Fox Fire

Mass shootings are not on the rise per say, they are just getting more deadly. The frequency is about the same as it was in the 80s and 90s. This^ Many weapons that people seem to think are illegal are not illegal. Just very expensive. To add to all of this, assault weapons are a tiny fraction of American murders. The favorite murder weapon in the US is by far a handgun. Drug and gang related crime kills far more people than the occasional mass shooter. But nobody cares about them black ghetto kids. We only talk about this whenever some white kids get shot. Taste the rainbow...

Or the knife attack in China. Something like 39 dead and 130+ injured. (edit: 33 dead - 130 injured) Which BTW, mass knife attacks seem to be a thing in China like mass shootings are in the US. To be honest I don't think there's any point in discussing gun control laws when it regards the US. The country is too far deep in, guns will never be taken away, best to look at an alternative solution. On a general scale people will still defend the rights to have guns after recurring incidents like this, until they are individually affected - individual emotions will never be sufficient enough. Even for those of us who have been directly effected by gun violence, our views don't change if we have a strong opinion on the matter. ^This

Private space exploration does sound more efficient than government space travel. However it also brings to mind thoughts of a dystopian future. Should humans ever actually colonize space, private companies could grow more powerful than governments. Like something out of Borderlands or other scifi space age stories. That would be my only serious concern for long term private space exploration. https://youtu.be/qVWaBjR58Ew

Shits and giggles. Also Tesla advertising.This is the firstl launch of a new rocket design. No one wants to stick anything important on it in case it explodes, but you still need a payload to test the thing ( you don't just need to see if the rocket can go up, you need it to be able to carry however many tons at the same time). You also can't really launch a bunch of low cost things, since new designs can easily be delayed. Like if tesla had offered to launch a bunch of cube sats for university students at the Falcon heavies original launch date...they'd have all graduated by now. Also if it does blow up, even if the financial cost isn't huge what the hell does anyone who's thesis was dependant on that experiment do now? You basically can't do anything useful with the first launch. So you launch dead weight. Which is why there are a fair few blocks of concrete and tanks of water floating about the solar system. Cheap, heavy, entirely useless. . SpaceX however...they like to launch silly things. The payload for the dragon capsule test was a massive wheel of cheese, because Monty Python joke. And yea elon musk owns both companies, and Tesla got the world's greatest car advert out of it. Meh. I guess. I'm quite sceptical of Elon. His cars are impressive at face value but even the cheapest ones have ridiculous price tags and are the subject of much criticism. I feel like they are overhyped and by connection, probably Spacex. But I do like the idea of private space exploration and I hear Spacex is cheap in that market. *Tackle hugs*!!!I'm still on Discord.

Shits and giggles. Also Tesla advertising.This is the firstl launch of a new rocket design. No one wants to stick anything important on it in case it explodes, but you still need a payload to test the thing ( you don't just need to see if the rocket can go up, you need it to be able to carry however many tons at the same time). You also can't really launch a bunch of low cost things, since new designs can easily be delayed. Like if tesla had offered to launch a bunch of cube sats for university students at the Falcon heavies original launch date...they'd have all graduated by now. Also if it does blow up, even if the financial cost isn't huge what the hell does anyone who's thesis was dependant on that experiment do now? You basically can't do anything useful with the first launch. So you launch dead weight. Which is why there are a fair few blocks of concrete and tanks of water floating about the solar system. Cheap, heavy, entirely useless. . SpaceX however...they like to launch silly things. The payload for the dragon capsule test was a massive wheel of cheese, because Monty Python joke. And yea elon musk owns both companies, and Tesla got the world's greatest car advert out of it. Meh. I guess. I'm quite sceptical of Elon. His cars are impressive at face value but even the cheapest ones have ridiculous price tags and are the subject of much criticism. I feel like they are overhyped and by connection, probably Spacex. But I do like the idea of private space exploration and I hear Spacex is cheap in that market.

