Sicarii

Whatever your politics, it must be refreshing to see a candidate for President speak (and write) above a fifth grade level.

It is scary, to me, that they are allowed to get away with such deception. Look at this person, for example, and how much lies and defamation he has spread yet he is still free. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/02/26/jacob-wohl-spread-twitter-lies-mueller-rbg-2020-election/2917226002/ Kamala Harris ineligible to run for president because her parents were born outside USA Fabricated sexual misconduct allegation against Mueller Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in vegetative state After flying to Minnesota to investigate "allegations" (read: malicious lies) that Rep. Ilhan Omar married her brother, he began a series of bizarre tweets alleging Minneapolis has been overrun by Somali jihadists, requiring him to wear a bullet proof vest and travel with a team of security professionals. All patently false, but that doesn't phase him (nor is he concerned): Excuse my language, but WTF! And he plans to use that philosophy to target 2020 Democratic candidates:

How has “going high” benefited Democrats?

He did not offer to pay their legal fees.

Hi Jasmin, In short, no. Do not give up on your engineering dreams. I cannot give you information specific to New York as I have not lived in the state and do not know much about their education system. But, you can always go for a GED if you have trouble obtaining your high school diploma. A GED is equivalent to a high school diploma. For more information, please visit the following website: https://ged.com/. I also recommend talking to your high school guidance counselor and to a college guidance counselor, and explain your situation. They will be able to help guide you on what you need to do moving forward. Good luck to you!

I assume you're asking about how effective gun control laws are at preventing people from converting semi-autos to fully automatic weapons? Please clarify before I respond.

It is legal to own fully automatic weapons in the US under the National Firearms Act of 1934, as long as it is registered with ATF (with $200 tax that goes with it). However, the registry was closed in 1986, meaning no fully automatic firearms made after 1986 can be registered. To obtain one legally, you'd have to find a legal owner and convince the current owner to sell it to you. The limited supply means you'd have to pay a hefty sum. The other way would be to obtain a Federal Firearms License and have a law enforcement agency request you get a post '86 dealer's sample (any fully automatic weapon made after 1986) so that the law enforcement agency can evaluate the weapon for possible use. In other words, it is very rare for anyone to obtain a legal fully automatic weapon, as they are not readily available on the market -- even if legal. Media pundits often confuse semi-automatic weapons and full automatic weapons, so it's important to remember to note the difference. Semi-autos fire one round per trigger pull, then divert some of the gas produced to eject casing and load another round. With full autos, pressing and holding the trigger results in the gun firing until it runs out of ammunition. Having said that, semi-autos can be modified and converted into full autos. You can also obtain parts of a fully automatic weapon off the darknet and assemble it by watching a YouTube video -- it is actually very easy to do and doesn't require much expertise beyond basic ability to take apart and put stuff together.

Could you please list the names of places in France, Britain, Sweden, and possibly Germany and Belgium, which are allegedly "no-go" zones? Once we know which places you are talking about, then it will be quite easy to verify your claims.

@waitforufo There is a clear-cut contradiction in your stance with respect to "government handouts" or social welfare in general. For example, you oppose universal health care which is subsidized by taxpayers, yet at the same time oppose "government handouts". However, people who cannot afford health care and go into medical debt (which constitutes the #1 reason for personal bankruptcies in the US) are more prone to need "government handouts" in order to survive. If a universal health care system was implemented, they wouldn't go into crippling debt and they wouldn't need "government handouts". I put this contradiction and inconsistency from conservatives on par with their "pro-life" platform where they oppose legal, safe abortion procedures while opposing comprehensive sexual education, free contraceptives, and better family planning services. You probably also oppose universal education which provides higher education to people regardless of their income level. People who attend college are less likely to need welfare. Furthermore, you incorrectly categorize the population that receives welfare or "government handouts". You wrote "A non contributor to society? Well if your housing is subsidized by the public, you have an EBT card, your kids are on a free school meal program, you have an obama phone, your obamacare premiums are subsidized, and/or you receive earned income tax credits, and you do not pay taxes in excess of all of this public funding, then you are a non-contributor." But that's not exactly very accurate. What's the percentage of welfare recipients who receive all of these benefits? Your entire discourse regarding this subject seems to be based on stereotypes of welfare recipients as opposed to the facts. For example, 90+% of welfare recipients are either elderly, disabled, or working household (53%, 20%, 18%, respectively) (Source: https://www.cbpp.org/research/contrary-to-entitlement-society-rhetoric-over-nine-tenths-of-entitlement-benefits-go-to). The same report also found that middle class people receive a proportionate share of welfare benefits, and that wealthy households (top 20%) receive a much larger share of tax expenditures than their poor or middle class counterparts (contrary of the usual rhetoric by conservatives that the government is taking from the middle class and rich in order to give to the poor). Funny you should cite FDR, knowing modern conservatives absolutely despise (at least most of) the programs he created as part of the New Deal. Not to mention that you can't really compare current status of US economy versus its status at the height of the Great Depression. The problems are not the same so the solutions cannot be the same.

