rkbabang

Who was damned because they didn't? That hasn't been tried in generations. I'll answer this, but I'll try to not get drawn into the discussion further. Do you really believe that if some party withdrew US bases from Middle East and suspended support for Israel, they would not be damned? What about Iran? What is the "you don't" with Iran? Maintaining sanctions? Removing sanctions and doing nothing? Look how well that worked for Democrats. I don't have an opinion about the Iran deal and I don't know if you consider it "you don't", but it's not a bad example IMO for being damned if you don't. What about Iraq's Kuwait invasion in 1990? You really think that USA would have not been damned if they didn't? Edit: Also in something like Arab spring, there is no "you don't" option. You implicitly support either status quo or the rebels and different groups will definitely damn you for either stance. If your idea of "damned" is being criticized by someone, then of course you will be criticized no matter what you do. If your idea of "damned" is filling the world with violence, death, destruction, chaos, and terrorism, and plunging the US into massive amount of debt as $trillions are spent on wars, then yes, the US should have stayed out of the Middle East even after Iraq invaded Kuwait. And because it is better to be late than never, the US should pull up stakes and come home even now.

Who was damned because they didn't? That hasn't been tried in generations.

What a circus this election is. How can anyone take any of these people seriously. I love it. ABC News thinks Trump might drop out. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senior-gop-officials-exploring-options-trump-drops/story?id=41089609

The issue is sane vs. insane. I'd put it more as evil vs. insane.

I support Trump? LOL good God no. I wouldn't support that xenophobic moron ever. Not in this lifetime. Sorry. Also I admitted that I was wrong. I'll apologize if it will make you feel better. I'm sorry for being wrong.

His son died in 2004. How did the Democratic Party send his son to die? I missed that, I thought it was more recent. OK, so not his son, but they are the party who has most recently sent other people's sons to die. And Hillary is more of a hawk than Trump, so his support of one over the other makes little sense.

He is angry that Trump said mean words, so he supports the party that sent his son to die.

I've never seen the HBO series, but I've been listening to the audiobooks. I'm on book 5 "A Dance With Dragons" now. They are excellent, well written, highly detailed (as you said), and the audiobooks are well produced. I highly recommend them.

I was using it for a few years, but I'd inevitably forget to log on and adjust it and I'd get a shipment full of stuff I don't need. I just gave up and cancelled all of my subscriptions.

I've tried similar clubs in the past and even Amazon's "Subscribe & Save" feature and have never liked them. You end up with either way too much or not enough of the product over time. No one can predict in advance exactly the amount they will need every month from now and indefinitely into the future. I've given up all such subscriptions and just order stuff when I need it. The shave club isn't so bad, because razor blades are not perishable and you do use it everyday without fail, so it is more predictable than almost anything else. The problem with the dollar shave club though is that it is more expensive than just buying the equivalent Dorco blades on Amazon in bulk, so why bother? If the point was to save money then why not save even more?

I've got friends pushing this philosophy on me, but I don't agree with it. Of course the Russians have a motive. Of course they're doing this to influence the elections. But if a politician does some heinous stuff that wouldn't prevent them being elected if revealed, and it's revealed, then I don't blame the person doing the revealing (even if they have motive). It's still the fault of the person who did the heinous stuff and the identity of the person revealing it is totally irrelevant to the outcome of the election. If anything, we should thank the Russians if they have particularly damning evidence that is released that prevents an unfit person from becoming president... I disagree for two reasons. One, there's a distinction between acts/statements that are bad politically and ones that are bad morally. For example, if Hillary or Donald sent an internal e-mail affirming that she/he would be inclined to push TPP through after the election, I think that is a rational economic decision that can be justified based on policy grounds, but it would undoubtedly harm/his her popularity among the electorate. However, it wouldn't show that she/he is somehow morally unqualified to be President. Second, you presume that the foreign government doesn't have equally or more damaging information about the alternate candidates that it will not disclose. The purpose of their release of information isn't to embrace transparency by revealing all wrongs, but to selectively release data that furthers their agenda. Oh please. I typed a longer reply to this, then deleted it, because this tweet says it all. https://twitter.com/Flames_Baldwin/status/757548590495625216

I've been using the Dorco Pace6+ for the last few years: $1.92/cartridge if you buy 52 at a time on Amazon Prime (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00X6L90GK). Each cartridge lasts me about 2.5-3 weeks where the Gillette Fusion cartridges I used to use lasted 3-4 weeks. (Note: I tend to use my catridges until they start scratching my face and/or drawing blood, Yeah I'm cheap). So there isn't much difference in the quality and the price difference is night and day. The internet is such an always present everyday feature of our lives we forget that it is relatively new and we are still at the very beginnings of how it will reshape our society. I personally thing most of the old pre-internet big brands are doomed in the medium term. They are dead brands walking, people (especially the people that work for the companies) just don't realize it yet.

this is true, but it seems like every time i see some story about the media attention paid to civilian deaths in x, y and z countries, they ignore the news value of the story. a group of people dying in an attack in a war zone or politically unstable country is dog bites man, the same in a politically stable country is man bites dog. I don't see why this is true, but it appears that it is. I must be missing the tribalism and xenophobia genes, which allow you all to justify slaughtering human beings as if it's no big deal.