I don't get it... What was the point of throwing a car in space?

^Called it^

Browns. That's just a fact.

No Eagles?

That pyramid is the Luxor and right next to the whole scene. Good thing they weren't further down the street.

I came here just to make sure you were safe, Lys. Really glad to hear it. I used to live there so this hurts. Don't let this effect your peoples resolve. Be strong!

Transexuals and transgenders are two different things. IDC what anyone decides they are as long as sex matches sex on official documentation. In any case, this is just one step forward with repealing don't ask don't tell, and another step back with this. Infinite wisdom indeed.... The way I see it, only the first one is real. Anyone who looks at their penis and somehow thinks they have a vagina is indeed disturbed, if that's even real. Indeed. ^Very much this^ In most countries, people try to avoid getting conscripted. In America, people try to get conscripted. :V

I would be singing this tune no matter what. It should be national majority. Everyone gets equal votes instead of giving weight to individual states. The electoral college existed because people couldn't communicate quickly and easily AND because our founders realized the average person was not very intelligent. We aren't necessarily more intelligent, but we can more easily have a national election. And I can promise you our founders did not think about California at all since it wasn't a state. Our founders would have hated an imperialist or oligarchy government. That is why they called all Americans equal. I kinda agree. The electoral college was created back when states had far more individual culture and identity, back when the nation was far less connected, especially through instant communication and nationwide live broadcasts. On the other hand, the electoral college does kind of preserve said state identity, culture and gives more fair influence. My state for example has a tiny population. Without the electoral college, the opinions of liberals might actually mean something, but the opinions of the state as a whole would not.

Basically how pardons work here is you generally have to request them. They can only be granted for federal crimes with exception of impeachments. Pardons can come in many forms and do not always absolve people completely. They can be conditional or simply lighten punishments. They can also be issued before any indictments or for unspecified federal offenses. For example, when Nixon was pardoned, his pardon absolved him of any offenses against the US that he may or may not have committed within a specific time frame. Pardons also can and have been rejected by intended recipients. Whether pardons are constitutional has never actually been addressed by the supreme court. So there is no shortage of debate and controversy.

I honestly don't know WTF is going on with America anymore. Our universities have become institutions for promoting far left intolerance of opinions and protectors of peoples feel goods. Meanwhile, we've basically always had the far right and white nationalists, who've been on rise in recent years. Add into the mix our recent presidents have been increasingly polarizing figures, and I suppose you end up with these nonsensical street brawls between two equally intolerant and ridiculous groups of people that most Americans couldn't care less about. But now that it's a thing and plastered all over TV everyday, now that both sides have been feeding the attention of the other, more and more Americans are starting to care in some form another and all pretty unhealthy. The more attention people give to radical demonstrations, the more radically objected to it the other side becomes. When such things are ignored, it's generally not a problem. We've always had far left and far right demonstrators and supporters in America. Most of the time, the other side doesn't get triggered, managed to ignore each other and we all go about out days coexisting in peace. But boy is the media just the greatest, most helpful thing ever!

Some cool crescent shaped shadows caused by the eclipse (taken just after): And the eclipse itself: Definitely the coolest thing I've ever seen. It got very cold.

Yes indeed. However, it should also be mentioned that ISIS is a unique form of Salafi Jihadism that does indeed focus on theology rather than politics. In fact, they had no intention to wage war on the west until after they had "cleansed" the Muslim world itself. The (mostly) internal focus on theology and obsession with death is what separates them from other Jihadist groups.

Excellent explanation, though there are a few details I don't really agree with. Our foreign policy, post colonialism and things like Sykes-Pikot are certainly part of the equation. His rejection of "self doubt" as he calls it is wrong. "It takes two to tango" as they say.

