they call ukraine "new russia"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

i suggest the usa call kamchatka "new alaska"

china can reclaim outer manchuria they lost to russia in the mid 1800s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

fuck you russia, imperial bullying douchebag

we should not be doing any space program with these assholes, we should be shutting down programs

OK, when you put it like that it sounds pretty awesome. And delicious.

I'll bring the sauce, aloe vera and skin graft kit.

"We are pleased Roscomos wants to continue full use of the International Space Station through 2024 -- a priority of ours -- and expressed interest in continuing international cooperation for human space exploration beyond that. The United States is planning to lead a human mission to Mars in the 2030s, and we have advanced that effort farther than at any point in NASA's history. We welcome international support for this ambitious undertaking.

Yeah, that's basically "Go F* yourselves" in diplomatic speech.

And as it should be.

That is wildly unrealistic with our current capabilities and well in the realms of fiction. In space you have countless problems when trying any kind of significant production, ranging from access to work force, access to hardware, having to lift all components and all machinery from the planet's gravity well into orbit, to things like power supply problems, cooling problems, highly hostile environment problems, and countless others.

Even if we had the technological capability to do what you suggest, the costs would outstrip making same things on the ground and then lifting them to orbit by what is likely order(s) of magnitude.

One should not throw stones when one lives in a house of glass. US is currently massively leading in top politicians making stupid talking points just to advance certain agenda, ranging from the entire Iran ordeal to the current conflict between branches of government that made country half-ungovernable.

But that's the point. They haven't created money, they're recognising the value of the asset.

A social justice warrior is...

[citation needed]

SJW is a term meaning "shit I hate on the internet", and is wielded as an insult by various people. As such is wildly inconsistent. If, however you look at people, real or imagined, that actually fight for social justice, then the picture is quite different.

Neither, it would appear, do you.

I can't open a bank and magically create money to deposit into your account in the form of a loan. That money must come from somewhere - and does come from somewhere.

Shit, have you even heard of capital adequacy, and the regulations mandating it?

You don't understand modern finance. That website is full of shit.

If I credit your account with $10k as a loan, I'm not creating $10k I'm transferring $10k of my assets to you.

No money creation going on. Now shut the fuck up until you've learned basic double-entry bookkeeping.

Oh look, a broken record.

Tell me, if my fiat currency isn't worth anything, how come I'm able to use it to acquire land, a house on that land, the contents of that house and a nice car that lets me travel to and from it?

Might not have value to you, but it's been pretty fucking useful to me.

I take it you don't use a charcoal barbecue

I'm not sure how you do it where you're from, but up here in the North we generally don't barbecue from 30 feet away.

Is anything legal in California these days?

Medical marijuana, gay marriage, conceal/carry.

Say you're not really pissed that fucking flamethrowers aren't legal there, are you? I don't know if you've gotten a look at your fellow man in the United States lately, but are these really people you want to be able to have flamethrowers? Geez, louise, there can't be more than maybe 1 in 100 that I think should be allowed to drive a car. Maybe 1 in 10 should be allowed to have shoelaces for chrissake.

Although I'm sure we can find someone reading this that believes "More flamethrowers = Less crime".

It is entertaining that you try to blandly state universal truths without so much as a shred of evidence, but when I post counter examples, the onus is suddenly on me to prove that I'm disproving you.

Then you wall 'o text me a hundred reasons why sexism is justified and why it's not sexism because it's justified. Here's a clue for you bucko, it doesn't matter whether it's justified or not, this is literally the dictionary definition of sexism:

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Notice how the word "unjustified" never enters into is. What you're doing is strenuously arguing that discrimination based on gender is justified. You should stop being a coward and simply admit you're sexist, and then try to defend that, rather than tying yourself in knots trying to redefine a perfectly well defined word.

And this attempt to call pretty much all of society bigoted is offensive.

Here's how many shits I give about being offensive: .

You don't have a right not to be offended. Get over it.

As to bringing up gender all the time... Okay, all topics of gender are now forbidden then... We'll just shut this topic down and any like it ever again.

Ah taking words intentionally out of context. The lowest of the low. The quality of an argument has nothing to dowith the gender of the person making it. You tried to use the person's gender as a factor in the argument.

Yet another example of where you make value judgements based on gender.

I am intensely logical.

Well, I argue on the internet for entertainment. You have not disappointed me today :)

yeah, i despise the plutocracy, the abuse of our political system by corporations, how wall street and bankers are allowed to get away with terrible crimes, etc.

but a bank is a fucking completely normal institution we all need. it just needs to be heavily regulated to function fairly

to call all banks evil and and all bankers evil just makes you out to be a complete moron

good luck with not getting robbed once people find out you stuff your money in your mattress