Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 12, 2015, 11:49:22 AM

National parks would completely fail to succeed in this aspect if hunting were outlawed. Trophic cascades caused by unchecked prey-animal populations is devastating to the environment on a long-term timeline. Hunting is absolutely integral to environmentalism and preservation.

I'd probably argue that the only reason the deer population, for example, is so high, is because we hunt them. So they breed faster as an evolutionary response. If we stopped hunting them, they wouldn't have any need to breed as fast as they do, would they?

No, it's not a result of evolution or even short-term adaptation. It's largely a result of urbanization and taking territory away from predators, allowing a huge rise in prey-animal population.

I realize I'm not going to sway anyone completely, and that there's a lot of cultural distrust of the NSA and the Patriot Act. All of that is good, and you should be skeptical and resistant to what appears to be heavyhanded Big-Brother type domestic surveillance, but I want to lay out some details that a lot of people seem to not know.

First off, our surveillance practices are severely outdated. We as a country, and our representatives as a legislature, have failed to allow our intelligence programs to evolve with changing technology. The anonymous, autonomous analysis of metadata is less sophisticated and more hamstrung than modern data mining applications which you consent to on a daily basis through various social media and search platforms. In addition, the courts have ruled that no citizen can reasonably expect absolute privacy through the use of third-party telecom providers since 1979, and in fact this is the basis for police wiretap warrants, which are representative of the same process the NSA goes through to actually see data of calls or texts, except the approval process is more rigorous for the latter. It is incontestable that we as a global society have opted for faster flow of data and more personalized connections across the web, be it joint accounts over various platforms to simple targeted advertising we opt into on a daily basis.

It's a widely held belief that the NSA is abusive in its use of collected data; after all, didn't Edward Snowden's leak reveal a slew of illegal activity perpetrated by the government? Actually, no. The only misuse of NSA information was at the hands of Snowden himself. There is zero evidence of any abuse of data or violation of regulatory policies. In addition, the recent court ruling against certain metadata gathering practices did not say they were a violation of the Constitution.

I mentioned that metadata is sorted autonomously and anonymously, and that's true -- but what's striking about this isn't the potential for massive violation of privacy, but rather the complete opposite. The NSA doesn't even have the authority to use analysis algorithms to find suspicious trends, and in order to actually do a manual search on these records the NSA has to demonstrate a "reasonable, articulable suspicion of terrorism or another threat to national security." And of the 320 million citizens and tens of billions of calls and texts sent each year, the NSA only conducted 170 searches last year. Chances are your state's police department conducted far more searches, with far less significant reasons for doing so, in numbers orders of magnitude higher last year.

To put this in perspective, Google has more refined (and legal) databases and search functions than the NSA. One of the Muslim extremists participating in the attack in Garland sent a tweet with the hashtag #TexasAttack, and nobody in any law enforcement department saw this until after the attack. Meanwhile, one of dozens of advertisement programs will have already analyzed the hashtag and directed targeted advertisements at the user before the tweet even posted. President Obama himself, now decrying the NSA programs, recognizes that 9/11 may very well have been prevented if our intelligence programs weren't decades behind and had been able to have access to metadata -- and he's right. 9/11 was a massive ongoing operation and it may very well have been prevented or lessened if we didn't willfully and ignorantly handicap our intelligence agencies. In a time where the director of the FBI predicts thousands of grassroots Islamists in Americe already, it is important to recognize the need for these programs.

I'm not sure why you're complaining. BF never had squads, and pretty much nobody used anything but infantry, so loudouts should let us see a bit of diversity on the field without having to swap out at a CP.

The only things this really negates are classes like jet/dark troopers and the spies. I'll judge it once they release more info on weapons and builds.

LOL

They're bringing out the big guns. So I'm supposed to believe the perspective of a guy writing a book about all of this? Ok then.

Yes, Hilary is corrupt. Even Obama has done a few shady things I'm sure. It comes with the territory. Point is she'd be a little bit less corrupt and shitty than any Republican candidates. I'd vote for her just to keep a Republican out of office. But she's a terrible choice.

Peggy Noonan is a very well respected author and columnist. As for being a "little bit less corrupt", I think you're missing the significance here. Using her position as Secretary of State to secure deals for her foundation is some next-level comic book villain shit.

This is a WSJ Op-Ed piece which is behind a paywall, but copied in its entirety below. I've  placed the introduction and closing remarks in spoilers (because I don't think they're necessary to read), for those that don't want to read the whole article. The author is commenting on a recent book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. Emphasis has been added to quoted passages.

Mr. Schweizer writes of “the flow of tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation . . . from foreign governments, corporations, and financiers.” It is illegal for foreign nationals to give to U.S. political campaigns, but foreign money, given as donations to the Clinton Foundation or speaking fees, comes in huge amounts: “No one has even come close in recent years to enriching themselves on the scale of the Clintons while they or a spouse continued to serve in public office.” The speaking fees Bill commands are “enormous and unprecedented,” as high as $750,000 a speech. On occasion they have been paid by nations or entities that had “matters of importance sitting on Hillary’s desk” when she was at State.