Of course Iran hates Israel (and the US). There is even a massive painting across a building a Tehran that says "death to the US" or something like that. But it's only fair to keep in mind that these countries were actively working against the current Iranian regime since before they really took power. Any regime in this situation would be expected to do so, especially when relations have not been normalized for decades. We can say the same of North Korea. Sure, NK is ruled by a psycho that the world would be better off without. But people should also understand that North Korea has been under siege from day one. Why do they hate us so much? Because we were hating them long before hating us was popular. And for no other reason than the cold war and "communism is evil". Same portrait with Iran. Ideologically, they were necessarily opposed to most of their neighbors. We sided with numbers because we were already aligned with Sunni regimes and their former govt. Normal relations at this point would mean slashing at other relations we deem more important. I never said women's rights in Iran were anything like in the west. It's a hardline Islamic country practicing Islamic law. But in comparison to Saudi Arabia, it's a god damn paradise from heaven itself. I don't mean to praise Iran here, but I really do love to use Iran as a great example of how hypocritical our foreign policy is when compared to our grand ally, Saudi Arabia, epitome and epicenter of all Salafi Jihadism. The very face of everything we've spent the last 15+ years fighting. It's ironic, sickening and terrible sad how many people never mention it because they never hear it.

Of course, it was never sold like that. If he had come out and asked his people "Hey would you rather live in a Democracy or a Dictatorship?" the answer would have been clear. He's still not selling it like that, and if you were to ask your average Putin supporter, they would without a doubt say that they live in a free Democracy. The bottom line is that your average voter is gullible and really doesn't have a clue. Yes, I'm an Elitist. Perfect example of what I just mentioned. Fact is, when Putin de-democratized Russia, it wasn't just accepted, it was in fact popular. By every means. Anyone who says otherwise is simply ignorant of Russian culture, politics and history. Yeltsin was hated by Russians for being too democratic, too much of a pushover, and perceived as being a leader who caved to west on demand. The reality of Russia is in it's precedents. Forever, Russia has been held together and ruled by strong leaders who establish their authority through force. Not until Yeltsin was this precedent changed. After his popularity tanked he was forced to hand over power to an ambitious man named Putin. Now sure, not everyone in Russia likes Putin. Plenty of Russians hate him. But those same Russians who hate him are probably not the democracy loving people that the US government would want you to think they are. In fact, the largest political parties in the Russian Federation are as follows (in order of popularity): 1. United Russia 2. Communist Party of the Russian Federation 3. Liberal Democratic Party of Russia Now let's take a look at these top 3, since they account for the huge, huge majority or Russia. #1: We have Putins party. The original democratic party and rulers of Russia with an iron fist. What else can be said that you don't already know? #2: We have the communist party. I don't think I need to tell anyone, Russian or otherwise how badly communism failed. Is going back to that a better option? #3: Despite it's name, the LDPR is basically the same as NSDP. It's a party of far right nationalists who believe in imperialism and racial supremacy. Want to repeat WW2? Vote for them. So with all that out of the way, the simple reality of Russia is that it's being held together by a corrupt president, or dictator if that's what we want to call him. Russia is just as diverse as the US, but it's not a 2 party system over there led by the same exact agenda. It's a much more real democracy where voting for someone else actually means some very serious change. So I would ask all critics of Putin, if not him, then who? Who else would you feel more comfortable with in charge? Who do you think Russians would feel more comfortable with in charge? The Communists? The Nazis? I think Putin is the middle ground we all want. Problem for the US government, is that he isn't a puppet like Yeltsin was. Putin does what he actually thinks is best for Russia. Not just what we tell him is best. In this regard, he has my respect. Even despite my disagreeing with many of his policies and actions.