How can two people see so eye to eye on this issue, but total opposites on the 2nd amendment? Not trying to start another argument but I just find it fascinating. Anyway +1 for pointing it out. Terrorism or not (as per Eric above), targeted civilians or not, those lives are every bit as important as the ones lost in France - but won't deliver a blip in the media. And God forbid we apologize. Obama wouldn't even apologize for Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Pathetic. I see a distinction between self defense and murder. I carry a gun for self defense and would never dream of using it unless my life was in immediate danger. Dropping a bomb from a plane killing 85 people (whether or not they were your "targets") is as morally defensible as driving a truck over 85 people. I agree with everything you said above except for your implying that you support gun control. I don't find it odd that two people can agree completely on one subject and disagree on another.

Here's another brutal act of terrorism leaving 85 innocent people dead. Just horrible. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-least-85-civilians-feared-dead-after-us-air-strike-mistake-1571600

"That's the way you do it. Get your money for nothin' get your chicks for free" --John Maynard Keynes The beauty of it is that the consequences can be kicked down the road for a while. Remember to always think short term, because in the end we are all dead. Who gives a rat's ass about future generations?

Why do you own ETH? It was a joke before the hard-fork, it's just pathetic now. I own ETH and BTC. Not all that much of either though and more BTC than ETH.

Well I guess The DAO saga is over. They hard forked Ethereum and I was able to get my ETH refunded this morning.

This can't be the first time you've seen a politician being interviewed? Seriously - every politicians go-to when answering a question is either "bury them with bull sh*t" or "answer a different question that's more favorable to you." No one every directly answers questions - not in interviews, not in debates, not in anything. The purpose isn't for the general populous to have an idea of who they're electing. The purpose is to get them elected. The politician interview technique is that they use the pauses in between questions to say what it was they planned in advance to say regardless of whatever the questions happen to be.

This can't be the first time you've seen a politician being interviewed?

There is also the possibility that bitcoin will be only used as a long term store of value where other less deflationary currencies will be used as money. There are already a ton of different cryptocurrencies, Ether for instance has no cap on coin issuance, a certain amount will be mined every year. This is deflationary long term as well, because the same amount will be mined every year so it will be a smaller and smaller percent increase every year and eventually maybe not even enough to replace lost coins. But it is not nearly as deflationary as bitcoin. It wouldn't be hard to design a coin that would have an X% inflation rate built in and unchangeable, or X% for the first Y years then Z% thereafter, or whatever you wanted. I think it is still early in the cryptocurrency game and the one that eventually catches on might not even exist yet. Bitcoin, Ether, and all the rest might just end up footnotes in the history of decentralised money.

So everyone will value it so much that no one will want to part with it, making it worthless and nobody will want it? I think you are skipping a few steps. Value isn't like a light switch, today we turn it on and everyone values it and hoards it, tomorrow we turn it off and it is valueless and nobody wants it. If this incredibly valuable thing starts losing value because it is being hoarded by everyone, people on the margins will stop hoarding it and liquidity will increase. An equilibrium will be found (within a trading range anyway).

I agree. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/colorado-s-teen-marijuana-usage-dips-after-legalization/ Legalization is not only the only moral option (Why would anyone have a right to tell someone else what substances they can produce, own, buy, sell, or put into their own bodies?), but it is the only option that makes sense from a utilitarian standpoint as well. Prohibition is a colossal failure everywhere and everytime it is tried. It is a success in only three areas, police funding, government power, and mob/gang/cartel profits.

I've used aimloan before (https://www.aimloan.com/) They gave me better rates than the broker I was working with could give me so I went with them. Maybe because they are a direct lender and the broker needs to make a commision? I don't know. They also give you a rate quote on their website without you providing personal or contact info, this alone made me want to do business with them. Everyone else wants you to apply for the loan before they will tell you anything.

After my prostate exam the doctor left the room and the nurse came in. As she shut the door she whispered the three words no man wants to hear in this situation. "Who was that?"