Hell with I'll just drink !
My next beer of choice:
Random Politics & Religion #00
Random Politics & Religion #00
Can they produce a safe drug that makes me forget it's winter ! And about 10 degrees outside !
Hell with I'll just drink !
My next beer of choice:
Hell with I'll just drink !
My next beer of choice:
Reminds me of an interview I read with Monsanto's CEO. The interviewer asked if he used any of his own food products and he said no I don't eat corn or soy products. I wish I could find it.
[+]
And no I'm not getting paid by Sierra Nevada to promote their beer...I should be though !
Bloodrose said: »
Just tell them it's for Truth and Justice.
we tell them they get fifty bucks and a free whack of the good stuff... very very few of them remember the fifty bucks part when they are beaming back to the mothership...
<makes whirring sound>
/waves bye bye
see you later stinky...
/pockets the fifty bucks
[+]
Asura.Wormfeeder said: »
Reminds me of an interview I read with Monsanto's CEO. The interviewer asked if he used any of his own food products and he said no I don't eat corn or soy products. I wish I could find it.
And GMOs go beyond those two products....
I only eat things that can be deep fried in some fashion !
fonewear said: »
And no I'm not getting paid by Sierra Nevada to promote their beer...I should be though !
Of the widely available beers, they make some of the best. Sierra Nevada Pale Ale or a Porter? Why do you even Bud Light.
[+]
fonewear said: »
I only eat things that can be deep fried in some fashion !
[+]
Don't forget Bells brewery hmmmm yum. Best IPA ever.
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
fonewear said: »
And no I'm not getting paid by Sierra Nevada to promote their beer...I should be though !
Of the widely available beers, they make some of the best. Sierra Nevada Pale Ale or a Porter? Why do you even Bud Light.
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale was the first "real" beer I ever tried. Before that I didn't even enjoy beer.
I've been craving this:
(I started a what beer are you drinking thread a long time ago it is buried on here somewhere)
Where I normally get it hasn't gotten it back in for some reason.
(I started a what beer are you drinking thread a long time ago it is buried on here somewhere)
Where I normally get it hasn't gotten it back in for some reason.
[+]
Anyways from my beloved Huff Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/18/jeb-bush-foreign-policy_n_6702998.html
WASHINGTON -- Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush will lay out a vision of American foreign policy on Wednesday aimed at pushing his nascent 2016 presidential campaign out of the shadow of his father and brother, two former presidents who waged overseas wars.
"I love my father and my brother … But I am my own man –- and my views are shaped by my own thinking and own experiences," Bush will say in a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, according to excerpts provided to reporters late Tuesday night.
In his first major foreign policy address, the likely 2016 Republican front-runner will make the case for increased military spending so America can "project power and enforce peaceful stability in far-off areas of the globe." He will also criticize President Barack Obama's foreign policy, calling it "inconsistent and indecisive."
"Having a military that is equal to any threat ... makes it less likely that we will need to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way," Bush plans to tell attendees, adding that he believes "fundamentally, that weakness invites war… and strength encourages peace."
The idea that a bigger U.S. military would act as a bigger deterrent to potential foes is one that reached its apex during the Cold War, but has been repeatedly challenged in the 21st century by the rise of global terrorism and sectarian conflicts.
The Obama administration is currently working to devise responses to a number of unconventional threats to global security. Chief among them are the rise of the so-called Islamic State in the Middle East, and the Russian-backed separatists waging guerrilla war in Ukraine.
From his speech, it appears that Bush would have America play a greater role than it already does in these conflicts. "America does not have the luxury of withdrawing from the world –- our security, our prosperity and our values demand that we remain engaged and involved in often distant places," Bush will say. "We have no reason to apologize for our leadership and our interest in serving the cause of global security, global peace and human freedom."
This vision of America's role in the world directly contradicts the view held by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, another 2016 potential candidate, that the U.S. should avoid involvement in foreign conflicts unless they pose a direct threat to American lives.
But even as Bush stressed that he would devise his own way forward, plenty of his foreign policies invite comparisons, not contradictions, with those of his neoconservative brother, George W.Bush, and his realist father, George H.W. Bush.
One reason for this could be that Jeb Bush has consulted many of the same advisers his father and brother relied on to help them craft foreign policy while each was in office. The advisers represent a spectrum of conservative viewpoints, from the pragmatic James Baker, former secretary of state in the George H.W. Bush administration, to the fiercely ideological Paul Wolfowitz, who served as deputy secretary of defense in the George W. Bush administration.
Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush have held similar foreign policy ideas since at least 1997, when they were both signatories to a set of principles devised by the conservative Project for the New American Century, which were described by the group as a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity." Other signatories include former Vice President *** Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/18/jeb-bush-foreign-policy_n_6702998.html
WASHINGTON -- Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush will lay out a vision of American foreign policy on Wednesday aimed at pushing his nascent 2016 presidential campaign out of the shadow of his father and brother, two former presidents who waged overseas wars.
"I love my father and my brother … But I am my own man –- and my views are shaped by my own thinking and own experiences," Bush will say in a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, according to excerpts provided to reporters late Tuesday night.
In his first major foreign policy address, the likely 2016 Republican front-runner will make the case for increased military spending so America can "project power and enforce peaceful stability in far-off areas of the globe." He will also criticize President Barack Obama's foreign policy, calling it "inconsistent and indecisive."
"Having a military that is equal to any threat ... makes it less likely that we will need to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way," Bush plans to tell attendees, adding that he believes "fundamentally, that weakness invites war… and strength encourages peace."
The idea that a bigger U.S. military would act as a bigger deterrent to potential foes is one that reached its apex during the Cold War, but has been repeatedly challenged in the 21st century by the rise of global terrorism and sectarian conflicts.
The Obama administration is currently working to devise responses to a number of unconventional threats to global security. Chief among them are the rise of the so-called Islamic State in the Middle East, and the Russian-backed separatists waging guerrilla war in Ukraine.
From his speech, it appears that Bush would have America play a greater role than it already does in these conflicts. "America does not have the luxury of withdrawing from the world –- our security, our prosperity and our values demand that we remain engaged and involved in often distant places," Bush will say. "We have no reason to apologize for our leadership and our interest in serving the cause of global security, global peace and human freedom."
This vision of America's role in the world directly contradicts the view held by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, another 2016 potential candidate, that the U.S. should avoid involvement in foreign conflicts unless they pose a direct threat to American lives.
But even as Bush stressed that he would devise his own way forward, plenty of his foreign policies invite comparisons, not contradictions, with those of his neoconservative brother, George W.Bush, and his realist father, George H.W. Bush.
One reason for this could be that Jeb Bush has consulted many of the same advisers his father and brother relied on to help them craft foreign policy while each was in office. The advisers represent a spectrum of conservative viewpoints, from the pragmatic James Baker, former secretary of state in the George H.W. Bush administration, to the fiercely ideological Paul Wolfowitz, who served as deputy secretary of defense in the George W. Bush administration.
Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush have held similar foreign policy ideas since at least 1997, when they were both signatories to a set of principles devised by the conservative Project for the New American Century, which were described by the group as a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity." Other signatories include former Vice President *** Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Asura.Wormfeeder said: »
No lets test it on the scientists, ceo's, fda scientists and politicians first.
perhaps unfortunately it went back to being a voluntary process some time ago doctor mengele
[+]
Since I discourage reading I'll summarize the Huff Post thing I posted;
Jeb Bush
That's bad
Hillary
That's good
Can I go now ?
Jeb Bush
That's bad
Hillary
That's good
Can I go now ?
[+]
fonewear said: »
Anyways from my beloved Huff Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/18/jeb-bush-foreign-policy_n_6702998.html
WASHINGTON -- Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush will lay out a vision of American foreign policy on Wednesday aimed at pushing his nascent 2016 presidential campaign out of the shadow of his father and brother, two former presidents who waged overseas wars.
"I love my father and my brother … But I am my own man –- and my views are shaped by my own thinking and own experiences," Bush will say in a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, according to excerpts provided to reporters late Tuesday night.
In his first major foreign policy address, the likely 2016 Republican front-runner will make the case for increased military spending so America can "project power and enforce peaceful stability in far-off areas of the globe." He will also criticize President Barack Obama's foreign policy, calling it "inconsistent and indecisive."
"Having a military that is equal to any threat ... makes it less likely that we will need to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way," Bush plans to tell attendees, adding that he believes "fundamentally, that weakness invites war… and strength encourages peace."
The idea that a bigger U.S. military would act as a bigger deterrent to potential foes is one that reached its apex during the Cold War, but has been repeatedly challenged in the 21st century by the rise of global terrorism and sectarian conflicts.