No thank you I'd very much stick w/ the sexist card. It comes w/ more burden of guilt. I didn't just mean you but most Americans who as much as they don't want to admit are still stuck in the 18th century and can't see a lady in the highest office. Hillary had controversies sure but so did Donald. I think it came down to sex. I mean why else would anyone choose a guy w/ no experience vs someone who's spent 30+ years in the field. As a woman, I can easily say that Hillary was just as bad if not worse than Trump. She's a warhawk who not only couldn't admit her amazing fuck up in Libya, but then spent her campaign talking about how evil Russia is. Yeah, sorry, but a complete idiot in office almost sounds better than Russian ICBM's in my morning skies. Sex had nothing to do with her failure. In fact, she got the popular vote. I'm inclined to believe Obama was originally elected largely because he was black. People thought it would be historic. In this liberal age, people would have mindlessly voted for Hillary if not for her own garbage reputation and bloodlust.

Who ever is right in war? Iran is A-OK in my book aside from the Ayatollah. Unlike the rest of my country, I recognize Iran for what it is. A peaceful country that has never declared an offensive war, allows it's women and religious minorities full rights and proper government representation (something lacking in the middle east), and is overall backed into a corner simply trying to defend itself against a wall of people who hate it and want to destroy it simply for existing a the epicenter of Shia Islam. The only reason we're opposed to Iran is because of this. Because most of the Muslim world is Sunni, and backing Iran in any way delegitimizes our desire to have any friends in a Sunni dominated middle east. We simply sided with numbers, even though the Sunni like us no better than Shia. We actually choose to side with and white wash the crimes of one of the worlds worst human rights abusers (Saudi Arabia), simply because it's a gateway to influence and control in the region. Our government gives no fucks about human rights. If we did, we wouldn't be funding a nation who still enslaves Africans and treats women like property over a nation who actually gives it's people rights. Want to argue middle east with me? Better do some research and take your eyes off the western worlds propaganda for a bit. Get to know the reality of the middle east before regurgitating CNN. LMAO! You think any of the rebels there are pro-gay? They're mostly Salafist, dude. You want people to have rights? FSA was never about rights. They were and always have been about killing. They said it themselves when they made it clear they had NO political goals other than killing Assad. Hence the severe lack of unity and why they lost. You're talking about extreme liberalism that only really exists in the west. Legal weed? Gay rights? Are you serious? This is SYRIA! Not Canada! And again, as I already pointed out, Assads family has been perusing more secularism, but if you can't even change the constitution to let non-Muslims be president, WTF makes you think they're going to legalize gay marriage? And before that it was exactly the opposite. Too much power in Sunni hands. So we just juggle everything around for them every few years? The elections in the US are rigged in favor of the elite as well. Same with Russia and any other democracy. Democracy is not nearly as perfect as our media wants you to believe. In any case, Assad has a shit ton of support, despite all this. So you're telling me that you'd support the rights and decisions of his opponents but not his supporters? Why? They are just as (if nor more) numerous and are composed of every day people like you and I. Do you not care about their opinions, well being or families? The rebels have shown on film what they do to government supporters and employees. And it's certainly no better than what Assad does to rebels. There are no good sides in this war, but Assad is certainly on the brighter side in comparison to ISIS or the southern rebels. Now the SDF, I could get behind. Probelm is, they are so intermingled with and reliant on separate Kurdish forces that they have no real control over anything other than a threat of force if people don't do what they want. In which case, they end up at odds with the Kurds or even Assad. They are too weak to lead Syria, let alone control it.

It is not the masses that is the issue, it is the 1% with power (or power dreams) that are. It is just that much more viable to rule by force in the Middle East then it would be in the Western world. Transition is certainly needed instead of radical change (in any direction), but to outright claim that the ME inhabitants are nothing but "big chief worshippers" is a stretch. It isn't like The West is a true democracy in itself anyway... This delusion the west has that democracy is what everyone wants is jut that, a delusion. In Russia, Putin came to power and removed a lot of democracy by popular demand. Whats best for some may not be best for all. Culture shock can really take people for a loop.

