Emperor Petitt
-
Posts
173 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Emperor Petitt
-
-
10 minutes ago, SatsumaFSoysoy said:
There's a bot on Twitter that checks every 15 minutes to see if Heroes has been released yet:
It's 10 am in Japan now, but still no Heroes. Since they post a pic, I'm thinking it shouldn't be too hard to tell if they're saying the game is released even if you can't read Japanese, so I suppose it's worth following.
google translate says it is not out yet, but google translate is not always accurate
-
Regardless I am sure people will find some way to say "Putin did it"
-
1 minute ago, 0w0 said:
I wonder how many people are going to be salty or angry when the character they voted for didn't win the ballot.
I voted Nephenee, I accepted defeat long ago
-
Just now, Rezzy said:
I'm surprised it's taking so long. Did Jill Stein demand a recount?
She must of after raising millions of dollars, most of which she keeps to herself XD
-
2 minutes ago, Birdy said:
While I'm pretty sure you're right, I believe I saw a lot of people talk about 7pm before as opposed to 7am. This is going on a limb (curiosity too), but does Japan actually use AM and PM in their time notation though?
No, I believe they use 24 hour time
-
1 minute ago, FrostyFireMage said:
I don't see anyone complaining about how one of Ike's entire arms is completely exposed
Ike's right arm is exposed, there happy?
-
Hillary was actively pushing for killing allot of Syrians and Russians with that no fly zone, if you honestly think Russia would not declare war when you are actively killing its military personnel, you are insane. Russia doesn't have the capacity for a conventional war with the US, it's navy is all but nonexistent, and it's Air Force is out dated. Army would be a fair chance, and Russia's AA systems are better but that is it for a war without nukes, Russia loses. The only real advantage Russia gets is if you add in Nuclear weapons, which considering fighting the US navy is a no go, the best chance for Russia to survive would be Nuclear war. Putin isn't sane, so why would killing Russiams giving him the best excuse for war be a good bloody idea? Hell even Hillary can be quoted for saying "the nuclear option should never be taken off the table" publicly, she is equally insane. As for those poll numbers, if you tell a lie enough times it becomes true to people like a religion, in this case its corporate media's tales of what is Trump, and as I'm speaking CNN was hit with a lawsuit for racial discrimination, and the NYT had to clear out 10 floors of its main building because they lost so much revenue from posting lies. The rest of what you said has no relevance and will get zero attention.While I do think the no-fly zone in Syria was a colossally bad idea, I don't see how Trump is any more trustworthy.
-
I know, for the final time, I voted Trump TO PREVENT THAT. I did not want the no fly zone, so I voted trumpHillary was the one proposing the no-fly zone over Syria.
-
That is why I said I would be happy without it...The installment of a no-fly-zone over Syria is a terrible idea. In addition to helping nobody except the terrorist groups active in Syria it'd also be pretty much the equivalent to a declaration of war against Russia.
-
I'd be happy with no "no-fly-zone" over Syria, at least in that scenario nuclear war is avoidedAt this point I'm not even sure what ardent supporters actually really want. Nor is Trump even sure how to actually appease the people that supported him.
-
Actually the changes came from the senate, records show that the house passed it originally with no opposition, but then the democratic senate changed it and sent it back to the house. Then republican representatives AND DEMOCRAT representatives said no, but not enough of them. I blame Burnie Sanders more than the Republican Party since he was on board the changes that made it a problem. The Democratic Party cares as much for the common man as the stuck up GOPMore that the Democrats continuously changed it to try and have concessions for the Republicans even though they had the ability to not care having some misguided perception of wanting to work with the Republicans despite them clearly only being interested in obstruction when they are not in power. Trying to be diplomatic was pointless and now it didn't go far enough. I suppose it's not really the Republicans fault in that regard, but considering I believe they have proposed different healthcare plan bills in the past (90's and such), if they actually cared about it they would probably be on board. If it was them... but they've set themselves up to be anti-healthcare in opposition to the Democrats.
And partly because Democrats are too ineffectual when they actually have the ability for change according to their so-called principles.
-
Personally I used the Canada and UK example only to try to put things in comparison to comparing Pennsylvania to California, trying to show with an honestly poor example, but I said it to give an idea to look at the states like different countries rather than say Canadian provinces, I am not a New Yorker, and a New Yorker should be able to put in someone in charge over me. If you asked me the ideal voting system today would be county by county, with while popular vote in reality, means everyone living in the county votes go to the candidate that wins the presidency. That way appealing to big cities is less favorable, swing states are not a thing, and you try and match the different ideals of each area for a candidate better. Much better than having LA pick a leader who would raise the tax burden on those that live in rural areas for example.What does that part about Canada and the UK even mean? If that comparision is supposed to make any sense, we would need a single elected ruler or representative of both Canada and the UK, in which case it's not even remotely as obvious how that election should be handled. The way I see it, the POTUS is the representive of every single US citizen, so I would (if I was involved ;) ) prefer if I could vote for him individually, not through any kind of middleman. Although I do like a parliamentary system in which I vote for the parliament and the parliament elects the ruler.