The Obama administration is currently working to devise responses to a number of unconventional threats to global security. Chief among them are the rise of the so-called Islamic State in the Middle East, and the Russian-backed separatists waging guerrilla war in Ukraine.
From his speech, it appears that Bush would have America play a greater role than it already does in these conflicts. "America does not have the luxury of withdrawing from the world –- our security, our prosperity and our values demand that we remain engaged and involved in often distant places," Bush will say. "We have no reason to apologize for our leadership and our interest in serving the cause of global security, global peace and human freedom."
This vision of America's role in the world directly contradicts the view held by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, another 2016 potential candidate, that the U.S. should avoid involvement in foreign conflicts unless they pose a direct threat to American lives.
But even as Bush stressed that he would devise his own way forward, plenty of his foreign policies invite comparisons, not contradictions, with those of his neoconservative brother, George W.Bush, and his realist father, George H.W. Bush.
One reason for this could be that Jeb Bush has consulted many of the same advisers his father and brother relied on to help them craft foreign policy while each was in office. The advisers represent a spectrum of conservative viewpoints, from the pragmatic James Baker, former secretary of state in the George H.W. Bush administration, to the fiercely ideological Paul Wolfowitz, who served as deputy secretary of defense in the George W. Bush administration.
Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush have held similar foreign policy ideas since at least 1997, when they were both signatories to a set of principles devised by the conservative Project for the New American Century, which were described by the group as a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity." Other signatories include former Vice President *** Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/18/jeb-bush-foreign-policy_n_6702998.html
WASHINGTON -- Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush will lay out a vision of American foreign policy on Wednesday aimed at pushing his nascent 2016 presidential campaign out of the shadow of his father and brother, two former presidents who waged overseas wars.
"I love my father and my brother … But I am my own man –- and my views are shaped by my own thinking and own experiences," Bush will say in a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, according to excerpts provided to reporters late Tuesday night.
In his first major foreign policy address, the likely 2016 Republican front-runner will make the case for increased military spending so America can "project power and enforce peaceful stability in far-off areas of the globe." He will also criticize President Barack Obama's foreign policy, calling it "inconsistent and indecisive."
"Having a military that is equal to any threat ... makes it less likely that we will need to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way," Bush plans to tell attendees, adding that he believes "fundamentally, that weakness invites war… and strength encourages peace."
The idea that a bigger U.S. military would act as a bigger deterrent to potential foes is one that reached its apex during the Cold War, but has been repeatedly challenged in the 21st century by the rise of global terrorism and sectarian conflicts.
The Obama administration is currently working to devise responses to a number of unconventional threats to global security. Chief among them are the rise of the so-called Islamic State in the Middle East, and the Russian-backed separatists waging guerrilla war in Ukraine.
From his speech, it appears that Bush would have America play a greater role than it already does in these conflicts. "America does not have the luxury of withdrawing from the world –- our security, our prosperity and our values demand that we remain engaged and involved in often distant places," Bush will say. "We have no reason to apologize for our leadership and our interest in serving the cause of global security, global peace and human freedom."
This vision of America's role in the world directly contradicts the view held by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, another 2016 potential candidate, that the U.S. should avoid involvement in foreign conflicts unless they pose a direct threat to American lives.
But even as Bush stressed that he would devise his own way forward, plenty of his foreign policies invite comparisons, not contradictions, with those of his neoconservative brother, George W.Bush, and his realist father, George H.W. Bush.
One reason for this could be that Jeb Bush has consulted many of the same advisers his father and brother relied on to help them craft foreign policy while each was in office. The advisers represent a spectrum of conservative viewpoints, from the pragmatic James Baker, former secretary of state in the George H.W. Bush administration, to the fiercely ideological Paul Wolfowitz, who served as deputy secretary of defense in the George W. Bush administration.
Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush have held similar foreign policy ideas since at least 1997, when they were both signatories to a set of principles devised by the conservative Project for the New American Century, which were described by the group as a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity." Other signatories include former Vice President *** Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
This vision of America's role in the world directly contradicts the view held by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, another 2016 potential candidate, that the U.S. should avoid involvement in foreign conflicts unless they pose a direct threat to American lives.
I didn't actually read the article so I'll take your word for it !
When I see the word Bush I get visions from 70's playboy centerfolds.
When I see the word Bush I get visions from 70's playboy centerfolds.
Fun fact: there are no cases of measles in Serbia.