The most troubling success of Trump so far is his federal court appointments, most of which will be confirmed by GOP Congress. Midterm elections in 2018 are crucial, and that cannot be understated. "Trump’s predecessors all slowly ramped up their judicial nominations during their first six months in office. Ronald Reagan named Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court and made five lower-court nominations in that period; George H.W. Bush made four lower-court nominations; Bill Clinton named Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the high court but no lower-court judges; and George W. Bush named four lower-court judges who were processed by the Senate (plus more than a dozen others sent back to him and later renominated). The most successful early actor, Barack Obama, named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and nine lower-court judges who were confirmed. What about Trump? He not only put Neil M. Gorsuch in the Supreme Court vacancy created by Merrick Garland’s blocked confirmation, but he also selected 27 lower-court judges as of mid-July. Twenty-seven! That’s three times Obama’s total and more than double the totals of Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton — combined. For the Courts of Appeals — the final authority for 95 percent of federal cases — no president before Trump named more than three judges whose nominations were processed in his first six months; Trump has named nine. Trump is on pace to more than double the number of federal judges nominated by any president in his first year. Moreover, Trump’s picks are astoundingly young. Obama’s early Court of Appeals nominees averaged age 55; Trump’s nine picks average 48. That means, on average, Trump’s appellate court nominees will sit through nearly two more presidential terms than Obama’s. Many of Trump’s judicial nominees will be deciding the scope of our civil liberties and the shape of civil rights laws in the year 2050 — and beyond." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-one-area-where-trump-has-been-wildly-successful/2017/07/19/56c5c7ee-6be7-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.fc71530ea8e0

The Swastikas were a celebration of Indian and East Asian cultures, duh!

Keep watching -- BB starts off really slow. When I started watching it, I watched first 3 episodes and stopped... only to binge watch the whole thing when my Facebook blew up about the series finale, some 3 years later.

Lost after season 2 started going downhill, in my opinion. Still a great show; I wouldn't say 'best' though.

The North Korea problem is in China's ball court. As such, the US needs to focus on forcing China to deal with it. I am not normally an advocate of nuclear use, even for power, but hypothetically speaking: Why doesn't the US threaten China with a Nuclear South Korea and Nuclear Japan? The last thing China needs surrounding it is two US-friendly nuclear powers.

I can't think of a particular case at the moment, and I don't think there is; if something comes up, I will be sure to inform you. Thank you for your help on navigating the spacing issue in the posts. Furthermore, the old software combined consecutive posts by the same user into one post, but that feature seems to have been removed by the update. It was a nice feature and kept the threads tidy.

Where's your "proposition in Physics"?

Which "Superior Intelligence" created the "Superior Intelligence" which you chose to call "God"?

You are right, I did not notice this before. Good to know, thanks!

I agree, the Admiral did not qualify his answer, and he should've in the face of such a loaded question. Without qualification and taking his statement at face-value, then your following conclusion is correct, "the admiral essentially said that crimes against humanity be damn and he would follow an illegal, unprovoked directive it so ordered." Going beyond that, however, the Admiral's motives or perspective in answering the question is unknown. He could very well be against your conclusion (and probably is), yet his manner in answering the question suggested otherwise, for one reason or another. Furthermore, I do not like your comparison of travel ban to use of nuclear weapons. It's like comparing possession of marijuana to serial murders... "well, they're both crimes!"

I could've sworn there was a thread for comments/problems about new forum software, but I cannot seem to find it... Most annoying features: -Double spaced posts -Missing "preview post" feature before submittal I am pretty sure others have commented on those two features.. but I am unable to find those threads. If a solution was found, please link to it. Feature I suggest: -automatically save new post content after like 30 seconds or so. It sometimes takes me several sittings to complete a post, so it would be nice if the text is saved and carries over till next time so that I do not have to discard and start over (well, I currently just e-mail the text to myself as a workaround). Not sure if that's possible with this software; I've seen it on XenForo-powered forums, though.

Good questions. Thought I'd contribute: Source: https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/analysis.html Illegal sources seem to be more connected with fentanyl deaths. From the following study: "Given the strong correlation between increases in fentanyl submissions (primarily driven by IMF) (3,4) and increases in synthetic opioid deaths (primarily fentanyl deaths), and uncorrelated stable fentanyl prescription rates, it is hypothesized that IMF is driving the increases in fentanyl deaths. Findings from DEA (3,4), state, and CDC investigations (5) documenting the role of IMF in the observed increases in fentanyl deaths further support this hypothesis." Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6533a2.htm IMF = illicitly manufactured fentanyl Seems to be hydrocodone, oxycodone, and morphine. One source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/04/14/ban-some-pain-killers-here-are-6-common-opioids/?utm_term=.5ed1ac292f52 These three kept coming up as I was doing a search. Not having much luck finding information about laws or guidelines exempting fentanyl. This is a useful resource though, listing state by state prescription guidelines: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A32tM1nNFvjyKuFjowFcRu4M14aKgxJUbO4xsjtLqMw/edit#gid=492287167. None of them allude to fentanyl being exempt. The spreadsheet was accessed through: http://blog.aapainmanage.org/state-state-laws-regulations-guidelines-pain-management/. Federal drug penalties are the same according to the following link: https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ftp3.shtml. But that doesn't say much.

The question is quite loaded -- it gave no context to the hypothetical situation. There are two scenarios: Option 1: If the question is asking if the admiral would carry out the order of commander-in-chief and launch an unprovoked nuclear attack against China, then that would be wrong. I'd like to think our high-level military officers have it in them to disobey such blatant disregard for international law and human life. Option 2: If the question is asking if the admiral would carry out the order of commander-in-chief and launch a provoked nuclear attack against China, then there would be no problem. The attack would have some kind of justification that make it permissible -- in WWII, it was to force Japan to surrender and end the deadliest conflict in history. Since we do not yet possess the ability to read minds, there's no way to know which scenario is correct. I choose to believe that even Trump is not crazy enough to order an unprovoked nuclear attack, and thus I go with option 1.