Technically we are a representative republic. We are a democracy in which our representatives have primary decision making power for the people they represent.

By that logic, if you look hard enough you'll find someone who protests anything. By that logic your making an assumption as well with no proof. Then the logical question is, why would one assume that a group would oppose a positive thing, unless one assumes negative things about that group without proof (i.e.: prejudice, bigotry) and what relevance does that assumption have? Unless you somehow have a menatal condition which causes you to just exclaim self obvious possibilities, in which case I apologize for calling out your condition in public.

Yeah. Whatever anyone thinks about him as a person or a president I can say this: Donald Trump has always been very good to Donald Trump, and generally very bad for anyone in business or investing in him.

But it also means that the scenario of mass retaliation against strategic strikes may not turn out that way either. One is based affirmative in evidence, the other is based in the fact that anything is statistically possible even if improbable. By the same token a nuclear denial tool or more powerful weapon could also be invented before then mitigating or removing current nuclear weapons as a serious threat.

When a strategic nuke goes off, it detonates high in the air. The explosion touches down and the low pressure zone created by the burst which pushed all the air up sucks in irradiated soil and ground debris. The rapidly heating air rises into that mushroom cloud, reaching high into the sky. The very fine particles of nuclear debris float up high, carried by winds or trapped in water vapor clouds become irradiated. When the debris fall on their own, or are carried down by rain they spread far and wide. Locally winds, humans, and animals carry radiated particles, dust, or even themselves. If they consumed irradiated substances they excrete them in their drippings to be eaten or tracked by others, or if radiated they leave radiated corpses which may be scavenged as food and further spread radiation. Falling particles are called fallout. The most dangerous and intense radiation fades pretty quickly, but the low level radiation lasts very long and is especially hazardous if ingested.

It's not completely filled. You can see several partitions and a large disk with what appears to be a seal near the tail. It doesn't need mush of a release, just a simple sensor to seperate the case at an approximate altitude to allow the payload to fall out. Gravity does most of the work, and by nature it isn't a precision piece of ordinance.

Sadly... memory loss, confusion in the evening hours (covfefe?), making things up, mental confusion, mood swings, paranoia... Reagan hid his dementia and the man acted like a normal human most of his life before that. Compare to Trump who could be shown exhibiting these symptoms for a looong time. Basically no one would be too surprised if he tweeted "robot spider monkeys" "Korea stole my toes" or "I just made the biggest poop." If he called a foreign dignitary a lizzard man clone, or insisted no one in his circle wore hats because they hide cameras. You could likely prove he had mental problems 10 years ago, I'm not sure diagnosing what's wrong with him would really effect things much.

No. A lot of "fight dogs" get ears clipped and tails. In a fight it's one less thing to grab, like human fighters cutting their hair short. People do it as breed standard for a lot of dogs though to make them look "alert" or tough. Pitts, boxers, Rottweilers, Dobermans, and other breeds who are born with floppy ears that don't become erect with age often have it done for aesthetics. The folded ears are thought to look too puppy like. There are a few functional arguments in working or fighting dogs, but tail and ear cropping is primarily done for looks outside this narrow range. In specific cases it can be medically necessary but that's usually case by case.

I agree that's the likely intent, but that's not how the ending of the sign comes off. It is written as though the fact it's a humans fault excuses any possible danger, not so that it says that with proper care most any do can be rehabilitated. It's an important distinction as nothing about the sign actually implies Pitts aren't dangerous, it just explains why some are. It's the difference between saying to me "with oversight and help this convicted felon is no more a danger than your neighbor" and "it's not his fault he stabbed someone, his parents were cruel and his dad made him fight to get his love." Ok- I understand now, but most people still wouldn't want to live next to the guy. It's subtle but meaningful, the message gets lost. But agreed it is not those loving babies faults and they can almost all be saved. Also- good on you for taking hose dogs in. I grew up around rescue Pitts, but only one had been started to train to fight but never had fought. He was the best dog though.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for Pitts. Such wonderful dogs. But yeah- this is a really dumb argument on so many levels. I am against bans on them and other social stigmas, but I wish people could come up with arguments that don't make a cause look worse or leave room for obvious prodding.

I'll agree a lot of kids come out with an attitude. Some people are just that way, and others will temper with age. It can be annoying to see, and if they are embarrassing the service with their behavior I'll call them on it, but otherwise it's just one of those things in life you have to deal with- young people tend to get more annoying the older you get, unless you learn to just laugh and recall being a young idiot too, and how much you've (hopefully) changed.