I believe I do understand the point of the electoral college, but I still don't agree that it's the best available way to determine the president.
-
uhh I think of things in terms of structures and labour relations and will continue to do so. the fact is that welfare acts as a band-aid for the failure of the system to give people basic tools to act in the economy or make a living, and it's usually a really humiliating experience to have to be on welfare, so some anecdotal examples aren't going to change my view there
socialism has nothing to do with fascism though wil probably save that can of worms for a different thread
How is giving an adhesive strip to someone who actually needs it, and stop giving it to those that are just trying to get more for the sake of getting more, not helping fix the core problem? It's humiliating because you have those that abuse the system in it, and because people see groups and not people, and someone who has no legs, for example, is seen as the same as someone who is just using the easiest route for income. Again those that need it, fine, those that are on it, that are able to work physically, I wouldn't say ignore them. In fact, I would just make them have to sweep the streets, and basic jobs that no one is doing, (unless of course they are already employed somewhere, which as I stated, I have no problems with those individuals).
Socialism requires a strong government, a collectivist mindset of poor vs rich, and requires taking from one group to achieve its goals. The only way Fascism varies is changing poor vs rich to race vs another race.
-
"tyranny of the majority" is inevitable in any society that tries to make decisions on a consensus. I've noticed it's usually a concern from people who advocate something that's far more dangerous and undemocratic. people aren't inherently wolves or sheep. there is conflict between people based on race, class, etc but that should be fought to overcome
also loathe the classist idea that poor people are lazy and actually refuse the opportunities to get out of poverty or welfare
Let me explain the electoral college to you in a different way, stop thinking the US presidential election is oneelection for one country, but instead think of it as 50 elections in 50 countries. Why shoulda vote in say Canada go to decide the leader of the UK. In short they shouldn't as the conditions that the two countries live in are vastly different, same goes for states. The Electoral college is meant to encompas the will of the majority of each state, in my state's example, we wanted Trump more than Hillary.
I just said there are some that need welfare legitimatly, but there are those that abuse the system, it happens. I would recomend stop thinking in terms of groups and more individuals and the core of problems might soon get sovled. Also I never said all the poor are lazy, I said there are those that abuse a system for personal gain, that is greed not being lazy. I don't like socialism or facism, they are both two sides of the same coin that doesn't work in the vending machine of life.
-
Democracy isn't meant to be tyranny of the majority.
but that is in that is what a true democracy is, two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. Its democratic for the wolves to say eat the sheep for dinner. In terms of the wolves in the US, it is the urban population that lives in places like New York, smoggy LA, and Philadelphia as examples. Every time something needs taxes raised in order to pay for something ridiculous like the government paying for a Gender Studies Major's courses, even if you say tax the rich more who already have to pay more taxes than you, the effects of that are on the people outside the bubbles of those cities. Decreasing benefits to employees to cover costs, people getting laid off, wages being slashed. Obamacare, for example, didn't help anyone in my area unless you live off welfare with your free car, free house, and free healthcare for sitting on your arse doing cocaine. And no, it's not even blacks on welfare (before you call me a racist for not saying African American, most weren't born in Africa, so calling them that would be incorrect) its white skinned people mostly, the spongers, the people who have kids just to get more welfare, and live separately as to maximize the income. People like that is how most cash in the US is going to help, not the disabled, not the poor working class, not minorities, but these people. Hell for those with severe Autism they do get welfare, but unlike those, I'm ranting about, in my area, they also work basic jobs at assembly lines, and they get a pass on my rage towards welfare as they actually work, not for much, but at least they do something. (Technically, I could have collected Social Security but I refuse to, and instead went to work at a fast food place as collecting social security would make me a hypocrite when talking about this, and it is a dent on my pride.)
tl;dr, actual democracy is bad, and things the majority of 48% of American wanted is extremely detrimental, as what they are asking for isn't going in the way they think it is mostly. Yes I threw in my personal biases against welfare in there, I just see it as wasted potential more than something that needs to be gotten rid off, and had to get that one off my chest
-
I wasn't being literalAn armed march on the capital might be construed as treason. That would likely be a disservice to those who support the Second Amendment, as it would likely backfire and cause a crackdown on gun ownership.
