Nah California can go fuck itself. You're liberals aren't realistic and you have way too many conservatives.

Signed, Cascadia

Your dad has some facts wrong there bucko (especially if he is talking about Minuteman, the facts are a bit different for Titan II). They don't sit underground for months at a time. They go on 24, and sometimes up to 72 hour alerts. So the longest they go with out seeing another person is 24 hours, which I am sure most people on Slashdot do on a weekly basis.

It does sound like your dad is talking about Titan II, but even then its not nearly as bad as you make it out to be (still pretty shitty though) and better than MM LCCs (the Titan II facilities were much larger... but also built right next to the silo).

Far worse were SAC B-52 crew alerts. You'd go on on ground alert for days at a time, where you had to eat/sleep/live within running/short drive distance of your bomber and couldn't really leave.

So much wrong in this its not even funny. Who provided the money? Government. Who provided the land. Government. Who provided the basic technologies. Government. Get your head out of Ayn Rand's rancid cunt and realize public/private partnerships are the best, because neither side can do everything on their own.

Except they are more than likely insane if they are actually preparing for a zombie invasion and there really is no need to start shooting flu victims or people you might think have the flu.

Flu, even particularly nasty ones, aren't even that bad to most healthy adults with a non-compromised immune system.

Were you also fired for being insane?

I actually personally know a number of drone operators and its not a "just push a button" type scenario. Weapons release requires a significant amount of authorization, ranging from commanders in the field to lawyers in the pentagon. There is up to a dozen people in the chain of command that are all required to say "yes" to engage targets.

The reason they have the luxury is because it is a drone and not a pilot over enemy territory (this is in operations that occur in "areas" not recognized, where the country letting them do the drone strikes doesn't particularly want it known to their general population). A fighter pilot has a lot more stress, and they are more prone to making bad decisions because of the many more immediate constraints on their judgment.

Do drones allow these types of attacks to occur more easily? Probably, but on the other hand they'd probably be executed in some form or fashion either way (cruise missile strikes, which are far more prone to failure in target selection, or human operations, aka spec-ops or hired guns/foreign service).

I have never understood the hatred and mistrust placed on drones versus aircraft, fixed or rotary wing. It seems like a bunch of Luddites. Drones are cheaper, safer, and usually more capable at doing the task at hand than fixed wing or rotary wing aircraft at doing a job thats already been done for decades by law enforcement and the military. Also a drone, in the military at least, allows for a more calm and collected engagement of targets, reducing collateral damage and fratricide.

Because only taxi drivers talk on phones while driving?

Yea, learn to read idjit. Access to. You make the entire gun debate a walk in the park for anti-gun people, so just shut up and sit in a corner and let reasonable people debate.

Yes, freedom of speech has limits, who woulda fucking thunk it? People need to take a basic constitutional law class and most of them will probably walk out thinking this is Stalinist Russia with their insane naiveness.

Idiot, someone reported him. If the government isn't spying on you, someone who doesn't like what you say or do is going to be just as bad. Your best bet is to just hole up in a bunker and not talk to anyone if you don't want people taking action on your words ever.

Except a magic wand is something silly and doesn't exist. It is not beyond reason, even a little bit, that this kid could have access to a gun. Gun control debate or not, access to guns, and personal ownership of guns is extremely high in this country, so its not really any sort of fanciful logical leap to think that he might have one. I am not saying this case is fair or right, but don't make insanely stupid comparisons like that. It just discredits the pro-gun movement.

So much wrong in this statement. No, the government is perfectly capable and within reason to assign consequences to speech. Speech can insight action, and therefore it has tangible, real world, physical results to it. They can't impede you from saying it in the first place (I am not even sure how that'd be possible), but if you say certain things you can expect consequences. Look up the dozens of precedent setting first amendment cases that have gone through the courts and you will quickly realize how blatantly ignorant your statement is.

The 200 years of precedent that says otherwise? You obviously have no idea how the law works in this country. You treat the constitution like the bible and you just thump on it and thump on it despite reality. Shut up and go to school, or at least ask someone who has a fucking clue.

... So tell people to choose one and stop freaking out. If this kid did go and shoot up a school later and they found this message then I would expect you to be the first one to jump to his defense and say "well he might have just been joking around!".