Party Hard 2 Update V1 0 013-CODEX Patch
Varyarmah Knox
I think of Jimmy Carter. After he lost the election to Ronald Reagan, Carter came to see me in my office. He told me he was seeking contributions to the Jimmy Carter Library. I asked how much he had in mind. And he said, Donald, I would be very appreciative if you contributed five million dollars.
One would doubt that, given the staggering amount of money poured into various places across the globe. Haiti in particular has received enormous amounts of aid, and has more or less lurched from one crisis to the other. Rational Altruists could learn a lot from Christians, as they have dealt a lot with the money/labor divide.
Jesus teaches lessons of the coming apocalypse. The Gospels anticipate the end of the world within the lifetime of those who first utterered them. Perhaps even by the time they were first committed to paper this was starting to look likely, but it is still hard to understand the teachings of Jesus in the context of a world expected to continue on for even a few generations.
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Matthew 24:30-34
And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Mark 13:25-30
I think the standard counter to that would be to assert that the Pope has no real control over when infallibility is invoked. The church does not control God, but rather God controls the church. As to why God does things as he does? Who are we to questions or know?
Well, the president can only interface with a finite number of people daily. I imagine Trump plans to yell with just the right volume at the people he surrounds himself with to fix the problem, and since they are presumably the best at their respective fields, they will in turn yell at just the right people, recursively, until the world is reformed in the image of Trump
Well, does anyone think President Obama is sitting at his desk with a pencil and paper totting up figures for how Medicare (or Obamacare, or any other policy) will work and taking notes about which office in what state deals with how many clients?
But is that how being president works? You set a really minimal goal and you make it and everyone says, my gosh, he did a great job? Or do people instead insist everything you do against a series of metrics you never claimed would be met and then declare you a complete failure and demand your immediate impeachment?
Many people do not understand the simple fact that presidency is not about doing anything specific, but the simple management of people, and choosing the right people for the right jobs. In fact the president does very little in terms of hard detailing in much of anything, other than areas that require immediate judgement, like war, or an emergency. Otherwise the bureaucratic machinations should take care of mundane, everyday tasks, but also the complex issues that require hundreds of people to find a solution, which needs to right, specific leader to manage.
4. Most people believe that holding a nationwide popularity contest is the best practicable way to select the people who will be in charge. They believe that this is better than hereditary rule, or the kinds of internal politicking that selected the members of the Politburo, or the (actually very clever and intricate) system that selects the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
It could in theory work the same with the Enlightenment principles of the American Constitution. It would be like having the federal judiciary select candidates for the Electoral College, who elect the president, who appoints the members of the judiciary.
Agreed! But voters love hearing sweet lies more than harsh truths. Which is why tax hikes are always going to be on the rich, government spending will never really be cut, entitlements will last forever, generous pensions will last forever, etc.
One group that has created its own schools, not just supplementary schooling, to protect its culture is the Amish. Education is in English, which is not the home language, but the culture is Amish, not English.
If we could really claim that America is still truly the land of opportunity for people from around the world (and enjoy the economic benefits that entails) then that would make me feel a lot better about the inevitable social upheaval that entails.
There is a repeatedly made claim that if there were not so much illegal immigration (either because people did not immigrate, or because they immigrated illegally) then several South-Western based domestic industries would be driven to bankruptcy by their dependence on illegal (right free, poorly paid) labor.
Whether or not the claim is true, it is possible that enough people accept the claim that local and state politicians support keeping immigration illegal, preventing a stronger national intervention from gaining support.
Those book quotes sound a lot better than the typical candidate who promises to do X, Y, and Z with no idea about running an organization that is about as easy to direct as a herd of rampaging animals. And since they precede the campaign, they are more likely to indicate how he actually thinks than anything he says now.
Yes, yes. I understand all the arguments about epistemic status and so forth. But Scott seems to think that if there is evidence, right in front of you, that someone is awful, that the best thing to do is go full score in favor of how not awful they are. Unless of course they are doing very specific awful things, in which case, that awfulness must be amplified.
He says that the illegal immigrants who come to the US from Mexico are pushed here by Mexico and are the worst elements of Mexico, that they are rapists, drug dealers, or diseased, there are many fabulous Mexicans who come here, but these are the legal immigrants.
I would not describe myself as a Trump supporter. He just seems to me the least bad of the likely options, and much of the criticism of him seems to me overblown, unfair, or else to depend on pattern-matching to Hitler. My estimation:
Sanders: much worse than Obama on domestic, significantly better on foreign policy. The latter point alone might be enough to make me support him, especially over Hillary, but he seems not to have any more realistic chance of winning the nomination, much less the general.
Of course, even many people who enjoy zombie fiction freely admit that its principal appeal is the fantasy of finally having an excuse (nay, an imperative) to shoot all your annoying neighbors and coworkers plus everyone who lives on the wrong side of town from you, so this is hardly surprising.
The morally correct thing, if you respect that woman, is to treat her her exactly as you would a man, and if that means putting her in her place either through words or violence that is what you should do.
@ anonymous:
If you have even half a brain you pick your fights carefully. People get hurt in fights. I might beat Scott in a physical altercation, but he might still get a shot in or two. Maybe Scott pulls a weapon and shit goes pear-shaped. Or maybe he just has friends and connections that could make my life difficult. In short, why would I take that risk? Or alienate a potential ally in future altercations?
With the case of physical fitness tests, the problem is that there is no objectively-founded requirement for someone to be able to do a certain number of pull-ups to serve in the military. The test is a proxy for general physical fitness and health.
I also said that I can think of reasons for having the fitness test standards be the same between men and women. I can also think of reasons for having them be different. I never came down on the side of having them be different. In fact, I lean the other way.
The thing is, whenever any kind of bureaucratic procedure is challenged, it suddenly becomes the stone tablets which are the bedrock of our society. In other words, regardless of other factors, there is generally a strong status quo bias.
Absent data to suggest the military is suffering in combat readiness due to changed PT standards, the proper assumption would be to assume that DOD is setting PT standards properly to satisfy their goals.
My impression is similar to HeelBearCub: manufacturing as a share of the labour force is in general decline worldwide because we are constantly getting better at making more stuff with fewer people. The same is true of farming.
What are those exactly? Are people fired from their jobs for not voting Trump? Have people been forced to cancel speaking arrangements at universities for not voting Trump? Are non-Trump voters discriminated against in academic hiring? Does the overwhelmingly pro-Trump media publicly shame non-Trump supporters? Do Trump supporters go to Democrat rallies dressed in KKK hoods?
b1e95dc632