-
my stance on drugs is the same as guns, tanks, and anything else really, it is a product, don't limit it's sale (yes this included me being able to buy a tank to roll into DC for example, and remind congress who they are meant to serve, not that I would do it, just a hypothetical. besides I'm too fucking poor to be able to do that anyway.)
-
Well the larger issue is the way I've seen it Democrats at larger are looking at say climate change the wrong way. The biggest issue I see for greenhouse gasses is not CO2, it it was the temperatures would be much worse than they are now which is now hitting the mini ice age we were due for. The biggest issue I see is Methane, produced mainly from livestock. Guess vegans leaving more cows alive is an issue after all. Regardless it agriculture that is the largest producer of these problems, modern ones anyway that take up allot of land. The EPA even admits carbon while the most plentiful in the atmosphere has very little effect because of the lack of energy it can hold, methaneand other greenhouse gasses however while shorter lived so much more damage, especially to the ozone. Guess what I'm trying to say is, kill more cows to save the planet seems like the logical way to go. Though cars emitting N2O is also an issue as well that I'd rather put more carbon in the air than those gassessorry still completely unclear here. not only was bill not anything resembling a champion of the working class (the working class declined from his presidency, ie. union busting, welfare "reform", glass-steagal repealing, etc.), but obama and hillary are complete continuations of the third way politics that his presidency introduced. what is the difference here? the democrats have not been moving to the left, they responded to reagan's popularity by doing the exact opposite of that.
the democrats had the support of the working class because they're thought of as the party that brought the new deal, and running away from that legacy is what got us here now, and why it's argued that new deal democrats like sanders are a viable way forward.
the idea that climate change is emphasized too much by the democrats sounds absurd to me, but i'll just stick to the relevant points right now.
-
Yes we can only get inefficient solar panels, and wind turbines that can only work for a few areas. Too bad both parties are not interested in atomic energy researchthe dems are a weak party, we know this by now. implemented correctly, universal healthcare is overall cheaper and more beneficial. just like climate change and renewable energy. even if you don't believe that climate change is a thing, renewable energy should still be a priority.
but alas, due to misinformation, lack of education, partisan politics, etc. americans won't get what they need and will instead get what they want.
-
I'm from Pennsylvania, when the ACA was passed our senators were both Democratic, and my state voted in Obama twice. My insurance comes from my father's company, Bradford Forest Products, though Highmark Blue cross blue shield. The program that the ACA had would have covered me in college regardless of if the ACA was passed. However since the government thought to tax a company for giving healthcare to its employees, before the ACA was passed, it's on the level where it is considered better for the company to cut off healthcare, rather than fire workers.Are you insured under ACA in a state that fought against it, properly implemented it, or are you insured the normal way?
-
Are these sources acceptable for you guys?http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/13/1037.fullhttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/health/cancer-vaccine-cuba-medical-tourism.htmlhttp://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/cuba-and-us-lung-cancer-vaccine-collaboration/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/10/27/in-a-first-u-s-trial-to-test-cuban-lung-cancer-vaccine/http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/871110http://www.voanews.com/a/us-approves-clinical-trial-of-cuban-cancer-vaccine/3568020.htmlhttp://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/02/health/lung-cancer-vaccine-cuba/http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/867989https://www.statnews.com/2016/08/05/lung-cancer-cuba-biotech/
Well most of them are PACs of the left so I wouldn't claim intellectual honesty, same if it came from Fox or Brietbart
-
I am insured and they still charge too much for my family. My mother has 300k in hospital debts WITH HEALTH INSURANCE, my father only makes 40k a year to help cover thatare you sure it's universal? i know the uninsured population has decreased by quite a bit, but pretty sure we're no where near universal yet. in any case, a universal healthcare where millions are still being bankrupted by their hospital bills isn't a system i can get behind.
-
In my case nothing might have been better as now my father's company is considering getting rid of his healthcare because it's becoming to expensive. What I would have done instead is give tax cuts to companies that have a system to give healthcare to all of their employees, along with the programs of no dropping children in college until they are 25 (already offered to my father), and no dropping for pre-existing conditions. I don't need to punish the poor, I encourage employers, and it's free from allot of red tape. Overall I see that as a much better system since it works on the idea, you attract more bees with honeythe aca was better than nothing, but it's a bureaucratic mess, and obama will probably go down in history as neoliberalism with a nice looking face.
-
Official Pull Topic
in Fire Emblem Heroes
Posted
Marth, Barst, Caeda, and Linde? Why am I getting swarmed by high star ranked FE1 characters!?