From 2001 through 2012 Bill collected $105.5 million for speeches and raised hundreds of millions for the foundation. When she was nominated, Hillary said she saw no conflict. President Obama pressed for a memorandum of understanding in which the Clintons would agree to submit speeches to State’s ethics office, disclose the names of major donors to the foundation, and seek administration approval before accepting direct contributions to the foundation from foreign governments. The Clintons accepted the agreement and violated it “almost immediately.” Revealingly, they amassed wealth primarily by operating “at the fringes of the developed world.” Their “most lucrative transactions” did not involve countries like Germany and Britain, where modern ethical rules and procedures are in force, but emerging nations, where regulations are lax.

How did it work? “Bill flew around the world making speeches and burnishing his reputation as a global humanitarian and wise man. Very often on these trips he was accompanied by ‘close friends’ or associates who happened to have business interests pending in these countries.” Introductions were made, conversations had. “Meanwhile, bureaucratic or legislative obstacles were mysteriously cleared or approvals granted within the purview of his wife, the powerful senator or secretary of state.”

Mr. Schweizer tells a story with national-security implications. Kazakhstan has rich uranium deposits, coveted by those who’d make or sell nuclear reactors or bombs. In 2006 Bill Clinton meets publicly and privately with Kazakhstan’s dictator, an unsavory character in need of respectability. Bill brings along a friend, a Canadian mining tycoon named Frank Giustra. Mr. Giustra wanted some mines. Then the deal was held up. A Kazakh official later said Sen. Clinton became involved. Mr. Giustra got what he wanted.

Soon after, he gave the Clinton Foundation $31.3 million. A year later Mr. Giustra’s company merged with a South African concern called Uranium One. Shareholders later wrote millions of dollars in checks to the Clinton Foundation. Mr. Giustra announced a commitment of $100 million to a joint venture, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative.

It doesn’t end there. When Hillary was secretary of state, Russia moved for a bigger piece of the world uranium market. The Russians wanted to acquire Uranium One, which had significant holdings in the U.S. That meant the acquisition would require federal approval. Many had reservations: Would Russian control of so much U.S. uranium be in America’s interests? The State Department was among the agencies that had to sign off. Money from interested parties rolled into the foundation. The deal was approved. The result? “Half of projected American uranium production” was “transferred to a private company controlled” by Russia, which soon owned it outright.

What would a man like Vladimir Putin think when he finds out he can work the U.S. system like this? He’d think it deeply decadent. He’d think it weak. Is that why he laughs when we lecture him on morals?

Mr. Schweizer offers a tough view of the Clinton Foundation itself. It is not a “traditional charity,” in that there is a problem “delineating where the Clinton political machines and moneymaking ventures end and where their charity begins.” The causes it promotes—preventing obesity, alleviating AIDS suffering—are worthy, and it does some good, but mostly it functions as a middleman. The foundation’s website shows the Clintons holding sick children in Africa, but unlike Doctors Without Borders and Samaritan’s Purse, the foundation does “little hands-on humanitarian work.” It employs longtime Clinton associates and aides, providing jobs “to those who served the Clintons when in power and who may serve them again.” The Better Business Bureau in 2013 said it failed to meet minimum standards of accountability and transparency. Mr. Schweizer notes that “at least four Clinton Foundation trustees have either been charged or convicted of financial crimes including bribery and fraud.”

Basically, this alleges that there is a demonstrable string of evidence that the Clintons' have continued to exert massive amounts of power in global politics, raking in money simultaneously, while taking advantage of Hillary's positions as a senator and more importantly, Secretary of State. Punctuated by the recent scandal of Clinton's deletion of emails during her tenure in the State Department, this paints a very foreboding picture of the Clintons, and I urge anyone that is considering voting for her to reconsider.

I've always thought that'd be a good idea, especially on a site like this with cults of personality around certain moderators. I fully support it if it's being done.

They pee out of their vaginas everyday too.

Someone failed health class.

That seems like an arbitrary reason to give respect.

It's kind of annoying on PC but it's a solid game, especially if you've never experienced it.

I honestly feel like this is wasted on this site, so I hope you're just copying an essay you wrote previously.

Anyways, I'd like to come back and address specific points, but I generally agree and I think there's quite a bit of irony in society wanting to celebrate our differences while denying they exist at all.

Life isn't complete without a current Mechassault/Mechwarrior franchise.

It's like complaining that Goosebumps aren't novels. They're fun and a refreshing take on storytelling.

Rum's pretty terrible on its own, and it's hard to defend a drink if you have to mix it with something to dilute its flavor. I love JD Black Label, but it's still a crappy whiskey. I prefer a good scotch or Irish whisky.

Domestic/mainstream:
-Guinness
-Sam Adams + seasonals
-Blue Moon + seasonals
-New Belgium (all are good, but I dislike the IPA and ale)
-Tsingtao

National breweries (I can't recommend local because I don't know where you live):
-Left Hand Milk Stout
-Sam Smith's Oatmeal Stout
-Delirium Tremens (or Nocturnum)
-Stone Porter
-Rogue (has tons of beers)

It'd have to be regulated, and I don't see particularly compelling results from the paper you linked. I certainly think privatization can be a very efficient alternative to government services.