Let that sink in a little bit.
Let that sink in a little bit.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Fun fact: there are no cases of measles in Serbia.
Let that sink in a little.
Let that sink in a little.
It's all those eastern European women. They give you increased resistance !
[+]
fonewear said: »
I didn't actually read the article so I'll take your word for it !
When I see the word Bush I get visions from 70's playboy centerfolds.
When I see the word Bush I get visions from 70's playboy centerfolds.
[+]
I'm shocked that women vote between desperate housewives of Atlanta and raising kids as a single mother when do they have the time !
Do you guys even know why we spend money on the military? Protip: It has nothing to do with 'Keeping America Safe' or making sure that your small town of 10k people isn't overrun by the ghosts of dead Native Americans.
It's about projecting global power to secure key commodity, trade and economic links. Leaving other countries to do their own political dealings is bad for business so we've asserted ourselves as global peacekeepers. It's only been a thing since World War II
I.E - Leaving Asia to it's own devices could lead to war so the US steps in as buffer between China, Korea and Japan. Guess where much of our technological doodads and cheap ***found in 99 cent stores come from?
I.E - Potentially arming Ukraine to one punish our nearest military rival and to squash any attempts across the globe to create splinter factions within sovereign territories by example. Russia has designs on becoming a global power again, even if their aged military pales beside American tech.
I.E - Punishing countries that break rank from American global policy. You know, such places like Iran, Iraq, Central America galore etc etc. You *** around too much and its time for regime change. Why? Because you might deny us our economic wants.
Cmon, I'm no damned historian but the argument for radical non-intervention means America loses substantial power across the globe with regards to our economic position. Means Europe rearms, this time with nukes and we all know the European continent can't go a few decades without mass war. The Asian conflict will reignite, cutting off key trade links and Africa will most likely further fragment between warring factions and religious extremists.
You think the powers that be are cool with that?
It's about projecting global power to secure key commodity, trade and economic links. Leaving other countries to do their own political dealings is bad for business so we've asserted ourselves as global peacekeepers. It's only been a thing since World War II
I.E - Leaving Asia to it's own devices could lead to war so the US steps in as buffer between China, Korea and Japan. Guess where much of our technological doodads and cheap ***found in 99 cent stores come from?
I.E - Potentially arming Ukraine to one punish our nearest military rival and to squash any attempts across the globe to create splinter factions within sovereign territories by example. Russia has designs on becoming a global power again, even if their aged military pales beside American tech.
I.E - Punishing countries that break rank from American global policy. You know, such places like Iran, Iraq, Central America galore etc etc. You *** around too much and its time for regime change. Why? Because you might deny us our economic wants.
Cmon, I'm no damned historian but the argument for radical non-intervention means America loses substantial power across the globe with regards to our economic position. Means Europe rearms, this time with nukes and we all know the European continent can't go a few decades without mass war. The Asian conflict will reignite, cutting off key trade links and Africa will most likely further fragment between warring factions and religious extremists.
You think the powers that be are cool with that?
I thought it was keeping the King of England from overtaking your house ?
[+]
fonewear said: »
I thought it was keeping the King of England from overtaking your house ?
*** Redcoats seizing my Sierra Nevada and replacing it with Newcastle.
Newcastle! Now that's something I'd dump into the sea.
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
fonewear said: »
I thought it was keeping the King of England from overtaking your house ?
*** Redcoats seizing my Sierra Nevada and replacing it with Newcastle.
Newcastle! Now that's something I'd dump into the sea.
You will not survive make your time.
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
You think the powers that be are cool with that?
where were you going with that sparthy I kinda got lost in the minutia...
Silly scientists keep saying the sun affects the Earths temperature.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/bad_news_for_warmists_sun_has_entered_weakest_solar_cycle_in_a_century.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/bad_news_for_warmists_sun_has_entered_weakest_solar_cycle_in_a_century.html
Quote:
…if history is a guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a negative impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere - and where we all live. There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The first period is known as the “Maunder Minimum”, named after the solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the “Dalton Minimum”, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830. Both of these historical periods coincided with below-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many as the “Little Ice Age”. In addition, research studies in just the past couple of decades have found a complicated relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, and clouds on Earth. This research suggests that in times of low solar activity where solar winds are typically weak; more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth.
Altimaomega said: »
Silly scientists keep saying the sun affects the Earths temperature.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.