Anytime. Facts are facts, people might not like the answer but you didn't create reality, just gave the report.

Upon graduation from basic training they've put more effort and made a larger commitment to serving their country than most civilians ever will already. It's true they are green and haven't seen any action, but many support and clerical personnel in the military will never see combat, they'll never be in s combat zone or even perform an action which directly benefits combat troops. Those people still deserve respect because they are still a part of the mechanisms that make the military run. So are new recruits, it's hard to run a military more than a few decades without FNG's. They're about to give some of the prime years of youth to the military. Of course- vet or no if you walk around demanding things and thinking you're better than everyone else you're a c@nt, but in a uniform I'll cut a c@nt a little more slack than anyone else.

90% of basic training is learning the protocol and culture of the military, and assuming the group identity of a soldier. Upon graduation you are in service, and so not only is it technically correct to distinguish people as civilians, but it is part of settling into and assuming your new identity. I don't know why anyone would downvoted famous for that.

WHERE IS MY SUPERSUIT?!?!!

Not right. Firstly the fact it has a name other than "being friends" implies otherwise. By default in pop culture the "friebdzone" is a place in which a person seeking more than platonic relations is kept as only a friend against their true desire. Secondly, we see in this and other use a negative connotation to the term. The phrase "sorry I can't hear you... so far in the friend zone"(sic) implies mocking, and is conferring a lesser status to him for it. If he chose to be her friend with no other motives- why would he be pitied or thought less of for not wanting to sleep with her or date? Why is he in the friend zone and not she? The assumption of course being as a man he wants her, or would say yes if she wanted him even if he hadn't thought about her that way. It's sexist to both and a primitive way of thinking.

The city kids call that "playing goalie on the mississauga mud flats." Out in the boonies its "walking the moose to get some back bacon." Like most things in Canada there is snow involved, when it melts it keeps the stickiness pretty under control. At least that's my understanding based on Dudley Doright issue 315: "Dudley eats ass."

In other words- it's a noble goal to work together, but We can't ask other people to give to the greater good that which we wouldn't give ourselves. We can't ask others to put humanity before self if we won't do that ourselves. We don't need to live like Spartans no- but if you look around and see someone with less than you you know. You know why we can't do it. We can't do it as long as people see those with less we don't raise them up on our backs. We work so that we can have more, not so that they can have more. Then we toss the scraps we don't want or can live without down to them. It's that simple. We put it on the future like the past put it on us, to run up a tab of social, economic and ecological debts to be paid off by some future society with replicators and cold fusion.

To replicators- they do take energy, but they also have developed advanced clean energy which can supply the needs of most people. As for luxury- of course. People want it, but not everyone can have luxury. Recall- that which one person sees as a necessity or takes for granted as being the "default" is what someone else on earth wishes they had, and not everyone can have what they want. Somewhere is a family of 4 that is homeless. Anyone could give them their home, or pay for their rent instead. Especially if single. It's easier for one person to get by homesless than provide for 4 no? And 1 suffering is less than 4? Unless it's our own. Because eventually the choice comes back to an individual, and when we must choose between that we do not need but want dearly, and that which others need or need more, most people will choose to provide for themselves, and their charity extends as far as that which they decide they feel like living without versus what they can live without.

Lol. I'm glad. I find in life you likely won't find someone who agrees on every single thing with you, being able to share space with people with different views is one of the most important skills in life.

I agree. The problem is that it all starts with one person. It's not a big social problem but a personal one. People want more than they need, but there's only so much to go around. We don't want to be annoyed or share and we want the luxury of "pleasant" spaces not utilitarian clutter. Because there's only so much we compete for it, and for more. To the homeless man the poor man has so much, but shares only what they feel like. To the poor man te middle class man could give up so much before being on his level, and he survives fine. The middle class man sees the rich man and can't imagine having that much. The rich man sees bill gates and so on. People need to want less and be able able to live with less "wants" before that can really happen. On star trek they could make food and other items from thin air, which would certainly help.

I agree. That's why I've been upvoting your posts. Not just for count but for principle, a driveby downvote gives no way to know if there's a misunderstanding and clear it up, or to exchange views and possibly learn. It's not constructive at all. Personally I've downvoted maybe a handful of posts total. Unless it's blatant hate speech I generally won't. It isn't constructive. Even if we disagree on a thing, if I've presented views and opinions and made no impact, a down vote out of spite won't help and isn't very mature.