Constitution (nor an insurrection nor anything else the language makes exceptions to the Bill of Rights for).

First off this is dead wrong.  Congress doesn't have to make you happy about the war for it to have authorized a real live war.  It's Congress, and it voted for war.  The war is therefore legal.

And when you're wrong about whether or not we're at war, then every other argument you make based on the declaration that we're NOT at war, is wrong.  Right there. 

And secondly, I do not make any "fallacy" of an appeal to a majority.  I'm saying your complaints about the uselessness or meanness or cruelty or lack of racial focus, or whatever man, of the non-war, is solvable by ENDING THE WAR.

The war is lawful because Congress begun it.
After you end it, it will have been lawful because Congress voted on it.
You can't transform it into a unconstitutional war.
But you can END it.

With those two points I counter everything you've brought to the table.

You're totally wrong that Congress can't declare a war if it doesn't suit your secret unAmerican ahistorical definition of a war; all your complaints about that war are PROPERLY and FITLY resolved by ending the war.

Filibusters for no damn purpose are harmful.  Rand Paul is proving unfit to serve.

What I did say is that US citizens are not the claimed "Al Qaeda" enemy that we're supposedly at war with.

We ARE at war with Al Qaeda.

Adam Gadahn.
John Walker Lindh.
Anwar Al-Aulaqi.
Nidal Malik Hasan.

US citizens ARE the enemy we're fighting.

And obviously you're not reading my posts, I pointed out how you lie when you claim you say "literally nothing" about the difference between war and insurrection, and then I quoted you giving your theory of that difference.  I already posted it and you can read it.

CDC says there's 70 million cases of HPV in the US.  So that's not half.  Between 1/4th and 1/5th.

Keep it in your pants!

1,097

(29 replies, posted in Politics)

Kemp I'm getting very tired of your lies.  Your outright deliberate falsehoods.  When I answer your points by saying they are wrong, I have responded to you.  I do not have to ACCEPT your claims and then argue presuming you are correct in identifying the problem. 

"You're wrong, we don't have to do that" is a perfectly logical response. 

Yet you lie and say I don't respond to you.

Also you continue to spout outlandish absolutes and superlatives that have no bearing on what you write.  You are in love with the word "literally" without any clue what it means.   It is not a synonym for "OMFG".

You started this thread praising an idiot who says a wartime President can't fight a war on US soil against US citizens. 
I pointed out an example of our first president doing just that.

In discussing that example, you do not deny that Washington did call out the militia.  You can't.
You don't deny he didn't get a warrant to arrest anybody.  You can't.

Instead, you initiated an argument over the different rights of the government, granted in the Constitution, to fight "insurrection", with the limitations of the Constitutional wartime powers of the government, which are limited by the Amendments, you say.

You said that "of course" if there was insurrection, the government could do what you complain it's doing; but there is no insurrection.

By saying this you relied on a distinction between war and insurrection.  You insist, without basis, that the War on Terror must be fought with due process; you insist, without basis, that wars against insurrection don't have those limits.

You repeated this basic point in your post above, and then, lie again and say that "literally nothing" you've said makes that point.  And then lie saying I don't respond to your points.

In September 2011 the United States Congress authorized military force against Al Qaeda in accord with the War Powers Act, which Congress has declared allows for military operations without a formal declaration of war if the President makes reports to Congress every 90 days.

Of course I am referring to this authorized war, not to some "imaginary" state of permanent war.  We are at war by a specific act that you can specifically revoke.  If you can't stomach the war then go ahead and revoke it.

That's my response to all your complaints: go ahead and revoke the specific authorization of military force.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/undeniab … ry-have-th


makes sense to me

1,099

(29 replies, posted in Politics)

the fact that someone cant distinct between a foreign threat and a domestic threat terrifies me. your willing to throw away all human rights for a false sense of security.

The point of this thread is that Rand Paul did a great job hollering that the President can't use lethal force on Al Qaeda in America.  We're at war with Al Qaeda. 

In response to my arguments he just says "well end it." Because obviously appeals to majorities are logical arguments.
Why bother thinking or arguing anything? By his logic, the sheep herd is always right. If they were going to do something, they'd have been herded into doing it already. Arguments are irrelevant because they don't think, they just do as they're told.

I see, you are justified BECAUSE you won't rally a majority of voters to a legal solution to all your complaints.  Cause that's herd mentality.  You'd rather continue a war you think is unwinnable and bitch about it.

I made no claims that the Constitution distinguishes between "insurrections" or "war," The Yell. Please learn to read before responding to my posts that we may have a discussion.

You lie.

The Constitution hasn't been amended, and Congress cannot pass laws which violate the fourth of fifth amendments. It's still illegal to bomb Americans who aren't in combat or imminent threats. Laws supposedly permitting it are illegal. The fact that the current administration redefines the words "imminent" and "threat" and "combatant" doesn't change the Constitution, and it expressly forbids what they're doing and what Congress has authorized.

If there was an insurrection, they could legally combat it. Since there isn't one, they have no legal authority to bomb Americans or put their hands down children's pants."  -Kemp, post #8

What I said is that Congress doesn't have the legal authority to declare an endless war against everyone, nullifying the 4th and 5th amendments without the due process of amending the Constitution.
But, because I actually said that, you didn't respond on that topic.

Go get an English vocabulary.  "Hell no, you're wrong" is a RESPONSE.

Yes, Congress has the legal authority to declare an open-ended war. 

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAR, END THE WAR.

You continually accuse me of theatre while refusing to respond to anything I've actually said

If I don't agree with you that is a response.  If I say, "so what, it's not your call, you can end the war or put up with it" then I've answered every complaint about the war you can make. 

There's no need to be so defensive.

Everyone note the date and time Kemp asked me to be more offensive.

In 2010 there were 308 million people in the US

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/brie … 0br-03.pdf

243 million were 16 and over

50 million were 62 and over

So that's about 187 million people to share about 140 million cases of STI.

Of course there's doubling or tripling up in there but...those aren't impressive odds