Completely agree. I think virtually anyone who knows the RoE and can decently imagine how they may play out in combat situation would agree, that the RoE is not perfect, to say the least. War is chaos. War is hell. However RoE is not static. It can vary in detail with each combat operation, and if so, can make it even more confusing. At the end of the day, aside from legalities, I really don't see how the RoE is so flawed. It seems reasonable and when it all comes down to it, it's really up to the man with the gun to decide on whether or not he should pull the trigger. If he makes a tough call and it turns out to be in line with RoE, that's it. If he makes a tough call and it's not in line with RoE, he either doesn't give a fuck, or was just stuck between a rock and a hard place. If he makes a not so tough call and slaughters a bunch of civilians, then perhaps he should never have been in position to make the order in the first place. I believe our military justice system is rather fair. More fair than many others. I think if I were getting shot at, the last thing on my mind would be whether or not I'm being punished later. And more so on whether or not I genuinely need to pull the trigger. I mean, you directly referenced their use of human shields and then mentioned how "taking out the whole group" is probably a better solution. Problem is, we've done that before. Particularly from the air. And too often do we rain hell on unsuspecting civilians for no reason at all. Just because some guy watching some people on small TV screen can ever so vaguely pick out a silhouette of what he thinks may be a weapon. So if the RoE is terribly flawed what should be changed?

So you're suggesting we return to the same deprived tactics of punishing and mass murdering entire villages of people who are victims of the enemy like we did in Vietnam? That's not only disgusting, but it completely contradicts, in absolutely every imaginable way, why we are fighting this war. I'm just guessing here, but I assume you don't have any combat vets as friends. Such actions are just as destructive to their minds as it is to anyone else who might witness it. Some people struggle to justify it, others outright regret it. Both of them live with it for the rest of their lives. Knowing they've killed woman and children in some land they barely understand for some cause they struggle to understand. Your words actually make me depressed, as I'm very close friends with both a Vietnam and Afghanistan combat vet. The moral things things they struggle with are nearly identical. Like they've lived the same war in different generations..... Both of them are very good people.... Both of them carry memories of killing and death they'd rather not have.... Knowing what I know about them and their service, comments like this really disturb me, to say the least.... But morality aside, let's speak of pure statistics. Since 9/11, and our declaration of war on terror, terror attacks and terrorist ideology has only increased multiple times over. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/18/fivefold-increase-terrorism-fatalities-global-index http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/28/bloody-tide-terror-deaths-increased-8-fold-since-2010-says-study.html https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/are-we-any-safer/492761/ http://www.businessinsider.com/are-we-safer-now-than-on-911-2016-9 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447882/terror-attacks-rising-immigration-safe-havens-play-role I can cite and cite this trend endlessly. The very obvious and clear fact is that what we've doing is only making the problem worse. And it has nothing to do with RoE. It has entirely to do with our lack of it and the Muslim worlds perception of our interventions. When we invaded Vietnam, the southern government was already hated by the huge majority of Vietnamese. However, our invasion inspired far more of them to take up arms or otherwise actively work against us. To the Vietnamese, the conflict had nothing to do with America. It was their own war, and our intervention was not welcome. The Vietnamese have an ancient history of reppelling foreign invasions. An unconquerable land if there ever was one. We lost that war, and ironically, everything I've just said about Vietnam can equally be said about Afghanistan (and in some sense Iraq). Our war on terror inspired a massive rise in Salfi Jihadism, especially with the Iraq war. Because to Muslims all over the world, our war was completely unjust and a declaration of war on their religion itself. Fact is, the more we deprive ourselves of common decency, the more we lower ourselves to their level of bloodlust, the more we kill Muslim people in things that do not directly concern us, the more gunpowder we give our enemies to load new shells. New generations of what we are fighting. Loosening the RoE is one of the worst things we could possibly do at this point. We tried the body count tactic in Vietnam. It proved to be an utter failure when it became clear we could not face the entire country of millions of pissed off people. Now in this case, we're talking potentially hundreds of millions of people. That is absolutely not a war we can possibly win through a body count strategy. Nor should we be lowering ourselves to such disgusting depravity and inhumanity to achieve it. Otherwise, we are exactly the enemy we're fighting.